Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40719527›Full record

ReviewExperimental physiology2026

Sweat evaporation in humans: A molecular and thermodynamic perspective.

Edward T Ashworth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Edward T AshworthFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9147-6116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaporative heat loss through sweating is essential for maintaining thermal balance in humans, particularly during exercise or in hot environments. Although the physiological mechanisms regulating sweat production and skin blood flow are well documented, the molecular processes underpinning sweat evaporation are less often considered. This review explores the physics of sweat evaporation from first principles, examining how energy is transferred, how water molecules escape the liquid phase and how this process is shaped by local and systemic factors. At the molecular level, evaporation occurs when surface water molecules attain sufficient kinetic energy to overcome hydrogen bonding. The energy required for this phase change, the latent heat of vaporisation, is supplied via conduction from the skin and, ultimately, from core body heat. The molecular energy within the sweat layer follows a Boltzmann distribution, meaning that only a subset of molecules have sufficient energy to evaporate at any time. As these high-energy molecules escape, the remaining sweat cools, helping to lower body temperature. This process continues as long as heat is resupplied via skin blood flow. Environmental conditions, such as humidity, airflow and clothing, affect the likelihood that evaporated molecules will remain in the vapour phase, while electrolytes in sweat can slightly reduce vapour pressure by locally altering the bonding structure of water. These factors determine how effectively sweat can evaporate by influencing surface area and liquid retention. By linking classical thermodynamics to human physiology, this review presents a unified framework for understanding how molecular interactions, statistical physics and environmental conditions converge to influence heat loss.

Indexed as

SweatSweatingBody Temperature RegulationHumansSkinThermodynamicsheat exchangesweat physiologythermodynamicsthermoregulation

Identifiers

PMID40719527
PMCPMC12949171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.