







































All articles are permanently available online to the public without restrictions or subscription 

fees. All articles are free to be used, cited, and distributed, on condition that appropriate 

acknowledgment is included. Authors are the copyright holders of their original 

contributions and grant the Canadian Online Publication Group (COPG) a license to 

publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. CPOJ articles are licensed 

under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.   

 

CPOJ Website: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index 

Editorial Office: cpoj@online-publication.com    

ISSN: 2561-987X 

CPOJ is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, the Committee on Publication 

Ethics (COPE).   

 

 

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 

 2021 

 

TECHNICAL / CLINICAL NOTE 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 

management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

https://online-publication.com/wp/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index
mailto:cpoj@online-publication.com
https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation
https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation
https://publicationethics.org/members/canadian-prosthetics-orthotics-journal
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213


 

1 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

 

 

 
TECHNICAL / CLINICAL NOTE 

 

USING A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR FOR THE EVALUATION OF 

SWEAT MANAGEMENT LINERS IN LOWER LIMB PROSTHETICS 

McGrath M1*, Davies K.C1, Gallego A1, Laszczak P1, Tang J2, Zahedi S1, Moser D1 
 

1Blatchford Group, Unit D Antura, Bond Close, Basingstoke, UK. 
2School of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, UK. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

INTRODUCTION   

Excessive sweating commonly affects lower limb 

amputees1 and impacts their daily life.2 Increased energy 

expenditure during everyday activities compared to able-

bodied people3 and reduced skin surface area4 for cooling 

both contribute to this issue. Prosthetic liners worn on the 

residuum can also amplify sweating at the residuum-liner 

interface, as they have poor thermal conductivity5 and little 

permeability.6 

The socket and residual limb are often considered a single 

entity with a rigid connection. However, in practice, there is 

relative movement at this interface,7,8 which sweating can 

worsen, affecting prosthetic suspension.9 

Technologies have been developed to regulate residuum 

temperature or manage perspiration.10–13 One such 

technology uses perforations in the liner to allow sweat to 

transfer away from the skin. Previous evaluations of this 

technology have reported higher scores in patient-reported 

outcome measures,13 fewer skin health problems12,13 and a 

noticeable reduction in the perspiration on the limb.12,13 

Due to the inherent heterogeneity and variability of 

amputees,14 some researchers have emulated the residual 

limb using simulators and test machines, in lieu of         

human participants.15,16 These can recreate realistic 

interface mechanics in prosthetic sockets,17–20 in a highly 

 
OPEN  ACCESS Volume 4, Issue 1, Article No.3. 2021 

 

 

Journal Homepage: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index 

 

ABSTRACT 

BACKGROUND: Lab-based simulators can help to reduce variability in prosthetics research. However, 

they have not yet been used to investigate the effects of sweating at the residuum-liner interface. This 

work sought to create and validate a simulator to replicate the mechanics of residual limb perspiration. 

The developed apparatus was used to assess the effects of perspiration and different liner designs. 

METHODOLOGY: By scanning a cast, an artificial residuum was manufactured using a 3D-printed, 

transtibial bone model encased in silicone, moulded with pores. The pores allowed water to emit from 

the residuum surface, simulating sweating. Dry and sweating cyclic tests were performed by applying 

compressive and tensile loading, while measuring the displacement of the residuum relative to the 

socket. Tests were conducted using standard and perforated liners. 

FINDINGS: Although maximum displacement varied between test setups, its variance was low 

(coefficient of variation <1%) and consistent between dry tests. For unperforated liners, sweating 

increased the standard deviation of maximum displacement approximately threefold (0.04mm v 

0.12mm, p<0.001). However, with the perforated liner, sweating had little effect on standard deviation 

compared to dry tests (0.04mm v 0.04mm, p=0.497). 

CONCLUSIONS: The test apparatus was effective at simulating the effect of perspiration at the residual 

limb. Moisture at the skin-liner interface can lead to inconsistent mechanics. Perforated liners help to 

remove sweat from the skin-liner interface, thereby mitigating these effects. 

ARTICLE INFO 

Received: December 4, 2020 

Accepted: March 10, 2021 

Published: March 19, 2021 

CITATION 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego 

A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi 

S, Moser D. Using a sweating 

residuum/socket interface 

simulator for the evaluation of 

sweat management liners in 

lower limb prosthetics. Canadian 

Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 

2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i

1.35213 

KEYWORDS 

Sweating, Residual limb, Socket 

interface, Simulator, Lower limb 

prosthetics, Amputation 

 

 

* CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:  

Dr. Michael McGrath, PhD 

Research Scientist–Clinical Evidence 

Blatchford Group, Unit D Antura, Bond Close, Basingstoke, RG24 

8PZ, United Kingdom. 

Email: mike.mcgrath@blatchford.co.uk 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-970X 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213
mailto:mike.mcgrath@blatchford.co.uk
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-970X


 

2 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

ISSN: 2561-987X A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR 

McGrath et al. 2021 CPOJ 

 
reproducible and repeatable manner. These methods have 

not yet been used to examine effects of perspiration at the 

residuum-liner interface. 

Objectives 

This research sought to achieve the following objectives; 

design, construct and evaluate a test apparatus to recreate 

the impact of sweat at the residuum-liner interface, identify 

how displacement during loading is affected by the 

presence of moisture, and evaluate the efficacy of a liner 

designed for perspiration management. 

METHODOLOGY 

Manufacture 

This research followed a similar artificial residuum 

manufacturing method to McGrath et al.17 A transtibial 

residuum cast was scanned and a pin-lock check socket 

was created. A transtibial bone model of an extended knee 

was also scanned so that the bones and residuum could be 

scaled in size to match one another. The scaled bone model 

and two halves of a negative residuum mould were created 

using additive manufacture. The soft tissue was simulated 

by moulding silicone (Smooth-On, Inc., PA, USA; density = 

1.08 g/cm3) around the bone model.  

During moulding, 3mm diameter plastic straws were used to 

create pores in the silicone, evenly spaced along the length 

and around the circumference, with one at the distal end 

(Figure 1A). The 3mm diameter was the minimum that could 

be consistently 3D printed.  

Water was applied, via a syringe and rubber tubing, into the 

proximal opening between silicone and bone. Once in the 

central canal, applying compression forced the water 

through the pores to the outer surface. The proximal hole 

was sealed with the rubber tubing in place, using a silicone 

adhesive. The residuum and its cross-section are shown in 

Figures 1B and 1C, respectively. A female pyramid tube 

adaptor was fixed to the proximal end of the bone model 

allowing rigid attachment to a universal test machine 

(LR10K Plusi, Lloyd Instruments, UK – Figure 1D). 

Protocol 

The residuum was fitted with a pin-lock liner (Comfort linerii, 

Blatchford Ltd, UK) and attached to the check socket. Since 

this simulator sought to mimic both stance and swing phase, 

for simplicity, it was vertically-oriented on the test machine 

(Figure 1D). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: (A) The 3D printed bones held in place in the negative residuum mould with 3mm straws to create “pores” (B) the moulded silicone 

artificial residuum with pores visible along its surface (C) an annotated cross-section diagram of the artificial residuum (D) the artificial 

residuum set up on the test machine. 

 

 

 

Syringe  

Artificial residuum 

Liner 

Check socket 

Lock 

(D) (A) (B) 

(C) 

3D printed bones 

Silicone 

“Pores” 

Water in 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213


 

3 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

ISSN: 2561-987X A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR 

McGrath et al. 2021 CPOJ 

 
Tests were load controlled. A single cycle increased to a 

maximum 800N compression, reversed to a maximum 

100N tension, then returned to 0N. 800N is a typical 

maximum force applied by an adult of approximately 70-

80kg during walking.21 100N is a liberal estimate of the 

combined peak gravitational and centripetal forces on the 

limb during swing phase.   

 

The outcome measurement was displacement, recorded by 

the actuator of the test machine. The measurement was 

zeroed before any compression occurred, so the output 

reflected the change in displacement of the proximal 

attachment of the residual limb, from its initial position, due 

to the loading pattern. 

 

For sweating tests, 20ml of water was added, based on an 

approximation calculated from reported amputee sweating 

rates22 and the residuum surface area. Following each 

sweating test, the liner was removed to note the quantity of 

water remaining inside and the residuum was heated for 

eight hours in an oven at 40°C to ensure the evaporation of 

any residual water. The order of testing for dry and sweating 

tests was randomised. 

 

Repeatability 

Tests were 50 seconds long, performing 50 cycles at a 

frequency of 1Hz to simulate a 120 steps per minute walking 

cadence. Of typical walking bouts, 75% consist of fewer 

than 40 steps and 60% last under 30 seconds,23 so each 

simulator test would represent the majority of these bouts.  

 

Reproducibility 

It was possible that deconstruction/reassembly of the setup 

would create differences in the exact fit of the liner on the 

residuum or the residuum in the socket. This replicates the 

real-world conditions of doffing and donning a prosthesis 

day-to-day. Three dry tests of 50 cycles each were 

performed and the simulator was deconstructed and 

reconstructed between tests, to quantify this effect. 

 

Liners 

The protocol was used to evaluate perforated liners (Silcare 

Breathe Lockingiii, Blatchford Ltd, UK). These liners have 

perforations along the length (columns of 150), 

circumference (eight columns) and at the distal end (60) to 

allow sweat removal. The perforated and unperforated 

liners were made with the same silicone, the same fabric 

(polyamide and lycra) and the same thickness profile (7mm 

distally, 2.9mm proximally), so the only difference was the 

perforations. The order of liner testing was random. 

 

Data processing 

The first five recorded cycles of each test were excluded 

from data analysis to account for any human error during 

setup e.g. the pin ratcheting further into the lock. The 

remaining 45 cycles were checked to ensure at least 780N 

compression. Displacement values were compared 

between tests by magnitude (mean values) and variability 

(standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV)). 

Shapiro-Wilk tests evaluated data normality. The Brown-

Forsythe test for homogeneity of variance determined 

whether datasets had equal variances. This test was 

chosen for its robustness with non-normal distributions. For 

normal data, t-tests compared mean displacements. For 

non-parametric data, Wilcoxon tests were used if group 

variances were homogenous, otherwise Kruskal-Wallis 

tests were employed. Statistical significance was defined as 

p≤0.05. 

RESULTS 

Reproducibility 

Hysteresis curves for the three reproducibility tests are 

shown in Figure 2. Measurements showed that absolute 

displacement was sensitive to the simulator setup. 

Maximum values for each repetition (mean±SD; 

5.73±0.04mm, 4.85±0.04mm, 5.78±0.04mm, respectively) 

showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.001). 

Minimum values for each test (-0.07±0.13mm, -0.86±0.10 

mm, -0.95±0.06mm, respectively) also showed a 

statistically significant difference (p<0.001). 

Repeatability 

The CVs for maximum displacements were 0.7%, 0.8% and 

0.6% for Repetitions 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The Brown-

Forsythe test indicated no significant difference in the 

variances of these tests (p=0.42). Variability of maximum 

displacement was chosen to compare between further 

tests. 

Sweating 

Figure 3A and 3B show the hysteresis curves of a dry test 

and a sweating test for a standard liner. Maximum 

displacement increased with each cycle of the sweating 

test. The SD of maximum displacement of the sweating test 

(0.12mm) was significantly higher than for the dry test 

(0.04mm, p<0.001). 

After the sweating test approximately 50% of the water 

applied was poured out from the bottom of the liner. This did 

not include any water that may have been remaining on the 

artificial residuum or in its pores. 

Liners 

Figure 4A and 4B show the differences in hysteresis curves 

between a dry test and a sweating test for a perforated liner. 

The sweating test retained a high degree of repeatability 

(CV=0.7%), comparable to the dry tests. The variability of 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213


 

4 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

ISSN: 2561-987X A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR 

McGrath et al. 2021 CPOJ 

 
the sweating test (SD=0.04mm) and the dry test 

(SD=0.04mm) were not significantly different (p=0.497). 

Figure 4C, shows the interquartile ranges for all tests, 

normalised by medians. The variability of the sweating test 

with the perforated liner (SD = 0.04mm) was significantly 

less than with the standard liner (SD=0.12mm, p<0.001). 

After the test, the volume of water poured out from the liner 

was approximately 5% of the volume originally applied. This 

did not include any water that may have been (A) remaining 

on the surface of the residuum, (B) in its pores, (C) 

absorbed by the outer liner fabric, or (D) expelled from the 

socket at the distal end, via the lock, which could not be 

accurately quantified. 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: (Top) The displacement v load curves for the three reproducibility tests. Positive load and displacement indicate compression, 

negative load and displacement indicate tension. N.B. Not all curves pass through the origin due to the exclusion of the first five cycles. 

(Bottom) The maximum displacements of each of the cycles, for each reproducibility test. The variability of these maxima, within each test, 

is annotated. 

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

D
is

p
la

c
e
m

e
n
t 

(m
m

)

Load (N)

Reproducibility tests

Repetition 1 Repetition 2 Repetition 3

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

700 720 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900

D
is

p
la

c
e
m

e
n
t 

(m
m

)

Load (N)

Maxima only

Variability of 
maxima (Repetition 2)

Variability of maxima
(Repetition 3)

Variability of maxima 
(Repetition 1)

Maxima only 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213


 

5 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

ISSN: 2561-987X A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR 

McGrath et al. 2021 CPOJ 

 

 

 

                           

 

Figure 4: (A) The hysteresis curve of a dry test with the perforated liner (B) the hysteresis curve of a sweating test with the perforated liner 

(C) A box-and-whisker plot of the maximum displacement values from the dry and sweating tests with the standard and perforated liners 

(normalised by median). The box indicates the interquartile range and the whiskers indicate the maximum and minimum values. The lines 

at the top of the plot show where comparisons of variability were made. Asterisks (*) indicate a significant difference (p<0.05) in variance 

between tests. 

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

D
is

p
la

c
e
m

e
n
t 

(m
m

)

Load (N)

Dry test
(perforated liner)(A)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

D
is

p
la

c
e
m

e
n
t 

(m
m

)

Load (N)

Sweating test
(perforated liner)(B)

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Standard liner
Dry test

Standard liner
Sweating test

Perforated liner
Dry test

Perforated liner
Sweating test

D
if
fe

re
n
c
e
 f

ro
m

 t
e
s
t 
m

e
d
ia

n

Variability of maximum compression values by test(C)

* n.s.

*
n.s.

*

n.s.

                                 
Figure 3: (A) The hysteresis curve of a dry test with the standard liner (B) the hysteresis curve of a ‘sweating’ test with the standard liner. 

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

D
is

p
la

c
e
m

e
n
t 

(m
m

)

Load (N)

Dry test(A)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

D
is

p
la

c
e
m

e
n
t 

(m
m

)

Load (N)

Sweating test(B)

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213


 

6 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

ISSN: 2561-987X A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR 

McGrath et al. 2021 CPOJ 

 
DISCUSSION 

A simulator was successfully constructed to mimic the 

interface dynamics of a sweating residual limb. Tests 

demonstrated that moisture at the residuum-liner interface 

leads to greater variability in the displacement of the 

residual limb, relative to the socket, when loaded to replicate 

walking. When a perforated prosthetic liner was used to 

allow moisture to transport away from the interface, the 

variability of displacement was equivalent to that of dry 

tests, under the same walking load pattern. 

For simplicity and the constraints of the test equipment, the 

simulator was mounted vertically on the test machine. While 

axial displacement is the largest in magnitude7,24 and 

widest-researched,20,25–28 the other five degrees-of-freedom 

(anterior-posterior and medial-lateral translation, as well as 

rotation about each of the three axes), are also likely to be 

affected.7,28 Regardless, the results demonstrated a 

sufficient mechanism to identify the influence of perspiration 

at the liner interface. 

In terms of repeatability, the simulator had CVs<1% 

between strides. Even between reproducibility tests, which 

were statistically different, differences in maximum 

displacement were approximately 1mm, and therefore 

unlikely to be perceptible by a wearer. Consistent 

suspension is important with suspension method25–30 and 

socket fit/design31–34 affecting prosthetic performance.   

The effect of sweating was illustrated in Figure 3. Variability 

(SD) increased approximately threefold (p<0.001); 

maximum displacement increasing with each progressive 

cycle. This movement contributes to skin damage35 and 

explains why sweat affects gait quality.9 A review of gait 

stability in non-amputees observed that inconsistent gait 

parameters were the strongest distinguishing factor 

between fallers and non-fallers,36 with similar observations 

reported for transtibial amputees.37  

The effect of using a perforated liner was investigated 

(Figure 4). While variability increased 194% with the 

standard liner during sweating tests, there was no 

significant difference in variability of the dry and sweating 

tests with the perforated liner (p=0.497). Notably, even 

when sweating, the perforated liner retained the consistent 

mechanics of a dry interface.  

Limitations 

The scope of the simulator was to develop a method to 

distribute liquid across the residuum-liner interface. This 

simplified some characteristics of the residual limb, such as 

the size and distribution of sweat pores and the 

heterogeneity of the soft tissue. Nor was it designed to 

account for the rate of sweat production; the liquid was 

present from the first loading cycle. Similarly, other 

conditions associated with sweating (e.g. increased 

temperature) were not considered in the design. 

There were limitations of this simplified design. By adding 

the liquid at the top there was no way to ensure that all of 

the water had been pushed to the surface. Furthermore, 

during the ‘sweating’ test with the perforated liner, water 

was observed being emitted from the perforations but was 

not evenly across the liner, perhaps implying that the 

perspiration was not distributed evenly across the residuum 

surface. The variable pore length due to residuum geometry 

and the effect of gravity likely had an impact. 

Another potential limitation was the coefficient of friction 

(CF) between the materials used. The CF between human 

skin and silicone is between 0.35 and 1.16, with a mean 

value of 0.6138. The CF of the silicone used to create the 

artificial residuum is not reported by the manufacturer. 

However, by keeping it constant between tests, relative 

comparisons can be made. 

An alternative might have been to perform in-vitro 

experiments with animal specimens. The advantages would 

have been closer approximations of the mechanical and 

frictional properties of human tissue. The drawbacks would 

have been losing the geometry of a residual limb in a socket 

and less control over the quantity of liquid at the interface. 

Finally, it should be noted that these same results may not 

be generalizable to other liner designs. Differences in the 

size, profile and distribution of perforations, as well as liner 

profile and the external fabric may all have an effect on the 

efficiency of sweat removal. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the test apparatus was effective at simulating 

perspiration at the residual limb with reproducible results. 

Perforated liners remove perspiration from the residuum-

liner interface, helping to maintain consistent mechanical 

behaviour. Minimising unwanted movement reduces the 

risk of soft tissue injury. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors wish to thank Simon Jarvis, the engineer who 

ran the universal test machine for the experiments in this 

research. 

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING 

INTERESTS 

Some of the authors are full time employees of the 

manufacturer of the prosthetic liners evaluated in this study 

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION 

Michael McGrath: Conceptualisation, manufacturer, data 

collection, data analysis, writing original, review and editing 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213


 

7 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

ISSN: 2561-987X A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR 

McGrath et al. 2021 CPOJ 

 
KC Davies: Writing original, review and editing 

Ana Gallego: Conceptualisation, manufacturer, data 

collection, review and editing 

Piotr Laszczak: Conceptualisation, review and editing 

Jinghua Tang: Review and editing 

Saeed Zahedi: Review and editing 

David Moser: Review and editing 

SOURCES OF SUPPORT 

Some of the authors are employees of Blatchford Products 

Ltd. 

ETHICAL APPROVAL 

Ethical approval was not needed for this study. 

REFERENCES 

1.Ghoseiri K, Safari MR. Prevalence of heat and perspiration 

discomfort inside prostheses: Literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 

2014;51:855. Doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.06.0133 

2.Hagberg K, Brånemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-

femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and 

problems. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25:186–94. Doi: 10.1080/ 

03093640108726601 

3. Gailey RS, Wenger MA, Raya M, Kirk N, Erbs K, Spyropoulos P, 

et al. Energy expenditure of trans-tibial amputees during 

ambulation at self-selected pace. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1994;18:84–

91. Doi: 10.3109/03093649409164389 

4.Seymour R. Prosthetics and orthotics: lower limb and spinal. 

Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002 

5.Klute GK, Rowe GI, Mamishev AV, Ledoux WR. The thermal 

conductivity of prosthetic sockets and liners. Prosthet Orthot Int. 

2007;31:292–9. Doi: 10.1080/03093640601042554 

6.Hachisuka K, Matsushima Y, Ohmine S, Shitama H, Shinkoda K. 

Moisture permeability of the total surface bearing prosthetic socket 

with a silicone liner: is it superior to the patella-tendon bearing 

prosthetic socket? J UOEH. 2001;23:225–32. Doi: 10.7888/ 

juoeh.23.225 

7. Tang J, McGrath M, Laszczak P, Jiang L, Bader DL, Moser D, et 

al. Characterisation of dynamic couplings at lower limb 

residuum/socket interface using 3D motion capture. Med Eng Phys. 

2015;37:1162–8. Doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.10.004 

8. Tang J, McGrath M, Hale N, Jiang L, Bader D, Laszczak P, et al. 

A combined kinematic and kinetic analysis at the residuum/socket 

interface of a knee-disarticulation amputee. Med Eng Phys. 

2017;49:131–9. Doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.08.014 

9. Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, Ajax MJ, Boone DA, Larsen 

JA, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb 

amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36:155–63 

10.Wernke MM, Schroeder RM, Kelley CT, Denune JA, Colvin JM. 

Smart Temp prosthetic liner significantly reduces residual limb 

temperature and perspiration. J Prosthet Orthot. 2015;27:134–9. 

Doi: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000070 

11.Caldwell R, Fatone S. Technique for perforating a prosthetic 

liner to expel sweat. J Prosthet Orthot. 2017;29:145–7. Doi: 

10.1097/JPO.0000000000000136 

12.McGrath M, McCarthy J, Gallego A, Kercher A, Zahedi S, Moser 

D. The influence of perforated prosthetic liners on residual limb 

wound healing: a case report. Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2019;2. Doi: 

10.33137/cpoj.v2i1.32723 

13.Davies KC, McGrath M, Stenson A, Savage Z, Moser D, Zahedi 

S. Using perforated liners to combat the detrimental effects of 

excessive sweating in lower limb prosthesis users. Can Prosthet 

Orthot J. 2020;3. Doi: 10.33137/cpoj.v3i2.34610 

14.Steer J, Grudniewski P, Browne M, Worsley P, Sobey A, 

Dickinson A. Predictive prosthetic socket design part 2: person-

specific concept design using multi-objective genetic algorithms. 

Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2020;19:1347–1360. Doi: 10.1007/ 

s10237-019-01258-7 

15.Hamilton M. Novel approaches to evaluating and characterizing 

force sensor performance at body-device interfaces. [dissertation 

on the Internet]. University of Toronto; 2019 [cited 2021 March 10]. 

Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/98045 

16.Hamilton M, Behdinan K, Andrysek J. Evaluating the effects of 

load area and sensor configuration on the performance of pressure 

sensors at simulated body-device interfaces. IEEE Sens J. 2020. 

Doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2020.2970964 

17.McGrath MP, Gao J, Tang J, Laszczak P, Jiang L, Bader D, et 

al. Development of a residuum/socket interface simulator for lower 

limb prosthetics. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2017;231:235–42. Doi: 

10.1177/0954411917690764 

18.Gholizadeh H, Lemaire ED, Salekrostam R. Mechanical 

Evaluation of Unity Elevated Vacuum Suspension System. Can 

Prosthet Orthot J. 2019;2. Doi: 10.33137/cpoj.v2i2.32941 

19.Armitage LE. Measurement of factors affecting fit at the 

prosthetic socket-residual limb interface in people with transtibial 

amputation. [dissertation on the Internet]. University of New South 

Wales; 2020 [cited 2021 March 10]. Available from: 

https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:63952/S

OURCE02?view=true 

20.Wernke MM, Schroeder RM, Haynes ML, Nolt LL, Albury AW, 

Colvin JM. Progress toward optimizing prosthetic socket fit and 

suspension using elevated vacuum to promote residual limb health. 

Adv Wound Care. 2017;6:233–9. Doi: 10.1089/wound.2016.0719 

21.Kirtley C. Clinical gait analysis: theory and practice. Elsevier 

Health Sciences; 2006 

22.Hasegawa H, Makino H, Fukuhara K, Mikami Y, Kimura H, 

Adachi N. Thermoregulatory responses of lower limb amputees 

during exercise in a hot environment. J Therm Biol. 

2020;91:102609. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2020.102609 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213


 

8 

McGrath M, Davies K.C, Gallego A, Laszczak P, Tang J, Zahedi S, Moser D. Using a sweating residuum/socket interface simulator for the evaluation of sweat 
management liners in lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021;Volume 4, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213 

ISSN: 2561-987X A SWEATING RESIDUUM/SOCKET INTERFACE SIMULATOR 

McGrath et al. 2021 CPOJ 

 
23.Orendurff MS, Schoen JA, Bernatz GC, Segal AD. How humans 

walk: bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration. J Rehabil 

Res Dev. 2008;45:1077. Doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2007.11.0197 

24.Swanson EC, McLean JB, Allyn KJ, Redd CB, Sanders JE. 

Instrumented socket inserts for sensing interaction at the limb-

socket interface. Med Eng Phys. 2018;51:111–8. Doi: 10.1016/ 

j.medengphy.2017.11.006 

25.Darter BJ, Sinitski K, Wilken JM. Axial bone-socket 

displacement for persons with a traumatic transtibial amputation: 

The effect of elevated vacuum suspension at progressive body-

weight loads. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40:552–7. Doi: 

10.1177/0309364615605372 

26.Gerschutz MJ, Hayne ML, Colvin JM, Denune JA. Dynamic 

Effectiveness Evaluation of Elevated Vacuum Suspension. J 

Prosthet Orthot. 2015;27:161–5. Doi: 10.1097/JPO. 

0000000000000077 

27.Klute GK, Berge JS, Biggs W, Pongnumkul S, Popovic Z, 

Curless B. Vacuum-assisted socket suspension compared with pin 

suspension for lower extremity amputees: effect on fit, activity, and 

limb volume. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1570–1575 

28.Board WJ, Street GM, Caspers C. A comparison of trans-tibial 

amputee suction and vacuum socket conditions. Prosthet Orthot 

Int. 2001;25:202–209. DOI: 10.1080/03093640108726603 

29.Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ. Transfemoral sockets with vacuum-

assisted suspension comparison of hip kinematics, socket position, 

contact pressure, and preference: ischial containment versus 

brimless. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50:1241. DOI: 10.1682/JRRD. 

2013.01.0003 

30.Brunelli S, Delussu AS, Paradisi F, Pellegrini R, Traballesi M. A 

comparison between the suction suspension system and the 

hypobaric Iceross Seal-In® X5 in transtibial amputees. Prosthet 

Orthot Int. 2013;37:436–44. Doi: 10.1177/0309364613476531 

31.Yiğiter K, Şener G, Bayar K. Comparison of the effects of 

patellar tendon bearing and total surface bearing sockets on 

prosthetic fitting and rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 

2002;26:206–12. Doi: 10.1080/03093640208726649 

32.Eshraghi A, Osman NAA, Karimi MT, Gholizadeh H, Ali S, Abas 

WABW. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of a new 

prosthetic suspension system with two existing suspension 

systems for lower limb amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 

2012;91:1028–38. Doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318269d82a 

33.Gholizadeh H, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Wan Abas 

WAB, Pirouzi G. Transtibial prosthetic suspension: less pistoning 

versus easy donning and doffing. J Rehabil Res Dev. 

2012;49:1321–30. Doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2011.11.0221 

34.Convery P, Murray K. Ultrasound study of the motion of the 

residual femur within a trans-femoral socket during gait. Prosthet 

Orthot Int. 2000;24:226–32. Doi: 10.1080/03093640008726552 

35.Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, Chardon JP. Dermatologic 

conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. 

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:659–63. Doi: 10.1016/j.apmr. 

2004.09.003 

36.Hamacher D, Singh N, Van Dieen J, Heller M, Taylor W. 

Kinematic measures for assessing gait stability in elderly 

individuals: a systematic review. J R Soc Interface. 2011;8:1682–

98. Doi: 10.1098/rsif.2011.0416 

37.Hordacre BG, Barr C, Patritti BL, Crotty M. Assessing gait 

variability in transtibial amputee fallers based on spatial-temporal 

gait parameters normalized for walking speed. Arch Phys Med 

Rehabil. 2015;96:1162–5. Doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.11.015 

38.Zhang M, Mak A. In vivo friction properties of human skin. 

Prosthet Orthot Int. 1999;23:135–41. Doi: 10.3109/ 

03093649909071625 
 

MANUFACTURERS’ DOCUMENTATION 

i) https://www.ametektest.com/-

/media/ametektest/download_links/data_dual_column_test_stand

s_lr10kplus_data_sheet_english.pdf 

ii) https://www.blatchfordus.com/products/comfort-liner/ 

iii) https://www.blatchfordus.com/products/silcare-breathe-locking-

liner/ 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i1.35213
https://www.ametektest.com/-/media/ametektest/download_links/data_dual_column_test_stands_lr10kplus_data_sheet_english.pdf
https://www.ametektest.com/-/media/ametektest/download_links/data_dual_column_test_stands_lr10kplus_data_sheet_english.pdf
https://www.ametektest.com/-/media/ametektest/download_links/data_dual_column_test_stands_lr10kplus_data_sheet_english.pdf
https://www.blatchfordus.com/products/comfort-liner/
https://www.blatchfordus.com/products/silcare-breathe-locking-liner/
https://www.blatchfordus.com/products/silcare-breathe-locking-liner/

