TY - JOUR
AR - JFNM-2020-1-105
TI - Comparison of Three Saliva Collection Methods to Assess Physiological Markers
AU - Ajmol, Ali
AU - Carlene , Starck
AU - Deborah K. , Dulson
AU - Kay , Rutherfurd-Markwick
JO - Journal of Food Nutrition and Metabolism
PY - 2020
DA - Tue 26, May 2020
SN - 2674-2411
DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.31487/j.JFNM.2020.01.05
UR - https://www.sciencerepository.org/comparison-of-three-saliva-collection-methods-to-assess-physiological-markers_JFNM-2020-1-105 
KW - Electrolytes, immune, stimulated saliva, stress, unstimulated saliva
AB - Background: To compare three saliva collection methods for examining salivary biomarkers in males and
females at rest and exercise.
Methods: Whole saliva was collected using drool method (unstimulated, UWS), mastication (stimulated,
SWS) or using cotton-buds placed around the mouth (unstimulated, Bud) from 8males and 12females.
Samples were analysed for flow rate, osmolality, sodium, potassium, chloride, secretory salivary
immunoglobulin A (SIgA), α-amylase activity and cortisol during both rest and exercise in a randomised
crossover design.
Results: SWS and Bud methods were consistently more reliable than UWS, and Bud had the greatest
reliability across all measures. Significant variations between all methods existed for total osmolality,
sodium and SIgA concentrations; between UWS and SWS methods for flow rate and α-amylase activity,
and between UWS and Bud methods for potassium. SWS most consistently replicated UWS patterns of
analyte responses to exercise for both males and females and showed good agreement with UWS for cortisol.
Both SWS and Bud data reflected the inverse α-amylase/cortisol relationship seen in UWS.
Conclusion: SWS was better able to replicate results measured from UWS, between rest and exercise and
between males and females. SWS and Bud methods can be used to inform comparisons between rest and
exercise and males and females