本研究針對尼龍護具布料和棉質護具布料，以蕊吸試驗測試、擴散面積測試和乾燥時間測試來進行比較，進而了解這兩種不同材質護具布料的吸溼排汗能力，相關的結論與建議如下。一、在蕊吸試驗測試結果中，棉質護具布料的表現較佳，顯示棉質護具布料和尼龍護具布料比較起來，有較佳的吸水性。二、棉質護具布料和尼龍護具布料的擴散面積試驗測試和乾燥時間測試結果表現均不佳，推究其原因，棉質護具布料除了較厚之外，無法將吸收的水分快速排除是導致該布料表現不佳的主要原因；至於尼龍護具布料，由於在該布料中間有一層不具透水性的橡膠發泡夾層，進而導致該布料的乾燥時間測試結果表現不佳。三、就消費者而言，棉質護具布料能吸水但不能排水，故棉質布料護具在長時間使用後，可能會有潮濕和汗水無法排除的缺點；至於尼龍布料護具雖然在使用上有材質結構較強而有較佳包覆性與保護效果的優點；但是其吸濕排汗表現差，卻是皮膚容易過敏的消費者在選購時要注意的。四、就護具製造業者而言，棉質和尼龍護具布料在使用上有排汗或者吸溼排汗表現不佳的缺點，因此可嘗試以新布料材質來開發具有較佳包覆與保護性，另外也同時擁有較佳吸溼排汗效果的護具。

In this study, absorption height, diffusion area and drying tests were proceeded to compare Nylon and cotton brace fabrics' moisture absorption and release property. Results and recommendations were as below. 1. In the results of absorption height test, cotton brace fabric performed well. It showed cotton brace fabric owned better water absorbing ability when comparing with Nylon brace fabric. 2. Diffusion area and drying tests performances of Nylon and cotton brace fabrics weren't well. In addition to cotton fabric for making brace thicker than the fabric for making cloth, unable to exclude absorbed moisture quickly was the main cause. As for the Nylon brace fabrics, their poor performance on drying test result were due to a layer of rubber sponge existed between themselves. 3. For consumers, cotton fabric brace might have the defect unable to exclude moisture and sweat after a long term using causing by its cotton fabric perform well in moisture absorbing but perform poor in moisture excluding. As for the Nylon fabric brace, consumers whose skins were prone to allergies must care its poor performance in moisture absorption and release although its material structure was stronger and could offer better coating and protecting effects. 4. For brace manufacturers, new fabric materials could be used to develop a new brace owing better coating, protecting and moisture absorption & release effects due to cotton and Nylon brace fabric had the defect of poor performances in moisture release or moisture absorption & release.