IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0105786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Swab Sample Transfer for Point-Of-Care Diagnostics: Characterization of Swab Types and Manual Agitation Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Nuttada Panpradist
  • Bhushan J Toley
  • Xiaohong Zhang
  • Samantha Byrnes
  • Joshua R Buser
  • Janet A Englund
  • Barry R Lutz

Abstract

Background: The global need for disease detection and control has increased effort to engineer point-of-care (POC) tests that are simple, robust, affordable, and non-instrumented. In many POC tests, sample collection involves swabbing the site (e.g., nose, skin), agitating the swab in a fluid to release the sample, and transferring the fluid to a device for analysis. Poor performance in sample transfer can reduce sensitivity and reproducibility. Methods: In this study, we compared bacterial release efficiency of seven swab types using manual-agitation methods typical of POC devices. Transfer efficiency was measured using quantitative PCR (qPCR) for Staphylococcus aureus under conditions representing a range of sampling scenarios: 1) spiking low-volume samples onto the swab, 2) submerging the swab in excess-volume samples, and 3) swabbing dried sample from a surface. Results: Excess-volume samples gave the expected recovery for most swabs (based on tip fluid capacity); a polyurethane swab showed enhanced recovery, suggesting an ability to accumulate organisms during sampling. Dry samples led to recovery of ∼20–30% for all swabs tested, suggesting that swab structure and volume is less important when organisms are applied to the outer swab surface. Low-volume samples led to the widest range of transfer efficiencies between swab types. Rayon swabs (63 µL capacity) performed well for excess-volume samples, but showed poor recovery for low-volume samples. Nylon (100 µL) and polyester swabs (27 µL) showed intermediate recovery for low-volume and excess-volume samples. Polyurethane swabs (16 µL) showed excellent recovery for all sample types. This work demonstrates that swab transfer efficiency can be affected by swab material, structure, and fluid capacity and details of the sample. Results and quantitative analysis methods from this study will assist POC assay developers in selecting appropriate swab types and transfer methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuttada Panpradist & Bhushan J Toley & Xiaohong Zhang & Samantha Byrnes & Joshua R Buser & Janet A Englund & Barry R Lutz, 2014. "Swab Sample Transfer for Point-Of-Care Diagnostics: Characterization of Swab Types and Manual Agitation Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105786
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105786
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105786&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0105786?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105786. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.