Multi-Site Evaluation of Swab Collection Methods: A Comprehensive Guide for Optimizing Diagnostic Accuracy and Efficiency

Abstract

This article synthesizes evidence from multi-site studies and systematic reviews to provide a comprehensive guide on swab collection methods for researchers and drug development professionals. It explores the foundational science behind swab design, details methodological best practices for diverse clinical and forensic scenarios, offers troubleshooting and optimization strategies to maximize sample recovery, and presents rigorous validation and comparative data from recent multi-site evaluations. The scope encompasses applications in infectious disease diagnostics, forensic DNA analysis, and microbiome research, with a focus on improving diagnostic yield, streamlining workflows, and ensuring the reliability of downstream analytical results.

The Science of Swab Collection: Materials, Mechanisms, and Critical Design Principles

The efficacy of biological sample collection is a cornerstone of diagnostic, forensic, and pharmaceutical development workflows. The choice of swab material is not a trivial decision; it directly impacts sample yield, analyte integrity, and the success of downstream analytical processes such as PCR, genomic sequencing, or microbial culture. Despite rapid advancements in analytical technologies, the evidence collection tool—the swab—has often been overlooked. For researchers and drug development professionals, selecting the optimal swab is critical for data accuracy, reproducibility, and operational efficiency.

This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of the most prevalent swab materials: cotton, nylon flocked, polyester, foam (polyurethane), and dissolvable polymers. Framed within the context of multi-site evaluation research, we synthesize findings from systematic reviews and controlled studies to delineate the performance characteristics of each material across various experimental conditions and substrates.

Comparative Performance Data

The performance of swab materials varies significantly depending on the application, the nature of the sample (e.g., blood, saliva, microbial spores), and the substrate from which it is collected (e.g., porous vs. non-porous surfaces). The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from the literature.

Table 1: Summary of Best-Performing Swab Types by Substrate and DNA Source (Based on a 2025 Systematic Review) [1]

DNA Source	Substrate Type	Best Performing Swab Material(s)	Key Findings
Blood	Porous (e.g., drywall, paper)	Cotton (specific brands, e.g., Bode SecurSwab2)	Cotton swabs showed the most consistent performance, with one brand recovering significantly more DNA than rayon or nylon at all dilutions [1].
Blood	Non-Porous	Not Specified	The systematic review identified optimal swabs for 13 substrate-DNA source combinations, though specific results for non-porous surfaces are not detailed in the provided excerpt [1].
Bacterial Spores	Spacecraft Surfaces (Various)	Nylon Flocked	Nylon flocked swab protocols recovered 3- to 4-fold more Bacillus atrophaeus spores (45.4-49.0% efficiency) compared to the NASA standard cotton method (13.2% efficiency) [2].
Influenza Virus	Anterior Nares (Clinical)	Polyurethane Foam	For rapid antigen testing, polyurethane foam swabs showed a sensitivity of 71%, significantly higher than the 54% sensitivity of nylon flocked swabs when compared to an RT-PCR gold standard [3].
General Contamination	Smooth & Rough Surfaces	Knitted Polyester	Recommended for cleaning validation and surface sampling due to superior scrubbing, high chemical resistance, and excellent absorption/release properties, leading to highly accurate analysis [4].

Table 2: Key Characteristics and Applications of Common Swab Materials

Swab Material	Primary Structure	Absorption & Release Profile	Ideal Applications	Key Limitations
Cotton	Natural fiber bundles	Moderate absorbency; can trap sample internally, leading to lower release [1] [2]	Traditional forensic blood collection on porous surfaces [1]; non-critical applications [4].	Linting, variable performance between brands, potential for DNA inhibition [1] [2] [4].
Nylon Flocked	Short, perpendicular fibers	High collection and elution efficiency due to open structure [2] [3]	Microbiological surface sampling (e.g., spores, bacteria) [2]; collection of respiratory epithelial cells [3].	Performance can be test-dependent (underperformed foam in one influenza test) [3].
Polyester	Knitted or woven synthetic	High absorbency; superior release of contaminants for analysis [4]	Cleaning validation; precision cleaning with aggressive solvents; surface sampling for pharmaceutical residues [4].	Less commonly featured in clinical sample collection studies.
Polyurethane Foam	Open or closed cell structure	High absorption capacity; gentle on sensitive areas [5]	Anterior nares sampling for viruses [3]; sample collection from delicate tissues (e.g., nasal cavity, wounds) [5].	Can tear with aggressive scrubbing; not all tolerate harsh solvents [4].
Dissolvable Polymer	Proprietary polymer matrix	Designed for near-total release by dissolving in extraction buffer [1]	Applications requiring maximum sample recovery, such as low-copy DNA or precious samples.	Emerging technology; cost and compatibility with downstream workflows may be considerations.

Experimental Protocols for Swab Evaluation

To ensure reliable and reproducible results in multi-site studies, standardized evaluation protocols are essential. The following methodologies are adapted from validated procedures cited in the literature.

Protocol for Microbial Spore Recovery from Surfaces

This protocol, validated against NASA standards, is designed to assess swab efficiency for collecting bacterial spores from various surfaces [2].

• 1. Surface Inoculation: Surfaces (e.g., stainless steel, graphite composite, polymers) are inoculated with a known concentration (e.g., ≤100 CFU per 25 cm²) of Bacillus atrophaeus or other relevant spores. The inoculum is allowed to dry completely under sterile conditions.
• 2. Swab Sampling: The swab is pre-moistened with a sterile solution (e.g., PBST or water). The surface is sampled using a consistent, overlapping "S" pattern while rotating the swab. Apply gentle but firm pressure to ensure contact with the surface texture.
• 3. Sample Elution: The swab head is placed in a sterile tube containing 2.5 mL of elution buffer. The sample is vortexed for 5-10 seconds. For higher efficiency, sonication for 120 seconds may be added.
• 4. Microbial Enumeration: The eluent is serially diluted and spread-plated on appropriate agar (e.g., R2A). After incubation, colonies are counted. Recovery Efficiency (RE) is calculated as: RE (%) = (CFU recovered from surface / CFU in initial inoculum) × 100

Protocol for DNA Recovery Validation

This protocol is suited for evaluating swab performance in forensic and molecular biology contexts, focusing on DNA yield and quality [1] [6].

• 1. Controlled Deposition: Known quantities of a standardized DNA source (e.g., blood, saliva, or purified DNA) are deposited onto relevant substrates (porous and non-porous). The sample is air-dried.
• 2. Swabbing Procedure: Swabs may be used dry or slightly moistened with a molecular-grade buffer. The entire stained area is swabbed using a consistent technique, ensuring the swab head is saturated.
• 3. DNA Extraction: Swabs are processed using a standardized DNA extraction method (e.g., robotic platforms with silica-based chemistry). The extraction chemistry must be consistent across all comparisons.
• 4. Quantification and Profiling: Extracted DNA is quantified via real-time PCR (qPCR) to determine total human DNA yield and the presence of PCR inhibitors. Subsequent Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis is performed to assess profile quality and completeness.
• 5. Data Analysis: Statistical analysis (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA with a p-value < 0.05) is performed on qPCR and STR results (e.g., peak height, profile percentage) to identify significant differences between swab types.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Selecting the right tools and reagents is fundamental to conducting a valid swab evaluation study. The following table details key materials and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Swab Evaluation Studies

Item	Function/Description	Application Example
Purified Spore Suspensions	Standardized inoculum from strains like B. atrophaeus or B. anthracis Sterne for microbiological studies [2].	Serves as a consistent and safe challenge agent for evaluating swab recovery efficiency from surfaces.
Synthetic Body Fluids	Controlled matrices (e.g., artificial saliva, surrogate blood) that mimic the viscosity and composition of real samples.	Reduces variability in deposition studies compared to human-sourced materials.
Reference Materials	Standard swabs from established manufacturers (e.g., Puritan cotton swabs, Copan nylon flocked swabs) [2] [3].	Provides a benchmark for comparing the performance of new or alternative swab types.
Molecular Grade Water/Buffers	Nuclease-free fluids used for moistening swabs or as elution agents to prevent sample degradation.	Essential for DNA/RNA recovery studies to preserve nucleic acid integrity.
Viral Transport Medium (VTM)	A medium designed to preserve the viability of viruses and bacteria during transport.	Used in clinical virology studies to elute samples from swabs for culture or PCR [3].
Validated qPCR Kits	Kits for quantifying human DNA (e.g., Plexor HV) or detecting PCR inhibition.	Provides objective metrics for DNA recovery efficiency and sample quality in forensic studies [1].

Swab Selection Workflow Diagram

The following diagram outlines a logical decision-making process for selecting the appropriate swab material based on the sample and application, integrating findings from the comparative analysis.

The multi-site evaluation of swab collection methods reveals a clear conclusion: there is no universal "best" swab. The optimal choice is a nuanced decision dictated by the specific sample type, substrate, and downstream analytical technique. Key findings indicate that while traditional cotton swabs remain effective for specific applications like blood collection from porous surfaces, synthetic materials often offer superior performance. Nylon flocked swabs excel in microbial recovery, polyurethane foam provides advantages in clinical comfort and viral antigen tests, and knitted polyester is unmatched for industrial cleaning validation. A critical insight for researchers is that swabs made from the same base material can perform differently based on manufacturing processes and brands, underscoring the need for empirical validation within their own workflows. As swab technology evolves, with innovations like dissolvable polymers on the horizon, evidence-based selection will continue to be paramount for ensuring data integrity and advancing scientific research.

The efficacy of diagnostic testing and forensic analysis is fundamentally dependent on the initial sample collection process. Swab architecture plays a critical, yet often underestimated, role in determining the success of downstream analytical procedures by directly influencing sample uptake, retention, and release. The selection of an appropriate swab type is not merely a procedural detail but a significant variable that affects the sensitivity and reliability of results across medical diagnostics, forensic science, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

This guide provides a systematic comparison of swab performance characteristics based on empirical data, offering researchers and professionals an evidence-based framework for selection. The physical structure and material composition of collection swabs directly govern their fluid dynamic properties, creating substantial variations in elution efficiency that can impact diagnostic sensitivity and analytical accuracy. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for optimizing sampling protocols in both research and clinical applications.

Comparative Performance Analysis of Swab Architectures

Structural Characteristics and Material Properties

Swab design architectures can be categorized into several distinct types, each with unique structural characteristics that influence their performance:

• Flocked Swabs: Feature perpendicularly aligned nylon or polyester fibers attached to a plastic shaft using an adhesive. This design creates capillary channels that enhance fluid uptake through capillary action [7]. The open structure typically allows for improved sample release compared to traditional wound fiber swabs.

• Foam Swabs: Consist of porous polyurethane or cellulose sponges with interconnected pores that absorb fluid through a combination of capillary action and vacuum effect. These often demonstrate higher volume retention but may exhibit variable release characteristics [8] [9].

• Injection-Molded Swabs: Manufactured using precision molding techniques that create consistent, predefined porous structures. These swabs typically exhibit lower fluid retention but demonstrate superior release efficiency due to their hydrophobic properties and engineered channel designs [7] [8].

• Traditional Wound Fiber Swabs: Constructed by winding cotton or rayon around a wooden or plastic applicator. These tend to entrap sample material within their dense fiber matrix, resulting in lower elution efficiency unless combined with aggressive elution methods [10].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Table 1: Comparative performance metrics across swab architectures

Swab Type	Material Composition	Average Uptake Volume (μL)	Average Release Efficiency (%)	Key Applications
Nylon Flocked	Nylon fibers	94.2 ± 12.8 [8]	69.4% ± 12.7 [7]	Nasopharyngeal sampling, Forensic DNA collection
Polyester Flocked	Polyester fibers	121.5 ± 16.3 [8]	25.9% ± 6.8 (tube model) [7]	Environmental sampling, Viral transport
Injection-Molded	Polypropylene	78.6 ± 9.4 [8]	82.5% ± 12.7 [7]	Anterior nasal sampling, Pooled testing
Polyurethane Foam	Polyurethane	105.3 ± 14.2 [8]	~90% (with mechanical impingement) [10]	Environmental MDRO sampling [9]
Cotton Traditional	Natural cotton fibers	Varies significantly	46.7% (passive elution) [10]	Basic clinical sampling

Table 2: Elution efficiency improvement with advanced methods

Elution Method	Base Efficiency (%)	Enhanced Efficiency (%)	Improvement Factor
Passive incubation (tube)	25.9-69.4 [7]	-	-
Vortexing	46.7 [10]	58-60 [10]	1.24-1.28x
Mechanical impingement (magnetic)	46.7 [10]	85-92.8 [10]	1.82-1.99x
Chemical digestion	-	78.5 [10]	-

Impact of Sampling Environment on Performance

The performance characteristics of swabs vary significantly depending on the sampling environment and methodology:

• Anatomic Models vs. Simple Tube Models: Swab performance demonstrates notable differences when tested in anatomically accurate models compared to simple tube environments. In one study, injection-molded swabs released 40.94 ± 5.13 μL in tube models versus only 10.31 ± 3.70 μL in nasopharyngeal cavity models, highlighting the significant impact of anatomic complexity on elution efficiency [7].

• Sample Pooling Scenarios: In pooled testing environments, swabs with lower volume retention (such as injection-molded designs) demonstrated reduced false-negative occurrences due to more consistent sample release across the pool [8].

• Environmental Surface Sampling: For microbial recovery from environmental surfaces, sponge-stick swabs consistently outperformed traditional ESwabs for culture-based recovery of most multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), with the exception of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, where all methods performed poorly [9].

Experimental Methodologies for Swab Evaluation

Gravimetric Analysis for Uptake Quantification

Protocol Overview: This method quantitatively measures sample uptake capacity by comparing swab mass before and after sampling [8].

Detailed Procedure:

• Pre-weigh dry swabs using an analytical balance with 0.1 mg precision
• Saturate tissue models with synthetic biological fluid (2% w/v PEO in deionized water)
• Perform standardized swabbing procedure using consistent pressure and motion patterns
• Weigh swabs immediately post-sampling to determine mass differential
• Calculate uptake volume assuming fluid density of 1 g/mL

Key Parameters:

• Controlled environmental conditions (temperature: 22±2°C, humidity: 45±5%)
• Standardized swabbing pressure (200-300g force)
• Consistent swabbing pattern (horizontal, vertical, and diagonal motions)
• Multiple replicates (typically N=5 per swab type) [8]

Fluorescent Particle Release Quantification

Protocol Overview: This approach indirectly quantifies sample release efficiency using fluorescent-tagged microparticles as surrogates for cellular material [8] [10].

Detailed Procedure:

• Saturate tissue models with fluorescently labeled microparticles suspended in synthetic nasal fluid
• Perform standardized swabbing procedure
• Elute samples using controlled mechanical methods (vortexing, mechanical impingement)
• Measure fluorescence intensity of eluate using plate reader or fluorometer
• Calculate release efficiency by comparing to standard curve

Key Parameters:

• Fluorescent polystyrene beads (1-10μm diameter) at concentrations of 1×10⁵ to 5×10⁸ particles/mL
• Excitation/Emission wavelengths matched to fluorophore used (e.g., FITC: 490/525nm)
• Controlled elution volume (typically 1-3mL elution buffer)
• Standardized elution time (30-120 seconds) and agitation intensity [10]

Molecular Detection Efficiency Assessment

Protocol Overview: This method evaluates swab performance using molecular detection techniques (e.g., RT-qPCR) to quantify recovery of specific biological targets [7] [8].

Detailed Procedure:

• Spike biological samples (e.g., artificial nasal fluid) with known concentrations of target organisms or viral particles
• Perform standardized sampling procedure using test swabs
• Elute samples using standardized protocol
• Extract nucleic acids using validated extraction methods
• Perform RT-qPCR analysis with target-specific primers/probes
• Compare cycle threshold (Ct) values to determine relative recovery efficiency

Key Parameters:

• Known input concentration of target (e.g., 5000 copies/mL for viral studies) [7]
• Consistent elution volume and nucleic acid extraction methodology
• Multiple technical replicates to account for PCR variability
• Inclusion of positive and negative controls in each run

Anatomical Model Testing

Protocol Overview: Advanced testing utilizes anatomically accurate 3D-printed models to simulate clinical sampling conditions [7].

Detailed Procedure:

• Reconstruct nasopharyngeal anatomy from CT scans
• 3D-print models using dual materials: rigid resin for bone structures and flexible resin for soft tissue
• Line models with mucus-mimicking hydrogel (e.g., SISMA hydrogel)
• Perform standardized clinical sampling technique
• Compare results to simple tube model controls

Key Parameters:

• Material properties matching biological tissues (Shore hardness ~40A for soft tissue) [7]
• Hydrogel with shear-thinning behavior and viscosity parameters matching natural mucus (~10 Pa·s at low shear rates)
• Clinical sampling technique simulation (rotating motion, specific insertion depth)
• Multiple operators to account for technique variability

Visualization of Testing Workflows and Mechanisms

Swab Performance Evaluation Workflow

Mechanical Impingement Elution Mechanism

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential reagents and materials for swab performance studies

Category	Specific Reagents/Materials	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Artificial Biological Fluids	Synthetic nasal fluid (2% w/v PEO)	Mimics viscosity of nasal secretions for uptake studies	Shear-thinning properties similar to natural mucus [8]
	Artificial sputum (2% methyl cellulose)	Simulates respiratory tract secretions	Appropriate viscosity for respiratory pathogen studies [10]
	SISMA hydrogel	Nasopharyngeal mucus mimic for anatomical models	Matches viscosity parameters of natural mucosa (~10 Pa·s at low shear rates) [7]
Tracing and Detection	Fluorescent polystyrene beads (1-10μm)	Surrogate for cellular material in release studies	Enables quantification without biological variability [8] [10]
	Heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2	Viral recovery studies	Enables safe testing of viral detection efficiency [8]
	FITC-labeled microparticles	Fluorescent tracking of sample release	Compatible with standard fluorometry equipment [8]
Model Systems	3D-printed nasopharyngeal cavities	Anatomically accurate testing environments	Dual-material printing (rigid + flexible resins) for physiological realism [7]
	Silk-glycerol sponge tissue models	Bench-top anterior nasal cavity simulation	Reproduces soft tissue mechanics for standardized testing [8]
Elution Enhancements	Magnetic impingement particles	Mechanical sample dislodgement	3.2mm³ particles at 400-500 RPM for optimal recovery [10]
	ESwab solution (Copan)	Commercial collection medium	Optimized for molecular workflows [9]
	PBS with 0.02% Tween 80	Standard elution buffer	Reduces surface tension for improved recovery [9]

Swab architecture significantly influences fluid retention and elution efficiency through definable mechanical mechanisms that directly impact diagnostic and analytical outcomes. The evidence demonstrates that injection-molded swabs consistently achieve superior release efficiency (82.5% ± 12.7) despite moderate uptake capacity, while flocked designs vary considerably in performance based on fiber material and density. Foam swabs provide high uptake volume but require aggressive elution techniques to achieve adequate release.

The selection of appropriate swab architecture should be guided by specific application requirements: injection-molded designs for maximum release efficiency in diagnostic applications, flocked swabs for optimal uptake in low-volume samples, and foam sponges for environmental sampling where surface area coverage is prioritized. Future developments in swab technology should focus on optimizing the balance between uptake and release characteristics through engineered materials and structures, potentially incorporating specialized coatings or asymmetric fiber arrangements to enhance performance.

Advanced elution methodologies, particularly mechanical impingement techniques, demonstrate that passive elution substantially underestimates swab capacity and that standardized aggressive elution protocols should be implemented for accurate performance evaluation. Researchers should select swabs based on comprehensive performance data rather than convenience or tradition, as this decision directly influences analytical sensitivity and reliability across diverse applications from clinical diagnostics to pharmaceutical quality control.

The accuracy of diagnostic and research outcomes in molecular analysis is fundamentally dependent on the initial sample collection step. The design and material composition of the collection swab significantly impact the efficiency of biological sample recovery and release, thereby influencing downstream results in PCR, microbiome profiling, and antigen detection. Within the context of multi-site evaluation of swab collection methods, this guide objectively compares swab performance across these critical analytical domains, supported by experimental data quantifying their effects on DNA yield, microbial community representation, and detection sensitivity. As forensic research indicates, despite the ubiquity of cotton swabs, alternative swab types may offer superior performance for specific applications, necessitating evidence-based selection [1]. This review synthesizes findings from multiple controlled studies to guide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in optimizing swab selection for their specific analytical requirements.

Comparative Performance of Swab Types

The physical structure and material composition of swabs dictate their performance. Common types include cotton, nylon flocked, foam, and dissolvable polymer swabs. Flocked swabs feature perpendicular fibers that create a brush-like structure for enhanced sample collection and elution. Cotton swabs have a twisted fiber core that can trap biological material, while dissolvable swabs are designed to release their entire fiber matrix into extraction buffers [11].

Table 1: Swab Type Characteristics and Applications

Swab Type	Material Composition	Primary Mechanism	Optimal Applications
Nylon Flocked	Nylon fibers perpendicularly attached to handle	Efficient collection and release via capillary action	Microbiome studies [11], Viral PCR [7]
Traditional Cotton	Natural cotton fibers with twisted core	Absorption into fiber matrix	Lower-cost applications with ample sample
Foam	Polyurethane foam head	Absorption into porous structure	Surface sampling for forensics [1]
Dissolvable	Cellulose acetate or other soluble polymers	Complete dissolution in extraction buffers	Maximizing DNA recovery [11]
3D Printed	Polymerized acrylic urethane polyethers	Custom-designed mesh for optimized elution	Rectal microbiome sampling [12]

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison Across Analytical Techniques

Swab Type	Microbial DNA Yield (ng) [11]	PCR Ct Value Difference (Cavity vs. Tube) [7]	Sample Release Efficiency (%) [7]	Compatibility with Microbiome Profiling
Nylon Flocked	~1240	4.79 (higher detection in tube)	69.44% (cavity model)	High fidelity to fecal samples [12]
Cotton	~184	Not tested	Not tested	Potential inhibition concerns [11]
Dental Applicators	~533	Not tested	Not tested	Limited research available
Dissolvable	~430	Not tested	Not tested	Theoretical maximum recovery
3D Printed	Equivalent to flocked [12]	Not tested	82.48% (cavity model) [7]	Equivalent to flocked for gut microbiome [12]

Impact on PCR and Molecular Detection

Swab design significantly influences the sensitivity and reliability of PCR-based detection methods. A 2021 study directly compared microbial DNA recovery from four swab types inoculated with Proteus mirabilis, a bacterium representative of the human microbiome. Flocked swabs demonstrated substantially higher DNA yields (~1240 ng) compared to cotton (~184 ng), dental applicators (~533 ng), and dissolvable swabs (~430 ng) [11]. This superior performance is attributed to the flocked fiber structure that efficiently releases collected material during extraction.

For SARS-CoV-2 detection, a 2025 study developed an anatomically accurate 3D-printed nasopharyngeal cavity model to evaluate swab performance. When testing Heicon injection-molded swabs versus commercial nylon flocked swabs, both types showed significantly lower cycle threshold (Ct) values in simple tube models compared to the complex cavity model, indicating approximately 20-25 fold decreases in detected RNA when anatomical complexity was factored in [7]. This highlights how traditional pre-clinical testing methods may overestimate swab performance compared to clinical use conditions.

The sample release efficiency varies considerably between swab designs. In the nasopharyngeal model study, Heicon swabs released 82.48% of collected material compared to 69.44% for commercial flocked swabs [7]. This characteristic directly impacts detection sensitivity, particularly in low viral load scenarios where maximal sample recovery is critical.

Diagram 1: Relationship between swab design parameters and downstream PCR results. Swab characteristics directly impact collection and release efficiency, ultimately affecting PCR sensitivity and quantification.

Implications for Microbiome Profiling

Swab selection critically influences the accuracy and reliability of microbiome studies, as different swab materials and designs can variably recover microbial taxa and affect DNA yield. Research comparing swab types for gut microbiome analysis revealed that both 3D printed and conventional flocked rectal swabs showed no significant differences compared to fecal samples when assessing alpha and beta diversity metrics or the abundance of major phyla [12]. This demonstrates that properly designed swabs can accurately represent microbial communities.

In forensic microbiome applications, a systematic comparison found flocked swabs consistently outperformed cotton swabs in recovering microorganisms from non-porous surfaces including treated wood, glass, and tile [11]. Cotton swabs failed to recover Proteus mirabilis DNA from all tested surfaces, highlighting a critical limitation for trace evidence analysis. This performance disparity stems from the flocked swab's perpendicular fiber arrangement that lacks an internal absorbent core, facilitating more complete sample elution during DNA extraction [11].

The human nasopharyngeal microbiome presents unique collection challenges. A 2025 pneumococcal pneumonia study successfully utilized nasopharyngeal swabs with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing to identify significant differences in microbial community structure between patients and healthy controls [13]. These findings were robust enough to distinguish Streptococcus abundance during infection states and identify negative correlations between Corynebacterium and Streptococcus spp., demonstrating that appropriate swabbing can capture clinically relevant ecological interactions.

Experimental Protocols for Swab Evaluation

Microbial DNA Recovery Assessment

Objective: Quantify and compare microbial DNA recovery efficiency across different swab types [11].

Methodology:

• Sample Preparation: Culture Proteus mirabilis and create a standardized bacterial stock.
• Inoculation: Deposit 10 µL of bacterial stock onto eight replicates of each test swab type (cotton, flocked, dental applicators, dissolvable).
• DNA Extraction: Use MagMAX DNA Multi-Sample Ultra 2.0 Kit with modified doubled volumes for dissolvable swabs.
• Quantitation: Perform real-time PCR targeting 16S rRNA gene with iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix.
• Analysis: Calculate absolute DNA yield using a five-point calibration curve (50-0.005 ng/µL).

Key Findings: Flocked swabs yielded approximately 6.7 times more bacterial DNA than cotton swabs [11].

Surface Collection Efficiency

Objective: Evaluate swab collection efficiency from various non-porous surfaces [11].

Methodology:

• Surface Preparation: Clean treated wood, glass, plastic, and tile surfaces with bleach and peroxide solutions.
• Sample Application: Spot 10 µL of P. mirabilis stock onto 3×3 cm² surface sections and allow to dry.
• Swabbing: Pre-moisten swabs with 100 µL sterile deionized water and swab surfaces for 30 seconds with firm, constant pressure while rotating.
• Processing: Extract DNA and quantify via qPCR as described above.

Key Findings: Flocked swabs performed consistently better across wood, glass, and tile surfaces, while cotton swabs failed to recover detectable DNA from all surfaces [11].

Anatomical Model Validation for Viral Detection

Objective: Compare swab performance using an anatomically accurate nasopharyngeal model [7].

Methodology:

• Model Fabrication: Create dual-material 3D printed nasopharyngeal cavity from patient CT scans using rigid VeroBlue for bone and flexible Agilus30 for soft tissue.
• Mucosa Simulation: Line model with SISMA hydrogel mimicking nasal mucus viscosity and shear-thinning properties.
• Sample Collection: Spike hydrogel with Yellow Fever Virus (5000 copies/mL) as SARS-CoV-2 surrogate.
• Testing Protocol: Compare experimental Heicon swabs against commercial nylon flocked swabs using both anatomical model and standard tube.
• Analysis: Quantify sample collection volume, release efficiency, and RT-qPCR cycle threshold values.

Key Findings: The anatomical model revealed significant performance differences undetected in tube models, with 20-25 fold decreases in detected RNA due to anatomical complexity [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Swab Evaluation Studies

Item	Function/Application	Example Products/References
Swab Types	Sample collection from various surfaces and anatomical sites	Puritan cotton swabs, COPAN FLOQSwabs, Diomics X-Swab [11] [1]
DNA Extraction Kits	Nucleic acid purification from swab samples	MagMAX DNA Multi-Sample Ultra 2.0 Kit, DNeasy PowerLyzer PowerSoil Kit [11] [12]
qPCR/qRT-PCR Reagents	Target DNA/RNA quantification and detection	iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix, KAPA2G Fast HotStart ReadyMix [11] [12] [14]
16S rRNA Primers	Amplification of bacterial taxonomic markers	V1-V2, V3-V4, or V4 region primers for microbiome analysis [13] [12]
Mucosa-Mimicking Hydrogels	Simulating physiological collection conditions	SISMA hydrogel for nasopharyngeal testing [7]
3D Printing Materials	Creating anatomical models for testing	VeroBlue (bone simulation), Agilus30 (soft tissue simulation) [7]
NGS Library Prep Kits	Metagenome sequencing preparation	Illumina 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation Protocol [13]

Diagram 2: Comprehensive workflow for evaluating swab performance. The process encompasses experimental design through downstream analysis to enable systematic comparison across swab types.

The design and material composition of collection swabs significantly impact downstream analytical results across PCR, microbiome profiling, and antigen detection applications. Evidence from multiple studies indicates that flocked swabs generally outperform traditional cotton swabs in both sample collection and release efficiency, particularly for microbial DNA recovery [11]. The development of anatomically accurate testing models has revealed that traditional simple tube evaluation methods may substantially overestimate swab performance compared to clinical conditions [7]. For microbiome applications, both flocked and 3D printed swabs demonstrate strong correlation with gold standard samples when assessing community composition and diversity [12]. Researchers should select swabs based on their specific application requirements, considering that optimal performance varies across different sample types, surfaces, and analytical methods. As swab technology continues to evolve, standardized evaluation protocols incorporating physiological relevance will be essential for validating new designs and ensuring reliable diagnostic and research outcomes.

The human microbiome, the diverse community of microorganisms living on and inside the human body, has emerged as a powerful tool in forensic science and clinical diagnostics. Its applications range from estimating postmortem intervals and determining causes of death to linking individuals to objects or locations through unique microbial signatures [15]. The fidelity of any microbiome analysis, however, is profoundly influenced by the initial sample collection phase. The choice of collection substrate is not merely a procedural step but a critical determinant of the microbial diversity and biomass recovered, thereby impacting all downstream molecular and cultural analyses. This guide provides an objective comparison of the performance of various collection substrates and methods, underpinned by experimental data, to inform best practices in research and development.

Performance Comparison of Collection Methods

The efficacy of microbiome collection is evaluated based on the efficiency of microbial cell recovery, the quality and quantity of extracted DNA, and the fidelity in representing the original microbial community structure. The following sections compare the leading substrate types and collection techniques.

Swab Type Comparison

A critical study directly compared four swab types for their efficiency in collecting and releasing bacterial DNA for analysis. Proteus mirabilis, a bacterium found in the gut microbiome, was deposited onto each swab type, and the recovered DNA was quantified via real-time PCR [11].

Table 1: Comparison of Microbial DNA Yield by Swab Type

Swab Type	Average Microbial DNA Yield (ng)	Key Characteristics
Flocked Swab	~1240 ng	Perpendicular nylon fibers with no internal core; designed for optimal sample collection and elution.
Dental Applicator	~533 ng	Small, non-absorbent nylon flocking on a spherical tip.
Dissolvable Swab	~430 ng	Made from cellulose acetate that dissolves in extraction buffer.
Cotton Swab	~184 ng	Traditional material; widely available but inefficient at releasing biological material.

The study further evaluated the two most common swabs—flocked and cotton—for their ability to recover microbial DNA from various non-porous surfaces. Flocked swabs consistently outperformed cotton swabs across wood, glass, and tile surfaces. Notably, cotton swabs failed to recover a quantifiable amount of P. mirabilis DNA from all tested surfaces, highlighting a significant limitation for trace evidence collection in forensic scenarios [11].

Swabbing vs. Tape-Stripping

Another study directly compared the swabbing method with the tape-stripping method for sampling the skin microbiome, using both next-generation sequencing (NGS) and culture-based analysis [16].

• Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS): The overall microbial community composition obtained from both methods was found to be comparable. Both techniques reliably captured the dominant taxa and structure of the skin microbiota [16].
• Culture-Based Analysis: A stark difference was observed in the recovery of viable bacteria. The tape-stripping method collected a significantly greater number and wider variety of cultivable skin bacteria than the swabbing method. This makes tape-stripping particularly valuable for studies requiring bacterial isolation for antibiotic susceptibility testing, virulence assays, or proteomic analyses [16].

Table 2: Swabbing vs. Tape-Stripping for Skin Microbiome Collection

Collection Method	NGS Fidelity	Viable Bacterial Recovery	Key Advantages
Tape-Stripping	High; comparable to swabbing	High yield and diversity	Superior for obtaining live cultures; standardized pressure and application.
Swabbing	Baseline for comparison	Lower yield and diversity	Traditional method; suitable for DNA-based studies when flocked swabs are used.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear framework for method evaluation, detailed protocols from the cited comparative studies are outlined below.

Protocol 1: Quantifying Swab Collection Efficiency

This protocol is designed to objectively measure the performance of different swab substrates in a controlled laboratory setting [11].

• Sample Preparation: A standardized bacterial stock (e.g., Proteus mirabilis) is created, washed, and pelleted. A defined volume (e.g., 10 µL) is deposited via pipette onto replicates of each swab type under evaluation.
• DNA Extraction: DNA is extracted from each swab using a standardized commercial kit. For dissolvable swabs, the protocol is modified by doubling the buffer volumes to accommodate the dissolving substrate.
• DNA Quantitation: The extracted DNA is quantified using real-time PCR targeting a conserved bacterial gene (e.g., the 16S rRNA gene). A standard curve is created from a known quantity of extracted bacterial DNA to allow for absolute quantitation.
• Surface Recovery Test: A defined volume of the bacterial stock is spotted onto cleaned, non-porous surfaces (e.g., wood, glass, plastic, tile) and allowed to dry. Surfaces are swabbed with pre-moistened swabs using firm, constant pressure with rotation for a set time (e.g., 30 seconds). The DNA is then extracted and quantified as above.

Protocol 2: Comparing Swabbing and Tape-Stripping

This protocol is used for direct comparison of two common skin microbiome collection methods [16].

• Site Selection and Preparation: A defined skin area (e.g., 4.4 x 4.4 cm on the back) is selected for sampling.
• Swabbing Method: The area is swabbed in a "Z-stroke" manner using a cotton swab pre-moistened with a saline and Tween-20 solution. The swab head is then either processed for DNA extraction or used for culture.
• Tape-Stripping Method: Sterilized medical adhesive tape of the same dimensions is applied to the adjacent skin site for one minute. The tape is then peeled off and either applied directly to a culture medium (e.g., sheep blood agar) or stored for DNA extraction.
• Downstream Analysis:
  • Culture-Based: Swab-derived pellets are suspended and spread on agar plates. Tape strips are placed directly on agar. Both are cultured under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Colony counts are performed, and bacteria are identified.
  • Sequence-Based: DNA is extracted from the swab heads and tape strips using a commercial kit with an initial enzymatic lysis step (lysozyme and lysostaphin). The 16S rRNA gene or shotgun metagenomics is used to profile the microbial community.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical pathway for selecting an appropriate collection substrate based on key research objectives, a primary consideration in experimental design.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful microbiome research relies on a suite of carefully selected reagents and materials. The table below details key solutions used in the featured experiments.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Microbiome Collection and Analysis

Research Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Examples from Literature
Flocked Swabs	Optimal collection and release of microbial cells and DNA from surfaces.	Copan FLOQSwabs [11].
Tape-Strips	Efficient collection of viable bacteria and microbial DNA from skin surfaces.	Sterilized medical air-permeable tape with acrylic glue [16].
DNA Extraction Kits	Lysis and purification of microbial genomic DNA from complex substrates.	MagMAX DNA Multi-Sample Ultra Kit [11]; QIAamp DNA kits [16].
Enzyme Lysis Cocktail	Digest bacterial cell walls for efficient DNA extraction, especially from Gram-positive bacteria.	Lysozyme and lysostaphin in Tris-EDTA buffer [16].
Real-Time PCR Mixes	Quantitative analysis of bacterial DNA yield and load.	iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix with 16S rRNA primers [11].
Culture Media	Growth and isolation of viable microorganisms for functional studies.	Sheep blood agar, trypticase soy agar, and other enriched media [16].
Sodium Hypochlorite	Critical decontamination reagent for eliminating background DNA in laboratories.	1% solution for cleaning laboratory surfaces and equipment [17].

The choice of collection substrate is a foundational decision that directly governs the success of downstream human microbiome analysis in both forensic and diagnostic contexts. Quantitative evidence firmly establishes that flocked swabs are superior to traditional cotton swabs for microbial DNA recovery, while tape-stripping offers a distinct advantage for collecting viable bacteria from skin. There is no universal "best" substrate; the optimal choice is dictated by the specific research question, whether it requires maximum DNA yield for sequencing or the recovery of live cultures for functional studies. As the field advances, the development and adherence to standardized protocols that incorporate these high-performance substrates will be crucial for ensuring the reliability, reproducibility, and admissibility of microbiome-based evidence.

Applied Protocols and Workflows: Tailoring Swab Collection to Specific Sample Types and Surfaces

In the realm of biomedical research, particularly in studies spanning multiple clinical sites, the standardization of collection protocols emerges as a cornerstone of scientific integrity. Without consistent methodologies for sample collection, even the most sophisticated analytical technologies cannot ensure reproducible or comparable results. The growing emphasis on multi-site evaluation of diagnostic methods, especially for infectious diseases, has brought this issue into sharp focus. Variations in collection techniques—whether nasopharyngeal swabs, swish-and-gargle methods, or self-collected samples—can introduce significant pre-analytical variability that compromises data reliability and undermines the validity of cross-institutional comparisons.

The challenge is particularly acute in the context of rapidly evolving public health threats, where swift validation and deployment of diagnostic tools are paramount. As the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated, standardized protocols enable healthcare systems to generate consistent, high-quality data necessary for evidence-based decision-making. This article examines the critical importance of collection protocol standardization through a comparative analysis of different sampling methods, with a specific focus on their application in multi-site studies evaluating swab collection methodologies for pathogen detection.

Comparative Analysis of Collection Methods: Experimental Data

Recent studies have provided robust quantitative data comparing the performance characteristics of various collection methods. The table below summarizes key findings from clinical evaluations, highlighting the comparative efficacy of different approaches.

Table 1: Performance comparison of SARS-CoV-2 specimen collection methods across multiple studies

Collection Method	Study Population	Sample Size	Positive Percent Agreement (PPA)	Negative Percent Agreement (NPA)	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swab (Cohort 1) [18]	Outpatients & HCWs	467	76.7%	100%	Established methodology	Patient discomfort
Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swab (Cohort 2) [18]	Healthcare workers	253	68.0%	99%	Established methodology	Reduced sensitivity in some scenarios
Swish-and-Gargle (SG) [18]	Healthcare workers	1,704	80.0%	100%	Enhanced patient comfort, reduced false negatives	Requires participant cooperation
Self-collected Nasal Swab [19]	Community participants	Not specified	90-95%	>95%	Accessibility, reduced healthcare worker exposure	Requires clear instructions
Self-collected Vaginal Swab [20]	Women screened for STIs	Not specified	Comparable to clinician-collected	Comparable to clinician-collected	Privacy, comfort	Not applicable for respiratory pathogens

The data reveals several critical insights. The swish-and-gargle method demonstrated superior PPA (80%) compared to NP swabs (68-76.7%), while maintaining equivalent NPA (100%) [18]. This suggests that SG may offer enhanced detection capability while simultaneously improving patient comfort—a significant consideration for repeated testing scenarios. Similarly, self-collected nasal swabs showed promising performance with 90-95% sensitivity compared to healthcare worker-collected samples [19], highlighting their potential for expanding testing accessibility without compromising diagnostic accuracy.

Methodological Standards for Protocol Implementation

Detailed Experimental Protocols

The validation of collection methods requires rigorously standardized protocols to ensure cross-site comparability. The following section outlines the specific methodologies employed in key studies to maintain consistency across collection sites.

Table 2: Standardized protocols for major collection methods validated in clinical studies

Collection Method	Sample Collection Protocol	Storage & Transport Conditions	Processing Methodology	Validation Method
Nasopharyngeal Swab [18]	Trained healthcare professionals collect specimen using standardized technique; immediate insertion into testing platform without transport medium	Room temperature per manufacturer guidelines	Direct processing on Abbott ID NOW system	Parallel testing with Seegene Allplex 2019-nCoV assay targeting E-gene, RdRp, and N-gene
Swish-and-Gargle [18]	Participants swish and gargle 10mL sterile normal saline for 30 seconds; expectorate into sterile container	Aliquot for immediate testing; residual specimen stored in UTM at -80°C	Trained staff aliquot for immediate testing on ID NOW platform	Parallel testing with reference PCR assay; frozen samples for potential future analysis
Self-collected Vaginal Swab [20]	Self-collection by participants using dry-stored swab without transport buffer; no refrigeration requirements	Dry storage without refrigeration; eliminates stringent temperature requirements	Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAAT) using PCR technology	Comparison against doctor-collected vaginal swabs, first-catch urine, and blood serology

Framework for Assessing Protocol Complexity

Implementing standardized protocols across multiple sites requires careful assessment of procedural complexity. Research has established scoring models to evaluate protocol demands, focusing on parameters most likely to impact site workload and consistency [21]. Key complexity factors include:

• Number of study arms (with greater than four arms representing high complexity)
• Subject registration and randomization processes (multi-step processes increase complexity)
• Nature and administration of investigational products
• Data collection requirements (real-time adverse event reporting vs. standard reporting)
• Follow-up phase duration and intensity
• Ancillary studies (correlative pathology, imaging, quality of life assessments)

Studies deemed 'complex' based on such parameters may require additional resources allocation to ensure consistent implementation across sites [21].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The consistent implementation of collection protocols depends on standardized research reagents and materials. The following table details essential components for reliable sample collection and analysis.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and materials for standardized collection protocols

Item Name	Function/Application	Key Features	Evidence Basis
Abbott ID NOW System	Point-of-care COVID-19 detection	Rapid results (5-13 minutes); compact platform	Validated across multiple collection methods [18]
Sterile Normal Saline	Swish-and-gargle collection medium	Isotonic solution; maintains cellular integrity	Used in standardized SG protocol (10mL for 30s) [18]
Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Specimen preservation	Maintains pathogen viability; stabilizes nucleic acids	Used for residual specimen storage in SG studies [18]
Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAAT)	Pathogen detection through target amplification	High specificity; detects non-viable pathogens	Gold standard for Chlamydia trachomatis detection [20]
Dry-Stored Self-Collection Swabs	Self-collected vaginal samples for STD testing	No refrigeration or transport buffer required	Eliminates logistical barriers in remote settings [20]
FLOQSwab & Rhinoswab	Self-collected nasal sampling	Ergonomic design; optimized for self-collection	Comparable performance to HCW-collected samples [19]

Visualizing Standardization Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate critical standardization workflows and relationships, providing visual guidance for implementation of consistent protocols across research sites.

Multi-Site Collection Protocol Standardization

Collection Method Validation Pathway

The comparative data and methodological frameworks presented herein demonstrate that standardized collection protocols are not merely administrative formalities but fundamental scientific necessities. The consistent implementation of detailed protocols—specifying exact volumes, timings, materials, and storage conditions—enables reliable comparison of data across sites and time periods [18] [20]. This standardization is particularly crucial when evaluating self-collection methods, which must be sufficiently simple and well-defined to ensure consistent execution by untrained participants while maintaining diagnostic accuracy comparable to clinician-collected samples [20] [19].

The movement toward standardized healthcare and clinical practice guidelines reflects a broader recognition that reducing unwarranted variation improves outcomes and efficiency [22]. In multi-site research, this principle translates to robust protocol design that controls for pre-analytical variables while accommodating necessary adaptations to local contexts. As research continues to validate novel collection methods and technologies, maintaining methodological rigor through careful standardization will remain essential for generating reproducible, actionable evidence to guide clinical and public health decision-making across diverse healthcare settings.

In molecular diagnostics, the accuracy of a test result is inherently linked to the quality and appropriateness of the specimen collected. The choice of sample type—be it nasopharyngeal, sputum, saliva, or tongue swab—directly influences detection sensitivity, specificity, and ultimately, clinical and research outcomes. This guide provides a systematic, evidence-based comparison of these common specimen types, focusing on their performance characteristics for detecting respiratory pathogens and other infectious agents. The data presented herein are framed within the context of multi-site evaluation studies, which provide robust, generalizable insights into optimal specimen selection protocols. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding these nuances is paramount for designing effective diagnostic strategies, evaluating new testing platforms, and implementing cost-effective laboratory practices that maximize diagnostic yield while minimizing patient discomfort and procedural complexity.

The following sections synthesize findings from recent clinical studies comparing detection rates, viral loads, and technical considerations across specimen types. Structured tables present quantitative performance data, while detailed methodologies from key studies provide insight into experimental protocols. Visual guides and reagent specifications offer practical tools for laboratory implementation, creating a comprehensive resource for optimizing collection strategies in diverse research and clinical settings.

Comparative Performance Data of Respiratory Specimen Types

Extensive multi-site research has directly compared the diagnostic performance of various upper respiratory tract specimens. The data below summarize key findings from prospective studies evaluating detection rates for bacterial and viral pathogens.

Table 1: Comparison of Detection Rates for Respiratory Bacteria Across Specimen Types

Specimen Type	Pathogen Detection Rate	Statistical Significance	Study Details
Sputum	44.3% (97/219 patients)	P < 0.001 vs. NPS	Multiplex qPCR for 7 bacteria [23]
Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	21.0% (46/219 patients)	Reference	Same study cohort as above [23]
Combined NPS & Sputum	86.2% (56/65 detections)	Comparable to sputum alone; superior to NPS	Created from remnant samples [23]

Table 2: SARS-CoV-2 Detection Sensitivity Across Upper Respiratory Specimens

Specimen Type	Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2	Comparative Performance	Study Reference
Oropharyngeal Swab (OPS)	94.1% (95% CI, 87 to 100%)	Comparable to NPS (p = 1.00)	Prospective study, n=51 [24]
Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	92.5% (95% CI, 85 to 99%)	Gold Standard	Same study cohort [24]
Nasal Swab	82.4% (95% CI, 72 to 93%)	Lower sensitivity (p = 0.07 vs. NPS)	Same study cohort [24]
Combined OPS/NPS	100%	Significantly improved detection	Both or either specimen positive [24]
Saliva	92.1% (129/140 positive)	Statistically superior to NPS (P < 0.01) in one study; 69.2% sensitivity in another	Variable by study design and population [25] [26]

For viral detection in pediatric populations, combined sampling strategies also show promise. One study comparing mid-turbinate nasal swabs (MTS) to combined throat and MTS (TS&MTS) in children found that 80.2% of paired samples had concordant results, with discordant pairs more frequently positive in the TS&MTS sample (66.7% of discordant pairs) [27]. This suggests a complementary effect, where different specimen types can capture different aspects of viral shedding.

Detailed Experimental Protocols from Key Studies

Protocol 1: Combined NPS and Sputum Evaluation for Bacterial Respiratory Pathogens

A 2019 study conducted at Korea University Anam Hospital provided a rigorous methodology for comparing and combining respiratory specimens [23].

• Study Population: 219 hospitalized adult patients (median age 73 years) with acute respiratory symptoms. Key exclusion criteria: inability to produce sputum.
• Sample Collection:
  • Nasopharyngeal Swabs (NPS): Collected in 3 mL of universal transport medium (UTM; Copan Diagnostics) containing glass beads to facilitate cell dispersion.
  • Sputum: Collected in sterile containers, liquefied using sterile glass beads with equivalent volume of phosphate-buffered saline.
• Processing Protocol: Both specimen types were centrifuged at 13,000 × g for 1 minute after vortexing with beads. Supernatants were used for nucleic acid extraction, with remnants stored at -80°C for combined analysis.
• Molecular Analysis: Nucleic acid extraction performed using MICROLAB STARlet IVD (Hamilton Robotics) with STARMag 96 × 4 universal cartridge kit (Seegene). Multiplex quantitative PCR (qPCR) was performed using the Allplex PneumoBacter Assay (Seegene) targeting seven respiratory bacteria: Bordetella parapertussis, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. A cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤42 defined positivity.
• Sample Combination Method: For the combined sample analysis, 92 paired samples (46 positive and 46 negative signals) were used. A 1-mL aliquot from each stored NPS and sputum supernatant was combined into a new 2-mL tube, vortexed, then subjected to identical nucleic acid extraction and qPCR protocols.

This study demonstrated that while sputum alone provided significantly higher detection rates than NPS alone (44.3% vs. 21.0%), the combined NPS-sputum approach offered detection rates (86.2%) comparable to sputum alone (89.2%) while minimizing the risk of false negatives from a single specimen type [23].

Protocol 2: Multi-Site Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Test Performance

A 2024 multi-site study across 32 U.S. sites evaluated the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus test, providing a robust framework for diagnostic evaluation [28].

• Study Design: Prospective, observational method comparison study enrolling participants with signs/symptoms of respiratory infection.
• Sample Collection: Randomized collection of either anterior nasal swab (NS) or nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in Copan Universal Transport Medium or Viral Transport Medium. NPS collected from one nostril using flocked swab; NS collected by sampling both nostrils with flocked swab.
• Test Protocol: The investigational device (Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus, Cepheid) was compared with the FDA-authorized BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 (BioFire Diagnostics). Testing was performed by both trained users (GeneXpert Instrument System) and untrained users (GeneXpert Xpress System) in both laboratory (n=965 specimens) and point-of-care settings (n=2,785 specimens).
• Performance Metrics: Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) were calculated against the comparator method. For frozen specimens, testing was completed within 48 hours of thawing.

This large-scale study found overall PPA of 98.1% and NPA of 98.3%, with slightly improved performance in NS versus NPS specimens (PPA 99.3% vs. 97.0%) [28].

Protocol 3: Longitudinal Saliva Performance for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

A 2025 longitudinal study in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, evaluated saliva's diagnostic accuracy against NPS across multiple time points, capturing dynamic infection phases [26].

• Study Cohort: 72 symptomatic individuals followed across six visits (Days 0, 7, 14, 21, 3 Months, and 6 Months) from July 2021 to May 2022.
• Sample Collection:
  • Saliva: Participants asked to bring up saliva from the back of the throat and spit at least 3 mL into two sterile conical tubes without touching mouths on the tube.
  • NPS: Collected with swab rubbed and rotated for 10 seconds in each nostril, with complementary oropharyngeal swab if nasal blockage encountered.
• Laboratory Analysis: Total viral RNA extracted using MGISP-960 instrument (MGI Tech) with MGI Easy Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit. SARS-CoV-2 detection performed using SARS-CoV-2 EDx kit (Bio-Manguinhos-FIOCRUZ) targeting the E gene.
• Statistical Analysis: Sensitivity, specificity, overall agreement, and Cohen's kappa calculated with NPS as reference standard. Ct values compared between specimen types.

This longitudinal design revealed temporal variations in saliva's sensitivity (40% during mid-phase infection to 82% during early infection), with overall specificity of 96.6% and agreement of 91.6% with NPS [26].

Visual Guide to Specimen Selection and Testing Workflows

The following decision pathway and experimental workflow diagrams provide visual guidance for optimizing specimen selection and processing based on research objectives and practical constraints.

Diagram 1: Specimen Selection Decision Pathway for Respiratory Pathogen Detection

Diagram 2: Experimental Workflow for Combined Specimen Processing

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of optimized collection protocols requires specific reagents and laboratory materials. The following table details key solutions employed in the cited studies.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Respiratory Specimen Processing

Reagent/Material	Manufacturer	Specific Function	Protocol Example
Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Copan Diagnostics	Preserves viral and bacterial nucleic acids during transport	NPS collection [23] [28]
Allplex PneumoBacter Assay	Seegene	Multiplex qPCR detection of 7 respiratory bacteria	Bacterial pathogen detection [23]
MICROLAB STARlet IVD	Hamilton Robotics	Automated nucleic acid extraction platform	High-throughput processing [23]
STARMag 96 × 4 Cartridge	Seegene	Magnetic bead-based nucleic acid purification	Compatible with STARlet system [23]
Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus Test	Cepheid	Integrated sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 detection	Point-of-care testing evaluation [28]
Veri-Q nCoV-QM Detection Kit	Mico BioMed	RT-qPCR detection of ORF3a and N-gene of SARS-CoV-2	Saliva and NPS testing [29]
DaAn Gene Extraction Kit	DaAn Gene Co.	Spin-column based nucleic acid extraction	RNA extraction from saliva/NPS [29]

The evidence from multiple clinical studies indicates that no single specimen type is universally superior for all pathogens or clinical scenarios. Rather, a strategic approach to specimen selection—and potentially combination—optimizes diagnostic yield. Key conclusions for researchers and drug development professionals include:

• Sputum samples provide the highest detection rates for bacterial respiratory pathogens in adults, making them the specimen of choice when available [23].
• Combined sampling approaches (NPS+sputum or nasal+throat) can maximize detection sensitivity while addressing practical collection constraints, offering a cost-effective alternative to multiple independent tests [23] [24] [27].
• Saliva represents a valuable less-invasive alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection, with performance characteristics that may vary across infection phases but offer high specificity and patient acceptance [25] [26] [29].
• Self-collected tongue swabs, while showing lower sensitivity than sputum for tuberculosis detection, offer practical advantages for expanding testing access in community settings [30].

These findings should guide the design of future diagnostic studies and inform the development of novel testing platforms that accommodate multiple specimen types. As molecular technologies evolve, continuing multi-site evaluations will be essential to validate optimized collection protocols across diverse populations and settings.

The efficacy of diagnostic testing and forensic analysis is fundamentally dependent on the initial sample collection step. The physical and chemical properties of the surface from which a sample is collected—specifically, whether it is porous or non-porous—directly influence the choice of collection method and ultimately determine the success of downstream analytical processes. Porous materials such as paper, wood, fabric, and unsealed concrete contain microscopic openings that absorb liquids and trap biological material, making sample recovery particularly challenging [31]. In contrast, non-porous surfaces like glass, stainless steel, and plastics have sealed, smooth surfaces that prevent absorption, keeping contaminants on the exterior where they are more readily accessible for collection [31].

This guide objectively compares collection strategies and their performance across different surface types, drawing upon multi-site evaluation studies to provide evidence-based recommendations for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. Understanding these surface-specific dynamics is essential for optimizing DNA recovery in forensic investigations, ensuring accurate diagnostic results in clinical settings, and maintaining the integrity of samples throughout the analytical pipeline.

Fundamental Differences Between Porous and Non-Porous Surfaces

Defining Surface Characteristics

The distinction between porous and non-porous surfaces lies in their microscopic structure and its implications for sample collection. A simple water test can determine porosity: when a water droplet is applied to a porous surface, it typically darkens or absorbs into the material within minutes, while on a non-porous surface, it beads up and remains on the surface [31].

Common Porous Surfaces:

• Natural stone (marble, limestone, unsealed granite)
• Wood and unfinished furniture
• Concrete and brick
• Grout between tiles
• Fabric, upholstery, and carpet
• Paper and cardboard products [31] [32]

Common Non-Porous Surfaces:

• Glass and mirrors
• Stainless steel and other metals
• Plastic and vinyl
• Sealed or glazed ceramic tile
• Solid surface materials (quartz, Corian) [31]

Why Porosity Matters for Sample Collection

The microscopic structure of porous materials presents unique challenges for sample recovery. The pores and capillaries in these materials draw in moisture and biological particles through capillary action, carrying them deep below the visible surface [31]. Once trapped within these microscopic spaces, biological materials such as DNA or pathogens become physically shielded, making them difficult to retrieve with standard surface swabbing techniques.

Non-porous surfaces, by contrast, retain biological materials on their exterior, allowing for more efficient collection with appropriate methods. This fundamental difference necessitates distinct approaches to sample collection based on the surface type, as contaminants on non-porous surfaces remain accessible to swabs and other collection devices, while those on porous surfaces become embedded within the material matrix [31].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Porous vs. Non-Porous Surfaces

Characteristic	Porous Surfaces	Non-Porous Surfaces
Microstructure	Microscopic openings and capillaries	Sealed, smooth surface
Liquid Behavior	Absorbs moisture and stains	Repels moisture (beading)
Contaminant Location	Trapped within the material	Remains on the surface
Bacterial Harborage	High risk of deep penetration	Surface-level only
Cleaning/Collection Challenge	High - requires penetration and extraction	Low - surface-level contact sufficient

Sample Collection Efficacy Across Different Surfaces

DNA Recovery from Porous vs. Non-Porous Substrates

Forensic DNA recovery studies demonstrate significant differences in collection efficiency based on surface type. Research comparing swabbing versus cutting-out methods for DNA collection from various porous materials revealed that the cutting-out method (direct extraction) resulted in higher DNA recovery from cotton and paper surfaces, while swabbing performed similarly for cardboard [32]. This suggests that for certain porous materials, physically removing the substrate containing the biological sample may be more effective than attempting to transfer the material to a swab.

A systematic review of swab materials in forensic DNA testing further highlighted how surface porosity influences optimal collection methods. The analysis, which examined 41 substrate-DNA source combinations, found that optimal swab types varied significantly depending on both the surface material and the DNA source [1]. For instance, cotton swabs generally showed consistent performance with blood samples on porous substrates, while the performance of rayon swabs varied considerably between manufacturers when collecting the same sample type [1].

Clinical Sample Collection from Non-Porous Surfaces

In clinical settings, particularly during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, extensive research has evaluated swab collection methods from non-porous surfaces. A multi-site prospective study of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus test demonstrated that anterior nasal swabs (NS) performed slightly better than nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) for virus detection, with positive percent agreement (PPA) of 99.3% versus 97.0% respectively [33]. This research, which analyzed 3,750 specimens across 32 sites, also found that assay performance was similar between trained and untrained users (PPA 98.7% vs 97.3%), supporting the reliability of properly designed collection methods even without specialized training [33].

Innovative Approaches for Challenging Surfaces

To address the challenges of sample collection from porous surfaces, researchers have developed specialized techniques. One study evaluated a multiple-swab method for SARS-CoV-2 testing that enabled simultaneous processing of up to 50 swabs in a single tube without significant loss of sensitivity [34]. This approach maintained analytical sensitivity constant across different pool sizes and correctly identified all minipools containing positive patient samples in clinical applications [34].

For forensic applications on complex surfaces, research has demonstrated that swabbing technique significantly impacts DNA yield. Holding the swab at an approximately 60° angle against the surface and rotating it during sampling improved DNA recovery, particularly for porous wood surfaces where increased volume of wetting agent was also beneficial [35]. When experienced practitioners followed optimized protocols, DNA yield increased significantly for ridged plastic (approximately 1.25 times more DNA) and absorbing wood (2.2–6.2 times more DNA) [35].

Table 2: Optimal Collection Methods by Surface Type and Application

Surface Type	Application Context	Optimal Collection Method	Performance Data
Cotton, Paper	Forensic DNA Recovery	Cutting-out (direct extraction)	Higher DNA recovery compared to swabbing [32]
Wood	Forensic DNA Recovery	Cotton swabs with 60° angle, rotation, heavy wetting	2.2-6.2x more DNA with optimized protocol [35]
Ridged Plastic	Forensic DNA Recovery	Protocol-based swabbing with cotton swabs	1.25x more DNA with lowered person-to-person variation [35]
Nasal Passage	Clinical SARS-CoV-2 Testing	Anterior nasal swab	PPA: 99.3% [33]
Various Porous	High-throughput Screening	Multiple-swab method (up to 50 swabs/tube)	No false-negative results with non-significantly differing Ct values [34]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Swabbing Protocol for Forensic Evidence Collection

Based on factorial design of experiments and ANOVA analysis, researchers have developed optimized swabbing protocols for different surface types [35]:

For Smooth/Non-Absorbing Surfaces (e.g., glass, metal):

• Use a single moistened swab (cotton, flocked nylon, or foam perform equally well)
• Hold the swab at an approximate 60° angle against the surface
• Apply consistent pressure and rotate the swab during sampling
• Use a circular motion, gradually covering the entire target area

For Absorbing/Porous Surfaces (e.g., wood, drywall):

• Use a large foam swab heavily moistened with appropriate wetting agent
• Apply the same 60° angle and rotation technique
• Increase the volume of wetting agent to facilitate release of trapped biological material
• Consider cutting-out method when possible and forensically permissible [32] [35]

This standardized approach has been shown to reduce person-to-person variation in DNA recovery, particularly for challenging surfaces like ridged plastic, while significantly improving yields from porous materials [35].

Multiple-Swab Method for High-Throughput Screening

The multiple-swab method developed for SARS-CoV-2 testing represents an innovative approach for efficient large-scale sample processing [34]:

• Initial Incubation: Respiratory swabs are first incubated in a reference tube containing 4.3 mL of guanidinium hydrochloride buffer solution for 5 minutes with constant agitation
• Transfer to Multiple-Swab Tube: All swabs are removed and collectively placed in a single media tube containing 2 mL of guanidinium hydrochloride buffer under constant agitation for 5 minutes
• Processing: Up to 10 swabs can be processed simultaneously in one multiple-swab tube
• Testing Algorithm: If the multiple-swab tube tests positive, individual tests are subsequently performed from the archive tubes; if negative, all samples in the pool are reported negative [34]

This method has demonstrated equivalent performance to individual swab testing while significantly increasing testing capacity, making it particularly valuable for public health emergencies and large-scale screening programs [34].

Antimicrobial Efficacy Testing on Non-Porous Surfaces

Standardized protocols for evaluating antimicrobial activity on non-porous surfaces highlight the importance of surface-specific testing methodologies. Two ISO standards represent different approaches:

ISO 22196:2011 (Wet Method):

• Surface inoculated with known volume and concentration of bacterial suspension
• Inoculum covered with polyethylene film to maintain contact
• Incubation for 24 hours at 35°C ± 1°C with ≥90% relative humidity
• Artificial conditions that may promote antimicrobial activity [36]

ISO 7581:2023 (Dry Method):

• Very small volume (1μL) of bacterial suspension spread on surface
• Inoculum dried under laminar flow before incubation
• Shorter incubation (1-2 hours) at 20°C ± 1°C with lower relative humidity (30-65%)
• More realistic conditions but challenges in reproducibility [36]

Comparative studies using these protocols have found that the wet method may artificially enhance the apparent efficacy of certain antimicrobial surfaces, particularly those relying on metal ion release, while the dry method better simulates real-world conditions despite being less reproducible [36].

Decision Framework for Surface-Specific Collection Strategies

The following workflow illustrates the decision process for selecting appropriate sample collection methods based on surface characteristics:

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Surface Sample Collection

Reagent/Material	Function/Purpose	Application Context
Guanidinium Hydrochloride Buffer	Viral transport medium for nucleic acid preservation	Clinical SARS-CoV-2 testing, multiple-swab method [34]
Cotton Swabs	Traditional biological evidence collection	Forensic DNA collection from various surfaces [35] [1]
Flocked Nylon Swabs	Enhanced sample release and recovery	Alternative to cotton for specific surface types [1]
Large Foam Swabs	Increased absorption capacity for porous surfaces	Wood and other absorbing surfaces [35]
Polyethylene Film	Creating controlled wet conditions for antimicrobial testing	ISO 22196:2011 protocol for non-porous surfaces [36]
Proteinase K in Lysis Buffer	Digestion of proteins for DNA extraction	Forensic DNA extraction from swabs and cut-out materials [32]
SPRI Magnetic Beads	Nucleic acid purification and concentration	Post-extraction DNA purification [32]

Surface-specific collection strategies are essential for optimizing sample recovery in both clinical and forensic settings. The evidence clearly demonstrates that porous surfaces require specialized approaches, such as cutting-out methods or heavily moistened swabs with proper technique, to overcome their inherent tendency to absorb and trap biological materials. Non-porous surfaces, while generally more straightforward for sample collection, benefit from standardized protocols that ensure consistency and reliability across different users and settings.

The multi-site evaluation data presented in this guide provides a foundation for evidence-based decision-making in sample collection protocol development. Researchers and practitioners should consider surface porosity as a primary factor when selecting collection methods, recognizing that optimal techniques vary significantly between porous and non-porous substrates. As technological advances continue to emerge, including innovative approaches like the multiple-swab method for high-throughput applications, the fundamental principle remains unchanged: effective analysis begins with surface-appropriate collection.

The efficacy of any diagnostic platform is fundamentally determined by the initial sample collection and preparation steps. Within point-of-care (POC) and molecular testing, swab-based sampling has emerged as a critical, yet complex, first link in the diagnostic chain. The global response to recent public health emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2024 mpox outbreak, has underscored an urgent need for diagnostic workflows that are not only accurate but also rapid, accessible, and integrable into decentralized settings [37] [38]. The broader thesis of multi-site evaluation research posits that optimizing the integration of swab collection with downstream analytical processes is paramount for enhancing diagnostic efficiency, scalability, and reliability. This guide objectively compares current technologies and methodologies, providing a detailed analysis of performance data and experimental protocols to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Current Technological Platforms for Integrated Swab Testing

The landscape of POC diagnostic platforms varies significantly in its approach to handling swab samples, balancing trade-offs between complexity, speed, sensitivity, and cost. The following table summarizes the key characteristics of several prominent systems and methodologies.

Table 1: Comparison of Integrated Swab Diagnostic Platforms

Platform / Method	Technology Core	Sample-to-Answer Time	Key Feature	Reported Sensitivity / Specificity
Dragonfly [37]	Colorimetric LAMP with power-free extraction	< 40 minutes	Portable, lyophilized reagents, power-free nucleic acid extraction	94.1% Sensitivity, 100% Specificity for MPXV
Q-POC [39]	Multiplex PCR	~ 30 minutes	Sealed, self-contained cassette; minimal hands-on time	Information not specified in source
Cepheid Xpert Xpress [40]	Cartridge-based real-time PCR	~ 30-48 minutes	Automated sample processing in a cartridge	99.4% Sensitivity, 96.8% Specificity (for SARS-CoV-2)
Abbott ID NOW [40]	Isothermal amplification	< 13 minutes	Rapid isothermal amplification	76.8% Sensitivity, 99.6% Specificity (for SARS-CoV-2)
Frankfurt Multiple-Swab Method [34]	RT-PCR with sample pooling	Varies by pool size	High-throughput screening by pooling up to 50 swabs in one tube	No significant Ct value shift vs. single-swab NAT

The data reveals two dominant paradigms: fully integrated, sample-to-answer systems and modular methods that enhance laboratory throughput. Platforms like Dragonfly and Q-POC are designed for true POC use, integrating sample preparation, amplification, and detection into a single, streamlined workflow [37] [39]. Dragonfly notably addresses the sample preparation bottleneck—a major hurdle in POC nucleic acid testing—with its power-free "SmartLid" magnetic bead extraction, making it suitable for low-resource settings [37]. In contrast, the Frankfurt multiple-swab method is not a single device but a innovative sample processing protocol that enables high-throughput screening by processing numerous swabs in a single tube, dramatically conserving reagents without significant loss of sensitivity [34]. This approach is particularly valuable for large-scale public health surveillance programs.

Methodological Deep Dive: Key Experimental Protocols

A multi-site evaluation of swab collection methods requires rigorous, reproducible protocols. The following sections detail key experimental methodologies cited in contemporary literature.

Protocol for a Single-Swab, Multi-Omics Analysis

This protocol, developed for a study on acute sinusitis in children, demonstrates how a single nasopharyngeal (NP) swab can be partitioned for multiple diagnostic and research analyses, including bacterial culture, viral PCR, cytokine measurement, and RNA sequencing [41].

• Sample Collection: A single, sterile, flexible flocked NP swab (e.g., Copan ESwab) is collected from the patient and placed in 1 mL of liquid Amies transport medium [41].
• Sample Processing - The Partition Method:
  • Swab Tip Removal: Using clean scissors, the distal ~0.5 cm of the swab tip is aseptically cut off and immediately placed into a cryovial containing a nucleic acid stabilization buffer (e.g., RLT Plus with beta-mercaptoethanol). This vial is vortexed and stored at -80°C for later RNA/DNA extraction for sequencing or specialized PCR [41].
  • Proximal Swab Processing: The remaining proximal part of the swab is used for standard microbiological culture by streaking onto appropriate agar plates (e.g., blood agar, chocolate agar) [41].
  • Transport Medium Allocation: The liquid Amies medium, in which the swab was transported, is divided into multiple aliquots for various downstream applications:
    • Viral Detection: Nucleic acid is extracted from one aliquot using a magnetic bead-based system (e.g., MagMAX) and analyzed with pathogen-specific RT-PCR assays [41].
    • Cytokine Measurement: RNA from another aliquot is used for quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of host immune response genes, normalized to a housekeeping gene like GAPDH [41].
    • Microbiome Analysis: DNA is extracted from a further aliquot for 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing to characterize the bacterial community [41].

This protocol maximizes the informational yield from a single, minimally invasive sample, which is crucial for pediatric studies and for understanding complex disease etiologies.

Protocol for High-Throughput Multiple-Swab Pooling

The Frankfurt-adjusted COVID-19 testing method was developed to massively increase testing capacity during reagent shortages, such as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [34].

• Sample Collection: Dry nasopharyngeal/pharyngeal swabs are collected from multiple individuals using standardized techniques [34].
• Primary Incubation (Archive Tubes): Each individual swab is first incubated for 5 minutes in its own "archive tube" containing 4.3 mL of guanidinium hydrochloride-based buffer (e.g., cobas medium from Roche) with constant agitation. This step inactivates the virus and elutes the sample [34].
• Pooled Incubation (Multiple-Swab Tube): All swabs from the archive tubes are removed and collectively transferred into a single new "multiple-swab tube" containing 2 mL of fresh guanidinium hydrochloride buffer. They are incubated again for 5 minutes with agitation [34].
• Downstream Testing:
  • The multiple-swab tube proceeds directly to nucleic acid testing (NAT). If the pool tests negative, all constituent samples are reported as negative.
  • If the pool tests positive, the archived individual sample tubes are then retested individually to identify the positive sample(s) [34].

This method's analytical sensitivity was validated as constant for pools of up to 50 swabs, with cycle threshold (Ct) values showing no significant difference from individual swab testing, proving its efficacy for large-scale screening [34].

The workflow for this pooling method is summarized in the following diagram:

Protocol for a Rapid, Point-of-Care Molecular Test

The Dragonfly platform workflow for mpox detection exemplifies a fully integrated, rapid POC molecular diagnostic system [37].

• Sample Collection and Inactivation: A lesion swab is collected and placed in an inactivating transport medium (e.g., COPAN eNAT) [37].
• Power-Free Nucleic Acid Extraction: The sample is processed using the "SmartLid" technology. This involves:
  • Lysis-Binding: The sample is mixed with magnetic beads in a lysis buffer to capture nucleic acids.
  • Washing: A magnetic lid is used to capture the beads and transfer them through a wash buffer to remove contaminants.
  • Elution: The purified nucleic acids are released into a clean elution buffer. This entire process is completed in under 5 minutes without electricity [37].
• Amplification and Detection:
  • The eluted nucleic acids are added to a tube containing lyophilized colorimetric LAMP reagents.
  • The tube is incubated in a low-cost, isothermal heat block at 60-65°C for 35 minutes.
  • Results are read visually by a color change from pink (negative) to yellow (positive), caused by a pH shift due to DNA amplification [37].

This integrated workflow, from sample to result in under 40 minutes with minimal equipment, demonstrates a significant advancement for deployment in low-resource settings during outbreak responses.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful integration of swab collection with diagnostic platforms relies on a foundational set of reagents and materials. The following table details key components referenced in the evaluated studies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Swab-Based Diagnostics

Item	Function / Application	Specific Examples from Literature
Flocked Swabs	Sample collection; superior cellular elution	Copan FLOQswab [41], "uni-swab sample" (Roche) [34]
Transport Media	Preserve sample integrity during transport	Liquid Amies (e.g., COPAN eNAT) [37] [41], Guanidinium hydrochloride buffer (Roche) [34]
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Purify and isolate DNA/RNA	MagMAX Viral Isolation Kit (Applied Biosystems) [41], Silica-based magnetic bead protocols [37]
Lysis/Binding Solutions	Break open cells and virions, prepare for NA binding	MagMAX Lysis/Binding Solution [41], Guanidinium-based buffers [34], RLT Plus (Qiagen) [41]
Lyophilized Reagents	Enable room-temperature storage and stability	Lyophilised colourimetric LAMP chemistry [37]
Enzymes & Master Mixes	Catalyze nucleic acid amplification	LAMP polymerase & reagents [37], RT-PCR master mixes [34]
Positive Controls & Standards	Assay validation and quantification	Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 standard [34]

The integration of swab collection into diagnostic platforms is a dynamic field driven by the dual demands of high analytical performance and practical deployability. Multi-site evaluations consistently demonstrate that no single platform is universally superior; rather, the choice depends on the specific use case. The Dragonfly platform offers a compelling solution for rapid outbreak response in field settings, while the Q-POC and Xpert Xpress systems provide robust, automated testing for clinical POC environments. For large-scale population screening, methodological innovations like the Frankfurt multiple-swab protocol present a viable path to immense efficiency gains [37] [39] [34].

Future research will likely focus on further simplifying workflows, reducing costs, and enhancing multiplexing capabilities. The integration of artificial intelligence for result interpretation and quality control, along with the development of more stable reagent formulations, will continue to push the boundaries of what is possible at the point of care [38]. For researchers and drug developers, a deep understanding of these integrated workflows is not merely technical but strategic, enabling the design of more effective diagnostic solutions and surveillance programs to combat future public health threats.

Maximizing Yield and Precision: Evidence-Based Strategies for Troubleshooting and Process Optimization

The efficacy of forensic and microbiological investigations is fundamentally contingent upon the initial sample collection step. Inefficient recovery of biological material during this phase can irrevocably compromise downstream analyses, irrespective of the sophistication of subsequent DNA typing or sequencing technologies. This guide objectively compares the performance of various swab-based collection techniques and alternative methods, drawing upon empirical data to delineate how specific technical parameters—namely swab angle, rotation, and pressure—directly influence DNA and microbial recovery. The findings are framed within a broader thesis on multi-site evaluation of swab collection methods, providing researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with evidence-based protocols to optimize sample integrity and analytical outcomes.

The Impact of Swabbing Technique on DNA Yield

The physical mechanics of swabbing are a critical determinant of collection efficiency. Research demonstrates that seemingly minor technical adjustments can yield significant differences in DNA recovery.

Key Technical Parameters

A systematic study employing factorial design and ANOVA identified two key factors for efficient sampling with cotton swabs [42] [35]. First, holding the swab at an approximate 60° angle against the surface, as opposed to a perpendicular 90° angle, was found to enhance DNA recovery. Second, rotating the swab during sampling was identified as a crucial factor for maximizing yield [42] [35]. For absorbing surfaces like wood, a heavier application of wetting agent was additionally beneficial [42] [35].

When experienced practitioners adopted these techniques into standardized protocols, the DNA yield increased substantially: by approximately 1.25 times for ridged plastic and by 2.2 to 6.2 times for absorbing wood surfaces [42] [35]. Furthermore, the protocol succeeded in lowering person-to-person variation for complex surfaces like ridged plastic, thereby enhancing reproducibility [42] [35].

Experimental Protocol: Optimized Swabbing

The following protocol, derived from forensic science research, outlines the optimized procedure for DNA recovery from various surfaces [42] [35]:

• Surface Preparation: The protocol was developed for three surface types: smooth/non-absorbing (e.g., window glass), ridged/non-absorbing (e.g., ridged plastic), and smooth/absorbing (e.g., wood).
• Swab Selection: The protocol was specifically designed for cotton swabs.
• Swabbing Procedure:
  • Moisten the swab appropriately. For smooth/absorbing surfaces like wood, a heavier volume of wetting agent is recommended.
  • Hold the swab at an approximate 60° angle against the surface.
  • Apply firm and constant pressure while simultaneously rotating the swab throughout the sampling process.
  • Continue this motion for a defined period (e.g., 30 seconds as used in a related microbial study [11]) to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Post-Collection Handling: After sampling, swab heads should be dried and then either processed immediately or stored at -10°C until DNA extraction can be performed [11].

Comparison of Swab Materials for DNA Recovery

The material composition of the swab tip itself is a major variable affecting both the collection of material from a surface and its subsequent release during extraction.

Performance Across Different Materials

Studies have systematically compared categories of swabs, including cotton, nylon-flocked, foam, and dissolvable types. Their performance is not uniform and can be influenced by the nature of the sampled surface.

Table 1: Comparison of Swab Material Performance for DNA Recovery

Swab Material	Key Characteristics	Performance on Smooth/Non-Absorbing Surfaces	Performance on Absorbing/Rough Surfaces	Sample Release Efficiency
Cotton [43]	Tightly wound cellulose fibers; contains hydroxyl groups that form hydrogen bonds with DNA.	Equivalent DNA yield to flocked nylon and foam swabs [42] [35].	Lower DNA recovery from wood compared to large foam swabs [42] [35].	Lower releasing performance due to sample entrapment within dense fibers [11] [43].
Nylon-Flocked [11] [43]	Short nylon fibers perpendicularly glued to shaft; open-fiber morphology.	High DNA yield; performed consistently well across wood, glass, and tile in one microbial study [11].	Showed decreased microbial recovery from plastic in one study [11].	Excellent; designed for efficient collection and release, minimizing entrapment [11] [43].
Foam [42] [43]	Polyurethane sponge-like tip; flexible and open structure.	Equivalent DNA yield to cotton and flocked swabs [42] [35].	Superior recovery for absorbing wood surfaces; flexibility may aid penetration [42] [35].	Good; open structure acts as a sponge, though hydrophobic nature can limit wetting [43].
Dissolvable [11]	Made from cellulose acetate; dissolves in extraction buffer.	N/A (Not specifically reported for smooth surfaces in the provided results).	N/A (Not specifically reported for absorbing surfaces in the provided results).	Theoretical high release; the entire swab tip dissolves, liberating the sample [11].

Experimental Protocol: Comparing Swab Types

A study investigating optimal swabs for microbial analysis provides a clear protocol for such comparisons [11]:

• Sample Preparation: A known quantity of a representative bacterium (e.g., Proteus mirabilis) is deposited via pipette onto different swab types or spotted onto various non-porous surfaces (treated wood, glass, plastic, tile) and allowed to dry.
• Swab Types: The test typically includes traditional cotton swabs, nylon flocked swabs, foam swabs, and dissolvable swabs.
• Collection from Surfaces: For surface collection, swabs are pre-moistened with sterile deionized water. Sampling is performed by applying firm, constant pressure while rotating the swab for a set duration (e.g., 30 seconds).
• DNA Extraction and Quantitation: Bacterial DNA is extracted using a commercial kit (e.g., MagMAX DNA Multi-Sample Ultra 2.0 Kit). The purified DNA is eluted in a consistent volume, and absolute DNA quantitation is performed via real-time PCR (qPCR) targeting a gene like the 16S rRNA gene, allowing for direct comparison of recovery yields across swab types [11].

Alternative Sample Collection Methods

While swabbing is ubiquitous, alternative methods can offer superior recovery in specific contexts, particularly with low-biomass samples or porous materials.

Scraping for Low-Biomass Microbiome Studies

In a pilot study comparing swabbing to gentle scraping with a sterile No. 10 surgical blade on patients with sensitive facial skin, swabbing consistently failed to recover detectable microbial DNA [44] [45]. In contrast, the scraping method was well-tolerated and yielded sufficient DNA for both bacterial and fungal sequencing, with concentrations ranging from 0.065 to 13.2 ng/µL for bacteria and 0.104 to 30.0 ng/µL for fungi [44]. The protocol involves holding the blade at a 15-30° angle and using light, controlled pressure to gently scrape the skin surface, transferring the superficial stratum corneum fragments to a swab or directly into preservation buffer [44].

Cutting-Out for Porous Substrates

Research comparing single swabbing to directly cutting out a section of the substrate (e.g., cotton, paper, cardboard) has demonstrated the latter's advantage for porous materials. The cutting-out method resulted in higher DNA recovery from all but cardboard surfaces when testing cell-free DNA, cellular DNA, blood, and saliva [46]. This method avoids the inefficiencies of both collection from a surface and elution from a swab, making it the more efficient choice when the destruction of the substrate is acceptable.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

The following table details key materials and their functions as derived from the experimental protocols cited in this guide.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Swab-Based DNA Recovery Studies

Item Name	Specific Example(s)	Function in Experiment
Sterile Cotton Swabs	Puritan 6″ Standard Cotton Swab w/Wooden Handle [11]	The standard against which other swab types are often compared; requires optimized technique for best results.
Nylon Flocked Swabs	Copan FLOQSwabs [11]	Designed for superior sample collection and release due to open-fiber morphology.
Foam Swabs	Large foam swabs [42] [35]	Particularly effective for sampling absorbing surfaces like wood due to flexible, sponge-like structure.
Sterile Surgical Blade	No. 10 sterile surgical blade [44] [45]	Used for gentle scraping of low-biomass areas (e.g., sensitive facial skin) to enhance microbial DNA recovery.
DNA Extraction Kit	HostZERO Microbial DNA Kit [44]; MagMAX DNA Multi-Sample Ultra 2.0 Kit [11]	For lysing cells and purifying DNA from collected samples; choice of kit can impact yield and downstream analysis.
Wetting Agent	Sterile Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS) [44]; Sterile deionized water [11]	Pre-moistening the swab tip aids in the mobilization and adhesion of biological material from dry surfaces.
DNA Quantitation System	Qubit System [44]; Real-Time PCR System (e.g., QuantStudio 5) with SYBR Green chemistry [11]	For accurate measurement of DNA concentration post-extraction; qPCR allows for absolute quantitation of microbial DNA.

Experimental Workflow for Swab-Based DNA Recovery

The diagram below illustrates the logical sequence and decision points in a comprehensive workflow for evaluating and executing a swab-based DNA recovery strategy, based on the methodologies discussed.

The collective evidence affirms that technical proficiency in sample collection is non-negotiable for robust DNA and microbial recovery. The optimization of swab angle to 60°, continuous rotation, and controlled pressure significantly enhances DNA yield, while the choice of swab material must be tailored to the surface properties, with foam swabs excelling on absorbing surfaces and flocked swabs offering superior general-purpose release. For challenging scenarios such as low-biomass microbiomes or porous substrates, alternative methods like skin scraping or cutting-out provide a viable and often superior pathway to sample acquisition. This multi-site evaluation underscores that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate; instead, researchers must employ a deliberate, context-dependent strategy, leveraging optimized protocols and materials to ensure the integrity of their biological samples from collection to analysis.

In the context of multi-site evaluations of swab collection methods, sample contamination represents a pervasive challenge that can compromise data integrity, derail research outcomes, and invalidate costly experiments. Contamination from sample preparation can throw off entire downstream experiments, regardless of whether researchers work in highly regulated pharmaceutical industry labs or academic lab environments [47]. A single contaminant can derail months of work, compromise product safety, or invalidate research outcomes, leading to false positives, inconclusive results, and ultimately, wasted resources [47].

Studies indicate that up to 75% of laboratory errors occur during the pre-analytical phase, often due to improper handling, contamination, or suboptimal sample collection [47]. For swab-based research, particularly in multi-site studies where consistency across locations is paramount, implementing robust contamination control protocols becomes even more critical. This guide examines the sources of contamination and provides evidence-based protocols to minimize handling and environmental interference, with special emphasis on applications in swab collection research.

Contaminants in swab-based research can originate from multiple sources, each requiring specific countermeasures:

• Tools and Equipment: Improperly cleaned or maintained tools are a major source of contamination. Even small residues from previous samples can introduce foreign substances. Consistent cleaning protocols are crucial, and using disposable tools can help reduce this risk [47]. In trace element analysis, even minute amounts of contaminants from tools can overshadow the elements being detected [47].

• Reagents and Consumables: Impurities in chemicals used for sample preparation can cause significant issues. Even high-grade reagents can sometimes contain trace contaminants. It's important to verify the purity of reagents and use only those that meet rigorous standards [47]. For molecular applications, reagents like DNA Away can be used to eliminate residual DNA on lab surfaces when an experiment requires a DNA-free environment [47].

• Environmental Factors: The environment in which sample preparation occurs is another key factor. Airborne particles, surface residues, and contaminants from human sources (breath, skin, hair, clothing) can all impact sample integrity [47]. Environmental monitoring in multi-site studies must account for variability in laboratory conditions across locations.

• Personnel: Laboratory personnel can introduce contamination from lab coats, makeup, perfume, and jewelry. Many common elements can be brought in as contamination from lotions, dyes, and cosmetics [48]. Even sweat and hair can cause elevated levels of sodium, calcium, potassium, lead, and magnesium [48].

Impact on Experimental Outcomes

Contamination directly affects key research metrics in swab-based studies:

• Altered Results: When contaminants are introduced, they can skew data, leading to erroneous conclusions and wasted resources. For instance, if testing for a specific analyte, contaminants can either mask its presence or produce false positives [47]. This is especially problematic in clinical diagnostics and drug development, where accuracy is paramount.

• Reproducibility Challenges: Contaminants make it difficult to reproduce results, particularly problematic in multi-site evaluations where consistency across locations is essential. If contamination is introduced to a batch of samples, this impedes the reproducibility of experiments [47].

• Reduced Sensitivity: Contaminants can reduce the sensitivity of analytical methods. This means researchers might not detect target analytes at low concentrations [47]. In trace element analysis, even minute amounts of contaminants can overshadow the elements researchers are trying to detect [47].

Quantitative Comparison of Contamination Control Methods

Table 1: Efficacy Comparison of Contamination Control Methods in Diagnostic Testing

Method Category	Specific Technique	Application Context	Key Performance Metrics	Limitations
Probe Homogenization	Stainless steel probes	Tough tissue samples	Durable, wide size range (5-30mm)	Time-consuming cleaning, cross-contamination risk [47]
	Disposable plastic probes (Omni Tips)	Sensitive assays	Virtually eliminates cross-contamination	Less robust for tough samples, cost adds up [47]
	Hybrid probes (stainless steel with disposable plastic)	Challenging samples	Durability with disposability	Higher initial cost [47]
Environmental Control	Laminar flow hoods with HEPA	Sample transfer	Blocks 99.9% of airborne microbes [49]	Requires maintenance, verification
	Clean rooms with HEPA	High-sensitivity analysis	Significant reduction in elemental contaminants [48]	Expensive to install and maintain
Automation	Automated liquid handling	High-throughput processing	Reduces human error and cross-contamination [49]	High initial investment
Sample Processing	Multiple-swab NAT method	High-efficiency screening	Maintains sensitivity with 50 swabs/tube [34]	Requires specialized barcoding system

Table 2: Impact of Laboratory Environment on Contamination Levels

Contaminant	Ordinary Laboratory (ng/m³)	Clean Hood (ng/m³)	Clean Room with HEPA (ng/m³)
Iron (Fe)	1800	360	90
Lead (Pb)	280	48	12
Zinc (Zn)	900	180	30
Copper (Cu)	360	120	24
Aluminum (Al)	900	300	60

Source: Adapted from comparison of elemental levels in various laboratory environments [48]

Experimental Protocols for Contamination Assessment

Kinetic Outlier Detection (KOD) for qPCR Inhibition

Background: The complexity and composition of environmental samples can challenge accurate quantification by qPCR. Suspended organics and sediment can interfere with DNA extraction and reduce recovery of target molecular markers. Complex biomolecules, such as humic acid, can inhibit polymerase activity and sequester DNA templates from amplification reactions [50].

Protocol:

• Internal Control Preparation: Use Escherichia coli strain AF504 gfp as a full-process control. Grow the strain in LB broth with 100 µg/ml ampicillin and 20 μL mineral oil in 96-well plates [50].
• Sample Spiking: Add a known quantity of control cells to environmental samples before DNA extraction.
• DNA Extraction: Perform extraction using standardized methods (e.g., MoBio PowerWater DNA Extraction Kit) [50].
• qPCR Amplification: Perform qPCR targeting the single-copy mutant gfp insertion.
• Sigmoidal Modeling: Fit amplification curves to a sigmoidal model rather than relying solely on Cq values.
• Parameter Analysis: Derive outlier statistics for parameters from each amplification curve to detect inhibited amplification reactions.
• Validation: Compare the effects of sample interference on control and target marker recovery and amplification.

Applications: This approach is particularly valuable in multi-site studies to standardize quality control across different laboratories and identify site-specific inhibition issues [50].

Multiple-Swab Method for High-Efficiency Testing

Background: The unprecedented demand for NAT reagents and test kits during the COVID-19 pandemic led to shortages, obstructing efforts to combat disease spread. Sample pooling has been proposed to increase testing efficiency, but dilution effects can lead to loss in diagnostic sensitivity [34].

Protocol:

• Sample Collection: Collect respiratory swabs using dry swabs (Roche uni-swab sample, Sarstedt neutral swabs, or Classiq swab) [34].
• Initial Incubation: Incubate swabs in a reference tube containing 4.3 mL of guanidinium hydrochloride buffer solution for 5 minutes with constant agitation.
• Multiple-Swab Tube Preparation: Transfer all swabs collectively to a single media tube containing 2 mL of guanidinium hydrochloride buffer (the multiple-swab tube) under constant agitation for 5 minutes.
• Barcode Tracking: Implement a barcode system to track all original swabs, archive tubes, and multiple-swab tubes to maintain sample identity.
• NAT Analysis: Remove swabs from the multiple-swab tube, which then proceeds to nucleic acid testing.
• Reflex Testing: If the multiple-swab tube shows a positive or invalid test result, perform further testing from the archive tube.

Performance: This method maintained analytical sensitivity with up to 50 swabs per tube, with nonsignificantly differing cycle threshold values between single-swab and multiple-swab NAT [34].

Swab-Based Molecular Testing for Tuberculosis

Background: Swab-based molecular platforms that enable testing of both sputum (via swabs swirled in sputum) and tongue swabs are emerging as a promising option for more accessible and lower cost molecular testing for tuberculosis (TB) [51].

Multi-site Evaluation Protocol:

• Participant Enrollment: Consecutive people ≥12 years old with presumptive TB are enrolled at outpatient health centers across multiple countries.
• Sample Collection: Collect two tongue swabs and prepare two sputum swabs for testing on novel platforms like Molbio Truenat MTB Ultima and Pluslife MiniDock MTB.
• Reference Standard Comparison: Evaluate diagnostic accuracy against a sputum liquid culture-based microbiological reference standard (MRS).
• Comparative Analysis: Compare the diagnostic accuracy of swab-based molecular tests to sputum Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and auramine smear microscopy.
• Statistical Analysis: Calculate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values with 95% confidence intervals.

Results: In a multi-country evaluation, sensitivity was similar for both sputum swab MTB Ultima (93.6% vs. 100.0%) compared to sputum Xpert Ultra, demonstrating that proper swab methods can achieve accuracy comparable to established molecular tests [51].

Visualization of Contamination Control Strategy

Integrated Contamination Control Workflow for Multi-site Swab Studies

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Contamination Control

Reagent/Category	Primary Function	Application Notes	Performance Evidence
Guanidinium hydrochloride/thiocyanate buffer	Nucleic acid preservation and viral inactivation	Used in multiple-swab methods; enables pooling without dilution effects [34]	Maintained sensitivity with up to 50 swabs per tube [34]
DNA/RNA decontamination solutions (e.g., DNA Away)	Elimination of residual nucleic acids from surfaces	Critical for PCR workflows to prevent amplicon contamination [47]	Reduces false positives in sensitive molecular assays [47]
High-purity acids (nitric, hydrochloric)	Sample digestion and preservation	Essential for trace element analysis; check certificate of analysis for contaminants [48]	Nitric acid distilled in clean rooms showed significantly lower contaminants [48]
ASTM Type I water	Diluent for standards and samples	Highest purity water with minimal ionic and organic contaminants [48]	Prevents introduction of contaminants during sample preparation [48]
HEPA-filtered air systems	Environmental contamination control	Removes 99.9% of airborne particulates and microbes [49]	Clean rooms showed significantly lower elemental contamination [48]
Powder-free gloves	Personnel protection	Powdered gloves contain high concentrations of zinc [48]	Reduces introduction of elemental contaminants [48]

Implementing robust contamination control protocols is essential for ensuring the reliability and reproducibility of swab-based research, particularly in multi-site evaluations where consistency across locations is critical. The strategies outlined in this guide—from proper material selection and environmental controls to innovative processing methods like multiple-swab pooling and kinetic outlier detection—provide a comprehensive framework for minimizing handling and environmental interference.

As molecular methods continue to evolve and find applications in diverse fields from clinical diagnostics to environmental monitoring, maintaining sample integrity through vigilant contamination control will remain fundamental to generating accurate, trustworthy data. By adopting these evidence-based protocols and maintaining rigorous quality assurance practices, researchers can significantly reduce contamination-related errors and advance the reliability of swab-based research methodologies.

Optimizing Wetting Agents and Volume for Challenging Absorbing Surfaces like Wood and Textiles

The performance of liquids on challenging absorbing surfaces is a pivotal concern across industries from advanced textiles to medical diagnostics. Optimal wetting is not merely a matter of application efficiency; it is the foundation for achieving uniform coating, robust adhesion, effective coloration, and reliable diagnostic sampling. Surfaces like raw wood and textiles present a particular challenge due to their complex, often heterogeneous, and porous structures, which can lead to non-uniform liquid spread, incomplete penetration, and eventual product failure. The central thesis of this guide is that overcoming these challenges requires a dual-focused approach: the selection of high-performance wetting agents tailored to specific surface energies and the precise optimization of application volumes.

This resource is framed within the context of a broader research paradigm emphasizing rigorous, multi-site evaluation—a methodology that has proven essential in validating performance in fields as diverse as swab-based molecular diagnostics and industrial coating. Large-scale, multi-site studies, such as those used to evaluate diagnostic swabs, provide a robust framework for testing wetting agents across variable real-world conditions, ensuring that reported performance is not an artifact of a single, controlled lab environment but a reproducible characteristic. This guide provides a systematic, data-driven comparison of wetting agent technologies and protocols, offering researchers and product developers the evidence needed to make informed decisions for their specific applications involving wood and textiles.

Performance Comparison of Wetting Agent Formulations

The efficacy of a wetting agent is determined by its ability to dramatically reduce the surface tension of a liquid, enabling it to spread uniformly and adhere to a substrate. Performance varies significantly based on the agent's chemistry and the nature of the target surface. The following tables summarize key experimental data for different agent classes on wood and textile substrates.

Table 1: Performance of Coating-Based Wetting Formulations on Textiles

Modification System	Key Components	Target Wettability	Oil Permeation Flux (L m⁻² h⁻¹)	Separation Efficiency (%)	Key Durability Features
Polydopamine (PDA) Nanoparticles [52]	PDA NPs, PFDTS	Superhydrophobic	Data Not Specified	>97%	Resistance to abrasion and UV radiation [52]
PDA/ODA System [52]	PDA NPs, ODA (Octadecylamine)	Superhydrophobic	Data Not Specified	97.1%	Resistance to wear and NaCl solution [52]
PDA/SiO₂ System [52]	PDA NPs, TEOS-HCl/HMDS, SiO₂	Superhydrophobic	4000	99.9%	Excellent mechanical stability, resistance to abrasion, UV, boiling water, and solvents [52]

Table 2: Performance of Fire-Fighting Foam Formulations on Solid Surfaces (e.g., Wood)

Foam Formulation Type	Key Components	Surface Tension (mN/m)	Expansion Ratio	Fire Extinguishing Time (s)	Primary Wetting Characteristic
Wetting-Type Foam [53]	8 wt% Polyoxyethylene ether, 5 wt% Sulfobetaine	20.91	8.2	12	Rapid cooling, superior wetting [53]
Adhesive-Type Foam [53]	8 wt% Polyoxyethylene ether, 9 wt% Sulfobetaine	20.83	7.8	20	Persistent attachment to combustibles [53]
Fluorocarbon Cationic–Hydrocarbon Anionic Foam [53]	Not Specified	15.33	7	28	Benchmark for comparison [53]

The data reveals a clear trade-off, identified in fire suppression research as a "negative feedback effect" between adhesion and wettability [53]. Formulations optimized for rapid wetting and penetration (e.g., the wetting-type foam) excel in applications like dyeing or soil moisturization, where fast liquid uptake is critical. In contrast, systems modified for high adhesion and durability (e.g., the PDA/SiO₂ textile or adhesive-type foam) are essential for protective coatings and fire suppression, where the agent must remain on the surface for extended periods. This fundamental relationship must guide the initial selection process for any application.

Experimental Protocols for Wetting Agent Evaluation

To ensure the reliability and reproducibility of performance data, adhering to standardized experimental protocols is essential. The following methodologies are adapted from high-quality, published research on evaluating wetting performance.

Protocol for Assessing Textile Surface Wetting and Durability

This protocol is based on procedures used to develop and validate superwetting polydopamine-coated textiles for oil/water separation [52].

• Substrate Preparation: Cut textile samples (e.g., cotton, polyester, or blended fabrics) into standardized dimensions. Clean the substrates to remove any sizing or contaminants by washing with detergent and ethanol, followed by drying.
• Coating Application (e.g., Polydopamine)
  • Dopamine Solution Preparation: Prepare a 2 mg/mL dopamine solution in a 10 mM Tris-HCl buffer, adjusting the pH to 8.5 [52].
  • Immersion Coating: Immerse the clean textile samples in the dopamine solution under ambient atmosphere. Maintain the reaction for a specified duration (e.g., 20-24 hours) at room temperature with constant, gentle agitation to ensure uniform coating [52].
  • Post-modification: For enhanced superhydrophobicity, functionalize the PDA-coated textile with low-surface-energy materials like fluorosilanes (e.g., PFDTS) or long-chain alkylamines (e.g., ODA) via immersion or vapor deposition [52].
  • Curing: Rinse the coated textiles thoroughly with deionized water and dry in an oven at 60°C to set the coating.
• Performance and Durability Testing
  • Contact Angle Measurement: Use a contact angle goniometer to measure the static water contact angle (WCA). A WCA >150° confirms superhydrophobicity. For superhydrophilicity, a WCA <10° should be observed [52].
  • Permeation Flux Testing: In a filtration setup, measure the volume of liquid (e.g., oil or water) passing through a unit area of the modified textile per unit time (L m⁻² h⁻¹) [52].
  • Abrasion Resistance: Subject the textile to standardized abrasion tests (e.g., Martindale abrasion) and re-measure the WCA at intervals to assess durability.
  • Chemical Stability: Immerse samples in solutions of varying pH or salinity (e.g., 3.5 wt% NaCl) for set periods, then dry and re-evaluate WCA and separation efficiency [52].

Protocol for Evaluating Foam Wettability and Adhesion on Wood

This protocol is derived from methods used to characterize fire-extinguishing foams for solid surfaces, which directly applies to wetting on wood [53].

• Foam Solution Preparation: Prepare solutions with precise concentrations of surfactants (e.g., Sodium Alkyl Sulfate), wetting agents (e.g., Polyoxyethylene ether), and stabilizers (e.g., Sulfobetaine) in deionized water [53].
• Foam Generation: Use a standardized foam generator (e.g., a blender with controlled RPM or a compressed-air foam system) to aerate the solution. Measure the expansion ratio (the ratio of foam volume to the volume of the original solution) [53].
• Wettability Test
  • Surface Tension: Measure the surface tension of the foam solution using a tensiometer.
  • Wetting Time: Utilize a canvas disk test or similar. Record the time taken for a foam solution to fully wet and sink a specific weight of canvas or a standardized wood chip [53].
• Adhesion Test
  • Inclined Plane Flow Test: A novel method to quantify adhesion involves placing a fixed volume of foam on a wooden board inclined at a standard angle (e.g., 30°). Define adhesion as the time required for the foam to flow a fixed distance along the board; a longer time indicates stronger adhesion [53].
• Fire Suppression Performance (Application-Specific)
  • Prepare a standardized fuel source (e.g., a wood pallet in a tray).
  • Ignite the fuel and allow a pre-burn time.
  • Apply a fixed mass of foam from a set height and distance.
  • Record the fire extinguishing time, from foam application to flame extinction [53].

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the logical flow of the key experimental protocols described above, providing a clear visual guide for researchers.

Textile Coating and Evaluation Workflow

Diagram Title: Workflow for Fabricating and Testing Superwetting Textiles

Foam Formulation and Testing Workflow

Diagram Title: Workflow for Developing and Characterizing Wetting Foams

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

A well-equipped lab is essential for research into wetting agents. The following table details critical reagents, their functions, and examples from the literature.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Wetting Agent Research

Reagent Category	Primary Function	Example in Context
Dopamine Hydrochloride	A biomimetic precursor for creating versatile, adhesive polydopamine (PDA) coatings on virtually any substrate, enhancing surface roughness and enabling further functionalization [52].	Used to form a foundational coating on textiles for creating superhydrophobic/superhydrophilic surfaces for oil/water separation [52].
Fluoroalkyl Silanes (e.g., PFDTS)	Extremely low-surface-energy compounds used to functionalize surfaces, imparting robust superhydrophobicity and oleophobicity [52].	Applied as a post-modification agent on PDA-coated textiles to achieve high water contact angles and oil separation efficiency [52].
Polyoxyethylene Ether	A non-ionic surfactant that acts as a primary foaming agent and wetting component, reducing surface tension and stabilizing foam structure [53].	A key component (8 wt%) in both wetting-type and adhesive-type firefighting foams, contributing to foam expansion and performance [53].
Sulfobetaine	A zwitterionic surfactant that enhances foam stability and interfacial activity. Its concentration can be tuned to balance wettability and adhesion [53].	At 5 wt%, it creates a wetting-type foam; at 9 wt%, it contributes to a more stable, adhesive-type foam [53].
Long-Chain Alkylamines (e.g., ODA)	Used to lower the surface energy of a coated substrate through chemical grafting, promoting hydrophobic characteristics [52].	Grafted onto PDA nanoparticles on blended fabric to create durable superhydrophobic textiles [52].
Silica Nanoparticles (SiO₂)	Provide nanoscale roughness to a surface, which is a critical requirement for achieving superhydrophobic or superhydrophilic states [52].	Combined with a PDA coating on cotton fabric to construct a hierarchical micro/nano-structure for superior superhydrophobicity [52].

Optimizing wetting agents and their application volume for challenging surfaces is a complex but manageable task that hinges on a deep understanding of surface chemistry and a systematic, evidence-based approach. The data and protocols presented herein demonstrate that there is no universal solution; the choice between a rapid-wetting agent and a highly adhesive one must be driven by the specific performance requirements of the end product, whether it is a breathable protective textile, a uniformly dyed fabric, or a high-efficiency fire suppressant.

The future of wetting agent technology is being shaped by several key trends. There is a strong and growing regulatory and market push towards sustainable and eco-friendly formulations, particularly water-based systems and biodegradable agents, to replace solvent-borne and persistent fluorosurfactants [54] [55]. Innovation is also accelerating in the development of multifunctional additives that provide not only wetting but also properties like defoaming, enhanced dispersion, or anti-static effects, thereby simplifying formulation processes [54]. Finally, the exploration of advanced biomimetic materials, such as polydopamine, offers a pathway to creating more intelligent, responsive, and durable wetting surfaces with simpler and greener fabrication methods [52]. By leveraging rigorous multi-site evaluation frameworks and a growing toolkit of advanced reagents, researchers can continue to develop next-generation wetting solutions that meet the evolving demands of industry and environmental stewardship.

The pre-analytical phase, encompassing all steps from specimen collection to processing before the actual analysis, is a critical determinant of success in molecular diagnostics. Studies indicate that a significant majority of laboratory errors, ranging from 60-70%, originate in this phase [56] [57]. These errors can compromise nucleic acid integrity, leading to false-negative or false-positive results that directly impact patient diagnosis and treatment decisions [56]. Inhibitors present in biological samples or introduced during collection are a major source of pre-analytical error. These substances can interfere with enzymatic reactions essential for techniques like PCR, potentially causing complete amplification failure or significant underestimation of target molecules [58]. The highly heterogeneous nature of samples, including wastewater, feces, and blood, further complicates this issue, as each matrix contains a unique profile of interfering compounds [58]. Consequently, a deep understanding of inhibitor sources and the implementation of robust mitigation strategies are fundamental for ensuring the accuracy, reproducibility, and reliability of downstream molecular assays.

Understanding and Identifying Common Inhibitors

Inhibitors are diverse substances that can disrupt molecular assays through various mechanisms. They can be broadly categorized as endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous inhibitors are naturally present in the sample matrix and include compounds such as immunoglobulin G (IgG), hemoglobin, heme metabolites, lactoferrin, and complex polysaccharides [58] [57]. These typically function by inhibiting DNA polymerase activity, degrading or sequestering target nucleic acids, or chelating metal ions essential for amplification [58].

Exogenous inhibitors are introduced during the sample collection or handling process. These can include anticoagulants like heparin, detergents, proteases, nucleases, and reagents used in various steps of the analytical process [58] [57]. For instance, heparin, a common anticoagulant in blood collection tubes, is a potent inhibitor of PCR [57]. The specific effects of inhibitors are highly dependent on the sample type. The table below summarizes common inhibitors found across various specimen types.

Table 1: Common Inhibitors and Their Effects in Different Sample Types

Sample Type	Common Inhibitors	Primary Effects on Assays
Whole Blood / Plasma	Heparin, hemoglobin, IgG, lactoferrin	Inhibition of DNA polymerase activity [58] [57].
Feces / Stool	Complex polysaccharides, bile salts, bacterial pigments	Nucleic acid sequestration, enzyme inhibition [58].
Wastewater	Humic acids, fulvic acids, metals, industrial effluents	Interaction with templates, chelation of metal ions [58].
Tissue Specimens	Formalin-induced cross-links, pigments	Nucleic acid fragmentation, impaired extraction efficiency [56].

Systematic Comparison of Inhibitor Mitigation Strategies

A multi-faceted approach is required to combat the effects of inhibitors. The effectiveness of these strategies can vary based on the sample matrix and the nature of the inhibitor.

Physical and Chemical Removal Methods

Physical and chemical methods aim to separate inhibitors from the nucleic acids or to neutralize their effects.

• Sample Dilution: A widely used method, simple dilution reduces the concentration of inhibitors below a threshold that affects the assay. However, this also dilutes the target, potentially reducing sensitivity and leading to underestimation, particularly with low-abundance targets [58].
• Nucleic Acid Extraction and Purification: Proper extraction is one of the most effective ways to remove inhibitors. Many commercial kits include reagents and steps specifically designed to remove common interfering substances, such as humic acids and polyphenolic compounds [58].
• Use of PCR Enhancers: Adding specific compounds to the PCR reaction mix can counteract inhibitors. These enhancers work through various mechanisms, such as binding to inhibitors, stabilizing enzymes, or altering nucleic acid melting behavior [58].

Advanced Methodological Approaches

• Alternative Polymerase Enzymes: Selecting DNA polymerases and buffer systems that are inherently more tolerant to inhibitors present in specific sample types can dramatically improve assay robustness [58].
• Digital PCR (dPCR): Technologies like droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) have demonstrated superior tolerance to inhibitors compared to traditional qPCR. This is because partitioning the reaction into thousands of nanodroplets effectively reduces the local concentration of inhibitors, allowing amplification to proceed in a subset of droplets [58].

Evaluation of Common PCR Enhancers

A direct comparison of various PCR enhancers in wastewater samples highlights their relative effectiveness. The data below summarizes the performance of different additives based on their ability to improve detection in inhibited samples.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of PCR Enhancers in Wastewater Samples [58]

PCR Enhancer	Concentration Tested	Key Finding	Proposed Mechanism of Action
Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA)	0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%	Improved detection in 10-fold diluted samples.	Binds to humic acids, preventing their action on DNA polymerases [58].
T4 Gene 32 Protein (gp32)	0.1, 0.2, 0.4 µg/µL	Improved detection in 10-fold diluted samples.	Binds to single-stranded nucleic acids, preventing degradation and inhibitor binding [58].
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)	1%, 2%, 4%	No significant improvement observed.	Lowers DNA melting temperature (Tm), destabilizes secondary structures [58].
Formamide	1%, 2%, 4%	No significant improvement observed.	Destabilizes the DNA helix [58].
TWEEN-20	0.1%, 0.5%, 1%	Counteracted inhibition in undiluted samples.	A detergent that counteracts inhibitory effects on Taq DNA polymerase [58].
Glycerol	1%, 5%, 10%	No significant improvement observed.	Protects enzymes from degradation and denaturation [58].

Experimental Protocols for Inhibitor Evaluation and Mitigation

To ensure reliable results, laboratories should validate the impact of pre-analytical variables and the efficacy of mitigation strategies within their specific workflows.

Protocol for Evaluating Inhibitor Removal Strategies

This protocol, adapted from wastewater research, provides a framework for comparing different enhancers [58].

• Sample Preparation: Obtain known positive samples in the matrix of interest (e.g., stool, plasma, wastewater). A subset should be artificially inhibited or come from a known inhibitory source.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Extract nucleic acids using a standard protocol. Avoid methods that include additional inhibitor removal steps for the initial evaluation.
• Enhancer Testing: Prepare a series of PCR master mixes. To each, add one of the enhancers from Table 2 at varying concentrations. A control mix with no enhancer is essential.
• Amplification and Analysis: Run the qPCR or RT-qPCR assay. Compare the quantification cycle (Cq) values and copy number estimates between the enhanced and control reactions. A significant decrease in Cq (e.g., >2 cycles) indicates successful inhibition relief.

Protocol for Multi-site Swab Performance Comparison

The following workflow, derived from a forensic collaborative study, is directly applicable to evaluating collection devices for molecular assays, ensuring sample integrity from the point of collection [59].

Key Steps and Considerations [59]:

• Mock Sample Preparation: The challenge of preparing homogeneous traces, especially touch DNA, can be addressed by enhancing hand contact frequency and standardizing the sampling area across different surfaces.
• Inter-Operator Variability: The study revealed significant differences in the sampling skills of individual operators, emphasizing the need for standardized training and the evaluation of operator technique as a variable.
• Swabbing Solution Volume: The volume of the wetting solution used in the swab can significantly impact DNA yield. This parameter should be optimized and standardized during the evaluation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and materials crucial for implementing effective pre-analytical strategies to overcome inhibitors.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Inhibitor Mitigation

Item	Function/Benefit	Application Notes
Inhibitor-Tolerant Polymerase Kits	Specially formulated enzyme and buffer systems resistant to common inhibitors found in complex matrices.	Ideal for direct PCR protocols or samples where extraction is not feasible [58].
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits with Inhibitor Removal	Spin-column or magnetic bead-based kits containing reagents designed to adsorb and remove humic acids, polyphenolics, and other inhibitors.	Critical for samples like stool, soil, and wastewater [58].
PCR Enhancers (BSA, gp32, TWEEN-20)	Additives that bind inhibitors or stabilize the amplification reaction. A simple and cost-effective first-line defense.	Concentration must be optimized, as some enhancers can themselves inhibit PCR at high levels [58].
Standardized Swab Collection Systems	Swabs with optimized head materials and storage tubes (e.g., Copan 4N6FLOQSwabs). Minimize variation and preserve nucleic acid integrity at collection.	Choice of swab significantly impacts DNA concentration recovered; validation is required [59].
Digital PCR (ddPCR) Systems	Partitioning technology that reduces the effective concentration of inhibitors, providing superior robustness for quantifying targets in complex samples.	Higher cost but valuable for absolute quantification in challenging matrices where qPCR fails [58].

The integrity of molecular diagnostic results is fundamentally rooted in the pre-analytical phase. The pervasive challenge of inhibitors demands a systematic and evidence-based approach, incorporating strategies ranging from optimal specimen collection and nucleic acid extraction to the strategic use of PCR enhancers and advanced detection platforms. As multi-site evaluations consistently demonstrate, factors such as operator skill, collection device, and storage conditions introduce significant variability [59]. Therefore, rigorous validation of pre-analytical workflows within the specific context of the sample matrix and assay is not merely beneficial—it is essential for generating reliable, actionable data that advances both research and clinical diagnostics.

Validation and Comparative Performance: Data from Multi-Site Evaluations and Systematic Reviews

The diagnostic landscape for infectious diseases has been transforming with the advent of swab-based molecular testing platforms. These tests address critical limitations of conventional methods by offering simplified workflows, reduced infrastructure requirements, and faster turnaround times while maintaining high accuracy. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the development and validation of these technologies, demonstrating their utility in diverse healthcare settings from central laboratories to near-point-of-care environments [60]. This comparison guide examines the diagnostic performance of emerging swab-based molecular tests against established gold-standard methods, focusing on evidence from multi-site evaluations that provide robust estimates of real-world accuracy across different patient populations and geographical settings.

Multi-site studies are particularly valuable in diagnostic accuracy research as they minimize site-specific biases and enhance the generalizability of findings. Such studies follow rigorous methodologies including standardized protocols across sites, blinded interpretation of index and reference tests, and pre-specified statistical analysis plans to ensure valid comparisons between tests [61]. The following sections provide a comprehensive comparison of two promising swab-based platforms for tuberculosis detection—Truenat MTB Ultima and MiniDock MTB—against culture-based reference standards and established molecular tests, with data synthesized from recent multi-country evaluations.

Performance Comparison: Diagnostic Accuracy Metrics

Recent multi-site studies have generated comprehensive data on the performance of swab-based molecular tests compared to both microbiological reference standards and established diagnostic methods. The table below summarizes key accuracy metrics from a prospective evaluation conducted across sites in India, Uganda, and Vietnam [62] [51] [63].

Table 1: Diagnostic accuracy of swab-based molecular tests for tuberculosis detection

Test Method	Sample Type	Sensitivity (%; 95% CI)	Specificity (%; 95% CI)	Comparison Test	Sensitivity Difference (%)
Truenat MTB Ultima	Tongue swab	77.9 (70.3-84.2)	>98%	Sputum smear microscopy	+18.8 (p<0.0001)
Truenat MTB Ultima	Sputum swab	93.6 (82.8-97.8)	>98%	Sputum Xpert Ultra	-6.4 (-15.5 to 2.7)
MiniDock MTB	Tongue swab	85.7 (75.3-92.9)	>98%	Sputum smear microscopy	+18.6 (p=0.001)
MiniDock MTB	Sputum swab	91.1 (82.1-95.9)	>98%	Sputum Xpert Ultra	-3.0 (-8.6 to 2.6)
Sputum Xpert Ultra	Sputum	100.0 (reference)	>98%	Culture (reference)	Reference standard
Sputum smear microscopy	Sputum	59.1 (reference)	>98%	Culture (reference)	Reference standard

The data demonstrate that both swab-based tests exceed the minimum World Health Organization accuracy targets for near-point-of-care tuberculosis tests [63]. With sputum swabs, both platforms showed statistically equivalent sensitivity to the established sputum-based Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra test, with confidence intervals for the difference crossing zero [62] [51]. With tongue swabs, both tests significantly outperformed traditional sputum smear microscopy, representing a substantial advancement for non-sputum-based TB diagnosis.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Multi-Site Study Design and Participant Enrollment

The recent multi-country evaluation of Truenat MTB Ultima and MiniDock MTB followed a prospective, cross-sectional design enrolling consecutive participants with presumptive TB from outpatient clinics in India, Uganda, and Vietnam [63]. The study adhered to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) guidelines and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04923958) as part of the Rapid Research in Diagnostics Development for TB Network (R2D2 TB Network) [51].

Researchers enrolled non-hospitalized adolescents and adults aged ≥12 years with presumptive TB based on: (1) a new or worsening cough lasting ≥2 weeks, or (2) presence of TB risk factors (HIV infection, recent TB contact, or mining history) plus an abnormal TB screening test [63]. Exclusion criteria included TB treatment in the past 12 months, recent antibiotics with antimycobacterial activity, or inability to return for follow-up. This enrollment strategy ensured participation of a representative sample of the target population while maintaining feasibility for the multi-site design.

Sample Collection and Testing Procedures

The sample collection and testing protocol followed a standardized approach across all study sites:

• Tongue swab collection: Two nylon flocked swabs (Copan 520CS01 for MTB Ultima; Copan 502CS01 for MiniDock MTB) were used to swab the dorsum of the tongue for 30 seconds before sputum collection [63].
• Sputum swab preparation: The first expectorated sputum sample was used to generate two sputum swabs by swirling a nylon flocked swab 10 times for 15 seconds and wiping against the container's inner wall [63].
• Reference standard testing: The remainder of the first sputum sample underwent Xpert Ultra testing. Second and third sputum samples were decontaminated and used for liquid culture (MGIT 960) and smear microscopy [62] [63].
• Index test processing: Swabs were immediately placed in manufacturer-supplied buffer tubes and tested within 24 hours using late prototype versions of MTB Ultima or MiniDock MTB according to manufacturer instructions [63].

All testing personnel were blinded to the results of other tests to minimize interpretation bias. The study employed a microbiological reference standard (MRS) based on sputum liquid culture, which represents the best available standard for TB diagnosis despite its imperfect sensitivity.

Statistical Analysis and Multiple Comparison Procedures

The analysis followed pre-specified statistical methods appropriate for diagnostic accuracy studies. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated against the culture-based MRS with exact binomial 95% confidence intervals. McNemar's test was used for paired comparisons of sensitivity between index tests and comparator tests [62] [63].

For studies evaluating multiple tests or thresholds, appropriate multiple comparison procedures are essential to control family-wise error rates. Recent methodological advances have addressed the specific statistical challenges in diagnostic accuracy studies with co-primary endpoints (sensitivity and specificity) [64]. Both parametric approaches (maxT and Bonferroni) and non-parametric Bootstrap methods have been developed, with the latter particularly valuable for maintaining error control in finite samples [64]. These methods help avoid the overestimation of diagnostic accuracy that can occur when multiple tests or thresholds are evaluated without appropriate statistical correction.

Signaling Pathways and Technology Platforms

Technology Workflows and Operational Characteristics

The swab-based molecular platforms employ distinct but similarly streamlined workflows to simplify testing compared to conventional molecular diagnostics. The diagram below illustrates the comparative workflows and key technological features of these platforms.

Diagram: Comparative workflows of swab-based molecular testing platforms

Both platforms are battery-operated and designed for use by healthcare workers without specialized laboratory training, enabling deployment at peripheral health facilities [63]. A key innovation shared by both systems is the elimination of conventional nucleic acid extraction and purification steps, instead using direct lysis methods that significantly simplify the testing process and reduce hands-on time.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of multi-site diagnostic accuracy studies requires standardized research reagents and materials across all participating sites. The table below details essential components used in the featured swab-based TB diagnostic evaluation.

Table 2: Essential research reagents and materials for swab-based diagnostic studies

Category	Specific Product/Type	Manufacturer/Source	Function in Experimental Protocol
Swab Collection	Nylon flocked swabs (520CS01)	Copan	MTB Ultima sample collection; optimized for cellular material release
Swab Collection	Nylon flocked swabs (502CS01)	Copan	MiniDock MTB sample collection; different breakpoint specifications
Transport Medium	Proprietary buffer tubes	Manufacturer-supplied	Sample preservation and viral/bacterial inactivation
Reference Culture	MGIT 960 System	BD Microbiology Systems	Microbiological reference standard using liquid culture
Reference Molecular	Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra	Cepheid	Comparator molecular test using sputum samples
Microscopy	Auramine staining reagents	Standard suppliers	Smear microscopy reference method
Decontamination	N-acetyl-L-cysteine/Sodium hydroxide	Standard suppliers	Sputum decontamination prior to culture
Lysis Method	Truelyse automated mechanical lysis	Molbio Diagnostics	DNA extraction replacement for MTB Ultima
Lysis Method	Thermolyse heat-based mechanical lysis	Pluslife Biotech	DNA extraction replacement for MiniDock MTB

The selection of appropriate swab types is particularly critical, as different materials and designs can significantly impact test sensitivity by influencing sample collection efficiency and release of microbial targets [34] [63]. The use of manufacturer-supplied proprietary buffers ensures optimal conditions for each platform's specific chemistry while maintaining sample stability during transport and storage.

The multi-site evaluation data demonstrate that swab-based molecular tests represent a significant advancement in diagnostic technology, particularly for resource-limited settings. With sputum swabs, both Truenat MTB Ultima and MiniDock MTB showed similar sensitivity to the established sputum-based Xpert Ultra test, while with tongue swabs, both tests substantially outperformed smear microscopy [62] [51] [63]. These performance characteristics, combined with simplified workflows and reduced infrastructure requirements, position these platforms to expand access to rapid molecular testing for tuberculosis.

The high specificity (>98%) observed for both tests across sample types is particularly important for minimizing false-positive results in field implementation [63]. The ability to use either sputum swabs or tongue swabs provides flexibility for different patient populations and clinical scenarios, including for patients who cannot produce sputum. As these platforms continue to develop, their integration into diverse healthcare settings will be essential for closing the TB diagnostic gap and advancing global tuberculosis control efforts. Future studies should focus on implementation research to optimize testing algorithms and demonstrate operational feasibility across the full spectrum of healthcare delivery environments.

This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the efficacy of various swab types and sampling methods for recovering DNA from blood, saliva, and touch DNA evidence. Through analysis of recent multi-site studies and comparative evaluations, we demonstrate that optimal swab performance is highly dependent on both the DNA source and substrate characteristics. Key findings indicate that cutting-out methods yield superior DNA recovery from porous surfaces like cotton and paper, while automated swabbing systems provide more consistent recovery with lower variability compared to manual techniques. The evaluation of swab materials reveals that cotton swabs consistently outperform other materials for blood collection, while nylon-flocked swabs show advantages for saliva recovery from non-porous surfaces. For touch DNA evidence, the single-swab method demonstrates unexpectedly high efficiency across diverse experimental settings. This review underscores the critical importance of matching sampling methodologies to specific forensic scenarios and identifies significant gaps in current research, particularly regarding standardized validation frameworks and the impact of operator technique on DNA recovery efficiency.

The collection of biological evidence using swabs represents a foundational step in forensic investigations, with the efficiency of initial sample recovery directly impacting downstream DNA analysis success. Despite the critical nature of this process, forensic practitioners face a challenging landscape of swab types, materials, and collection methods without comprehensive, evidence-based guidance specific to different biological materials and surfaces [1]. The evolution of swab technology from traditional cotton to advanced materials including nylon, rayon, polyester, foam, and proprietary dissolvable polymers has further complicated swab selection processes [1].

Recent systematic reviews have highlighted significant gaps in our understanding of optimal swab performance relative to specific forensic contexts. A comprehensive analysis of 39 research studies identified that only 13 of 41 possible substrate-DNA source combinations have established best-performing swab types, underscoring the substantial knowledge deficits in this field [65]. This review also demonstrated that swabs manufactured from identical materials can perform differently based on brand and construction, emphasizing the need for product-specific validation rather than generalized material category recommendations [1].

The broader thesis context of multi-site evaluation research is particularly relevant to swab performance assessment, as variability between operators, laboratories, and analytical protocols can significantly influence recovery efficiency findings [59]. Collaborative studies involving multiple police departments and forensic laboratories have revealed significant differences in individual sampling skills, highlighting the often-overlooked human factor in evidence collection [59]. This review aims to synthesize current evidence regarding swab performance across three key biological evidence types—blood, saliva, and touch DNA—within the context of increasing emphasis on standardized, multi-site validation approaches.

Methodology

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

This systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [66]. Literature searches were performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases with the primary keywords "swab," "comparison," and "forensic" in September 2023 [1]. Additional articles were identified through bibliographic searches of selected papers and using research tools like ResearchRabbit.

Inclusion criteria encompassed: (1) original research articles; (2) comparison of multiple swab brands or materials; (3) forensic focus; and (4) reporting of quantitative PCR (qPCR) or forensic DNA typing results. Exclusion criteria included: (1) non-primary research (e.g., literature reviews); (2) non-English language publications; and (3) theses or dissertations [1].

Data Analysis Framework

The analysis was organized by substrate type (porous vs. non-porous) and DNA source (blood, saliva, touch DNA). For a swab type to be designated as "best performing" for a specific substrate-DNA combination, the analysis required at least three replicates, appropriate statistical testing showing significance (p < 0.05), and evaluation of the swab type as a primary variable [1]. Statistical approaches included both parametric and non-parametric methods based on data characteristics from the original studies.

Comparative Performance of Swab Types by Biological Evidence

Blood Collection Efficiency

Blood evidence represents one of the most DNA-rich biological sources encountered in forensic investigations. Systematic analysis reveals that cotton swabs generally provide superior performance for blood collection across multiple substrate types [1]. When blood was applied directly to swabs rather than collected from surfaces, cotton swabs consistently recovered significantly higher DNA quantities compared to rayon and nylon alternatives [65]. Specifically, the Bode SecurSwab2 (cotton) demonstrated significantly better DNA recovery from blood at all dilution levels compared to other cotton, rayon, and nylon swabs [1].

Table 1: Swab Performance for Blood Evidence Collection

Substrate	Optimal Swab Material	Key Findings	Supporting References
Direct application	Cotton	Consistent performance across concentrations; Bode SecurSwab2 superior at all dilutions	[1] [65]
Glass	No significant difference	Multiple materials (cotton, nylon, rayon, foam) performed equivalently	[65]
Textiles	No significant difference	Cotton, bicomponent fibers, and foam showed comparable efficiency	[65]
Explosive devices	Cotton	Designated as best performing for this specific substrate	[65]
Metal surfaces	Researched but no top performer	Cotton and nylon studied but no significant differences established	[65]

Notably, the performance of swabs manufactured from the same material varied significantly between brands, indicating that material composition alone is not predictive of efficacy [1]. For instance, while one rayon swab (MWE Rayon) performed well with diluted blood samples, another (Sarstedt Forensic Swab) demonstrated poor performance with neat blood [1].

Saliva Collection Efficiency

Saliva evidence presents distinct challenges due to its variable viscosity and composition. The optimal swab type for saliva recovery demonstrates significant substrate dependence, with different materials outperforming others based on surface characteristics [65].

Table 2: Swab Performance for Saliva Evidence Collection

Substrate	Optimal Swab Material	Key Findings	Supporting References
Glass	Cotton and Nylon	Both designated as best performing for smooth non-porous surfaces	[65]
Wood (unfinished)	Foam	Superior performance on porous, uneven surfaces	[65]
Brick	Volume dependent	Cotton, nylon, rayon, and foam performance varied with saliva volume	[65]
Plastic (smooth)	Volume dependent	Cotton and nylon efficacy dependent on saliva quantity	[65]
Ammunition	Nylon	Identified as best performing for metallic surfaces	[65]

The volume-dependent performance observed for several substrate-swab combinations indicates that the quantity of biological material present influences optimal swab selection [65]. This relationship underscores the importance of context-specific swab choice based on the visible characteristics of the evidence being collected.

Touch DNA Collection Efficiency

Touch DNA evidence represents the most challenging biological material for efficient recovery due to its typically low quantity and quality. Contrary to conventional wisdom advocating the double-swab technique, recent systematic reviews indicate that the single-swab method demonstrates higher efficiency in DNA recovery across diverse experimental settings [66]. This surprising finding may reflect the inherent limitations of various sampling procedures and the complex nature of touch DNA composition, which includes cell-free DNA, skin cells, and biological fluids transferred via handling [66].

For touch DNA collection, the cutting-out method (direct extraction) has demonstrated superior DNA recovery from porous surfaces including cotton and paper when compared to swabbing techniques [32]. This approach involves excising the specific area containing biological evidence and proceeding directly to DNA extraction, eliminating potential recovery inefficiencies associated with transfer from swab fibers [32]. However, this method's obvious limitation is the destructive nature of evidence alteration, restricting its application to appropriate surfaces and contexts [32].

Recent collaborative studies comparing multiple swab types for touch DNA collection have revealed significant performance variations. The ForensiX Evidence Collection Kit and ForensiX SafeDry swabs yielded significantly higher DNA concentrations than Copan 4N6FLOQSwab Genetics and Crime Scene swabs when collecting touch DNA from various surfaces [59]. This highlights that seemingly similar commercial products can produce markedly different outcomes in forensic practice.

Sampling Methodologies and Technological Innovations

Swabbing Versus Cutting-Out Methods

The fundamental choice between swabbing evidence versus cutting out the stained area represents a critical decision point in forensic evidence collection. A 2024 systematic comparison demonstrated that the cutting-out method yielded higher DNA recovery from all surfaces except cardboard, making it the more efficient collection approach when practical and forensically appropriate [32]. This superiority is particularly pronounced for porous surfaces like cotton and paper, where biological materials can penetrate deeper into the matrix, making complete surface recovery challenging [32].

The cutting-out method's advantage stems from eliminating the transfer step between the evidence surface and collection device, thereby avoiding the inevitable retention of biological material within swab fibers [32]. However, this method's applicability is limited by evidence preservation concerns, as it permanently alters the original exhibit. Surfaces unsuitable for cutting (e.g., metal, glass, hard plastics) necessarily require alternative collection approaches [32].

Advanced and Automated Swabbing Systems

Technological innovations in swab design and collection methodologies continue to evolve. Automated swabbing systems represent a promising development, particularly for standardized collection procedures in controlled environments. Recent evaluations demonstrate that automated swabbing devices achieve comparable recovery levels to manual hand swabbing but with significantly lower variability [67]. Remote swabbing methods (using extension poles) exhibited both higher variability and lower recovery levels compared to both hand swabbing and automated systems [67].

These automated systems offer additional advantages including decreased operator-to-operator variability, reduced necessity for extensive swab qualification training, and decreased risk to personnel when sampling hazardous or difficult-to-access areas [67]. The implementation of such systems may be particularly valuable in high-throughput forensic laboratories or scenarios requiring meticulous documentation of standardized collection protocols.

In clinical settings, novel swab designs continue to emerge. Recent evaluations of injection-molded Heicon swabs demonstrated superior sample release efficiency compared to conventional nylon flocked swabs, despite the latter's higher initial collection capacity [7]. This finding highlights the importance of considering both collection and release efficiency when evaluating swab performance, as optimal DNA recovery requires effective transfer from swab to extraction medium.

Figure 1: Decision Framework for Optimal DNA Evidence Collection Based on Multi-factor Analysis of Evidence Type, Surface Characteristics, and Preservation Requirements

Critical Experimental Considerations

Impact of Extraction Chemistry

A crucial finding across multiple studies is that optimal swab performance cannot be evaluated in isolation from downstream DNA extraction processes [1]. The interaction between swab material and extraction chemistry significantly influences final DNA yield and quality. Specific swab materials may demonstrate superior collection efficiency but poor release characteristics during extraction, ultimately reducing overall workflow efficiency [1]. This underscores the necessity of validating swab selection within the context of complete laboratory workflows rather than as an independent variable.

Operator Variability and Training Implications

Multi-site collaborative studies have revealed significant differences in individual DNA collection efficiency, highlighting the human factor in evidence recovery [59]. Interestingly, however, systematic analysis indicates that when sufficiently large sample sizes are evaluated, no significant differences emerge between operators, suggesting that standardized protocols can effectively minimize individual variability [65]. This paradox underscores the importance of comprehensive training and procedural standardization rather than selecting personnel based on presumed innate ability.

The implementation of automated swabbing systems has demonstrated potential to further reduce operator-induced variability while maintaining recovery efficiency comparable to manual methods [67]. These systems show particular promise for high-throughput environments or situations requiring meticulous documentation of standardized collection pressure, motion, and coverage.

Validation Frameworks and Performance Metrics

A significant challenge in comparing swab performance across studies is the lack of standardized validation frameworks. Recent proposals for comprehensive evaluation protocols address this gap by advocating multi-dimensional assessment including concordance rate, accuracy, linearity, precision, limit of detection, interference testing, cross-reactivity, and carryover contamination [68]. The adoption of such rigorous frameworks based on Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines would facilitate more meaningful cross-study comparisons and enhance evidence-based swab selection.

Figure 2: Comprehensive Swab Performance Evaluation Workflow Integrating Multi-operator Assessment and Statistical Validation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Swab Performance Evaluation

Material/Reagent	Function in Evaluation	Application Context
Cotton swabs	Traditional reference standard; effective for blood evidence	Baseline comparison for all evidence types [1] [65]
Nylon-flocked swabs	Enhanced sample release; optimal for saliva on non-porous surfaces	Saliva collection from glass, metal surfaces [65]
Foam swabs	Superior collection from uneven porous surfaces	Saliva recovery from unfinished wood [65]
Guanidinium hydrochloride buffer	Effective lysis and preservation of nucleic acids	Viral RNA collection and preservation [34]
Proteinase K	Enzymatic digestion of proteins for enhanced DNA release	DNA extraction from cellular material [32]
Magnetic beads (SPRI)	Solid-phase reversible immobilization for nucleic acid purification	High-throughput DNA extraction [32]
Species-specific primers	Targeted quantification of human versus non-human DNA	PCR quantification and quality assessment [32]
SISMA hydrogel	Mucus-mimicking material for simulated clinical samples	Nasopharyngeal swab performance testing [7]
3D-printed nasopharyngeal cavity	Anatomically accurate model for clinical swab evaluation	Standardized testing of swab collection efficiency [7]

This systematic review demonstrates that optimal swab selection for forensic evidence collection is highly context-dependent, requiring consideration of biological source, substrate characteristics, and downstream analytical processes. The persistence of cotton as a preferred material for blood evidence contrasts with the more variable optimal choices for saliva and touch DNA, where substrate characteristics significantly influence performance. The somewhat surprising efficacy of single-swab methods for touch DNA challenges conventional practices and warrants further investigation.

Significant research gaps remain, particularly regarding standardized multi-site validation frameworks and comprehensive evaluation of emerging swab technologies. Future research should prioritize the development of integrated assessment protocols that account for complete workflow efficiency rather than isolated collection metrics. The increasing availability of automated collection systems presents opportunities for reducing operator variability while maintaining recovery efficiency. Furthermore, the interaction between swab materials and rapidly evolving DNA extraction chemistries requires ongoing evaluation to ensure optimal recovery of challenging samples such as touch DNA and degraded specimens.

As forensic science continues to advance in analytical sensitivity, the initial evidence collection process becomes increasingly critical. Evidence-based swab selection guided by comprehensive systematic evaluation represents a fundamental component of quality assurance in modern forensic practice. The findings presented herein provide a framework for practitioners and researchers to optimize DNA recovery through scientifically validated collection methodologies.

• Comparison of swabbing and cutting-out DNA collection methods from various surfaces (2024)
• Automated Surface Swab Sampling: A Statistical Comparison of a Novel Approach to Existing Methods (2025)
• Novel multiple swab method enables high efficiency in SARS-CoV-2 testing (2020)
• Evaluation of swab materials in forensic DNA testing: a systematic review (2025)
• A new in vitro pre-clinical method for testing SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs (2025)
• Collaborative swab performance comparison and the impact of sampling procedures (2022)
• Comprehensive performance evaluation of a high-throughput automated molecular detection system (2025)
• Prospective, multi-site evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2 plus test (2024)
• Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review (2022)
• Evaluation of Swab Materials in Forensic DNA Testing: A Systematic Review (2025)

The selection of an appropriate swab for biological evidence collection is a critical first step in forensic analysis and diagnostic testing, forming the foundation for successful DNA typing and pathogen detection. Despite rapid advancements in analytical technologies like DNA typing and PCR, the fundamental tool for sample collection—the swab—has remained relatively unchanged for decades, until recent innovations in materials science and manufacturing processes introduced a new generation of collection devices. Within the broader context of multi-site evaluation of swab collection methods research, understanding the quantitative performance differences between various swab types and brands becomes paramount for laboratories seeking to optimize their workflows and maximize sample recovery.

The emerging paradigm in swab selection recognizes that not all swabs perform equally across different substrates and biological sources. The ideal swab must effectively navigate the dual challenges of efficient sample collection from various surfaces and optimal release of biological material into subsequent analytical workflows. Current research indicates that performance varies significantly based on swab material, construction method, and manufacturer, with factors such as sample uptake efficiency, cellular release capacity, and compatibility with extraction chemistry influencing downstream results. This comprehensive analysis synthesizes experimental data from multiple studies to provide an evidence-based framework for selecting swabs based on rigorously quantified performance metrics including sensitivity, specificity, and DNA yield across diverse application scenarios.

Performance Metrics Comparison Across Swab Types

DNA Recovery Efficiency from Various Substrates

Table 1: DNA Yield Comparison Across Swab Types and Biological Sources

Swab Type	Manufacturer/Brand	DNA Source	Substrate	Relative DNA Yield	Key Findings
Cotton	Bode SecurSwab2	Blood	Porous	High	Recovered significantly more DNA than other swabs at all dilutions [1]
Cotton	ForensiX Evidence Collection Kit	Touch DNA	Multiple	High	Yielded higher DNA concentrations than Copan Genetics and Copan Crime Scene [59]
Rayon	MWE Rayon	Blood (diluted)	Direct to swab	High	Performed best with diluted blood sample [1]
Rayon	Sarstedt Forensic Swab	Touch DNA	Multiple	Very Low	Yielded such low DNA concentrations it was excluded from collaboration study [59]
Nylon Flocked	Puritan Flocked	SARS-CoV-2	Artificial nasal model	Medium	Demonstrated maximum mass uptake but variable release [69]
Polyester Flocked	Steripack	SARS-CoV-2	Artificial nasal model	Medium-Low	Significant reduction in cycle time for last positive swab in pooling [69]
Injection Molded	Yukon (ClearTip)	SARS-CoV-2	Artificial nasal model	High	Consistently lower volume retention and higher release capacity [69]
Foam	Puritan Foam	SARS-CoV-2	Artificial nasal model	Medium	Consistently greater cellular-mimicking release compared to all swab types [69]

Diagnostic Sensitivity and Specificity Metrics

Table 2: Sensitivity and Specificity Performance in Diagnostic Applications

Swab Type	Application	Sensitivity Metrics	Specificity Metrics	Study Details
Flocked Nylon	Respiratory pathogen detection	Significantly more respiratory epithelial cells collected compared to rayon [70]	Reduced inhibition in PCR assays	CDC recommends synthetic fiber swabs over cotton [70]
Dacron	COVID-19 testing	Sample adequacy and laboratory positivity rate comparable to nylon [71]	N/A	No significant difference in virological outcomes [71]
Nylon	COVID-19 testing	Sample adequacy and laboratory positivity rate comparable to Dacron [71]	N/A	No significant difference in virological outcomes [71]
Flocked Nylon	Pooled COVID-19 testing	Variable Ct values based on workflow and order in pool [69]	Reduced false negatives with lower volume retention	Volume retention differences drive false negative rates [69]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Forensic DNA Recovery Evaluation

The systematic review methodology employed by forensic science researchers provides a robust framework for comparing swab performance across multiple studies. The protocol follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, ensuring comprehensive literature search and standardized evaluation criteria [1].

Search Strategy: Researchers conducted database searches across PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO using the keywords "swab," "comparison," and "forensic." The initial search identified 263 articles, with 116 duplicates removed, leaving 147 articles for screening. After abstract review, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria for final analysis [1].

Inclusion Criteria:

• Original research articles discussing multiple swab brands or materials
• Studies with forensic focus
• Data reporting from real-time PCR (qPCR) or forensic DNA typing
• English language publications

Exclusion Criteria:

• Non-primary research (literature reviews, systematic reviews)
• Theses or dissertations
• Non-English language publications

Analysis Framework: The analysis organized results by substrate (porous vs. non-porous) and DNA source (blood, saliva, semen, touched surfaces, acellular DNA). Researchers identified 41 substrate-DNA source combinations across the literature, with optimal swab types determined for 13 combinations based on three key criteria: at least three replicates, statistical significance (p < 0.05), and controlled variables [1].

Sample Uptake and Release Quantification

A detailed bench-top model for evaluating swab performance utilized an anterior nasal cavity tissue model based on a silk-glycerol sponge to mimic soft tissue mechanics, saturated with physiologically relevant synthetic nasal fluid [69].

Gravimetric Analysis for Uptake Measurement:

• The model was loaded with 2% w/v PEO and allowed to saturate
• Each swab type (N=5) collected samples using standardized swabbing procedure
• Dry and loaded swabs were weighed, with difference calculated as mass of biological material collected
• Statistical analysis compared mass uptake across swab types

Fluorescent Microparticle Release assay:

• Soft tissue model saturated with FITC-labeled microparticles as cellular surrogate
• Standardized swabbing procedure performed with each swab type
• Fluorescence measured and compared across swab types to quantify cellular-mimicking release
• Statistical analysis determined significant differences in release efficiency

Pooling Workflow Evaluation: Researchers compared two distinct pooling workflows to assess swab performance in group testing scenarios:

• Dip and Discard Workflow (DDW): Sequentially dipping each swab in sample vial and immediately discarding at point of collection
• Combine and Cap Workflow (CCW): Collection and storage of all pooled samples, discarded only upon reaching CLIA-certified diagnostic lab

The study also evaluated the effect of positive sample order (first vs. last in pool) on cycle threshold values in RT-qPCR detection of heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 [69].

DNA Extraction Efficiency from Minimal Samples

A pilot study comparing commercial DNA extraction kits for subgingival biofilm samples established methodology for evaluating swab performance with minimal sample volumes [72].

Sample Collection Protocol:

• Sterile paper points (VDW Dental, 29 mm, size 50) inserted into periodontal pocket for 15 seconds
• Samples collected from both healthy and periodontitis-affected sites
• Teeth isolated with cotton rolls, supragingival surface dried with air syringe to avoid contamination
• Paper points transferred to sterile 1.5 mL tubes and frozen in liquid nitrogen
• Storage at -80°C until processing

DNA Extraction Comparison: Three commercial kits evaluated using single paper point samples:

• NucleoSpin Tissue Mini (MACHEREY‑NAGEL): Enzymatic and chemical lysis
• ZymoBIOMICS DNA Miniprep (ZYMO RESEARCH): Mechanical lysis by bead beating
• DNeasy Blood & Tissue (QIAGEN): Enzymatic and chemical lysis with specialized washing

Quantification Methods:

• Total DNA yield measured by UV absorption at 260 nm using NanoDrop
• Double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) quantified using Qubit fluorometer
• Bacterial and human DNA yields quantified by qPCR with universal 16S primers and human-specific GAPDH primers

Signaling Pathways and Workflow Visualization

Swab Performance Evaluation Workflow

Sample Pooling Impact on Detection

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Swab Performance Studies

Category	Specific Product/Type	Manufacturer/Example	Application Purpose	Key Characteristics
DNA Extraction Kits	DNeasy Blood & Tissue	QIAGEN	Efficient DNA isolation from minimal samples	Enzymatic/chemical lysis; ~€4.48 per extraction [72]
DNA Extraction Kits	NucleoSpin Tissue Mini	MACHEREY‑NAGEL	DNA purification from dental swabs	Enzymatic/SDS lysis; ~€3.48 per extraction [72]
DNA Extraction Kits	ZymoBIOMICS DNA Miniprep	ZYMO RESEARCH	Microbial DNA isolation	Mechanical bead beating; ~€6.51 per extraction [72]
Quantification Methods	Qubit fluorometer	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Accurate dsDNA quantification	Fluorescent dye binding; superior to UV absorption [72]
Quantification Methods	NanoDrop spectrophotometer	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Total nucleic acid measurement	UV absorption at 260nm; rapid assessment [72]
qPCR Reagents	Universal 16S primers	Various	Bacterial DNA quantification	Targets conserved rRNA regions [72]
qPCR Reagents	Human GAPDH primers	Various	Human DNA quantification	Controls for human cellular material [72]
Artificial Models	Silk-glycerol sponge	Custom fabrication	Nasal cavity tissue mimic	Replicates soft tissue mechanics [69]
Trace Analytics	FITC-labeled microparticles	Various	Cellular release surrogate	Fluorescent detection of material transfer [69]
Viral Transport Media	PrimeStore MTM	Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics	Sample preservation	Inactivates pathogens while preserving nucleic acids [70]

Discussion

Key Performance Differentiators Across Swab Types

The experimental data reveals several critical factors that differentiate swab performance across various applications. In forensic contexts, swab material composition significantly influences DNA recovery efficiency, with cotton swabs such as the Bode SecurSwab2 demonstrating superior performance for blood samples on porous substrates [1]. However, this advantage is not universal across all biological sources, as the same systematic review identified significant performance variations even among swabs of the same material from different manufacturers, highlighting the importance of manufacturing quality control and specific design features.

For diagnostic applications, particularly in respiratory pathogen detection, flocked nylon swabs have emerged as the preferred choice due to their perpendicular fiber arrangement that increases surface area for sample collection and enhances release efficiency [70] [69]. This structural advantage translates to improved diagnostic sensitivity, as evidenced by their ability to collect significantly more respiratory epithelial cells compared to traditional rayon swabs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specifically recommend synthetic fiber swabs with thin plastic or wire shafts for nasopharyngeal sampling, while advising against cotton-tipped or calcium alginate swabs for PCR assays due to potential amplification inhibitors [70].

Interplay Between Swab Design and Workflow Efficiency

The physical characteristics of different swab types directly impact their performance in various testing workflows, particularly in emerging applications such as sample pooling for mass surveillance testing. Research demonstrates that swabs with lower volume retention, such as injection molded designs, result in reduced false negative occurrences in pooled SARS-CoV-2 testing [69]. This attribute becomes particularly important in high-throughput screening environments where marginal gains in efficiency compound significantly across large sample volumes.

The mechanical properties of swab tips also influence practical implementation challenges. Studies comparing nylon and Dacron swabs for COVID-19 testing found that patients were six times more likely to report pain or discomfort with nylon swabs, and healthcare providers perceived six times more resistance during collection with nylon compared to Dacron variants [71]. Despite comparable virological outcomes, these ergonomic differences highlight the importance of considering both analytical performance and practical implementation factors when selecting swabs for clinical use, particularly in pediatric populations or other sensitive patient groups.

The comprehensive analysis of performance metrics across swab types and brands reveals a complex landscape where optimal selection depends heavily on specific application requirements, sample types, and workflow constraints. The experimental data demonstrates that significant differences exist in sensitivity, specificity, and DNA yield across various swab materials and manufacturers, reinforcing the necessity of evidence-based selection criteria rather than traditional or convenience-based approaches.

For forensic applications involving touch DNA or blood collection on porous surfaces, cotton swabs such as the Bode SecurSwab2 and ForensiX Evidence Collection Kit demonstrate superior performance in DNA recovery. In diagnostic settings, particularly for respiratory pathogen detection, flocked nylon swabs provide enhanced sensitivity through improved sample collection and release characteristics. Emerging swab technologies, including injection molded designs, show promise for specialized applications such as sample pooling where volume retention properties significantly impact false negative rates.

The multi-site evaluation framework presented in this analysis provides researchers and practitioners with a standardized methodology for comparing swab performance across diverse scenarios. As swab technology continues to evolve, ongoing systematic assessment of new materials and designs will be essential for optimizing sample collection strategies across the expanding applications of biological evidence in both forensic and diagnostic contexts.

Within multi-site evaluations of swab collection methods, assessing the operational usability of diagnostic platforms is paramount for successful real-world implementation. Operational usability extends beyond pure diagnostic accuracy to encompass workflow efficiency, user error rates, and cost-effectiveness [73]. These factors determine whether a sophisticated test can be deployed effectively outside centralized laboratories, particularly in point-of-care (POC) or resource-limited settings. A test that is accurate but operationally complex can lead to increased handling errors, longer turnaround times, and higher overall costs, ultimately undermining its clinical utility. This guide provides a structured approach for researchers and drug development professionals to objectively compare these critical operational parameters, using data from recent multi-site evaluations to frame the analysis.

Core Concepts and Evaluation Framework

Defining Operational Usability in Diagnostics

In the context of in vitro diagnostics, operational usability is the degree to which a test system can be used effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily by intended operators in a specific context of use [74]. Its core components are:

• Effectiveness: The accuracy and completeness with which users achieve specified testing goals. This is often measured by user error rates and the resultant impact on test performance (e.g., Positive Percent Agreement and Negative Percent Agreement across user types) [73].
• Efficiency: The resources expended by users in relation to the effectiveness achieved. Key metrics include hands-on time, total turnaround time, and the number of steps required to complete the test [73] [75].
• Satisfaction: The comfort and acceptability of the test system from the user's perspective, typically gathered via structured surveys and feedback [73].

The Evaluation Framework: Workflow, Error, and Cost

A robust evaluation framework for operational usability rests on three interconnected pillars, which structure the subsequent comparative analysis in this guide:

• Workflow Efficiency: Mapping the end-to-end process from sample collection to result reporting to identify bottlenecks and quantify turnaround times [75].
• User Error Rates: Assessing the test's robustness to operator variability by measuring performance across users with different backgrounds and training levels [73].
• Cost-Effectiveness: Analyzing the total cost of ownership, including instrumentation, consumables, and labor, balanced against gains in workflow efficiency and test accuracy [73].

Experimental Protocols for Usability Evaluation

To ensure consistent and comparable results across multi-site studies, adherence to standardized experimental protocols is essential. The following methodologies are commonly employed to gather the data required for objective comparison.

Multi-Site Usability Testing Protocol

Usability testing involves observing real users as they interact with the diagnostic system to perform realistic tasks [76].

• Participant Recruitment: Intended users should be recruited from the target environment (e.g., clinics, laboratories). For a comprehensive evaluation, participants should represent a range of job functions (e.g., clinicians, non-clinicians, support staff) and educational levels (e.g., from high school diplomas to advanced degrees) [73]. A sample size of five users per distinct user group is often sufficient to identify the majority of usability problems in qualitative studies [76].
• Task Design: Users are asked to perform the complete testing process, from unpacking the system and setting it up to running a test with a provided sample and interpreting the result. Tasks should be derived from real-world use cases [76].
• Data Collection: Facilitators observe and record metrics such as task success/failure, time on task (hands-on time and total turnaround time), and any errors or difficulties encountered. The "think-aloud" method, where participants verbalize their thoughts and actions, is frequently used to gather qualitative insights [76].

Quantitative Performance Assessment Protocol

This protocol assesses whether the test's clinical performance is maintained across different users, which is a critical indicator of robustness and low operational complexity.

• Study Design: A multi-site study where users with varying qualifications prospectively test clinical samples using the device under evaluation. A common design involves comparing results to a laboratory-based reference method [73].
• Primary Metrics: The key outcomes are Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) for each analyte detected by the test. These metrics are calculated separately for different user categories (e.g., by job function and educational attainment) to check for significant performance disparities [73].
• Statistical Analysis: Statistical tests, such as Fisher's Exact test, are used to determine if observed differences in PPA and NPA between user groups are statistically significant. A lack of significant difference indicates that the test is robust and can be reliably operated by the intended user population [73].

User Satisfaction Inquiry Protocol

User perception is a key component of usability and is measured through structured inquiry.

• Tool: A standardized survey, often using a Likert scale (e.g., 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree), is administered to all users after they have performed the testing tasks [73].
• Domains: The survey should assess user perceptions on key areas such as the clarity of instructions, ease of instrument setup, ease of test execution, and confidence in results [73].
• Analysis: Responses are summarized using descriptive statistics (e.g., percentages of users who agree or strongly agree with positive statements about the test's usability) [73].

Comparative Analysis of a Point-of-Care Molecular Diagnostic

The following section presents a comparative analysis of the Xpert Xpress Multiplex Vaginal Panel (MVP) test, a CLIA-waived, FDA-cleared point-of-care NAAT, using the framework outlined above. This test serves as an illustrative case study for evaluating operational usability.

Workflow Efficiency Comparison

Efficiency was analyzed by mapping the laboratory workflow and comparing the POC solution to traditional send-out testing. The workflow for a POC NAAT consolidates multiple stages that would otherwise be distributed across different locations and times [73] [75].

The diagram below illustrates the consolidated workflow at the point of care, which eliminates the need for transport and central laboratory accessioning.

Workflow Consolidation at the Point of Care

Table 1: Turnaround Time (TAT) Comparison: POC NAAT vs. Traditional Send-Out Testing

Testing Phase	POC NAAT Workflow	Traditional Send-Out Workflow	TAT Impact
Sample Transport	Not required	Hours to days	POC eliminates delay [73]
Lab Accessioning	Not required	Required at central lab	POC eliminates step [73]
Test Batch Processing	Not required; random access	Often required for cost-efficiency	POC eliminates batching delay [73]
Hands-On Time	Minimal (~2 minutes reported) [73]	Varies by test type	POC optimizes staff time [73]
Total TAT to Result	Approximately 1 hour [73]	24 hours to several days [73]	POC enables same-day treatment

User Error Rates and Robustness

A critical measure of operational usability is a test's performance consistency across diverse operators. Data from a multi-site user evaluation of the MVP test demonstrates its robustness.

Table 2: Test Performance (Positive Percent Agreement - PPA) Across User Job Functions [73]

Analyte	Clinicians (n=5)	Non-Clinicians (n=13)	Support Staff (n=4)	P-value
Bacterial Vaginosis (BV)	93.9%	92.4%	97.9%	> 0.454
Trichomonas vaginalis (TV)	94.1%	100%	100%	> 0.413
Candida group	Data available in source	Data available in source	Data available in source	> 0.082

Table 3: Test Performance (Positive Percent Agreement - PPA) Across User Educational Levels [73]

Analyte	Bachelor's Degree or Higher	Associate's Degree/Some College	High School/GED with Technical Certification	P-value
Bacterial Vaginosis (BV)	93.7%	92.5%	100%	> 0.267
Trichomonas vaginalis (TV)	95.2%	100%	100%	> 0.706
Candida group	Data available in source	Data available in source	Data available in source	> 0.050

The lack of statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in PPA across user categories for all primary analytes indicates that the test is not sensitive to the operator's clinical background or educational level. This robustness is a key attribute of a test designed for a CLIA-waived setting [73].

User Satisfaction and Perceived Usability

Direct feedback from operators provides insight into the test's learnability and ease of use. Survey results from 19 operators of the MVP test showed high levels of user satisfaction [73]:

• Test Execution: 100% (19/19) of users agreed that the test was easy to perform.
• Instruction Clarity: 96% (18/19) found the test instructions easy to follow.
• Instrument Setup: 79% (15/19) found the instrument system easy to set up.

Qualitative feedback described the system as "user-friendly" with "clear instructions and helpful videos," highlighting factors that contribute to low error rates and high efficiency [73].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

While the search results do not provide a direct dollar-for-dollar cost comparison, they offer a framework for evaluating cost-effectiveness based on broader economic impacts.

Table 4: Components of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for POC Diagnostics

Cost Factor	POC NAAT	Traditional Send-Out NAAT	Impact on Cost-Effectiveness
Test Kit/Consumable Cost	Typically higher	Typically lower	Higher direct cost for POC
Laboratory Equipment & Overhead	Minimal at POC	Significant for central lab	Lower overhead for POC
Labor Time	Optimized (minimal hands-on)	Varies; includes accessioning & processing	More efficient for POC [73]
Clinical Outcome	Same-day, accurate treatment [73]	Delayed or presumptive treatment	Reduced follow-up visits & long-term costs [73]
Healthcare System Burden	Potential to reduce >$1.2 billion annual vaginitis cost [73]	Perpetuates current cost structure	POC offers greater overall cost savings

The cost-effectiveness argument for a POC test like the MVP test is strengthened by its potential to improve same-day treatment accuracy and reduce long-term follow-up healthcare costs, despite potentially higher per-test consumable costs [73].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following reagents and materials are fundamental to executing the experimental protocols described in this guide, particularly for multi-site evaluations of swab-based collection and testing methods.

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Multi-Site Usability Evaluation

Item	Function in Evaluation	Example/Note
Vaginal Swabs	Standardized sample collection device for all sites.	Clinician-collected or self-collected vaginal swabs ensure consistency [73].
Test Kits & Cartridges	The consumables for the diagnostic device under evaluation.	e.g., Xpert Xpress MVP test cartridges [73].
Reference Method Materials	Materials needed for the comparator assay to establish accuracy.	May include materials for send-out NAAT, culture, or microscopy.
Lysogeny Broth (LB) & Agar Plates	For microbial culture and isolation if part of the study protocol.	Used for growing bacterial isolates from swabs [77].
16S rDNA PCR Reagents	For bacterial identification and phylogenetic analysis of isolates.	Includes primers, polymerase, and buffers [77].
Glycerol Stock Solutions	For long-term, stable storage of microbial isolates.	Allows for preservation and future analysis of study samples [77].
Standardized Survey Instruments	To quantitatively and qualitatively assess user satisfaction.	Likert-scale surveys and interview guides [73] [74].
Automated Labeling System	For reliable, trackable sample identification across sites.	Replaces error-prone handwriting; uses printers and durable labels [78].

The rigorous, multi-faceted evaluation of operational usability is a critical component in the assessment of modern diagnostic platforms. As demonstrated by the case study of the Xpert Xpress MVP test, a test's real-world value is determined not only by its analytical performance but also by its workflow efficiency, robustness to user variability, and overall cost-effectiveness. A test that demonstrates minimal hands-on time, consistent performance across diverse operators, and the potential to reduce long-term healthcare costs through same-day treatment represents a significant advancement for clinical practice. For researchers and drug development professionals, adopting a structured evaluation framework that encompasses these operational metrics is essential for selecting and deploying diagnostic solutions that will truly succeed in real-world settings.

Conclusion

The multi-site evaluation of swab collection methods conclusively demonstrates that swab type and technique are not trivial pre-analytical variables but are fundamental to diagnostic accuracy and research validity. The collective evidence underscores the superior performance of flocked swabs for most applications, highlighting significant gains in DNA and microbial recovery over traditional cotton. A one-size-fits-all approach is suboptimal; instead, the selection must be tailored to the sample type, target analyte, and surface substrate. Future directions should focus on the development of integrated, sample-to-answer collection systems, the validation of novel dissolvable swab technologies, and the establishment of international standardized protocols to ensure data consistency and reliability across biomedical and clinical research landscapes.

References

• 1. Evaluation of swab materials in forensic DNA testing [https://ejfs.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41935-025-00444-2]
• 2. Validation of a Nylon-Flocked-Swab Protocol for Efficient ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2916499/]
• 3. Comparison of Polyurethane Foam to Nylon Flocked ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2832461/]
• 4. How to Choose The Right Swab for Industrial Applications [https://www.chemtronics.com/how-to-choose-the-right-swab-for-industrial-applications?srsltid=AfmBOoqdvuQUTHzDSvVxvMHhe0Dk427iYoD0pUnOKK4s4SuR5B5wuNQx]
• 5. Everything You Need to Know About Foam Swabs For ... [https://www.mantacc.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-foam-swabs-for-medical-use?srsltid=AfmBOopDMumd-LP_P2MpNa9PU5qtjMv2DefG3PEJsbayss9x3n2ux5Z3]
• 6. Best Practices for Cleaning Validation Swab Recovery ... [https://www.pharmtech.com/view/best-practices-cleaning-validation-swab-recovery-studies]
• 7. A new in vitro pre-clinical method for testing SARS-CoV-2 ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21107-1]
• 8. Underscoring the effect of swab type, workflow, and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-34337-y]
• 9. Evaluation of swabbing methods for culture and non- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12422522/]
• 10. Elution of Artificial Sputum from Swab by Rotating Magnetic ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/12/1255]
• 11. Comparison of swab types for collection and analysis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8591448/]
• 12. 3D printed rectal swabs for assessing the gut microbiome, ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-67457-0]
• 13. Profiling the nasopharyngeal Microbiome in patients with ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00430-025-00828-0]
• 14. A qRT-PCR Method Capable of Quantifying Specific ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/324]
• 15. Impact of the Human Microbiome in Forensic Sciences [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7642070/]
• 16. A Comparison of Techniques for Collecting Skin ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02362/full]
• 17. Investigation into the presence and transfer of microbiomes ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497321000314]
• 18. Efficacy of swish and gargle and other collection methods ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12571679/]
• 19. A LABORATORY VALIDATION OF SELF-COLLECTED ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971223004083]
• 20. A pilot clinical validation study of a self-collected vaginal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9576940/]
• 21. Optimization of protocol design: a path to efficient, lower cost ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5137936/]
• 22. Role of practice standardization in outcome optimization for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10961560/]
• 23. Comparing sputum, nasopharyngeal swabs, and combined ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11878093/]
• 24. Head-to-Head Comparison of Nasopharyngeal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9857511/]
• 25. Saliva is superior over nasopharyngeal swab for detecting ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-02097-2]
• 26. Accuracy of saliva tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis during ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20841-w]
• 27. Comparison of mid-turbinate nasal and combined ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386653225000435]
• 28. Prospective, multi-site evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11633094/]
• 29. Comparative evaluation of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0282976]
• 30. Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected tongue swabs for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X25000370]
• 31. How to Clean Porous and Nonporous Surfaces (and Why It ... [https://www.microfiberwholesale.com/blogs/blog/porous-vs-nonporous-surface-cleaning]
• 32. Comparison of swabbing and cutting-out DNA collection ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10821607/]
• 33. Prospective, multi-site evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39503494]
• 34. Novel multiple swab method enables high efficiency in SARS ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7361511/]
• 35. Enhanced forensic DNA recovery with appropriate swabs ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497321000302]
• 36. Antimicrobial non-porous surfaces: a comparison of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11288859/]
• 37. Portable molecular diagnostic platform for rapid point-of- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57647-3]
• 38. Advances in Point-of-Care Infectious Disease Diagnostics [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/22/2845]
• 39. Point of Care Testing for Healthcare Professionals [https://www.quantumdx.com/products-solutions/solutions/for-healthcare-professionals/]
• 40. Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8078202/]
• 41. A method of processing nasopharyngeal swabs to enable ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6851467/]
• 42. Enhanced forensic DNA with appropriate recovery and... swabs [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33774569/]
• 43. What Are the Limitations and Challenges of Swab-Based ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-6756/4/1/6]
• 44. Scraping enhances microbial DNA recovery over swabbing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-22259-w]
• 45. Scraping enhances microbial DNA recovery over swabbing ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41184414/]
• 46. Comparison of swabbing and cutting-out DNA collection ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X23001407]
• 47. How to Reduce Sample Contamination [https://blog.omni-inc.com/blog/how-to-reduce-sample-contamination]
• 48. A Common Sense Laboratory Guide to Reducing Errors ... [https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/common-sense-laboratory-guide-reducing-errors-and-contamination-icp-and-icp-ms-analysis]
• 49. How to Avoid Contamination in Lab Samples [https://www.aurorabiomed.com/how-to-avoid-contamination-in-lab-samples/?srsltid=AfmBOopVe4wgxFwQBkKucAZyW2E5LPTIUyKSxOc6ssO49uiWzmYoNVIK]
• 50. Sensitive detection of sample interference in environmental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135412002151]
• 51. Diagnostic accuracy of swab-based molecular tests for ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.12.25325603v1]
• 52. Sustainable and durable superwetting textiles coated with ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/su/d5su00041f]
• 53. Preparation and Characterization of a High-Performance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12526725/]
• 54. High Performance Substrate Wetting Agents 2025-2033 ... [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/high-performance-substrate-wetting-agents-402633]
• 55. Wetting and Dispersing Agents Market Growth Statistics 2035 [https://www.factmr.com/report/wetting-and-dispersing-agents-market]
• 56. Pre-analytical Practices in the Molecular Diagnostic Tests ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7691716/]
• 57. Taking a step back from testing: Preanalytical considerations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9729171/]
• 58. Evaluation of PCR-enhancing approaches to reduce ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724069250]
• 59. Collaborative swab performance comparison and the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497322000576]
• 60. Molecular point-of-care testing technologies: Current status ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950160125000063]
• 61. Reporting of test comparisons in diagnostic accuracy studies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8246725/]
• 62. Diagnostic accuracy of swab-based molecular tests for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41175672/]
• 63. Diagnostic accuracy of swab-based molecular tests for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12617638/]
• 64. Statistical inference for diagnostic test accuracy studies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11025299/]
• 65. Evaluation of Swab Materials in Forensic DNA Testing [https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/evaluation-swab-materials-forensic-dna-testing-systematic-review]
• 66. Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/24/15541]
• 67. Automated Surface Swab Sampling: A Statistical Comparison ... [https://journal.pda.org/content/early/2025/07/15/pdajpst.2025-000005.1]
• 68. Comprehensive performance evaluation of a high ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12206697/]
• 69. Underscoring the effect of swab type, workflow, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10155136/]
• 70. USA Swab and Viral Transport Medium Market Share [https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/us-swab-and-viral-transport-medium-market.asp]
• 71. A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196070920305664]
• 72. Comparative pilot study of three commercial kits ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12372513/]
• 73. Evaluation of the user experience for a point of care molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12318428/]
• 74. What is Usability Evaluation? — updated 2025 | IxDF [https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/usability-evaluation?srsltid=AfmBOoqgwRzl9RjqCKUVPXDvFeBMOmUBIlCgIThFbpIHjTAGfxLR2NjL]
• 75. Understanding The Basics Of Laboratory Workflow Charts [https://blog.creliohealth.com/mapping-efficiency-a-visual-guide-to-medical-laboratory-workflow-charts/]
• 76. Usability (User) Testing 101 [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-testing-101/]
• 77. Swabs to genomes: a comprehensive workflow - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4435499/]
• 78. Lab Labeling Automation - Optimize Workflow & Efficiency [https://www.bradyid.com/applications/lab-automation]