Additional file 1 of 3D printed fluidic swab for COVID-19 testing with improved diagnostic yield and user comfort
Creators: name: Kim, Joochan
name: Jeon, Jaehyung
name: Jang, Hyowon
name: Moon, Youngkwang
name: Abafogi, Abdurhaman Teyib
name: van Noort, Danny
name: Lee, Jinkee
name: Kang, Taejoon
name: Park, Sungsu
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Biophysics
subject: Medicine
subject: Microbiology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Cell Biology
subject: Genetics
subject: Molecular Biology
subject: Neuroscience
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Environmental Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Chemical Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Mental Health
subject: Virology

description: Additional file 1: Table S1. Vat photopolymerization parameters for 3DPFS fabrication. Table S2. Vat photopolymerization parameters for 3D printed human nose. Table S3. Detection of inactivated SARS-CoV-2-spiked NF on a slide glass. Table S4. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from PNS loaded on a 3D printed human nose model. Table S5. Survey results for the comparison of CS and 3DPFS, illustrated in table. The colors indicate the overall preference, with red indicating a preference for 3DPFS and blue indicating a preference for CS. Fig S1. 3D Printed human face made of the standard beige photopolymer resin. The equal amounts of SARS-CoV-2-spiked NF or COVID-19 PNS were loaded into the MT region of the printed nose. Fig S2. In the context of LFA using ImageJ, testing regions were carefully chosen to quantify the color intensity of each line. To minimize the influence of any extraneous background signals, a trendline was drawn and subsequently utilized to isolate the region of interest corresponding to the peak color intensity. This region was then measured and recorded as the color intensity of the line. The color intensities of the 3DPFS and CS were represented by blue and orange lines, respectively. Fig S3. Questionnaire used in the survey to assess participants' pain, discomfort, and preference between CS and the 3DPFS for COVID-19 testing. The questionnaire included the following questions: (1) Please rate the relative level of pain experienced during the test; (2) Please rate the level of after effects or discomfort you experienced after the test; (3) Which swab do you prefer for COVID-19 testing, the CS or the 3DPFS. Fig S4. The generated mesh and the CFD simulation results showing volume fraction, fluid velocity, and sampling pressure for 1L, 1S, and 2S cases. Fig S5. The generated mesh and the CFD simulation results showing volume fraction, fluid velocity and sampling pressure for 6S case. No sample or liquid solution were introduced from the inlet other than air. Fig S6. Survey results for the comparison of 3DPFS and CS, illustrated in terms of participants' reported levels of pain and discomfort, as well as their preferences between the two swabs. (A, B) The x-axis represents the magnitude of pain or discomfort, with positive values indicating greater discomfort associated with the CS and negative values representing more pain or discomfort attributed to the 3DPFS. (C) Participants' preference for either swab.