## 2 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline
**Surface** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Swab Material and** \\ **Deposition Method** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **\% Recovery** \\ **(SD)**\({}^{a}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Precision** \\ **CV (\%)**\({}^{b}\) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Reproducibility** \\ **CV (\%)**\({}^{c}\) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Glass & Cotton & & & \\  & Liquid & 56.7 (13.6) & 24.0 & 23.3 \\  & Aerosol & 7.2 (4.4) & 49.1 & 61.4 \\  & Dacron & & & \\  & Liquid & 69.5 (10.0) & 14.4 & 7.6 \\  & Aerosol & 12.9 (6.6) & 51.3 & 40.9 \\  & Rayon & & & \\  & Liquid & 54.6 (6.1) & 11.1 & 4.6 \\  & Aerosol & BDL & NA & NA \\  & Macrofoam & & & \\  & Liquid & 60.5 (6.7) & 11.1 & 4.3 \\  & Aerosol & 9.7 (7.1) & 73.3 & 15.9 \\ \hline CARC-painted steel & Cotton & & & \\  & Liquid & 49.6 (15.3) & 30.9 & 27.1 \\  & Aerosol & BDL & NA & NA \\  & Dacron & & & \\  & Liquid & 76.0 (9.9) & 13.1 & 12.3 \\  & Aerosol & 25.2 (8.1) & 32.3 & 6.9 \\  & Rayon & & & \\  & Liquid & 60.1 (7.4) & 12.2 & 19.3 \\  & Aerosol & BDL & NA & NA \\  & Macrofoam & & & \\  & Liquid & 65.3 (5.9) & 9 & 3.1 \\  & Aerosol & BDL & NA & NA \\ \hline Polycarbonate & Cotton & & & \\  & Liquid & 58.7 (13.1) & 22.3 & 20.4 \\  & Aerosol & 13.1 (9.4) & 72.1 & 30.5 \\  & Dacron & & & \\  & Liquid & 72.8 (5.4) & 7.5 & 3.5 \\  & Aerosol & 38.5 (10.0) & 25.9 & 5.2 \\  & Rayon & & & \\  & Liquid & 64.4 (10.4) & 16.1 & 18.9 \\  & Aerosol & 7.5 (11.3) & 149.5 & 80.5 \\  & Macrofoam & & & \\  & Liquid & 65.4 (7.1) & 10.8 & 11.3 \\  & Aerosol & 12.2 (8.7) & 71.7 & 35.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Evaluation of recovery efficiency of cotton, dacron, rayon, and macrofoam swabs from glass, Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) painted steel, polycarbonate, and vinyl coupons deposited with liquid and dry aerosolized recombinant Ricin. Each combination of swab, surface material, and deposition method consists of 30 samples composed of three experimental replicates of 10 samples each. In every instance a statistical significance between recovery efficiencies of deposition method was confirmed at a confidence level exceeding 99.99%. The high recovery efficiencies of liquid deposited recombinant ricin and sensitivity to ricin assays demonstrate the suitability of this non-toxic surrogate for one of the most poisonous natural toxins on Earth. Unlike previous sampling studies using ricin-like proteins, toxoids, or material such as egg white albumen, we were able to accurately assay a modified recombinant ricin protein in its native form using antibodies capable of detecting native ricin. We have also demonstrated that this recombinant ricin is beneficial to surface sampling studies in that future assessments of equipment and sampling materials can be designed to accurately assess recovery efficiencies of true toxin protein in both liquid and aerosolized form. In addition to surface sampling, efficiencies and efficacies of mitigation techniques and decontamination materials and equipment have been limited to select laboratories capable of handling agents as toxic as ricin. With the use of the non-toxic recombinant ricin, the sampling community has the opportunity to improve on general knowledge and close surface sampling technology gaps which exist between toxins and biological agents. Multiple liquid or aerosol surface sampling assays have been performed on a variety of biological materials [1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11]. However, liquid and dry deposition side-by-side comparison studies of recovery efficiencies of COTS materials have previously only been performed on _Bacillus_ spores [1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12]. Based on the previous side-by-side comparison study with BG spores, the authors were anticipating statistically differing recovery efficiencies between agent deposition methods when comparing identical swabs and surface materials [12]. Although [PERSON] _et al_.