Anti-PIV type 1, 3 Monoclonal antibody, Clone C1739M

Due to numerous applications, e.g. micro-particle mixing, DNA deposition, spray-cooling technology, inkjet printing etc. there has been a wide range of analysis on convection inside droplets. In order to know the exact internal velocities of droplets, particle image velocimetry (PIV) is employed, a method of quantifying fluid motion. PIV is used to visualize and quantify the processes of boundary layer formation, micro-fluidic device flows, etc. A droplet of de-ionized water doped with illuminating seed particles, illuminated by a laser, is pipetted on a hydrophobic slide, and this droplet is captured by a high speed camera. When this picture is captured, the lensing effect is observed. These effects lead to improper identification of location of the particles, altering the velocity magnitudes of these particles. A mathematical model for dewarping such images is programmed using MATLAB. The captured images are processed and reanalyzed to find the corrected velocity vectors. After re-processing, a reduction in the velocity magnitudes of the corrected images is observed suggesting that the particles move inside the droplet, towards its center.

Background: Ultrasound (U/S) guided peripheral IV catheter (PIV) placement is often needed after unsuccessful traditional IV attempts. Commercial U/S PIV training phantoms are expensive and difficult to alter. Non-commercial phantoms have been described; however, there has been no comparison of these models. The primary objectives of this study were to compare the echogenic and haptic properties of various non-commercial phantoms. Secondary objectives were to characterize the cost and ease of making the phantoms. Methods: This prospective observational study trialed six unique phantom models: Amini Ballistics; Morrow Ballistics; University of California San Diego (UCSD) gelatin; Rippey Chicken; Nolting Spam; and Johnson Tofu. Total cost and creation time were noted. Emergency Ultrasound Fellowship trained physicians performed U/S guided PIV placement on each model to evaluate their resemblance to human tissue haptic and echogenicity properties, utility for training, and comparability to commercial phantoms (Likert scale 1-5; higher performance = 5). Results: The Rippey model scored highest for each primary objective with an aggregate score of 4.8/5. UCSD ranked second and Nolting last for all primary objectives, with aggregate scores 3.7/5 and 1.3/5 respectively. Cost of production ranged from $4.39 (Johnson) to $29.76 (UCSD). Creation times ranged from 10 min (Johnson) to 120 min (UCSD). Conclusion: In our study the Rippey model performed best and offered a mid-level cost and creation time. Non-commercial U/S phantoms may represent cost-effective and useful PIV practice tools. Future studies should investigate the utility of these phantoms in teaching U/S guided PIV to novices and compare non-commercial to commercial phantoms.