EVALUASI KINERJA ANGKUTAN UMUM DI ATAMBUA, KABUPATEN BELU, NUSA TENGGARA TIMUR (Studi Kasus Jalur 1)

Sebagai ibukota Kabupaten, Atambua merupakan pusat pendidikan, pusat perkantoran dan pusat perdagangan. Kota Atambua memerlukan angkutan umum yang memadai dan efisien sehingga pergerakan orang, barang dan jasa dapat berjalan dengan lancar dan nyaman. Untuk itu perlu suatu kajian khusus terhadap kinerja angkutan umum kota Atambua khususnya pada jalur 1 di kota Atambua. Evaluasi kinerja menggunakan standar dari Direktur Jenderal Perhubungan Darat Tahun 2002 dan Peraturan Menteri Perhubungan R.I no.10 tahun 2012. Ada dua jenis pengumpulan data yakni data primer dan data sekunder. Data primer berupa jumlah penumpang naik turun dan waktu tiba kendaraan, sedangkan data sekunder meliputi peta rute angkutan, jumlah armada dan jarak tempuh. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa jumlah penumpang rata-rata sebesar 36.667 penumpang dengan load factor 35.519 % yang artinya masih di bawah standar pemerintah sebesar 70 %. Kecepatan rata-rata sebesar 23.317 km/jam, artinya masih di bawah standar yakni sebesar 25-30 km/jam. Headway diperoleh sebesar 4.707 menit, sedangkan Dinas Perhubungan mengeluarkan aturan bahwa nili headway harus 5-10 menit yang artinya masih di bawah standar. Waktu tempuh kendaraan sudah memenuhi standar yakni sebesar 1.372 jam. Jumlah armada yagn dibutuhkan setiap waktu sirkulasi adalah 6 kendaraan, sedangkan jumlah kendaraan yang beroperasi setiap waktu sirkulasi adalah 18 kendaraan, maka terjadi kelebihan kendaraan sebesar 12 kendaraan. Kelebihan kendaraan ini dapat dialihkan ke 4 jalur yang telah direncanakan oleh Dinas Perhubungan Kabupaten Belu yang belum beroperasi

Comparison of manual agitation methods for swab transfer.

<p>(A) Schematic of action performed over a period of 1 second for different manual twirling methods. (B) Comparison of % organism recovery of PUR swabs using different twirling methods, which was calculated using <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105786#pone.0105786.e016" target="_blank">Equation 5</a> in the text. (C) Schematic of the new forced flow syringe method. (D) Comparison of % organism recovery for PES and rayon swabs, using different twirling methods and the forced flow syringe method. * indicates statistically significant differences (Tukey-Kramer, α = 0.05).</p

Organism recovery for low-volume samples.

<p>(A) Schematic of the experimental set up. 15 µL <i>S. aureus</i>/TE (∼100, ∼10⁴, or ∼10⁶ CFU, equivalent to 500, 6×10⁴, or 4×10⁶<i>ldh1</i> copies, respectively, as measured by qPCR) was spiked onto the swab, which was then agitated in 128 µL lysis buffer using 10 second 1 Hz side twirl, and removed. (B) Comparison of the % Organism Recovery in four swabs at three different organism input numbers (mean ± SE, N = 5), which was calculated using <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105786#pone.0105786.e016" target="_blank">Equation 5</a> in the text. (C) Comparison of the % Organism Recovery (mean ± SE; N = 5) using ∼10⁴ CFU/swab of <i>S. aureus</i> in the presence and absence of simulated nasal matrix (SNM).</p

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

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

Organism recovery for dried samples.

<p>(A) Schematic of the experimental set up. 15 µL of <i>S. aureus</i> solution (∼10⁴ CFU, equivalent to 6×10⁴<i>ldh1</i> copies, as measured by qPCR) was spotted on a 25/64-inch diameter PDMS punch and left to dry. A dry or pre-wet swab was rubbed on the PDMS surface (10 times), agitated in 128 µL lysis buffer using 10 second 1 Hz side twirl, and removed. (B) Comparison of % organism recovery for pre-wet and dry swabs based on a control sample and an assumption of 100% collection efficiency.</p

Organism recovery for high-volume samples.

<p>(A) Schematic of the experimental set up. Either a dry or pre-wet swab was dipped into 1 mL ∼10⁶ CFU/mL <i>S. aureus</i> solution (equivalent to 6×10⁶<i>ldh1</i> copies/mL, as measured by qPCR) and agitated by 10 second 1 Hz side twirl. The swab was then inserted into 128 µL lysis buffer, agitated by 10 second 1 Hz side twirl, and removed. (B) Comparison of the absolute number of organisms recovered for dry and pre-wet swabs. Absolute organism recovery was reported (rather than %) since the uptake of sample volume was different for each swab; absolute recovery was calculated using <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105786#pone.0105786.e015" target="_blank">Equation 4</a> in the text. In all cases, recovery was larger than would be expected based on swab volume and sample concentration by colony counts due to presence of multiple target copies per CFU. (C) The number of organisms recovered from each swab from panel (B) normalized by the number of organisms expected based solely on the sample concentration and volume capacity of the swab (estimated number of organisms collected by the swab  =  swab volume capacity (µL) x bacterial stock concentration (copies/µL from qPCR)).</p

Schematic of swab transfer experiments.

<p>Seven commercially-available clinical swabs (labeled A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) were tested for volume recovery and organism recovery. Organisms were applied to swabs in three ways: pipetting a low-volume sample onto the swab, dipping the swab into excess-volume sample, or rubbing the swab across dried sample on a surface. Selected cases included variation in sample concentration, addition of simulated nasal matrix, and comparison of dry and pre-wet swabs. Different manual swab agitation methods, manual twirling and forced flow, were tested for their effects on swab transfer efficiency compared to vortexing (gold standard method).</p

Volume recovery testing.

<p>(A) Schematic of the experimental setup. The tube containing 128 µL TE was weighed (W1), and 15 µL TE was pipetted onto the swab, which was then transferred into the tube using 10 second 1 Hz side twirl, and removed. The tube containing the leftover buffer (eluate) was weighed (W2). The % volume available for analysis (% Volume Recovery) was calculated using <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105786#pone.0105786.e003" target="_blank">Equation 3</a> in the text. (B) Mean TE volume (µL) absorbed by each type of swab (N = 5). (C) Comparison of the % Volume Recovery (mean ± SE; N = 5) from each swab. Calcium alginate swabs were resuspended in 1% w/v sodium citrate buffer to dissolve fibrous tip materials, the % Volume Recovery was not reported here due to density change of the buffer during (A). * indicates significant differences (Tukey-Kramer, α = 0.05).</p