Hydraulic manifolds are used to realize compact circuit layout, but may introduce a high pressure drop in the system. Their design is in fact oriented more toward achieving minimum size and weight than to reducing pressure losses. This work studies the pressure losses in hydraulic manifolds using different methods: Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) analysis; semi-empirical formulation derived from the scientific literature, when available; and experimental characterization. The purpose is to obtain the pressure losses when the channels' connections within the manifold are not ascribable to the few classic cases studied in the literature, in particular for 90 • bends (elbows) with expansion/contraction and offset intersection of channels. Moreover, since CFD analysis is used to predict pressure losses, general considerations of the manifold design may be outlined and this will help the design process in the optimization of flow passages. The main results obtained show how CFD analysis overestimates the experimental results; nevertheless, the numerical analysis represents the correct trends of the pressure losses.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Few data on the diagnostic performance of serological tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are currently available. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of five different widely used commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies using reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in nasopharyngeal swab as reference standard test.Methods: A total of 337 plasma samples collected in the period April–June 2020 from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive (n = 207) and negative (n = 130) subjects were investigated by one point-of-care lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA IgG and IgM, Technogenetics) and four fully automated assays: two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA-iFlash IgG and IgM, Shenzhen YHLO Biotech and CLIA-LIAISON® XL IgG, DiaSorin), one electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA-Elecsys® total predominant IgG, Roche), and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA IgA, Euroimmune).Results: The overall sensitivity of all IgG serological assays was >80% and the specificity was >97%. The sensitivity of IgG assays was lower within 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms ranging from 70.8 to 80%. The LFIA and CLIA-iFlash IgM showed an overall low sensitivity of 47.6 and 54.6%, while the specificity was 98.5 and 96.2%, respectively. The ELISA IgA yielded a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 81.7%. However, the ELISA IgA result was indeterminate in 11.7% of cases.Conclusions: IgG serological assays seem to be a reliable tool for the retrospective diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM assays seem to have a low sensitivity and IgA assay is limited by a substantial rate of indeterminate results.