Team:ULaval/Human Practices/Market Consultation
Questionnaire
Initially, we selected two sectors that interested us most: the health care system and the agri-food industry. Therefore, in order to obtain guidelines for the elaboration and design of A.D.N., we reached out to researchers and employees in the field of infectious disease control, primarily in the health care setting, as well as quality control directors and employees of the agri-food industry. We asked them to answer a questionnaire that we designed to gather information on the current context of air quality control within their fields, the pertinence of our project after briefly introducing it, the design of the device and its cost.
Four experts of the agri-food industry and two experts within the health care system answered the survey. They all consented to the use of their answers as part of grouped answers or averages but did not consent to the release of their individual answers. The consent form also stated that their names would not be divulgated. Also, note that all costs and prices discussed are in Canadian Dollars. Here, we list the highlights of the answers of the experts of each sector.
For the agri-food industry, we learned that:
- Quality and safety of the air is a requirement for pursuing good labor practice and most experts (3/4) agreed that it is pertinent to control the air quality.
- Many microorganisms represent a threat within this industry including viral agents, bacteria, spores and molds.
- A portable device with dimensions of a cellphone to up to those of a toaster would be most appropriate.
- The wait time to obtaining the results should not be more than 12 hours and should ideally be of 1 hour.
- The experts’ opinions on what the cost of the device should vary greatly. Overall, none would be willing to pay more 50,000$ and two experts agreed that the cost should not exceed 5,000$.
- The concept of a single-use chip is acceptable if its cost remains low. Most experts (3/4) agreed that the cost of a chip should not exceed 25$.
For the health care system, we learned that:
- All agreed that it is indeed relevant to control the air quality.
- Many microorganisms represent a threat within this sector with bacteria presenting the greatest concerns but also viral agents, spores and molds
- A personal or portable device with dimensions of a cellphone to up to those of a microwave would be appropriate to be used in a health care setting.
- The wait time to obtaining the results should be between 24 to 48 hours.
- All agreed that the cost of the device should be between 10,001 and 25,000$.
- The concept of a single-use chip is acceptable. One expert believed that the price of the chip should be between 51 and 75$ whereas the other thought that it should be between 101 and 150$.
Design and Conception Goals
Next, we set our objectives for the device design and conception. Even though we chose to work on microorganisms related to the health care setting (using model bacteriophages rather than the actual pathogens) as a proof of concept, we planned to design the device so that it would fit the criteria to be used in the agri-food industry as well. Therefore, we combined the above-mentioned highlights relevant to both fields to set our goals for the design and conception of A.D.N. We, thus, came up with these guidelines:
- The device should be portable.
As all agreed on that aspect, we aimed for the device to be portable. - The dimensions of the device should compare to those of a cellphone to up to those of a toaster.
Three experts agreed that the dimensions should compare to those of a cellphone whereas another three agreed that the size of a toaster would be best. Moreover, two experts also commented that the smaller the better. Thus, we will aim at designing the smallest device possible. However, we realize that considering all the elements that have to be incorporated in the device, the size of a toaster appears more realistic. This size would still be compatible with the aspect of being portable. - The delay to obtaining the results should not exceed 12 hours.
When asked what the most appropriate wait time to obtaining the results would be, the experts’ answers vary: three said it should be 1 hour, one said 12 hours, another said 24 hours, and the last said 48 hours. We determined that a 1-hour delay was not realistic and, therefore, looked for these experts’ answers when asked what a reasonable delay would be, rather than the optimal delay. Two of them answered 12 hours while one of them answered 24 hours. The six results we used to determine our objectives were thus: 12 hours, 12 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours. The average is 22 hours. However, as most experts agreed that a 12-hour delay would be most appropriate, and since our teams aimed for a performant device, we decided to choose 12 hours as our goal. - The price of the device should not exceed 7,500$.
The six experts had very different answers when it came to the cost of the device and their answers are represented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 :The six experts’ answers on the most appropriate range for the cost of the device.
*This result was ignored as the team believed that this price range would make the device too expensive. - The price of a single-use microfluidic chip should not exceed 25$. The experts also had varying opinions on what the cost of a single-use chip should be: three chose less than 25$ as the most appropriate price, whereas two chose between 51 and 75$, and, lastly, one chose between 101 and 150$. We decided to aim for the cheapest reasonable price, according to the experts, of 25$. However, we believe that a price between 25 and 50$ would remain appropriate as a third of the experts thought that it would indeed be adequate, but we realize that it could prevent some sales.
Apart from the result we chose to ignore (range 25,001 to 50,000$), all the ranges have either lower or upper limits at 5,000$ or 10,000$. We, therefore, decided to opt for the middle value of 7,500$ as the target price at which the device should be sold at.
Reflections and Actions
In order to achieve the goals #1 and #2, we have to consider the weights and sizes of the elements that are part of the device. As a team, we agreed to pursue the design using single-use microfluidic chip as the detection apparatus. This means that the nucleic acid isolation and detection reactions will happen within the microfluidic chip. The use of such a system allows for a much smaller and lighter device.
In order to achieve goal #3, we decided to use a cell-free system within the single-use microfluidic chip to minimize the reaction time. In other words, all the toeholds switches and biological elements required for the detection are already synthesized and ready to react with the incoming nucleic acid, isolated from the air filtrate, the reaction time is minimized, and so is the delay to obtaining the results.
The target selling price of 7,500$ involves that the cost of all the pieces needed to build the device, and initial reactants should not exceed this amount.
In order to achieve goal #5 of a low single-use chip price, we first had to look at the material that we were going to use to make the chips.