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 be
vary greatly. Overall, none would be willing to pay
more 50,000$ and two experts agreed
that the cost should not exceed 5,000$.
●
The concept of single-use chip is acceptable if its cost remains low.
Most experts (3/4) agreed that
the cost of a chip should
not exceed 25$.
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$.
●
The concept of single-use chip is acceptable. One expert believed
that the price of the chip should be between
51 and 75$ 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.
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.
- 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.
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
the goal #3, we decided to
use a cell-free system within
the single-use microfluidic chip to minimise the reaction time. In other words, all the toeholds switches
and biological elements required for the detection are already synthesised and ready to react with the incoming nucleic acid, isolated
from the air filtrate, the reaction time is minimised, 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 the 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.