|
|
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| <!-- Navbar --> | | <!-- Navbar --> |
| <nav class="navbar navbar-expand-lg fixed-top navbar-light bg-light"> | | <nav class="navbar navbar-expand-lg fixed-top navbar-light bg-light"> |
− | <a class="navbar-brand" href="#"> | + | <a class="navbar-brand" href="https://2017.igem.org/Team:NYU_Abu_Dhabi"> |
| <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/0/0d/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--horizontal-logo.png" alt=""/> | | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/0/0d/T--NYU_Abu_Dhabi--horizontal-logo.png" alt=""/> |
| </a> | | </a> |
Line 117: |
Line 117: |
| <li> 54.2% of individuals were willing to wait 10 minutes to obtain a response from the equipment | | <li> 54.2% of individuals were willing to wait 10 minutes to obtain a response from the equipment |
| <li> 23.7% of individuals were willing to wait up to 30 minutes to obtain a response from the equipment | | <li> 23.7% of individuals were willing to wait up to 30 minutes to obtain a response from the equipment |
− | <li> The average price individuals were willing to pay for such a device was $63.17 USD | + | <li> The average price individuals were willing to pay for such a device was $63 USD |
| </ul> | | </ul> |
| </p> | | </p> |
Line 176: |
Line 176: |
| | | |
| </p> | | </p> |
| + | <p class="section-content"> |
| + | |
| + | The development of the chip began with the primary idea of reducing the amount of human input needed as much as possible. As the audience of our project mostly encompassed consumers and food vendors, practical lab training was a skill that most did not possess. The idea of the design was to direct a small amount of fluid (the sample) into the reaction chambers in a way that did not require professional laboratory equipment, such as micropipettes or syringes (which could also pose a safety hazard). Over time the design was improved based on results obtained from flow tests conducted on prototypes of each design. The design was optimized over multiple iterations via flow and heating tests to the current design, where the only human input needed is to insert the sample using dropper or Pasteur pipette into the reaction wells, which already have the necessary reagents pre-loaded. |
| + | </p> |
| + | |
| </article> | | </article> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 186: |
Line 191: |
| <img class="section-image-full" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/aa/Evolution-of-Heating2.png"/> | | <img class="section-image-full" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/a/aa/Evolution-of-Heating2.png"/> |
| | | |
| + | </p> |
| + | |
| + | <p class="section-content"> |
| + | |
| + | The heat development started with an affordable heat source by using heat packs. Two heat packs that were pricked and insulated were able to provide a temperature of 67˚C for 3 hours, shown in Figure 1. However, the survey data showed that 47.5% of people were only interested in acquiring the device if it was reliable, sturdy and affordable. On average individuals were willing to pay $63 USD, with 44% of individuals indicating that they were willing to pay between $40-150 USD for the device. However, since the heat packs do not have a feedback control, we turned towards a more reliable heat source using Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) heater with PID controller from Cell Micro Controls. This ITO heating method cost $200 USD, a price tag significantly higher than what our surveys indicated that individuals would be willing to pay. To cut down on the price, a Peltier thermoelectric cooler module with an affordable, self-tuned PID controller, in combination with an Arduino nano, was developed. This Peltier heating method cost $46 USD, meeting our target consumer's price range. |
| + | <br> <br> |
| + | <img class="section-image-mid" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/1/1c/2-handwarmers-graph.png"/> |
| + | <center><div id="caption"> <figcaption><center> <b>Figure 1.</b> Temperature response from 2 heat packs. </center></figcaption> </div> |
| | | |
| </p> | | </p> |