Difference between revisions of "Team:NYU Abu Dhabi/HP/Gold Integrated"

Revision as of 15:40, 26 October 2017

Surveys

We surveyed food vendors from Indonesia and Pakistan and individuals from our diverse student body, which represents 110 countries. From 68 responses, we gained the following insights:

78% of individuals have never heard of Shiga Toxin
47.5% of individuals were interested in acquiring equipment to detect Escherichia coli in food samples
54.2% of individuals were willing to wait 10 minutes to obtain a response from the equipment
23.7% of individuals were willing to wait up to 30 minutes to obtain a response from the equipment
The average price individuals were willing to pay for such a device was $63.17 USD

2016 Team NYU Abu Dhabi predicted that their device would take up to 45 minutes to complete the reaction. We decided to optimize a reaction such that we could better target the expectations of our potential audience. In this regard, we decided to use the LAMP technique which provides results in 20 minutes.

As part of our design, we realized that deterrents to laboratory testing are not only limited to the length of time required to obtain results. In fact, it was partially due to the high cost of equipment. To address this issue, we aimed to reduce the cost of our device by designing a 3D printed case that houses a Peltier Module Cooler, a cheaper alternative to ITO heating and a more reliable, eco-friendly method than disposable heat packs. We also reduced the volume of our reaction, without sacrificing high sensitivity, to reduce the cost of biological reagents.

We have addressed the concerns brought up through these surveys to the best of our ability. Our final device cost is estimated to cost approximately $50-60 USD, and is in the price range suggested by surveyed individuals. Additionally, the reaction time of 20 minutes is a reasonable compromise considering that conventional pathogen detection techniques can take anywhere from hours to days to receive results.

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 	<h2 class="section-header">Surveys</h2>
   	<p class="section-content">
-         Over the summer break, the team returned to their respective home countries and conducted surveys and interviews with local food vendors to gauge interest and feedback on our project. Of all the participants, none of them know what Shiga Toxin was and how prevalent it is in uncontrolled environments where food is sold. Upon knowing the dangers of the toxin, they became interested in protecting their food from such a toxin and so we presented them our project idea to devise a cheap yet effective detection method.
+        We surveyed food vendors from Indonesia and Pakistan and individuals from our diverse student body, which represents 110 countries. From 68 responses, we gained the following insights:
+<ul>
+<li> 78% of individuals have never heard of Shiga Toxin
+<li> 47.5% of individuals were interested in acquiring equipment to detect <i>Escherichia coli</i> in food samples
+<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> The average price individuals were willing to pay for such a device was $63.17 USD
+</ul>
 	</p>
 	<p class="section-content">
-The food vendors raised concerns that such a device should be very easy to use and understand, it should be lightweight and should not require electricity. The emphasized that a useful device should take less than an hour for the entire process. Based on their responses, we developed our project accordingly. In order to simplify the process to the least number of steps, the chip was designed with two main components; the inlet where the sample can be easily poured in and then the reaction chamber where the reaction and its result can be easily and safely viewed. The chip was also designed to be lightweight and so it was limited to a size less than 100x100mm. To reduce cost as low as possible, the heater and chip holder were 3D printed for rapid fabrication at low cost. The heater itself is a heat pack that requires no electricity yet it is able to sustain the reaction temperature at 65 Celcius for 6 hours, meaning that the same heating pack could be used for as many as 12 successive tests as each test takes a maximum of 30 minutes. These design elements combine to make our device incredibly cheap, compared to their professional laboratory counterparts.
+Team NYU Abu Dhabi predicted that their device would take up to 45 minutes to complete the reaction. We decided to optimize a reaction such that we could better target the expectations of our potential audience. In this regard, we decided to use the LAMP technique which provides results in 20 minutes.
 	</p>
 	<p class="section-content">
-After these design considerations were taken, we surveyed the general population and found that, similarly, few knew about Shiga Toxin specifically. Many individuals have had previous food poisoning experiences and were interested in learning more about our device. While most of their feedback was in agreement with the food vendors surveyed previously, they also voiced that they would only be willing to wait a maximum of 30 minutes for the results before consumption. In this regard, the biology team took steps to decrease the lysis process and found that using the LAMP technique, a heat lysis was not required. The reaction time was optimized and reduced to 20 minutes, with immediate visualization.
+As part of our design, we realized that deterrents to laboratory testing are not only limited to the length of time required to obtain results. In fact, it was partially due to the high cost of equipment. To address this issue, we aimed to reduce the cost of our device by designing a 3D printed case that houses a Peltier Module Cooler, a cheaper alternative to ITO heating and a more reliable, eco-friendly method than disposable heat packs. We also reduced the volume of our reaction, without sacrificing high sensitivity, to reduce the cost of biological reagents.
+	</p>
+	<p class="section-content">
+We have addressed the concerns brought up through these surveys to the best of our ability. Our final device cost is estimated to cost approximately $50-60 USD, and is in the price range suggested by surveyed individuals. Additionally, the reaction time of 20 minutes is a reasonable compromise considering that conventional pathogen detection techniques can take anywhere from hours to days to receive results.
 	</p>
 	<p class="section-content">
@@ Line 144: / Line 154: @@
 	</p>
-	<p class="section-content">
-While the 89.8% of individuals surveyed believed that incorrect preparation of food could lead to food poisoning, only 22% of individuals had previously heard about Shiga Toxin. After explaining the effects of Shiga Toxin and our project, approximately half of those surveyed indicated that they would be interested in acquiring equipment to detect STEC in food samples. One hour was the maximum time 94.8% of individuals were willing to wait, although half of those surveyed indicated that they would prefer a maximum wait time of 10 minutes and a quarter of those surveyed were willing to wait up to 30 minutes. The average cost that individuals were willing to pay for this product was $63.17 USD, and answers ranged from $0 USD to $500 USD. In this regard, the biology team took steps to decrease the lysis process and found that using the LAMP technique, a heat lysis was not required which reduced the time needed by 10 minutes. The reaction time was optimized and reduced to 20 minutes, with immediate visualization.
-</p>
-	<p class="section-content">
-Finally, 78% of individuals surveyed responded their they would prefer to learn how to use the device by watching an instructional video. To this end, we have created a short video demonstrating the product design and how to use it.
-</p>
 	</div>