Quail Embryo Extractor Progress Report February 2016 Team - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Quail Embryo Extractor

Progress Report

February 2016

Team Members:

Alex Arnold, Josh Lake, Robert Lesanovsky, Anne Ng, Samuel Rasmussen, Sam Sanford

Faculty Advisor:

• Dr. Nathalie Neve

Sponsor:

Children’s Cancer Therapy Development Institute

Overview

• Summary
• Where we are in the timeline
• Design questions that needed answered
• Robert’s Field Trip
• Concept Development
• Design Features
• Next Steps
• Selection Process
• Q&A

Summary

• Objective: Design and produce a device that safely removes the embryo of

a quail egg for cancer research by Children’s Cancer Research institute. Device must have an extraction rate of greater than one egg per minute and a 90% success rate

• Current Process of extraction is time consuming (about one egg per

minute) and has a success rate of about 50%

Where we are in the timeline

• Finished with External and Internal research

○ Researched existing products for chicken eggs ○ Brainstormed possible methods of extraction

• Currently on schedule, midway through concept development

○ Have explored each individual team member’s prototype concept and have found common features

• Fast approaching concept evaluation and selection
• Some design features need further development before we can proceed to

detailed engineering

Questions That Needed to be Answered in

• rder to Proceed
• Required orientation of the Egg
• Where to make puncture to not damage embryo
• Sanitation concerns with puncturing shell
• How to determine a successful extraction

Robert’s Field Trip

Concept Validation

Robert’s Field Trip

• Suction Cup Concept Validation

○ How was the prototype used? ○ Answered important questions

• Important factors of Extracting a Quail Egg Embryo

○ Difference between fertilized and unfertilized quail eggs ○ Determination of a successful extraction ○ Orientation ○ Sanitation

Concept Development

Individual group member’s Ideas

Design Features

• Egg held horizontally with suction
• Puncture made on bottom of the egg to protect embryo
• Puncture device to move away quickly after puncture

○ This is so the embryo does not land on it

• Could be hand-held and/or hand-operated

○ This would take away the need for a motor

• A moment could be applied to open the crack

○ The same method Robert used at the lab

Next Steps

Concept Evaluation and Selection

Next Steps

• In order to proceed, we need to decide:

○ Method of creating a vacuum ○ Selection of a sanitary puncturing method ○ Extraction quantity

Method of Creating a Vacuum

Motorized Pump Manual Piston Bellows Suction Cup

Method of Creating a Vacuum

Motorized Pump

• Advantage:

○ Can produce constant, adequate vacuum ○ Less concern if vacuum is leaking

• Disadvantage:

○ Noisy operation ○ Relies on external source of energy ○ Takes up space (Motor)

Method of Creating a Vacuum

Manual Piston

• Advantage:

○ Silent Operation ○ No motor required

• Disadvantage:

○ Requires large piston to produce sufficient vacuum ○ Difficult to implement

Method of Creating a Vacuum

Bellows Suction Cup

• Advantage:

○ Silent operation ○ Simple ○ Easy implementation ○ No motor required

• Disadvantage:

○ May not be able to produce adequate vacuum

Selection of a Sanitary Puncturing Method

• Cross contamination

○ Cross contamination is not a big concern. ○ Ideally, cross contamination should not occur.

• Cleanability:

○ Cutters should be easily detachable and cleanable.

• A method that would crack the shell but not damage the embryo.

○ Cushioned hammer with metal point ○ Pure separation force ○ A wedge ○ Lancing device (diabetes testing) ○ Lasers?

Extraction Quantity

• Single Egg

○ Handheld device

• Multiple Eggs

○ Handheld device converted into an automated array

• Trade-offs

○ Complexity ○ Speed ○ Cost

Questions?