表紙
市場調査レポート

マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理動向

Multi-Channel Pipettor QC Trends 2014

発行 HTStec Ltd 商品コード 300202
出版日 ページ情報 英文
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=106.12円で換算しております。
Back to Top
マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理動向 Multi-Channel Pipettor QC Trends 2014
出版日: 2014年04月25日 ページ情報: 英文
概要

マルチチャネルピペッターは現在のライフサイエンス研究所において欠かすことのできないツールです。品質管理(QC)測定がデータ品質の改善や生産性・効率アップ、そして実験失敗の削減に及ぼす影響はこれまであまり認識されてきませんでした。業界では自動ピペッティング基準を導入しよういう動きがあり、ピペッターの品質管理問題にラボのユーザーがどのように取り組むかは重要な鍵となります。

当レポートでは、マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理に関してベンチマーキングを行ない、その結果を以下の構成にてまとめております。

エグゼクティブサマリー

調査結果(1)

  • ピペッターの品質管理のための有望な自家製技術の評価
  • ピペッターの品質管理のために市販製品を用いている回答者
  • 回答者が最も検証/品質管理を望んでいるマルチチャネルピペッター
  • ピペッターの全チャネルに関して社内で品質管理を実施するための妥当な価格
  • ピペッターの全チャネルに関して社内で品質管理を実施するための最大価格
  • Artel MVSは金額に見合っているか
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理に割り当てられる支出レベル
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理のための2014年予算
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理のための2016年予算
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理のための予算に関する将来的変動
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理を可能とするシステムを購入する可能性
  • ピペッターディスペンシングを校正・検証するための無料サービスプロバイダーの利用
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理のための無料サービスプロバイダーを使う主な動機
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理をアウトソーシングする可能性
  • ピペッターの校正証明書を見たことのある回答者
  • ピペッターの品質管理のためのメーカー推奨に対する認識

調査結果(2)

  • すべての自動ピペッターは品質管理の推奨が得られるか
  • ピペッターの品質管理の実施を義務付けられている回答者
  • 回答者がピペッターの品質管理を実施しない正当な理由
  • ピペッターの品質管理に伴う投資コストの正当化
  • 品質管理の支援のためにピペッターメーカーに行ってほしいこと
  • 自動ピペッターシステムとその品質管理に関するISO規格は有効か
  • 生物学的試験におけるエラー/多様性の最大の原因
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理に関する世界市場予測
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理市場予測
  • マルチチャネルピペッターの品質管理のアンメットニーズおよび回答者が業界に対応してほしい側面

調査結果(3)

目次

This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on multi-channel pipettor QC carried out in April 2014.

The study was undertaken independently by HTStec as part of its tracking of emerging life science markets.

Multi-channel pipettors are essential tools in most life science laboratories today. Yet the impact of undertaking quality control (QC) measures (e.g. to verify the accuracy and precision of the volume dispensed) on improving data quality, enhancing productivity/efficiency and reducing experimental failures has only relatively recently been recognized. Understanding how lab users approach the issue of pipettor QC is important as the industry struggles to adopt standards for automated pipetting.

The objectives were to understand end-user opinion on the implementation of QC measures when using multi-channel pipettors and to track the increasing use of/interest in dispense verification systems.

The results of this survey are intended to be used by pipettor/liquid handling manufacturers and dispense verification providers to help them understand the needs of end-users to ensure customer success.

The questionnaire was compiled by HTStec to meet the needs and interests of the vendor community.

Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from persons using multi-channel pipettors and interested in QC and dispensing verification in all aspects of life science research.

The survey looked at the following aspects of multi-channel pipettor QC as practiced today (2014) and in a few cases as predicted for the future (2016): the application areas that best describes respondent's use of multi-channel pipettors; importance placed on multi-channel pipettor QC; main motivators to implement or perform regular multi-channel pipettor QC; how pipettor QC is routinely undertaken today; aspects of pipettor QC that are routinely checked/verified; frequency of undertaking pipettor QC; happiness with what is generally available for determining multi-channel pipettor QC; biggest limitations/problems posed by existing pipettor QC methods/systems; awareness of any promising home-brew methodologies for pipettor QC; use of known commercial products for pipettor QC; type of hand-held and automated multi-channel pipettors respondents most want to QC/verify; reasonable and maximum price-points to perform dye-based pipettor QC in house; are commercial systems value for money; level of spending allocated to multi-channel pipettor QC; breakdown of multi-channel pipettor QC budget; likelihood of purchasing a system to enable multi-channel pipettor QC; use of fee-for-service providers to calibrate/verify multi-channel pipettor dispensing; main motivators for using a fee-forservice provider; likelihood will outsource multi-channel pipettor QC; awareness of a pipettor's calibration certificate, manufacturer's recommendations for pipettor QC and how pipettor manufacturers should support QC; respondents under pressure to implement pipettor QC; any good reason not to implement pipettor QC; how upfront investment costs of implementing pipettor QC are justified; would an ISO standard for automated pipettor systems and their QC make any difference to respondent's work; putting pipetting QC in context of the overall error/variability in a biological assay; and any unmet needs in multi-channel pipettor QC that respondents would like to see addressed by service providers.

The main questionnaire consisted of 27 multi-choice questions and 1 open-ended question. In addition, there were 6 questions related solely to survey demographics.

The survey collected 68 validated responses, of these 74% provided comprehensive input.

Survey responses were geographically split: 43% Europe; 38% North America; 7% Japan; 6% Asia (excluding Japan & China); 4% Rest of World; and 2% China.

Respondents came from 14 University; 8 Biotech Company - Established; 8 Research Institute; 7 Large Pharma; 6 Medical School/Hospital/Clinic; 6 Other; 5 Contract Research Organization; 4 Medium-Small Pharma; 4 Government Laboratory; 4 Biotech Company - Startup; 2 Diagnostics Company; and 2 Academic Screening Center.

Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 14 research scientists/associates; 11 lab managers; 9 senior scientists/researchers; 7 professors/assistant professors; 6 principal investigators; 4 section/group leaders; 4 directors; 4 others; 3 graduate students/PhD students; 3 post-docs; 2 instrument support staff; and 1 department head.

Survey results were expressed as an average of all survey respondents. In addition, where appropriate the data was fully reanalyzed after sub-division into the 5 survey groups: 1) Pharma Labs; 2) Applied Labs; 3) Academic Labs; 4) Europe; & 5) North America.

The main application area of most respondent's pipettor QC was pharmaceutical/drug discovery research.

The majority placed high importance on multi-channel pipettor QC today.

To improve data quality was ranked the biggest motivator to perform regular multi-channel pipettor QC.

The majority reported that gravimetric analysis was the pipettor QC method most routinely undertaken today.

The majority reported that accuracy was the pipettor QC most routinely checked/verified.

The median frequency of undertaking multi-channel pipettor QC was once every 6 months.

The majority were happy with what is generally available today for determining multi-channel pipettor QC.

Complexity of process/too labour and time intensive was the major limitation posed by existing pipettor QC methods/systems.

The majority were not aware of any promising homebrew technology for multi-channel pipettor QC.

Only a minority of respondents had used or were using any commercial products for pipettor QC.

The multi-channel pipettor most respondents want to verify/QC were hand-held 8-channel pipettors.

The median pricing to perform dye-based QC in house on an 8-channel pipettor was $2.50 reasonable price and $20.00 maximum price for all 8 channels. Pricing for 12-, 96- and 384-channels pipettors are also reported.

Most respondents thought commercial products/systems for pipettor QC were not good value for money i.e. they were too expensive and they would not purchase.

The median annual budget allocated for multi-channel pipettor QC today (2014) was $2.5K-$5K.

The breakdown of this budget in components was reported. Greatest spending was currently allocated to outsourced calibration/verification/QC.

The median likelihood respondents will purchase a system to enable multi-channel pipettor QC over the next 2 years was unlikely (0%-10% probability).

The majority have used a fee-for-service provider to calibrate/verify multi-channel pipettor dispensing.

Provider will also service and repair faulty pipettor was ranked the biggest motivator for considering using a fee-for-service provider to calibrate/verify multi-channel pipettor dispensing.

The median likelihood respondents will outsource multi-channel pipettor QC to a fee-for-service provider over the next 2 years was quite possibly (10-50% probability).

The majority of respondents have seen their pipettor's calibration certificate(s).

The majority were not aware of any pipettor manufacturer's recommendations for QC.

The majority think all automated multi-channel pipettors should come with QC recommendations.

The majority reported they were not under pressure to implement pipettor QC and indicated it was up to their lab when or if we do QC.

The majority were not aware of any good reason why their lab or organization will not implement pipettor QC.

Most respondents would not attempt to justify the investment cost associated with implementing pipettor QC i.e. purchasing a multi-channel pipetting verification system.

The single action respondents would like pipettor manufacturers to take with respect to supporting QC was to be more proactive in helping end-users QC/verify dispensing instruments themselves.

The majority reported that an ISO standard for automated pipettors and their QC would make no difference to them and their work.

To put pipettor QC in context respondents ranked the biology (not dispensing) as the biggest source of error/variability in a biological assay.

A bottom up model developed using respondent data derived from this survey estimated the global market for multi-channel pipettor QC to be around $40M in 2014. The breakdown of this market into components and estimates for the future (2016) are given in the full report.

Some unmet needs in multi-channel pipettor QC that respondents would like addressed by the industry were documented.

The full report provides the data, details of the breakdown of the responses for each question, its segmentation and a few estimates for the future (2016). It also highlights some interesting differences between the survey groups.

This report relates to both hand-held and automated multi-channel pipettors.

Table of Contents

  • Executive Summary
  • Table of Contents.
  • Survey Methodology
  • Respondent's Organisational Origin And Response to Survey
  • Respondent's Geographic Origin
  • Respondent's Company Or Organisational Origin
  • Respondent's Job Role
  • Application Areas That Best Describes Respondent's Use of Pipettors
  • Importance Of Multi-Channel Pipettor QC To Respondents Today
  • Main Motivators To Perform Regular Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • How Respondents Routinely Undertake QC Today
  • Aspects Of Pipettor QC Routinely Checked/Verified
  • Frequency Of Undertaking Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • General Happiness With What Is Available For Determining Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Biggest Limitations/Problems Posed By Existing Pipettor QC Methods/ Systems
  • Summary of Survey Findings (1)
  • Awareness Of Promising Homebrew Technology For Pipettor QC
  • Respondents Who Have Used Commercial Products For Pipettor QC
  • Multi-Channel Pipettors Respondents Most want To Verify/QC
  • Reasonable Price To Perform QC In House On All Channels Of A Pipettor
  • Maximum Price To Perform QC In House On All Channels Of A Pipettor
  • Is Artel MVS Good Value For Money?
  • Level Of Spending Allocated To Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Breakdown Of 2014 Budget For Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Breakdown Of 2016 Budget For Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Future Change In Breakdown Of Budget For Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Likelihood Of Purchasing A System To Enable Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Use Of Fee-For-Service Providers To Calibrate/Verify Pipettor Dispensing
  • Main Motivators To Use A Fee-For-Service Provider For Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Likelihood Of Outsourcing Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Respondents Who Have Seen Their Pipettors Calibration Certificate
  • Awareness Of Manufacturer's Recommendations For Pipettor QC
  • Summary of Survey Findings (2)
  • Should All Automated Pipettors Come With QC Recommendations?
  • Respondents Under Pressure To Implement Pipettor QC
  • Good Reasons Why Respondents Will Not Implement Pipettor QC
  • Justifying The Investment Cost Associated With Implementing Pipettor QC
  • The Single Action Respondents Would Like Pipettor Manufacturers To Take With Respect To Supporting QC
  • Would An ISO Standard For Automated Pipettor Systems & Their QC Make Any Difference?
  • The Biggest Source Of Error/Variability In a Biological Assay
  • Global Market Estimate For Multi-Channel Pipettor QC
  • Breakdown Of Multi-Channel Pipettor Market Estimate
  • Unmet Needs in Multi-Channel Pipettor QC Or Aspects Respondents Would Like To See Addressed By The Industry
  • Summary of Survey Findings (3)
Back to Top