Latest revision as of 12:34, 3 December 2016

Welcome to iGEM Aachen 2016

Integrated Practices

We have also taken into account the needs and thoughts of experts and the public to improve our project. Their contribution took an essential part in shaping our project.

Valuable Input from Experts

Industrial Perspective

“A non-boron alternative is highly desired.”

Dr. Cornelius Bessler, Dalli-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, Stolberg

As we aim to develop a new ingredient of a product that is being produced in huge amounts, the industrial perspective cannot be neglected in the evaluation of our idea. Getting opinions from experts helped us a lot.

Figure 1: iGEM Team Aachen visiting the factory of Dalli GmbH & Co. KG in Stolberg

In the planning phase of our project we also visited the factory of Dalli GmbH & Co. KG, one of the biggest manufacturers of washing detergents in Europe. We were welcomed in a very nice atmosphere and were taken on a tour through the plant.
When we addressed them with our project idea we kicked at open doors. Production of detergents with boric acid as it is the current state of the art comes along with strict safety requirements and is therefore associated with a lot of effort. They confirmed us, that boric acid should be banned in few years because of the ratings by ECHA.

“Enzymes are one key component for delivering a good cleaning result […].”

Dr. Cornelius Bessler, Dalli-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, Stolberg

However, boric acid is needed to guarantee the storage of enzymes in liquid washing detergents which are crucial to the washing process.

Talking to representatives of the industry helped us to build up and reinforce our project idea. We could directly see the urgent need of an alternative to boric acid and gained motivation through those meetings.

Read the full interview with Dr. Bessler here .

Development of LIPs-Stick

The Public Opinion

Our project deals with light inducible proteases and aims to ban the substance of boric acid from laundry detergents. At first that sounded very nice. Activating proteases and controlling their activity with of light, banning a harmful substance and creating a washing detergent that is as effective, but with less environmental impacts. But we also had to think about the consumers who would use our modified protease in their daily life.
Everybody has to wash their clothes, so in order to find out what the public thinks we started an online survey. It was designed to gather information about, whether our future product would find acceptance in the public and how we can design it in the most attractive way. To see the conclusions we drew, click below:

Integration of Our Findings into the Design of Our Project

More than half of the people said that their knowledge about biology influences their consumer behavior. Even more indicate that they read the ingredients list of products before buying. But anyways 57 % of them do not pay attention on harmful substances in cleaning products. When giving a selection of chemicals included in washing detergents and asking about which those surveyed would categorize as harmful only 36 % chose boric acid as risky ingredient.
After that we included a short informative text about how the ECHA has classified boric acid and asked how much sense it would make to replace it on a scale from 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful). The average here was 4.27. A majority of more than 80 % are in general willing to pay more for a safer alternative, as provided in our project and furthermore, 60 % would accept a longer washing process of about 20 minutes or more.
Education about synthetic biology and environmental effects of everyday products is not very widespread in our country. The survey reveals that the ingredients list plays an important role for costumers. Nevertheless, chemicals like boric acid are not declared although they can have a harmful effect on the user. Therefore, we saw a need to educate the public about what consequences their consumption has for the world around them. We hope we achieved this at all the events where we introduced our concerns and solution approaches.
We were happy to see that the majority of people (79.5 %), after being informed about the harms of the ingredients, is interested in a product without boric acid.

Figure 2: Are You willing to spend more time on the
washing process?

Figure 3: How much more time would You spend
on the washing process?

The most important aspect we wanted to examine is the acceptableness of the activation step our product would add to the washing process. 4.1 % of those surveyed would just accept up to 5 minutes of prolongation, 24.6 % up to 10 and 42.6 % up to 20 minutes. So we decided to develop an “uncaging device” that could activate the protease in the most convenient way. With our device the washing process will just be expanded about 5-10 minutes, dependent on the amount of washing detergent that is used. This meets the request of at least 87.2 % of the respondents. In the long term, we would like to develop a device that is even more effective, automatic and directly attached to the washing machine to eliminate any inconvenience.

Figure 4: Are You willing to pay a higher prize for the washing detergent?

93.1 % of those surveyed, are willing to pay more for a product without boric acid. If the price of the final laundry detergent would increase cannot be predicted by us yet, though. Since non-canonical amino acids are not used in large scale production of enzymes, the costs are difficult to predict. What we can say until now is that the protection group is a more complicated molecule and the synthesis is more expensive than boric acid. Nevertheless, there will be much less needed and so the total costs of the laundry detergent would not differ or might not increase much.
In conclusion, we believe that our design would meet the needs of the average washing detergents user.

Dark Bench

Idea

Our project forced us to grapple with the inconvenience of having to handle chemicals that are destroyed, when exposed to too much light. In the planning phase of our project we also consulted with experts who had previously been working with light-sensitive materials. From them we heard that using a lot of additional materials like aluminium foil or cardboard is needed. The laboratory where we were allowed to work in, is located in a building with a glass front and many people work there with us. Working protected from light without causing us or others inconveniences seemed impossible. That is how the idea for the “Dark Bench” emerged. In the course of developing it, the most important questions we asked ourselves and others working with light sensitive materials were: Does our design really constitute an advantage opposed to the usual solutions like aluminium foil and cardboard? And: Can we make it affordable?

Design

The Dark Bench is a light controlled space which facilitates the handling of the photo-sensitive caged amino acids. It is entirely made using laser-cut parts and readily available resources to make it a do-it-yourself and inexpensive device. As all the parts are assembled with help of angles and hinges, the Dark Bench can be dismantled and assembled with little effort.
It´s features comprise:

Figure 5: The Final version of Dark Bench built in white plexiglas

Convenient hand hole design
Sliding drawer
Optical window/UV protection window
Safelight

Click here for detailed information regarding Dark Bench.

Cost Calculation

“Or, if someone else built it for you, how much would it cost.”

Dr. David Mishler, Austin, Texas

That was Dr. Mishlers concern, when he gave us some feedback to the design of our model. At first he seemed to be interested in our hardware part, but was skeptical if having the advantages would be worth the price. We estimated the costs to build one darkbench at about 200 $.

Detailed calculation.

Component	Specifications	Quantity	Costs^* [€/piece]	Costs^* [$/piece]	Final^* [€]	Final^* [$]
Opaque plexiglas 4mm	50X100 cm	5	22.45	24.63	112.25	123.15
Transparent plexiglas 3mm	25X50 cm	1	7.5	8.23	7.5	8.23
Screws	M3X10	155	0.05	0.05	7.75	7.75
Screws	M3X16	10	0.08	0.09	0.8	0.9
Screws	M3X20	25	0.09	0.10	2.25	2.5
Washer	3.2mm	200	0.02	0.02	4	4
Angles	3X3X3cm	18	0.41	0.45	7.38	8.1
Hinges	4X2.5cm	18	0.82	0.90	14.76	16.2
Door Knob	-	1	2.39	2.62	2.39	2.62
Long sleeve gloves	-	1	1.69	1.85	1.69	1.85
Adhesive	-	1	1.05	1.15	1.05	1.15
Cable ties and Mounts	1.9X1.9cm	1	2.29	2.51	2.29	2.51
Foam Rubber sheet 3mm	10X60cm	1	1.13	1.24	1.13	1.24
Foam rubber Sheet 6mm	30X30cm	1	1.71	1.88	1.71	1.88
Plastic Sheet	50X100cm	1	1.25	1.37	1.25	1.37
UV foil	blocks λ<540 nm, 50X30cm	1	3.87	4.25	3.87	4.25
Neodymium cube magnets	4X4X4mm	2	0.29	0.32	0.58	0.64
LED Strips	625 nm, 150 cm, 12V, 2.7W	1	1.47	1.61	1.47	1.61
Regulated Power Supply	12V, 600mA	1	9.35	10.26	9.35	10.26
Switch	1A	1	1	1.10	1	1.10
Total^*					184.47	202.37

^*As on 16^th October 2016

Assembly

“I think it could make work with photosensitive substances easier.
The question is, what is the inconvenience of building the box versus the added convenience of using it.”