Cover Image
市場調查報告書

面向自動液體分注機拋棄式滴管尖頭趨勢:2016年

Disposable Tips For Automated Liquid Handlers Trends 2016

出版商 HTStec Ltd 商品編碼 360992
出版日期 內容資訊 英文 51 Pages
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
價格
Back to Top
面向自動液體分注機拋棄式滴管尖頭趨勢:2016年 Disposable Tips For Automated Liquid Handlers Trends 2016
出版日期: 2016年06月23日 內容資訊: 英文 51 Pages
簡介

本報告提供2016年6月所實施的自動液體分注機 (Liquid Handlers) 拋棄式滴管尖頭相關之全球性線上基準調查結果分析,彙整受訪者的所屬企業/組織,出身(生)地區,職位,及專門知識,加上拋棄式滴管尖頭的年度預算,使用拋棄式滴管尖頭的自動系統數,及預算計劃中顯示的液體分注機品牌數等相關資料。

目錄

  • 摘要整理
  • 目錄
  • 調查方法
  • 受訪者的組織·回答
  • 受訪者的所屬企業/組織
  • 受訪者的出身地區
  • 受訪者的工作職位
  • 受訪者的液體分注 (Liquid Handlers) 專門知識
  • 受訪者對供應商的自動液體分注系統所購買的滴管尖頭
  • 自動拋棄式滴管尖頭的購買·訂貨 (1)·(2)
  • 可向現有的拋棄式滴管尖頭或交換用滴管尖頭供應商再訂貨的實驗室所扮演的角色
  • 受訪者實驗室所保管的拋棄式滴管尖頭的庫存
  • 調查結果的摘要 (1)
  • 確定購買拋棄式滴管尖頭的受訪者
  • 年度的自動拋棄式滴管尖頭預算
  • 預算方面,使用拋棄式滴管尖頭的自動系統數
  • 在預算計劃中顯示的液體分注機 (Liquid Handlers) 品牌數
  • 自動液體分注機的拋棄式滴管尖頭預算分析
  • 受訪者從第三方的塑膠企業/2次供應商採購自動滴管尖頭的動機
  • 找尋另外的第三方「配合度高」拋棄式滴管尖頭的主要促進要素
  • 有購買過拋棄式滴管尖頭的第三方塑膠企業/2次供應商
  • 調查結果的摘要 (2)
  • 調查結果的摘要 (3) 、及其它
目錄

This 51 page market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on disposable pipette tips for automated liquid handling instrumentation carried out in June 2016.

Executive Summary

This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on disposable pipette tips for automated liquid handling instrumentation carried out in June 2016.

The survey was initiated by HTStec as part of its tracking of emerging life science marketplaces and in response to calls from automated liquid handler vendors to obtain recent market information about automation consumables, particularly disposable tips.

The questionnaire was compiled to meet the needs, requirements and interests of the automated liquid handling vendor community. The main objective was to gain a better understanding of the dynamics associated with disposable tip usage, storage, purchase and acquisition.

Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from all areas and organisations were automated liquid handlers utilising disposable pipette tips are used irrespective of application.

The survey looked at the following aspects of disposable pipette tips for automated liquid handlers as practiced today (2016) and in some cases as predicted/wanted for the future (2018): level of liquid handling expertise; vendors' automated liquid handling systems for which respondents purchase disposable pipette tips; frequency of purchasing automation disposable pipette tips, are tips automatically reordered at fixed intervals, do they take into account the "shelf life" of purchased pipette tip stock; which job roles can reorder existing disposable pipette tips and who has the authority to switch disposable pipette tip supplier; how much pipette tip stock is stored in the lab close to an automated liquid handler; are disposable tip purchases consolidated to bulk buy with others in an organisation; has the lab decided to standardise on a specific vendor's automated liquid handling instruments; approximate annual budget for automated liquid handler disposable tips; % of budget allocated to tips from the liquid handling instrument manufacturer versus tips from 3rd party plastic companies/secondary suppliers; what is driving respondents to find alternative third party "compatible" disposable pipette tips; most purchased from 3rd party plastic companies/secondary suppliers; what influences a decision to purchase specific third party "compatible" disposable pipette tips; notice taken of vendor statements about tips that must be used; whether respondents feel it would compromise the quality of their pipetting by using compatible tips; whether respondents verify the performance of compatible pipette tips before changing suppliers; evaluation process used in verifying the performance of compatible tips; experience of using compatible tips; quality bio-certifications of disposable tips that are an absolute requirement for respondent's work; application areas that require the highest quality/bio-certified tips; number of high quality/bio-certified tips used on a daily basis; whether respondents have investigated disposable tips for extractables (leachables); value placed on 'so-called' low retention tips; use of disposable black conductive pipette tips with liquid level sensing capabilities; use of automated liquid handlers featuring positive displacement pipette tips; importance that pipette tips are guaranteed fully traceable from the mould to the bench; extent to which running costs feature in any future decision to purchase/choose a new automated liquid handler; whether the cost of pipette tips has led respondents to consider an acoustic liquid handler; whether disposable tips are reused; use of tip regeneration methods; and any unmet needs/other issues encountered related to sourcing or using disposable tips.

The main questionnaire consisted of 30 multi-choice questions and 2 open-ended question. In addition, there were 6 questions related solely to survey demographics.

The survey collected 65 validated responses, of these 72% provided comprehensive input.

Survey responses were geographically split: 42% Europe; 42% North America; 13% Asia (excluding Japan & China); and 3% Japan.

Respondents came from 29 University/Research Institute/Government Labs/Not-for-Profit; 16 Pharmaceutical; 8 Biotech; 4 Diagnostics; 3 Medical School/Hospital/Clinic; 2 Food & Beverage; 1 Agrochemical/Agri-Biotech Company; 1 Animal Health; and 1 Other.

Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 20 research scientists; 14 lab managers; 6 senior scientists/researchers; 5 lab technicians; 4 principal investigators; 3 section/group leaders; 3 professors/assistant professors; 3 directors; 2 graduate/ PhD students; 2 post-docs; 2 department heads; and 1 other.

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 following 5 survey groups: 1) Expert User; 2) Industry; 3) University Research; 4) Europe; and 5) North America.

The majority of survey respondents were expert users (i.e. very familiar with most aspects of automated liquid handling).

The vendor's automated liquid handling systems for which respondents most purchase disposable tips came from Beckman Coulter, Thermo Scientific, Eppendorf and Tecan.

The median frequency of disposable tip ordering/purchase was every 3 months.

The majority do not automatically reorder disposable tips at fixed intervals.

The majority do not take into account the 'shelf life' of disposable tips.

The lab role that most reordered existing disposable tips was the lab scientist/associate.

The lab role that were most authorised to switch tip supplier was the lab head/manager.

The median disposable tip stock stored in respondent's lab close to their automated liquid handler was sufficient for 1 month's operation.

The majority do not consolidate disposable tip purchases to bulk buy with other users.

The majority have decided not to standardise on a specific vendor's automated liquid handler.

The median budget allocated in 2016 for automation disposable tips was $5K-$10K. The greatest share of this budget was allocated to purchase tips from the liquid handling instrument manufacturer.

Feedback on what has driven respondents to source automation pipette tips from third party plastic companies/secondary suppliers was documented.

Instrument vendor tip pricing is too high was ranked the greatest influence in driving respondents to find alternative third party 'compatible' disposable pipette tips.

Axygen was the 3rd party plastic company from which respondents have most purchased tips.

Cost was rated the main influence on a decision to purchase a specific 3rd party 'compatible' disposable pipette tips.

Most respondents reported it makes good sense to take notice of instrument vendor statements on the use of their tips.

The majority feel that using 3rd party 'compatible' disposable pipette tips would compromise to some extent the quality of their pipetting.

The majority carry out extensive in house validation of performance before switching tip supplier, and details of the processes used to verify 3rd party 'compatible' were documented.

Respondents previous experience of 3rd party 'compatible' disposable tips was adequate (i.e. some limitations, but useful for most applications).

The majority have not used a mobile app to help choose the best 'compatible' disposable pipette tips for their liquid handler.

The majority picked DNase-free and sterility as the quality bio-certifications or features of disposable tips most needed in their work.

The application area/process where respondents intend to make most use of high quality/bio-certified disposable tips was PCR/qPCR & NGS assay setup.

A median of 101-500 high quality/bio-certified tips were used per 8h day today (2016).

Most have not evaluated or verified the effect of extractables from tips on assay performance.

Most place moderate value (i.e. sounds useful and worth evaluating) on 'so-called' low retention tips.

Most do not use disposable black conductive pipette tips with liquid level sensing capabilities.

The majority do not use automated liquid handlers featuring positive displacement tips.

Most place no importance on pipette tips being guaranteed fully traceable from mould to the bench.

The majority place moderate importance on running costs in any future decision to purchase/choose a new automated liquid handler.

Cost of pipette tips has led some respondents to consider purchasing an acoustic liquid handler.

The majority never reuse disposable tips i.e. they use for one liquid handling step then discard.

The majority have not used or considered tip regeneration methods to reduce disposable tip costs.

A bottom-up model was developed to estimate the market for disposable tips for automated liquid handlers using respondent data on their budgets derived from this survey. In 2015 the market was estimated to be in the region of $200M.

Some feedback on unmet needs or issues encountered related to sourcing or using disposable tips for automated liquid handlers was documented.

The full report provides the data, details of the breakdown of the responses for each question, its segmentation and the estimates for the future (2018). It also highlights some interesting differences between survey groups.

PLEASE NOTE: This survey covers disposable pipette tips used with automated liquid handling instruments. It does NOT cover pipette tips used with hand-held (manual and electronic) pipettors.

Table of Contents

  • Executive Summary
  • Table Of Contents
  • Survey Methodology
  • Organisation & Response Of Survey Participants
  • Respondent's Company Or Organisational Origin
  • Respondent's Geographic Origin
  • Respondent's Job Role
  • Respondent's Liquid Handling Expertise
  • Vendor's Automated Liquid Handling Systems For Which Respondents Purchase Pipette Tips
  • Purchasing & Ordering Of Automation Disposable Tips (1)
  • Purchasing & Ordering Of Automation Disposable Tips (2)
  • Lab Roles That Can Reorder Existing Disposable Tips Or Switch Tip Suppliers
  • Disposable Tip Stock Stored In Respondent's Lab
  • Summary Of Survey Findings (1)
  • Respondents Who Consolidate Disposable Pipette Tip Purchases
  • Respondents Who Have Standardised On A Specific Vendor's Liquid Handling Instruments
  • Annual Automation Disposable Pipette Tip Budgets
  • No. Automated Systems Utilising Disposable Pipette Tips Per Budget
  • No. Different Liquid Handler Brands Represented In Budget Plans
  • Breakdown Of Automated Liquid Handler Disposable Pipette Tip Budget
  • What Has Driven Respondents To Source Automation Pipette Tips From Third Party Plastic Companies/Secondary Suppliers
  • Main Drivers To Find Alternative Third Party 'Compatible' Disposable Pipette Tips
  • Third Party Plastic Companies/Secondary Suppliers From Which Disposable Tips Have Been Purchased
  • Main Influences On The Decision To Purchase Specific Third Party 'Compatible' Disposable Pipette Tips
  • Notice Respondents Take Of Instrument Vendor Statements On The Use Of Their Tips
  • Respondents Who Feel Third Party Tips Would Compromise Pipetting Quality
  • Respondents Who Always Verify The Performance Of Third Party 'Compatible' Disposable Pipette Tips
  • Evaluation Process Used To Verify The Performance Of Automation Tips From 3rd Party Suppliers
  • Respondent's Experience Of Third Party 'Compatible' Disposable Pipette Tips
  • Respondents Who Have Used A Mobile App To Choose Best 'Compatible' Disposable Pipette Tips
  • Quality Bio-Certifications Or Features Of Disposable Tips That Are An Absolute Requirement For Respondent's Work
  • Summary Of Survey Findings (2)
  • Application Area/Process Where Respondents Intend To Use The Highest Quality/Bio-Certified Disposable Tips
  • No. Of High Quality/Bio-Certified Tips Used Per 8h Day
  • Evaluation Process Used To Verify Extractables (Leachables) For Automation Consumables
  • Value Placed On 'So-Called' Low Retention Tips
  • Respondents Use Of Disposable Black Conductive Pipette Tips
  • Respondents Use Of Automated Liquid Handlers Featuring Positive Displacement Tips
  • Importance Of Pipette Tips Being Fully Traceable
  • Importance Of Running Costs In A Liquid Handler Purchasing Decision
  • Has The Cost Of Pipette Tips Led Respondents To Consider Acoustic Dispensing
  • Respondents Who Reuse Disposable Tips
  • Respondents Who Have Used Tip Regeneration Methods To Reduce Tip Costs
  • Market Estimate For Disposable Tips For Automated Liquid Handlers
  • Breakdown Of Market Estimate For Disposable Tips For Automated Liquid Handlers
  • Unmet Needs Or Issues Encountered Related To Sourcing Or Using Disposable Tips For Automated Liquid Handlers
  • Summary Of Survey Findings (3)
Back to Top