Medium Throughput Personal Reactor Platform

There is currently no reactor platform which provides low volume, medium throughput and data rich experimentation. The industry requires an easy to use, cost-effective platform solution that will allow for automated reaction sampling with representative sampling of the solid and liquid components of slurries to enable data rich outputs with minimal compound input. Download the Request for Information and submit your response.

RFI issued May 11, 2016

Responses due June 10, 2016

 

Questions Received (Updated May 31, 2016)

  • How many samples and size of sample are required?  As specified in the RFI, the team is looking for a system with 8-10 reactors with 2-4 to 8-16ml reaction volumes each.  

  • Would there need to be any integration into electronic notebooks or other 3rd party software?  Yes, there would be a need to integrate with an ELN environment.  However, how that is accomplished may not necessarily be in scope for the initial build.

  • How will the samples be handled? Do they require quench, dilution etc?  Primarily we are looking for basic dilute and quench.  If the vendor has capabilities in the latter that may offer a differentiating capability, these may be considered, but this is not a high priority currently.

  • What price range could be tolerated for the final commercial system? Just a ball park range. As specified in the RFI, the price-point of the product should be low enough to enable multiple purchases and deployment within a department.  The topic of price range will be discussed during the RFP process.

  • Would there need to be any integration into electronic notebooks or other 3 party software?  To be considered as part of the RFP, but the team welcomes your thoughts here on the possibilities.  All capabilities will be ranked and prioritized as part of the design.

  • What is the timing for the potential RFP after this RFI, and what is the desired project timeline to complete a prototype?  The estimated time frame for issuing the RFP is in the late summer/early fall of 2016.  For the prototype, the timeline will be negotiated with the vendor and based upon the proposal.  Recognizing that significant advances may require alternate timelines, we cannot specify a precise timetable.  Timeline will be a factor to consider through as part of the RFP so overly aggressive or conservative timelines should be be avoided.  The team is looking for a realistic timeline to prototype as can be achieved. 

  • Will prototype ownership remain with the vendor?   The specific details about ownership and IP will be determined during the contract negotiations at the RFP stage.  In general, the goal of ETC is to bring new enabling technologies to the research and development community.    Any arrangements will be considered in furtherance of that goal.

  • What are the expected scope of experiments to be demonstrated by vendor on the prototype to confirm performance (i.e. just engineering tests, or expectation for a suite of real chemistries to be performed and benchmarked against existing reactors)? Real chemistry will be part of the evaluation and a series of condensed phase chemistry will be considered.  Specifics will be developed with the vendor as part of the proposal. 

  • Will proposals remain confidential from other parties who may also be submitting bids?  Yes, the proposals will remain confidential within the ETC membership.

  • What are the logistics of the presentation to the ETC if selected (i.e. Webex or in-person)?  This will be a Webex meeting with 90 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion.  Attendees will include members of the ETC and your company representatives. 

  • Is there an intent to select only one partner to work with on prototype development, or is the intent to work with multiple vendors on this project? We are currently considering selecting one vendor to work with, however any compelling business case will be considered.

  • Does consortium membership include or require purchase of a system once shown to meet specifications and commercialized?  No, the purpose of the consortium is to provide a vehicle for companies to collaborate on the creation of enabling technologies with vendors, academics, research institutions, etc.  Consortium membership doesn’t include or require the purchase of any system, product, etc.

  • What is the estimated funding level for this project?  The funding level required will be determined primarily by the cost associated with the selected proposal.

  • Are there requirements for analytical work-up of timepoint samples (i.e. just dilution in a quench, or more sophisticated filtration, liquid extractions, etc.)? Primarily we are looking for basic dilute and quench.  If the vendor has capabilities in the latter that may offer a differentiating capability, these may be considered, but this is not a high priority currently.

  • Is there a target range for number of reaction samples in time-point series (e.g. <12)? No limit being considered.  Temporal resolution is important so we are considering number of samples in a small volume reactor as a benefit.

  • Is there a minimum time between samples in the time-point series (e.g. sample every 60 seconds for the 1st 5 minutes, then every 15 minutes thereafter)? No limit being considered.  Temporal resolution is important so we are considering number of samples in a small volume reactor as a benefit.

  • Is there a minimum (or maximum) delta T between adjacent reactors? To be considered as part of RFP, but the team welcomes your thoughts here on the possibilities.  All capabilities will be ranked and prioritized as part of the design.  Temperature monitoring, stir speed monitoring, etc. will be in scope.

  • Is there a minimum/maximum overhead stir speed requirement? To be considered as part of RFP, but the team welcomes your thoughts here on the possibilities.  All capabilities will be ranked and prioritized as part of the design.  Temperature monitoring, stir speed monitoring, etc. will be in scope.

  • Is a common stir speed acceptable, or must they be independently controlled? To be considered as part of RFP, but the team welcomes your thoughts here on the possibilities.  All capabilities will be ranked and prioritized as part of the design.  Temperature monitoring, stir speed monitoring, etc. will be in scope.

  • Is there a target instrument turn-around time between runs (i.e. time requirement to clean and setup between runs – impacts removable, reusable, disposable components)? Ideally to be a minimal TAT with minimal clean up.  A blend of reusable and disposable parts will be considered as part of a whole package.

  • Section 2.3.1 mentions solids dispensing to be separate from this system. Is there benefit from optional integration with a separate powder handling system?  Is there a requirement for slurry dispensing into the reactions (or just slurry sampling from reactions for time-point sampling)? Solid dispensing is not part of the scope, however a solid dispense function that is robust, diverse and easy to use may be considered an advantageous add-on.  Slurry dispensing, one to many will be considered an advantage, but may not be a major differentiation pending other aspects.

  • How many prototypes are expected to be built as part of this development project (e.g. only one at the vendor, only one but to be shipped between member sites, one for each member site, etc.)? To be negotiated with vendor as part of RFP however we anticipate that multiple (more than 2, but not more than 10) final prototypes will be developed and be deployed as part of the final test.