Most scientists or laboratory personnel with extensive experience in pipetting, especially repeated pipetting, dream of automating liquid handling. The technology can be applied to a wide range of processes, from serial dilutions and cell culture to high-throughput screening and polymerase chain reaction. Best of all, several platforms make automated liquid handling possible for almost any laboratory.
Not long ago, most automated liquid handlers required a lot of lab space, a lot of money, and robot programming experts. This limits users to large pharmaceutical companies and other organizations with deep pockets. Now, for just a few thousand dollars and a little bench space, automated liquid handling can be added to most laboratories. Still, some hurdles must be addressed.
When asked about the most common challenges in automated liquid handling, Opentrons Labworks co-founder and chief product officer Will Canine said: “I think getting the automated protocols to work properly (fine-tuning and troubleshooting the process) is the hardest part of using the lab. Robotics. "It's not hard to write a protocol that works, but from there you have to do a lot of trial and error until you get it right, which takes up a lot of development time."
Other experts agree that platforms should consider usability. For example, "the two most important criteria for automated liquid handling systems are availability and reliability," said Scott Guelcher, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of the Vanderbilt Center for Bone Biology.
In advanced commercial liquid handlers, an intuitive user interface and redundant systems ensure proper pipetting, Guelcher noted. However, achieving these benefits comes with a range of costs, including high purchase and maintenance costs. As Guelcher adds, such systems "often require proprietary plastics."
Conversely, underinvesting in the system may create other problems. As Guelcher points out, some inexpensive automated pipetting systems can take a lot of time to set up and can still introduce errors into the workflow.
So, like many other scientists, Gurcher wanted a balance—providing the functionality needed for a variety of uses at a low enough cost. Cost does matter. "It is important to remember that liquid handlers automate common processes that most laboratories can already perform manually, so many researchers find it difficult to justify the purchase of these high-priced machines," he said.
With the exception of smaller, more affordable automated liquid handling options, using some platforms requires far less expertise. In fact, ease of use is a key improvement in this technology. “I think developing interfaces that make these machines more usable by non-automation experts — that is, making them more usable by scientists — is the most exciting trend in automation today,” Canine said. The market for such technology Most scientists should look forward to a platform that can be used without hiring experts.
Technological advances in other areas could also improve automated liquid handling. Machine vision is one example. Here, a camera and image processing software control the pipette. Machine vision can perform many tasks, from identifying installed pipettes, whether wells of a plate are empty, the location of plasticware on a platform, and more. “These features minimize human intervention and setup time while increasing reliability because the only hardware requirement for machine vision is a camera,” Guelcher said. Gurcher said that while adding cameras would increase the cost of the platform, such a system should be easier to set up and less prone to error.
To truly make this technology available in more labs and in more workflows, the platform needs to be affordable. This is ongoing improvement in this segment of the instrument market that is driving broader applications beyond high-throughput screening starting with automated liquid handling.
Some cheaper but effective platforms already exist for automated liquid handling. Still, some do-it-yourself scientists are turning to other solutions. Gurcher is one of these scientists.
For example, Guelcher and his colleagues built OTTO, an open source automated liquid handling program. As these scientists report, the platform “can be manufactured using off-the-shelf 3D printed parts at a cost of $1,500 as a replacement for commercial equipment.” They also say that such a project would not take much time and the resulting The platform can be used for common processes such as qPCR.
For some labs, a DIY approach to automated liquid handling doesn't sit well with scientists. Some people just don't enjoy tinkering as much as others, no matter how much money they save. Purchasing automatic liquid handling equipment is also easier when budget is less of a concern. Overall, scientists can now choose from a variety of manufacturers in this product segment. Additionally, commercial systems range in price from around $10,000 to $1 million or more – ranging from desktop to industrial systems. To try out this technology, it might make sense to buy a used processor, with some platforms available for less than $1,000.
So, it's clear that there are multiple ways to automate liquid handling. Additionally, the technology can improve various workflows. A laboratory's solution depends on many factors, from the application and required throughput to economics and expertise. It might be worth starting small and seeing how automation works in the lab. Throwing too much automation in without the right preparation can be overwhelming, not to mention likely to lead to errors. So, look around, ask around, and see what works best for your lab.
The experienced service team and strong production support team provide customers with worry-free order services.
