ArticleScientific reports2023
Establishing and testing a robot-based platform to enable the automated production of nanoparticles in a flexible and modular way.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amazonian Nanobioeconomy 5.0: A Critical Integrative Review and Conceptual Framework Toward a Just Planetary Transition.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Foehn: An open-hardware asynchronous scheduling hub for high-throughput liquid-handling workflow.HardwareX · 2026Article
- The ADePT framework for assessing autonomous laboratory robotics.Communications chemistry · 2026Review
- Nanocarrier strategies to overcome P-glycoprotein-mediated drug resistance in cancer therapy.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2026Review
- Intelligent Systems for Inorganic Nanomaterial Synthesis.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- ReBiA-Robotic Enabled Biological Automation: 3D Epithelial Tissue Production.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Translation of biophysical environment in bone into dynamic cell culture under flow for bone tissue engineering.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Nanomedicine.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Robotic systems facilitate relatively simple human-robot interaction for non-robot experts, providing the flexibility to implement different processes. In this context, shorter process times, as well as an increased product and process quality could be achieved. Robots short time-consuming processes, take over ergonomically unfavorable tasks and work efficiently all the time. In addition, flexible production is possible while maintaining or even increasing safety. This study describes the successful development of a dual-arm robot-based modular infrastructure and the establishment of an automated process for the reproducible production of nanoparticles. As proof of concept, a manual synthesis protocol for silica nanoparticle preparation with a diameter of about 200 nm as building blocks for photonic crystals was translated into a fully automated process. All devices and components of the automated system were optimized and adapted according to the synthesis requirements. To demonstrate the benefit of the automated nanoparticle production, manual (synthesis done by lab technicians) and automated syntheses were benchmarked. To this end, different processing parameters (time of synthesis procedure, accuracy of dosage etc.) and the properties of the produced nanoparticles were compared. We demonstrate that the use of the robot not only increased the synthesis accuracy and reproducibility but reduced the personnel time and costs up to 75%.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.