ArticleAnalytical chemistry2026
Pitfalls and Inherent Biases in Liquid Handling Robotics: Investigations in Automation for SI Traceable Measurements.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Industries such as pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, and clinical research are adopting automated sample preparation processes to streamline repetitive tasks and improve efficiency. As robotics underpins more complex methods of analysis, the evaluation and optimization of workflows and apparatus are vital. In this study, the accuracy and precision of an automated workflow were investigated using two liquid handling platforms with syringes and integrated balances, with the focus on their suitability for accurate multianalyte quantification. The methodology was developed by optimizing key parameters such as the syringe draw and dispense speeds. Additionally, the physical setup was evaluated as the syringe tip, vial sizes, and decapper tool all played a vital role in the performance of the system. The performance of robotic sample preparation was compared to traditional gravimetric manual preparation of amino acid blends, using double exact matching isotope dilution mass spectrometry (DEM-IDMS). After optimal conditions for the liquid-handling robotics were established, the accuracy of the DEM-IDMS method with automated sample preparation was assessed using NIST SRM 2389a amino acids in 0.1 mol/L HCl. The optimization process successfully reduced a systematic bias identified in the robotic workflow from 10% to <3.5%. Moreover, the measurement uncertainty achieved with the optimized automated method (≤5.3%, expanded at the 95% confidence interval for all amino acids) was comparable to that of manual preparation, while saving a full day of analyst time (1 h setup versus 7 h manually weighing). The research outputs highlighted are invaluable to improve the understanding of the advantages and remaining challenges in the use of automated sample preparation for high-accuracy analysis.
Indexed as
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.