Automation At Its Best Cost, ease of use, technical support, third-party integration, and flexibility are driving the development of new laboratory automation efforts. by Tim Studt
Zinsser Analytic’s Sophas HT automated synthesis instrument provides a workflow for parallel synthesis of new compounds or catalysts. | Laboratory automation is an integral part of the modern research lab, with increasing integration in processes for sample preparation, analysis, imaging, labeling, library management and more. As manpower, productivity, and throughput assume more importance in the lab, so do lab automation systems.
Manual processes in many clinical and hospital/medical facilities have all but disappeared. When specimens arrive in these labs, they’re placed in an automation line, and the robotics and software systems take over.
The physical characteristics for most lab automation systems appear to be adequate—recent surveys of researchers and lab automation manufacturers performed by the editors of Laboratory Equipment noted that operating speed, operating ranges and size were not significant challenges by either the researchers or the equipment manufacturers. Nanoscale automated pipettors and pumps have been available from multiple sources for several years now.
There are some similarities and some differences between what users expect and what equipment vendors are working on, according to the surveys. Users, for example, focus mostly on the cost aspect of automation systems; most researchers (62% of survey respondents) selected this as the top issue, while only 17% of vendor respondents viewed the automation cost aspect to be an important issue for researchers.
Other cost-related challenges that users have encountered with lab automation systems include a difficulty to integrate new automation systems into existing laboratory systems (29% of the respondents). High maintenance (23%) and extensive set-up (22%) were also indicated as cost-related user challenges.
Add-on automation systems for chromatography and spectroscopy systems make up the bulk of current lab applications. Click to enlarge. | From the vendor standpoint, lab automation manufacturers chose to focus on issues regarding system accuracy, operating difficulties, reliability and repeatability. Be assured, vendors are not “resting on their laurels.” They continue to make their systems more accurate (67% of the vendor respondents), while researchers find the accuracy of current automation systems acceptable; only 3% of researchers encountered challenges in the accuracy of current automation systems.
The areas where researchers and vendors mostly agree on lab automation challenges include analysis systems (20% of both respondents), operating costs (30%), training (20%) and technical support (25%).
Current status
About 21%, on average, of current lab operations are automated, according to the reader survey, with 16% of respondents working in labs where 40% or more of their operations are automated. Obviously, this ratio continues to escalate; researchers indicated that the average could increase to 37%, where nearly half of the researchers would be working in labs that would be 40% or more fully automated.
More than half also indicated that they would increase their lab automation systems over the next three years—less than 2% said they would decrease the number of automation systems. Most of those expecting to increase their automation systems said that they would purchase new systems in less than one year. For these researchers, the average annual budgets for lab automation equipment was about $162,000, with more than 8% spending more than $500,000 annually.
The initial purchase cost and other cost-related issues are the primary focus of researchers for installing new lab automation systems. Click to enlarge. | Lab automation systems are used mostly for life science applications, with 72% of the labs surveyed having automation systems dedicated to biological testing and preparation. About 27% have some automation systems dedicated to traditional drug discovery and development, and 67% have automation systems dedicated to chemical, electrical and materials testing. About 26% have automation systems dedicated to physical science and testing (respondents could choose multiple choices).
Significant issues
Ease of use is a frequent challenge that shows up in numerous areas. Researchers, for example, find integrating new automation systems into existing lab systems difficult. New systems are often difficult to set up and require extensive training programs. Usually there is also limited technical support and few software standardization processes.
“We invariably hear from users that the planning and installation of lab automation systems is too long and too complicated, and provides final products that are inflexible,” says Joe Olechno, VP business development and marketing, Labcyte. “Simple changes in protocols usually required hiring people to rewrite the software code.”
Vendors have noted this. Along with most of those surveyed, Phil Farrelly, president of Hudson Robotics, states that “ease of use will be the most significant change in lab automation systems over the next three years.”
“We expect to develop more intuitive software for instrument control and method/script programming and editing,” agrees Rick Luedke, a product manager for Hamilton Robotics.
Likewise, Clifford Hoyt, CTO, says that CRi, Inc. expects “to further integrate automated software functionalities and ease of use, along with integration into databases, data analysis and reporting.”
“Our new POD 810 plate assembler was designed to automate a line of liquid handlers,” says Labcyte’s Olechno. “The most recent installation (in Shanghai) took two days and was completely functional and ready for users. We made the automation as simple as using a standard product.”
Software solutions
Software is the driver for the control and development of lab automation systems. “Advanced robotic platforms, fluidic devices and integrated software will allow future experiments to be done more accurately and reliably in greater number and at smaller volumes, thereby saving money due to man hours and reagent costs,” says Edward Dell, business and applications development specialist at BMG LABTECH.
The direct and indirect aspects of research costs are the primary reasons for installing (and not installing) lab automation systems. Click to enlarge. | Half of the vendors surveyed indicated that software was a major challenge in implementing lab automation systems. In response, two-thirds of respondents indicated that their organizations plan to implement moderate-to-significant improvements to their lab automation-based software products over the next three years.
CRi’s software-based systems, for example, enable researchers to locate multiple disease and drug response markers in intact tissue samples at a cellular level or in living small animals through automated multispectral imaging technologies.
The company recently automated its multispectral fluorescence and brightfield slide analysis system. The automated Vectra system can process images in a fraction of the time required by conventional systems. The pattern-recognition-based scanning rapidly acquires high-resolution multispectral images of samples on microscope slides and batch processes them at up to 200 slides at a time. “This intelligent software system automatically captures levels of spectral distinctions that formerly were available only by humans,” says CRi’s Hoyt.
“BMG just released the most advanced HTS microplate reader ever built,” says BMG’s Dell. “We plan to take this new technology platform and apply it across current and future microplate readers.” These microplate readers can be controlled through ActiveX or DDE interfaces. The ASCII data output is versatile and works with most LIMS and automation platforms. For more complex tasks, the BMG software group will work with customers to help design any automated solution.
The Zinsser Analytic Sophas HT automated synthesis instrument (shown on this month’s cover) can be configured with multiple systems, including heated vortexing, liquid and solid handling filtration probes, reaction blocks, pH monitoring, and even visual control of the samples to automate the entire workflow. The system is controlled by WinLissy software, which maximizes the flexibility, the future integration of additional modules, and interfaces with existing data infrastructures.
Future tech
“Users of lab automation systems will expect more in the future, such as validation or even application-specific and/or custom validations,” says Keith Albert, technical marketing manager at Artel, a manufacturer of automated liquid handling systems. “Proof-of-performance specifications may need to be compared between site acceptance testing and factory acceptance testing.”
Automation systems in the future will also have to be adaptable or flexible enough to move to cell-based assays, and even tissue-based assays, according to CRi’s Hoyt.
Even easier-to-use software systems will be developed, says Hamilton’s Luedke, especially touch-screen interfaces that resemble the Apple iPhone style of interface.
For additional information, contact: Artel, 207-854-0860, www.artel-usa.com; Beckman Coulter, 800-352-3433, www.beckmancoulter.com; BMG Labtech, 858-210-2777, www.bmglabtech.com; CRi, Inc., 781-935-9099, www.cri-inc.com; Hamilton Robotics, 775-858-3000, www.hamiltoncompany.com; Hudson Robotics, 973-376-7400, www.hudsonrobotics.com; Labcyte, 408-747-2000, www.labcyte.com; Zinsser Analytic, 818-341-2906, www.zinsserna.com.
|