Analytical Measurements and Efficient Process Generation Using a Dual–Arm Robot Equipped with Electronic Pipettes

1. Motion—Motion accuracy: not reported
2. Volume—Volumetric accuracy: not reported
3. Viability—Cell viability: not reported
4. Unattended—Unattended operation: not reported
5. Standard—Standard compliance: not reported

The full text was read and states no figure for any of the five.

Each score is shown against the range the other 59 builds actually occupy, because no criterion uses the full 1–5 scale. These describe how reproducible the build is, not how good the science is.

• Resolution

  4/1–5

  Electronic pipettes span 5-200 uL and 50-1000 uL, so a 5 uL minimum; 100 uL gave a 95.42 uL mean at 3.79% CV, not sub-uL.

• Throughput

  3/2–5

  One pipette on one arm forming a single channel, 12 vials per run; dual-pipette parallel operation is explicitly future work rather than demonstrated.

• Parts sourcing

  4/2–4

  Mostly off-the-shelf or kit-based components.

• Skill needed

  2/2–4

  Multiple advanced technical skills appear required.

• Facilities needed

  3/2–4

  Requires accessible but nontrivial lab/maker equipment.

• Documentation

  2/2–5

  Open build documentation is not clearly identified.

• Validation effort

  4/2–4

  Gravimetric n=12 at 100 uL and 1300 uL with a direct head-to-head comparison against conventional manual pipettes on the same robot; water only, no drift or carryover testing.

• Cycle time

  3/1–4

  Total process 11.1 min with electronic versus 12.2 min with manual pipettes (~9% faster, within +/-20%); per-step pipetting is actually 25 s versus 8 s.