Sidekick: A Low-Cost Open-Source 3D-printed liquid dispensing robot

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. StandardANSI SLASStandard compliance: reported

• Reported against a written standardANSI SLAS

  If a user is only dispensing onto a single (ANSI SLAS 4– 2004 [24]) SBS microplate, the creation of such a large machine is unnecessary.

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

  3/1–5

  Fixed 10 uL solenoid aliquots with volumes rounded to the nearest 10 uL; pumps delivered 9.5-12.0 uL per cycle (~11% systematic bias), so granularity is quantised at 10 uL.

• Throughput

  4/2–5

  Four independently controlled positive-displacement pumps and nozzles dispensing four different liquids unattended, filling 72 wells of a 96-well plate; no aspiration and fewer than eight channels.

• Parts sourcing

  4/2–4

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

• Skill needed

  4/2–4

  Build/operation described as low-skill or basic assembly.

• Facilities needed

  4/2–4

  Uses common benchtop/desktop equipment or generic consumables.

• Documentation

  5/2–5

  Multiple open resources named: files/code/BOM/protocol documentation.

• Validation effort

  3/2–4

  Gravimetric tests on two devices at 10/100 uL and 80-350 uL with 0.6-2.1% relative error plus leak and clamp troubleshooting, but no experimental benchmark versus manual pipetting or a commercial dispenser.

• Cycle time

  3/1–4

  No timing comparison reported; the paper gives assembly time (under 4 h) and cost ($710) only, with no dispense-rate or plate-filling time versus manual or commercial handling.