Adapting a Low-Cost and Open-Source Commercial Pipetting Robot for Nanoliter Liquid Handling

1. Motion—Motion accuracy: not reported
2. Volume4%Volumetric accuracy: reported
3. Viability—Cell viability: not reported
4. Unattended—Unattended operation: not reported
5. Standard—Standard compliance: not reported

• Volumetric accuracy4%

  For 15 nL transfers, the volume measurements indicated less than 4% error and 4% CV.

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

  5/1–5

  15-50 nL transfers with 0.2% error and 2.0% CV at 50 nL, with 20 nL treated as the reliable lower limit via a 10 uL gastight syringe hydraulic path.

• Throughput

  3/2–5

  Single syringe and capillary forming one fluid path of 10 uL capacity; automates the full nanoPOTS chip workflow but has no independently controlled second channel.

• Parts sourcing

  3/2–4

  Mix of common parts and custom/printed components.

• Skill needed

  4/2–4

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

• 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

  Two orthogonal methods (capillary plug and fluorescence) at 15/20/50 nL in water and viscous DMSO, n=15-100, plus a side-by-side comparison against the in-house $50k nanoliter pipettor.

• Cycle time

  3/1–4

  ~11 s per well and 10 wells in ~3 min, with throughput called relatively low; no timing comparison reported against manual or commercial handling.