| Literature DB >> 19421425 |
Kerstin Thurow1, Thomas Krüger, Norbert Stoll.
Abstract
This paper looks at the use of drop-on-demand technology in automated life science laboratories. One significant feature of the droplets generated is the enormously high uniformity under constant conditions. However, there is also a relatively strong dependency on environmental conditions. Many different kinds of liquids are used in laboratory applications, some with unknown properties in advance. In light of this and the special way in which the droplets are created, there is one major question which needs answering in relation to the use of this technology in the area of laboratory automation: What is the volume of the drops generated? This paper will present a solution which can be applied in practice. Besides the technical implementation demonstrated, further alternatives will also be presented. Ultimately, dosing systems with greater autonomy should result from the optimizations demonstrated in this paper.Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19421425 PMCID: PMC2676734 DOI: 10.1155/2009/198732
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Autom Methods Manag Chem ISSN: 1463-9246
Figure 1Overview of the nozzle's visualisation and control system.
Technical data from the camera's CCD sensor.
| Number of pixels | Pixel size | Sensor size | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | |
| Horizontal | 768 | 8.4 | 6451 |
| Vertical | 494 | 9.8 | 4841 |
Depths of field for particular f-numbers.
| Near point | 17.555 | 17.549 | 17.536 |
| Far point | 17.568 | 17.574 | 17.587 |
| Depth of field | 12 | 25 | 51 |
Figure 2Generation of the binary image from the region of interest.
Figure 3Principle by which the drop volume was calculated.
Figure 4Frequency dependence of the dispensed volume.
Number of overlapping drops in the image depending on the drop rate.
| Drop rate (Hz) | 400 | 500 | 600 | 800 | 1000 | 1500 | 2000 | 3000 | 4000 | 5000 |
| Overlapping drops | 13 | 16 | 20 | 26 | 33 | 50 | 66 | 100 | 133 | 166 |
Estimate of the difference in volume if the edge is incorrectly detected.
| Drop volume | Diameter (rounded) | Difference in volume with | Difference in volume with |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 pl | 37 pixels | 7.9% | 8.3% |
| 150 pl | 43 pixels | 6.8% | 7.1% |
| 200 pl | 47 pixels | 6.2% | 6.5% |
| 400 pl | 59 pixels | 5.0% | 5.2% |
| 450 pl | 61 pixels | 4.8% | 5.0% |
| 500 pl | 64 pixels | 4.6% | 4.8% |
Gravimetric measurement of different quantities of drops under constant conditions.
| Number of drops | 5000 | 7500 | 10 000 | 12 500 | 15 000 |
| Number of measurements | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Mean value [mg or | 0.72 mg | 1.12 mg | 1.48 mg | 1.85 mg | 2.24 mg |
| Std. deviation | 0.0372 | 0.0373 | 0.0312 | 0.0398 | 0.0319 |
| % Std. deviation | 5.2% | 3.3% | 2.1% | 2.2% | 1.4% |
| Visual volume | 200 pl | 200 pl | 200 pl | 200 pl | 200 pl |
| Visual/gravimetric ratio | 1.40 | 1.33 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 1.34 |
Overview of the liquids used for testing and their properties.
| Medium | Density | Viscosity |
|---|---|---|
| Water | 1 g/cm3 | 1 mPa s |
| DMSO | 1.10 g/cm3 | 1.99 mPa s |
| NMP | 1.03 g/cm3 | 1.65 mPa s |
| Acetonitrile | 0.63 g/cm3 | 0.57 mPa s |
| Dichloromethane | 1.33 g/cm3 | 0.58 mPa s |
| Methanol | 0.76 g/cm3 | 0.56 mPa s |
Figure 5Results of optical measurements for different solvents.
Composition of the parameters of the stroboscope camera system for the standardized measurement.
| Camera | Camera frame rate | 30 images/s (full frame) |
| Minimal shutter speed | 100 | |
| Triggering and synchronization | none | |
| Control pulse of the piezoelectric element | Dosing frequency | 500 Hz |
| Stroboscope | Stroboscope frequency | 500 Hz |
| Light duration of the LED stroboscope | 5 | |
| Lens | Conversion factor pixel: | 1 : 1.55 |