Abstract
Laboratories that once viewed automation as an expensive luxury are now looking to automation as a solution to increase sample throughput, to help ensure data integrity and to improve laboratory safety. The question is no longer, ‘Should we automate?’, but ‘How should we approach automation?’ A laboratory may choose from three approaches when deciding to automate: (1) contract with a third party vendor to produce a turnkey system, (2) develop and fabricate the system in-house or (3) some combination of approaches (1) and (2). The best approach for a given laboratory depends upon its available resources. The first lesson to be learned in automation is that no matter how straightforward an idea appears in the beginning, the solution will not be realized until many complex problems have been resolved. Issues dealing with sample vessel manipulation, liquid handling and system control must be addressed before a final design can be developed. This requires expertise in engineering, electronics, programming and chemistry. Therefore, the team concept of automation should be employed to help ensure success. This presentation discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the three approaches to automation. The development of an automated sample handling and control system for the STAR™ System focused microwave will be used to illustrate the complexities encountered in a seemingly simple project, and to highlight the importance of the team concept to automation no matter which approach is taken. The STAR™ System focused microwave from CEM Corporation is an open vessel digestion system with six microwave cells. This system is used to prepare samples for trace metal determination. The automated sample handling was developed around a XYZ motorized gantry system. Grippers were specially designed to perform several different functions and to provide feedback to the control software. Software was written in Visual Basic 5.0 to control the movement of the samples and the operation and monitoring of the STAR™ microwave. This software also provides a continuous update of the system's status to the computer screen. The system provides unattended preparation of up to 59 samples per run.
Highlights
For the corporate environment, the 1990s has been a decade of downsizing
We wish to acknowledge the contributions of our coworkers on the automation team whose e orts made the successful completion of this project possible
They are: Mark DeBusk, Jack Nelson, John Thompson and Nancy Huettle
Summary
Cutting labour costs is viewed as one way to better position a company to compete in today’ s global marketplace This strategy, along with increased regulation, has placed greater pressures on analytical and quality assurance laboratories to produce more data, at a faster rate and with fewer human resources. In the mid-1980s, our analytical laboratories began to look at robotics and automation as viable tools to help to reduce the repetitive tasks required in preparing samples for analysis. His ® rst task was to develop a plan As he viewed automation, there were three paths to choose from: (1) a contract with a third party vendor to produce turnkey systems, (2) design and fabricate systems in-house or (3) some combination of approaches (1) and (2). The latest project, an automated sample handling and control system for the STARTM System focused microwave, was transferred to our Elemental Analysis laboratory in February 2000. We looked at three approaches to automation and compared the advantages and disadvantage s of each: Journal of Automated M ethods & M anagement in Chemistry ISSN 1463± 9246 print/ISSN 1464± 5068 online # 2000 ISLAR http ://www.tandf.co.uk /journals
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
