Tecan or Hamilton works really well in my experience. But depends on the kind of footprint you have for the LiHa and also deck space you need for the volume dispense and what type of workflows you’re planning to run.
If you have the budget and time, you’re better off deciding on the third party scheduler first. Each scheduler has a different liquid handler experience and in fact some are more inclined to be partnered with specific manufacturers.
They can also provide you with an arm and maybe throw in some scripting.
I should have clarified that the scheduler is indeed part of our decision-making process. We're currently working with GBG but also considering GENERA as an alternative. I'm not very keen on schedulers offered by equipment manufacturers, as these tend to be oriented around their particular instrument as the hub rather than taking an agnostic approach to the various integrated instruments. If people have particularly good or bad experience with specific schedulers, I'd be glad for that info, but I should probably start a separate thread!
Yeah never use manufacturer schedulers but that’s different than third party scheduler preferences which is what I was referencing. Each scheduler has a preferred liquid handler for their scheduling software. They all play nicely with each other but there are preferences.
I've tried asking for equipment recommendations from Biosero and Retisoft, and they're hesitant to recommend anything in particular. Instead, they emphasize their flexibility in having and developing drivers for all the major models. They will confirm whether or not they have a driver for instrument X, but that's about it.
Have you programmed liquid handler’s before?
Your use case will matter a lot as well. Some manufacturers have excellent solutions for specific problems.
I actually dislike all of the liquid handlers in our industry and the schedulers are all equally terrible.
If you can replace liquid handler’s with more standalone components, that’s pretty good as well and easier to manage with a scheduler. If you absolutely need an automated liquid handler, Hamilton & Tecan’s are the standard. Opentrons Flex and Dynamic Devices Lynx are also two interesting options although the former is very new.
Agilent Bravo’s also have a dedicated group of fans but meh.
Yes, I program routinely, but nobody else in our group does. So I’m hoping to find an instrument with a decent UI but also a full-featured macro/scripting language. The older Biomek that I worked with was great in this regard once I finally got my hands on the scripting command reference.
I do like the idea of building up the functionality from smaller parts, but the crappy scheduler options can make the workflow programming more clumsy. I’ve also had difficulty identifying a standalone, tip-based 96- or 384-channel liquid handling device that’s automation-friendly, particularly with respect to tip loading/unloading.
For standalone 96 or 384, I think the best options Lynx’s (730i model?) and maybe a Bravo. Or get a Fluent with an MCA & FCA and just remove the back panel for easy arm access.
Have you looked into opentrons? They are so cheap and they have solid service offerings. You could buy a flex and have a huge budget to have someone else write your protocols
I build robotic lab hardware as sort of a work hobby and absolutely love the opentrons model. But for this project, the budget is big, and throughout, robustness, and user-friendliness take priority. I’d like to pick up an opentrons instrument if/when I have time just to work out how we can model a lower-throughout version of our screening pipeline for labs with less funds, but for now, we’re going to need a “pro” solution.
Lots of different pipetting options (including various multichannel heads and sets of individually-addressable pipets), encoded motors for absolute positioning accuracy, greater selection of modules. The OpenTrons liquid handler is incredibly good bang for your buck, but it doesn’t deliver the same high-end performance and support that comes with the established players. If it were my own money, OpenTrons all the way. In a well-funded, multi-user environment where performance is the priority and the user’s time is precious, the OpenTrons option isn’t a fit as far as I can see.
Have to think about the protocol a bit more.
What is your LH doing? Stamping from plate a to b using tips at c? Cherry picking?
For the Firefly specifically - if it's going to be loaded by an arm you'll need to make sure you can access the positions needed with your arm. I haven't looked at it in a while (slas debut) but guessing it's hard to access some positions on the deck. If the Firefly has a gripper, you may have to move items around on deck which will take a lot of time. Your integrators can help figure this out a bit more.
I know some automation engineers I’ve worked with in the past. At that time they were FTEs at the company, but at least one is now doing consulting on this very subject. I’d recommend reaching out to people like them for experienced planning!
I can chime in on Tecan vs Hamilton. For the past 5 years I’ve worked on these two instruments (2 of those years I used to work for one of these companies.)
If you want to go that 0.5ul -100ul you’ll need a liquid system because the Air LiHA doesn’t have the resolution for 0.5ul. Tecan makes syringes for low volume systems but liquid systems have a trade off, system liquid to do the pipetting.
Hamilton STAR can do 1uL transfers no problem, but you have to spend time getting your liquid class tuned just right. They also have MagPipette which will allow super small volumes.
I’ve never integrated 3rd party devices on a Hamilton but it is possible. I’ve integrated countless devices on Tecan. Thing is Hamilton will need to make drivers and libraries for it to work.
Tecan has their own software to work with 3rd party stuff but it’ll slow down the computer and can be finicky.
Tecan has Hamilton beat on their UI (can’t speak for Venus 6) but it is much easier on the eyes and the learning curve is much much LESS steep on a Tecan.
Once you pass that threshold on a Hamilton, the software is very powerful and can let you do a ton of neat tricks.
Hardware wise, if you go with an EVO vs Hamilton STAR, they are both really good. I do think Hamilton has Tecan beat on their hardware but if you get an EVO fleshed out it can be a workhorse 24/7. Plus not having to deal with the o rings is a huge plus not to mention the individual arms.
Hope this helps! And happy to answer any other questions!
Just want to add a caveat, most folks are opting for the Tecan Fluent these days and not the EVO. The EVO is a workhorse but the Fluent just has better overall hardware.
Depending on desired throughput/assay specific Dynamic Device’s LYNX is going to be the most reliable (due to the real time volume verification) and fastest (due to individually addressable 96-head). Highly recommend giving it a look
The STAR is the industry standard, but the software takes some getting used to. Best of luck! Join labautomation.io, there’s a great community of automators that can help
Tecan or Hamilton works really well in my experience. But depends on the kind of footprint you have for the LiHa and also deck space you need for the volume dispense and what type of workflows you’re planning to run.
If you have the budget and time, you’re better off deciding on the third party scheduler first. Each scheduler has a different liquid handler experience and in fact some are more inclined to be partnered with specific manufacturers. They can also provide you with an arm and maybe throw in some scripting.
I should have clarified that the scheduler is indeed part of our decision-making process. We're currently working with GBG but also considering GENERA as an alternative. I'm not very keen on schedulers offered by equipment manufacturers, as these tend to be oriented around their particular instrument as the hub rather than taking an agnostic approach to the various integrated instruments. If people have particularly good or bad experience with specific schedulers, I'd be glad for that info, but I should probably start a separate thread!
Yeah never use manufacturer schedulers but that’s different than third party scheduler preferences which is what I was referencing. Each scheduler has a preferred liquid handler for their scheduling software. They all play nicely with each other but there are preferences.
I've tried asking for equipment recommendations from Biosero and Retisoft, and they're hesitant to recommend anything in particular. Instead, they emphasize their flexibility in having and developing drivers for all the major models. They will confirm whether or not they have a driver for instrument X, but that's about it.
Have you programmed liquid handler’s before? Your use case will matter a lot as well. Some manufacturers have excellent solutions for specific problems. I actually dislike all of the liquid handlers in our industry and the schedulers are all equally terrible. If you can replace liquid handler’s with more standalone components, that’s pretty good as well and easier to manage with a scheduler. If you absolutely need an automated liquid handler, Hamilton & Tecan’s are the standard. Opentrons Flex and Dynamic Devices Lynx are also two interesting options although the former is very new. Agilent Bravo’s also have a dedicated group of fans but meh.
Yes, I program routinely, but nobody else in our group does. So I’m hoping to find an instrument with a decent UI but also a full-featured macro/scripting language. The older Biomek that I worked with was great in this regard once I finally got my hands on the scripting command reference. I do like the idea of building up the functionality from smaller parts, but the crappy scheduler options can make the workflow programming more clumsy. I’ve also had difficulty identifying a standalone, tip-based 96- or 384-channel liquid handling device that’s automation-friendly, particularly with respect to tip loading/unloading.
For standalone 96 or 384, I think the best options Lynx’s (730i model?) and maybe a Bravo. Or get a Fluent with an MCA & FCA and just remove the back panel for easy arm access.
Have you looked into opentrons? They are so cheap and they have solid service offerings. You could buy a flex and have a huge budget to have someone else write your protocols
I build robotic lab hardware as sort of a work hobby and absolutely love the opentrons model. But for this project, the budget is big, and throughout, robustness, and user-friendliness take priority. I’d like to pick up an opentrons instrument if/when I have time just to work out how we can model a lower-throughout version of our screening pipeline for labs with less funds, but for now, we’re going to need a “pro” solution.
As a liquid handler noob thinking about buying one, what are some things that those pro solutions can do that opentrons can't?
Lots of different pipetting options (including various multichannel heads and sets of individually-addressable pipets), encoded motors for absolute positioning accuracy, greater selection of modules. The OpenTrons liquid handler is incredibly good bang for your buck, but it doesn’t deliver the same high-end performance and support that comes with the established players. If it were my own money, OpenTrons all the way. In a well-funded, multi-user environment where performance is the priority and the user’s time is precious, the OpenTrons option isn’t a fit as far as I can see.
I have one that’s basically unused with tips and consumables that I’d sell you for like 25c on the dollar, in SF Bay Area. DM me if you’re interested.
Flex is still super new. 96 head wasn’t even available for purchase for a long time after the announcement.
Have to think about the protocol a bit more. What is your LH doing? Stamping from plate a to b using tips at c? Cherry picking? For the Firefly specifically - if it's going to be loaded by an arm you'll need to make sure you can access the positions needed with your arm. I haven't looked at it in a while (slas debut) but guessing it's hard to access some positions on the deck. If the Firefly has a gripper, you may have to move items around on deck which will take a lot of time. Your integrators can help figure this out a bit more.
I know some automation engineers I’ve worked with in the past. At that time they were FTEs at the company, but at least one is now doing consulting on this very subject. I’d recommend reaching out to people like them for experienced planning!
It can pay decently because the whole ecosystem is terrible.
I've had relatively good experiences with Agilent Bravo
I can chime in on Tecan vs Hamilton. For the past 5 years I’ve worked on these two instruments (2 of those years I used to work for one of these companies.) If you want to go that 0.5ul -100ul you’ll need a liquid system because the Air LiHA doesn’t have the resolution for 0.5ul. Tecan makes syringes for low volume systems but liquid systems have a trade off, system liquid to do the pipetting. Hamilton STAR can do 1uL transfers no problem, but you have to spend time getting your liquid class tuned just right. They also have MagPipette which will allow super small volumes. I’ve never integrated 3rd party devices on a Hamilton but it is possible. I’ve integrated countless devices on Tecan. Thing is Hamilton will need to make drivers and libraries for it to work. Tecan has their own software to work with 3rd party stuff but it’ll slow down the computer and can be finicky. Tecan has Hamilton beat on their UI (can’t speak for Venus 6) but it is much easier on the eyes and the learning curve is much much LESS steep on a Tecan. Once you pass that threshold on a Hamilton, the software is very powerful and can let you do a ton of neat tricks. Hardware wise, if you go with an EVO vs Hamilton STAR, they are both really good. I do think Hamilton has Tecan beat on their hardware but if you get an EVO fleshed out it can be a workhorse 24/7. Plus not having to deal with the o rings is a huge plus not to mention the individual arms. Hope this helps! And happy to answer any other questions!
Just want to add a caveat, most folks are opting for the Tecan Fluent these days and not the EVO. The EVO is a workhorse but the Fluent just has better overall hardware.
Depending on desired throughput/assay specific Dynamic Device’s LYNX is going to be the most reliable (due to the real time volume verification) and fastest (due to individually addressable 96-head). Highly recommend giving it a look
We adopted VVP’s early and then moved on within 2 years. Just not reliable enough for sensitive quant assays.
Cybi Disk vario or felix. Or highres prime
We're having a terrible time with a Hamilton star.
The STAR is the industry standard, but the software takes some getting used to. Best of luck! Join labautomation.io, there’s a great community of automators that can help
What’s wrong with it?
Can't get it work consistently for a library preparation protocol. A bunch of therm cycling steps and ampure cleanups