RESUMO
Commercial automation systems for small- and medium-sized laboratories, including research environments, are often complex to use. For liquid handling systems (LHS), development is required not only for the robot's movements but also for adapting the bioanalytical method to the automated system. This study investigates whether a more human-like automation strategy-using a robotic system (RS)-is more suitable for research laboratories than a professional automation approach utilizing a commercial automated LHS. We conducted a series of measurements for protein determination using a Bradford assay manually, with a fully automated LHS, and with our human-like RS. Although the hand-like RS approach requires more than twice the time of the LHS, it achieved the best standard deviation in this setup (RS = 0.5, manual = 0.71, LHS = 0.86). Due to the low limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ), most protein samples could be quantified with the RS (samples below LOQ = 9.7%, LOD = 0.23; LOQ = 0.25) compared to manual (samples below LOQ = 28.8%, LOD = 0.24; LOQ = 0.26) and the LHS (samples below LOQ = 36.1%, LOD = 0.27; LOQ = 0.31). In another time-dependent enzymatic assay test, the RS achieved results comparable to the manual method and the LHS, although the required time could be a constraint for short incubation times. Our results demonstrate that a more hand-like automation system closely models the manual process, leading easier to accurate bioanalytical results. We conclude that such a system could be more suitable for typical research environments than a complex LHS.