Uncertainty Structure of Dilution with Pipette and Volumetric Flask

Hayash, Yuzuru; Matsuda, Rieko

doi:10.2116/analsci.10.881

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From our calculation, droplet dispensing can control the random errors to be within 5%, compared with 4%-12% random errors of micropipettes in the range of 100 nl to 500 nl. 1,10,[30][31][32][33] As we expected, the random errors of volume using Dotette have a decreasing trend with increasing dispensing volumes [Fig. 4(d)].…”

Section: Characterization Studies Of Droplet Dispensingmentioning

confidence: 76%

Dotette: Programmable, high-precision, plug-and-play droplet pipetting

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual micropipettes are the most heavily used liquid handling devices in biological and chemical laboratories; however, they suffer from low precision for volumes under 1 l and inevitable human errors. For a manual device, the human errors introduced pose potential risks of failed experiments, inaccurate results, and financial costs. Meanwhile, low precision under 1l can cause severe quantification errors and high heterogeneity of outcomes, becoming a bottleneck of reaction miniaturization for quantitative research in biochemical labs. Here, we report Dotette, a programmable, plug-and-play microfluidic pipetting device based on nanoliter liquid printing. With automated control, protocols designed on computers can be directly downloaded into Dotette, enabling programmable operation processes. Utilizing continuous nanoliter droplet dispensing, the precision of the volume control has been successfully improved from traditional 20%-50% to less than 5% in the range of 100 nl to 1000 nl. Such a highly automated, plug-and-play add-on to existing pipetting devices not only improves precise quantification in low-volume liquid handling and reduces chemical consumptions but also facilitates and automates a variety of biochemical and biological operations.

show abstract

Section: Characterization Studies Of Droplet Dispensingmentioning

confidence: 76%

Dotette: Programmable, high-precision, plug-and-play droplet pipetting

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The uncertainty factors described above are themselves entirely independent, and equation (4) consists only of multiplicands and divisors. Thus, according to the law of error propagation, the combined RSD 2 is the sum of the squares of the individual RSDs [18], [19]. As a result, the relative combined standard uncertainty is 9.03-16.3% for the 29 isomers.…”

Section: Estimating and Combining The Uncertaintiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Effect of Revising the Estimation Procedure of Uncertainty in Dioxin Analysis

Oyanagi¹

2015

SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Procedure for estimating uncertainty in the analysis of dioxins was revised, and differences in the results obtained between the former and revised procedures were investigated. In the former procedure, uncertainty was estimated from fluctuations in the actual sample data such as the recovery rate of the sampling spike (for a gas sample), duplicate sampling (for a water sample), and replicate tests (for a soil/ash sample). As such, the former procedure differed depending on the sample medium. In the revised procedure, the author estimated uncertainty according to a bottom-up approach. The uncertainty determined in a gas sample and an ash sample using the revised procedure tended to be larger than that obtained by the former procedure. In a water sample, the uncertainty determined using the revised procedure was smaller than that obtained using the former procedure in low concentration range. These results suggest that (1) the uncertainty using the bottom-up approach may become larger than the actual variation when the maximum estimate of an uncertainty factor is assigned (in this study, the variation in the peak area ratio from GC/MS measurements), and that (2) differences in uncertainty determined by different estimation methods readily occur, particularly in the low concentration range.

show abstract

“…the preparation, must be taken into account [7]. The theoretical expression for the response is shown in equation (1).…”

Section: Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We chose to validate the use of diluters in HPLC analyses by comparison with traditional, reliable and well-tried methods using a Pipette and Volumetric Flask, methods of which dispersion characteristics had been studied in depth [1]. An alternate method using a burette instead of pipettes was also evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the use of an automatic diluter in HPLC analyses by comparison with traditional methods

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In an analysis protocol, dilution is nowadays the last step that is never (or seldom) fully automated. Yet special appliances called diluters are commercially available. In spite of the potential advantages in time and solvent saving, analysts are still reluctant to use these diluters, mainly because of the insufficient proof that they are able to give accurate and precise results. Validation by gravimetry did not represent an irrevocable argument since it could not account for memory effect. That is the reason why we chose to carry out our validation of the dilution step in HPLC analyses with an automatic diluter through a comparison with classical methods using flasks and pipettes or burettes. A parent solution made of concentrated Spiramycin was diluted by the various methods. The control analysis was operated using HPLC with UV detection. The experimental design involved two operators and results obtained were processed using statistical tools such as ANOVA and regression. Conclusions were that in any case the diluter was at least as effective as traditional methods. Observed variability introduced by dilution was 0.30% RSD with diluter, and 0.45% RSD with classical methods. In addition, as was shown by the results of the lack of fit test, diluter accuracy is quite compatible with linearity studies in HPLC. Consequently, it is possible and even advantageous to use a diluter instead of manual methods.

show abstract

Uncertainty Structure of Dilution with Pipette and Volumetric Flask

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Dotette: Programmable, high-precision, plug-and-play droplet pipetting

Dotette: Programmable, high-precision, plug-and-play droplet pipetting

Evaluation of the Effect of Revising the Estimation Procedure of Uncertainty in Dioxin Analysis

Validation of the use of an automatic diluter in HPLC analyses by comparison with traditional methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About