**4. Conclusion**

In order to fulfill the need for higher throughput options, the technology behind liquid han‐ dling devices is in constant progression, with systems capable of delivering smaller volumes at a faster rate with accuracy and precision. These developments should consider cost reduc‐ tion by minimizing reagent and solvent expenditure, as well as reducing consumables.

[3] Berg, M, Undisz, K, Thiericke, R, Zimmermann, P, Moore, T & Posten, C (2001). Eval‐ uation of liquid handling conditions in microplates. *Journal of Biomolecular Screening*,

Practical Considerations of Liquid Handling Devices in Drug Discovery

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52546

197

[4] Bergsdorf, C, Gewiese, N, Stolz, A, Mann, R, Parczyk, K & Bomer, U (2006). A costeffective solution to reduce dead volume of a standard dispenser system by a factor

[5] Bradshaw, JT, Curtis, RH, Knaide, TR & Spaulding, BW (2007). Determining dilution accuracy in microtiter plate assays using a quantitative dual-wavelength absorbance method. *Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation*, Vol. 12(5): pp. 260-66

[6] Bradshaw, JT, Knaide, T, Rogers, A & Curtis, R (2005). Multichannel Verification Sys‐ tem (MVS): a dual-dye ratiometric photometry system for performance verification of multichannel liquid delivery devices. *Journal of the Association for Laboratory Auto‐*

[7] Cleveland, PH & Koutz, PJ (2005). Nanoliter dispensing for uHTS using pin tools.

[8] Diaspro, A, Chirico, G, Usai, C, Ramoino, P & Dobrucki, J (2006). Photobleaching. In: *Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy*. J. B. Pawley. pp 690-702, Springer Science

[9] Dong, H, Ouyang, Z, Liu, J & Jemal, M (2006). The use of a dual dye photometric cali‐ bration method to identify possible sample dilution from an automated multichannel liquid-handling system. *Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation*, Vol. 11(2):

[10] Dunn, DA & Feygin, I (2000). Challenges and solutions to ultra-high-throughput screening assay miniaturization: submicroliter fluid handling. *Drug Discovery Today*,

[11] Ellson, R, Mutz, M, Browning, B, Lee, L, Miller, MF & Papen, R (2003). Transfer of low nanoliter volumes between microplates using focused acoustics—automation considerations. *Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation*, Vol. 8(5): pp. 29-34

[12] Felton, MJ (2003). Liquid handling: dispensing reliability. *Analytical Chemistry*, Vol.

[13] Harris, D, Mutz, M, Sonntag, M, Stearns, R, Shieh, J, Pickett, S, Ellson, R & Olechno, J (2008). Low nanoliter acoustic transfer of aqueous fluids with high precision and ac‐ curacy of volume transfer and positional placement. *Journal of the Association for Labo‐*

[14] Harris, D, Olechno, J, Datwani, S & Ellson, R (2010). Gradient, contact-free volume transfers minimize compound loss in dose-response experiments. *Journal of Biomolec‐*

of 5. *Journal of Biomolecular Screening*, Vol. 11(4): pp. 407-12

*Assay and Drug Development Technologies*, Vol. 3(2): pp. 213-25

Vol. 6(1): pp. 47-56

*mation*, Vol. 10(1): pp. 35-42

+Business Media, LLC, New York

pp. 60-64

Vol. 5(12): pp. S84-S91

75(17): pp. 397a-99a

*ratory Automation*, Vol. 13(2): pp. 97-102

*ular Screening*, Vol. 15(1): pp. 86-94

The main concerns and limitations that liquid handling systems face are reproducibility and reliability. The devices should be robust to execute extensive experiments in a daily basis with minimal downtime and maintenance. However, as a single screen can generate thou‐ sands of data points, the user is required to ensure all the devices are functioning up to standards by implementing routine quality assessments. Regardless of the technological in‐ novations and advancements, scientists are compelled to spend significant amount of time optimizing the liquid handling parameters to suit specific assay conditions. A thorough un‐ derstanding of the principles, strengths and limitations of the instruments is advantageous in preventing undesirable results and facilitating troubleshooting.
