Laboratory Devices Connectivity: Automation and Digital Integration
Written by Sebastian Gross
Introduction
Modern life-science laboratories are increasingly adopting automation and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, resulting in a new generation of laboratory devices equipped with smart digital features. This development enables laboratories to enhance efficiency, data management, and device coordination.
Key Scenarios for Laboratory Device Connectivity
Three primary scenarios have been identified to evaluate the integration of laboratory devices:
- Fleet Management: This scenario focuses on obtaining a comprehensive operational overview of laboratory devices, including utilization rates, service needs, and maintenance status.
- Data Automation: Here, the emphasis is on the automatic loading and sending of data, for example, between a balance and a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS).
- Laboratory Automation: This involves controlling device actions to enable coordinated automation within physical laboratory workflows.
Device Communication Technologies
Effective communication between laboratory devices and corporate IT systems (LIMS, ELN, IMS, etc.) is a prerequisite for all of the above scenarios. Historically, serial communication and, more recently, USB connections have been widely used. In cases where a wired connection is impractical, Bluetooth has become increasingly advantageous.
Regardless of the communication method, these approaches typically require an intermediary, separate agent to bridge the connection between laboratory devices and the corporate IT system. As a result, IP-based communication over Ethernet or WiFi is emerging as the preferred method, aligning with common practices for IT system communication. While standards such as OPC-UA and SiLA2 are utilized, most laboratory instruments on the market offer a proprietary RESTful API interface.
The primary distinction between these communication standards for end users lies in the effort and steps necessary to transfer information between the corporate IT system and laboratory devices. For example, USB-connected devices must first interface with a PC or connector box before achieving IP-based communication with systems such as an ELN or an instrument dashboard. A process that involves multiple entities greatly increases the risk of errors occurring while the direct communication does not.
Information Exchange and Data Standards
Once communication is established, the next critical question arises concerning the types of information and data that can be exchanged and which actions can be initiated on the connected device. For analytical devices, standards such as Allotrope and AniML have been partially adopted for data exchange, while LADS is designed specifically for laboratory automation and standards like SICB and miniSICS cater to balances. Despite these efforts, most devices do not adhere to a dedicated information model standard.
Consequently, when multiple instruments from various vendors must be integrated, an integration layer is often recommended. This layer translates data from different devices, enabling information exchange with the corporate IT system.
Market Overview
Currently, no vendor offers a fully digital service that encompasses all their laboratory devices. However, companies such as Eppendorf (Visionize), Thermo Fisher (Connect Platform), and Mettler Toledo (LabX) provide enterprise solutions that facilitate fleet management to some extent. Eppendorf and Thermo Fisher also offer connector boxes that integrate USB devices, thereby expanding the range of models connected to their platforms.
While Eppendorf and Mettler Toledo’s solutions are limited to their own devices, Thermo Fisher’s Connect Platform also supports third party devices. It is important to note that integrating a third-party IT system into these vendor platforms is not part of their current design, though these platforms provide a solid foundation for fleet management use cases.
On the other side, many vendors are adapting existing serial-based interfaces for IP-based communication through connector boxes. As wired connection would impede laboratory operations, companies like Gilson and Sartorius offer Bluetooth-enabled pipettes, allowing workflow execution and configuration through vendor-provided apps, and enabling partial automation of complex pipetting tasks.
Several modern balance models are equipped with IP-based interfaces, making them suitable for laboratory and data automation use cases. The adoption of smart digital features across other device categories varies by instrument model and use case. For example, centrifuges designed for robotic integration often include extensive digital monitoring and control functions, whereas standard centrifuges may lack any digital interface.
Infrastructure devices such as freezers, fridges and incubators typically feature online monitoring capabilities to oversee temperature constraints, often with alert notifications for breaches. Some manufacturers, like Memmert and Kühner, also enable remote control of temperature and stirring speed controls, which becomes particularly valuable when paired with robotic-compatible incubators like the Kühner SF1-Z Basic Beluga.
Conclusion
The adoption of automation and IoT technologies in life-science laboratories is slowly increasing. The ability to effectively connect and manage these devices is crucial for fleet management, data automation, and laboratory workflow automation. Despite progress in communication standards and integration solutions, comprehensive digital connectivity across all laboratory instruments remains a challenge, with ongoing efforts from vendors and evolving industry standards shaping the landscape.