How automation with Andrew+ strengthens analytical reliability without replacing scientific expertise

Automation matches human performance in sample preparation. An internal study conducted by our R&D and Innovation team confirms that both manual and automated preparation deliver equivalent analytical quality, reproducibility and data integrity across two complex workflows.

What does it mean? Automation can be used interchangeably with manual preparation, without any performance. It doesn’t replace scientists, but it replicates their expertise. By standardising repetitive steps, we free up some valuable time for our analysts, allowing them to perform more complex tasks, resolve analytical challenges, focus on higher-value analytical decisions and methods optimisation.

Why does it matter for your development programmes?

Integrating automated sample preparation into your projects and analytical workflows enables:

  • Accelerated time-to-results
  • Shorter timelines thanks to an increased throughput
  • Stronger data integrity thanks to standardised handling
  • Consistent results and high reproducibility, even for large sample volume
  • Off-the-shelf methods for routine analysis

For a CRO exclusively dedicated to analytical sciences, the Andrew+ pipetting robot strengthens our ability to secure your drug development with high-quality data.

Humans vs. Robots in sample preparation: case study

Sample preparation is a critical step in analytical workflows. It influences chromatographic quality, data interpretation, and ultimately the reliability of biopharmaceutical results. As development timelines accelerate, laboratories are increasingly adopting automated sample preparation to improve precision and reproducibility.

Why evaluate automated sample preparation?

Manual preparation has always been seen as the gold standard, yet it comes with well-known limitations:

  • Time-consuming
  • Repetitive
  • Potential risk of inconsistent sample processing
  • Limited throughput

Automated preparation opens new possibilities, enabling user-friendly execution, time savings (up to 30% on complex processes), easy customisation, increased throughput and higher standardisation despite the initial investment required.

On paper, robots appear to have the edge over humans, but what happens when theory meets practice? With the Andrew+ platform integrated into our laboratory, our R&D and Innovation team ran a comparison between manual and automated sample preparation to objectively quantify their analytical performance

Study Design

We conducted a controlled comparison between manual preparation performed by a skilled analyst and automated preparation using the Andrew+ pipetting robot (Waters - Andrew Alliance).

2 representative applications were selected, both highly sensitive workflows where preparation errors could compromise data integrity.

1. Peptide mapping analysis

  • Comparison of chromatographic profiles
  • Assessment of digestion quality
  • Evaluation of post-translational modifications, including oxidation

2. mAb glycans profiling

  • Comparison of glycan profiles
  • Evaluation of RSD% to assess reproducibility

The objective was clear: to determine whether automated sample preparation can be used interchangeably with an experienced analyst without compromising performance.

Key Results

Peptide Mapping: highly comparable performance. Both manual and automated conditions delivered:

  • Similar chromatograms
  • Comparable digestion and peptide identification quality
  • Slightly lower oxidation levels in the automated workflow

Glycan Profiling: equivalent accuracy and reproducibility. Automated preparation achieved:

  • Equivalent glycan profiles
  • Low and comparable RSD% values

Conclusion

The Andrew+ robot delivers performance equivalent to manual preparation across both case studies.

Detailed results, chromatograms and workflow comparisons, are explained in a scientific poster

Access the complete study