An Open-source Capping Machine Suitable for Confined Spaces

Andrew I. Cooper; Francisco Munguia-Galeano; Hatem Fakhruldeen; Louis Longley; Rob Clowes; Satheeshkumar Veeramani; Zhengxue Zhou

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 17 references

An Open-source Capping Machine Suitable for Confined Spaces

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A compact open-source capping machine for fume hoods caps and uncaps vials with 100% reliability over 100 cycles, at a sealing rate the paper finds adequate for short-term automated chemistry.

desk verdict Useful prototype but headline reliability is conditional on hand-picked vials; sealing data lacks error bars and the vision detector is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03743 v1 pith:HFX67FSA submitted 2025-06-04 cs.RO

Francisco Munguia-Galeano , Louis Longley , Satheeshkumar Veeramani , Zhengxue Zhou , Rob Clowes , Hatem Fakhruldeen , Andrew I. Cooper This is my paper

classification cs.RO

keywords cappingmachineself-drivinglaboratorieschemistryautomationopen-sourcehardwarefumehoodvision-basedfailuredetectionvialsealingroboticsamplehandling

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the design and testing of a compact, open-source capping machine intended for self-driving laboratories that work inside fume hoods. The authors claim that the machine can cap and uncap vials with a 100 percent success rate over 100 consecutive cycles, provided the vials are pre-selected for intact threads and placed with their threads facing the cap feeder. They also report that vials sealed by the prototype lose on average 0.54 percent of their liquid weight per day, compared with 0.0078 percent for an industrial capping station and 0.013 percent for manual capping, making it a reasonable alternative where space and budget are limited. The contribution is a low-cost, robot-agnostic design with an integrated vision check that catches failed caps before a workflow proceeds.

What carries the argument

The mechanical core is a single DC motor driving a lead screw through a timing belt; a cam on the carriage engages a vial-locking mechanism, while the same linear motion carries vials under a cap feeder and against a rubber friction rail that spins the cap tight. Reversing the motor runs the same rail in reverse to loosen caps for uncapping. The failure detector is an RGB-camera check that segments blue reflections from the vial threads: visible blue above a threshold means the cap has not fully covered the threads, and the system flags or halts.

What would settle it

Take 100 vials directly from a laboratory drawer without pre-selecting or orienting them and run the same capping and uncapping protocol; if any capping fails, the claimed 100 percent reliability is shown to depend on the external pre-selection step rather than on the machine itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a low-cost capping machine small enough for a fume hood can replace larger industrial cappers in self-driving laboratory workflows when those workflows pre-qualify vials. The prototype caps and uncaps vials 100 times with a 100% success rate, and across water, ethanol, and acetone the sealed vials lose 0.54% of content weight per day on average, versus 0.0078% for the industrial capper and 0.013% for manual capping. The paper attributes the residual loss to vapour evaporation rather than leakage, and concludes the seal is adequate for short-term operations such as mixing and temporary storage. A vision subsystem that looks for blue thread reflections distinguishes a sealed from an unsealed cap and can stop the system on failure.

Load-bearing premise

The 100 percent success rate holds only for vials that someone has already checked for intact threads and oriented with their threads toward the cap feeder; the machine itself cannot detect or correct a defective thread or a wrong orientation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A laboratory with only fume-hood space can automate capping and uncapping without a floor-standing industrial station, as long as vials are pre-selected and oriented.
Workflows can be stopped automatically when a cap is not sealed, because the vision check reports capping status to the controller.
The machine is robot-agnostic: any robot that can place and retrieve vials can drive it, avoiding the need for a dedicated capping robot.
For short-term sample handling, the measured evaporation loss is acceptable; the residual loss is evaporation rather than leakage.
Defective vial threads are the main observed failure mode, so automated use should include a pre-selection or inspection step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If thread orientation is the dominant success factor, a passive or vision-based thread-orientation stage could remove the human pre-selection step; that would be the natural next test.
The 0.54% daily average is dominated by acetone, so for long multi-day storage of high-volatility solvents the accumulated loss would likely exceed acceptable thresholds; the 'reasonable alternative' claim should be read as scoped to short-term workflows.
The vision detector currently checks cap placement but not torque; adding torque feedback, which the paper lists as future work, is the most direct way to close the sealing gap with the industrial capper.
The same mechanical multiplexing layout could likely be extended to other vial sizes by adding lanes and hoppers, but reliability would need revalidation because thread tolerances vary by supplier.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Quick take: this is a genuine engineering contribution, but the headline numbers are conditional in ways the abstract doesn't disclose. The core design — a compact, single-motor capping station using cams and a lead screw to multiplex locking, cap feeding, and tightening — is new and practical. The comparative sealing data against manual capping and a Chemspeed station is a real dataset, and the authors are honest about the machine's limits in the discussion and future work.

What's good: the mechanical multiplexing reduces actuators to one motor, the footprint (300x500x400 mm) is genuinely fume-hood friendly, the vision-based failure detector is a sensible idea, and the paper gives enough detail (algorithms, schematics, BOM) to reproduce the build. The uncapping lane is also a nice touch. The authors explicitly note that humans compensate for defective vials by adjusting torque, and that their own machine cannot yet detect defective vials or orientation — that's the kind of candid reporting you want.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the 100% success rate applies only to vials that were manually pre-selected for non-defective threads and placed with threads facing the cap feeder. The vision system only checks after capping whether threads are still visible; it cannot predict a bad cap start. So the abstract's "100% success rate" overstates what the machine does autonomously. Second, the vision detector's accuracy is never measured — no false positives/negatives on the 100 cycles, just an algorithmic description with an unvalidated contour-area threshold. Third, the sealing data are noisy: acetone replicates range from 0.13% to 14% weight loss, and there are no error bars or statistical tests anywhere. The 0.54%/day average is heavily driven by acetone and is roughly 40-70x worse than the baselines, so calling it a "reasonable alternative" needs a qualifier like 'for short-term sample handling with non-volatile solvents.' Fourth, the paper promises open-source but (at least in this version) gives no repository link or design file access.

Who's it for: labs building low-cost automated sample handling, especially in fume hoods. It's a solid prototype paper, not a breakthrough. I'd send it to peer review — a good referee will ask for the missing validation and a rewritten abstract, but the engineering is worth publishing.

Best, [You]

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes a compact, low-cost, open-source capping machine designed for confined spaces such as fume hoods, with a vision-based capping-failure detector. The authors validate the device in two experiments: (1) 100 capping/uncapping cycles performed with a Panda robot, reporting a 100% success rate, and (2) a sealing test in which vials filled with water, ethanol, or acetone are capped by the prototype, by hand, or by a Chemspeed station, then weighed over three days. The prototype's average daily weight loss is 0.54%, compared with 0.013% for manual capping and 0.0078% for the Chemspeed. The paper concludes that the machine is a reasonable alternative to industrial and manual capping for SDL workflows, especially where space and budget are constrained.

Significance. If the central claims are properly supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: a detailed, low-cost, compact capping machine design with an integrated failure-detection concept and benchmarks against both manual and industrial capping. The mechanical multiplexing approach, the Arduino-based control, and the comparison with a Chemspeed station are credible strengths. The study is directly relevant to self-driving laboratories and open-source automation hardware. However, the two load-bearing quantitative claims are not yet adequately supported: the 100% success rate depends on manually pre-selected, correctly oriented vials, and the sealing results show very high variance without statistical analysis. These issues must be addressed before the paper's central conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§4, §5, Algorithm 2] The 100% success rate is conditional on manual pre-selection and orientation of vials. Section 4 states that 'the vials are first pre-selected and manually positioned at the orientation illustrated in Fig. 7,' and Section 5 reports that defective vials cause capping failures and that 'simple visual analysis and pre-selection of non-defective vials was found to lead to reliable capping.' The vision system only checks after capping whether threads remain visible through the cap; Section 7 explicitly lists recognizing 'whether it is defective and properly oriented' as future work. Thus the headline 100% figure measures a hand-curated workflow, not the autonomous SDL operation implied by the abstract. The abstract and conclusions should state this condition prominently, or the claim should be reworded.
[Tables 1–3, §5] The sealing data are reported only as averages, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. For acetone capped by the prototype, the individual three-day losses range from 0.13% to 14.06% (Table 1), so the average per-day value of 1.40% is not representative and could be dominated by a single defective seal. Without measures of spread and significance relative to manual and Chemspeed baselines, the statement that the prototype is a 'reasonable alternative' is not quantitatively supported. Please report per-replicate variability, perform an appropriate statistical comparison, and state the number of replicates and any outlier handling.
[§3.3, Algorithm 1] The vision-based capping-failure detector is not validated. Algorithm 1 uses a contour-area threshold that is a free parameter, but the paper reports no ground-truth accuracy, false-positive/false-negative rates, or tests across lighting conditions and thread geometries. Since the vision system is presented as a key safety and reliability feature (and as an advantage over the Chemspeed), its detection performance should be measured and reported, for example with a confusion matrix over capped/unccapped vials.
[§7, Abstract] The conclusion that a 0.54% per-day average weight loss 'is not significant for most chemical experiments in SDLs' is unsupported. No threshold for acceptable loss is defined, and the prototype's loss is roughly 40–70 times higher than the manual and Chemspeed baselines. At minimum, the authors should specify an application-dependent acceptable-evaporation criterion, or soften the claim to 'acceptable only for short-term handling with solvents of low to moderate volatility.'

minor comments (6)

[General] The title and abstract call the machine 'open-source,' but the manuscript provides no repository link, license, or data-availability statement for the CAD files, firmware, or Arduino code. Please add a clear availability section.
[Tables 1–3] The rows in Tables 1–3 are visually run together, making the data hard to read. Please reformat with clear row separators and consistent units, and make explicit that the 'Per day' column is the three-day average divided by three.
[§5] There is a typo 'Cheemspeed' in the paragraph reporting the average weight loss; it should be 'Chemspeed.'
[Algorithm 2] Steps 8 and 15 involve manual intervention ('Return cap, user uncaps manually' and 'Remove manually'). The paper should clarify how such interventions are treated in the reported 100% success rate, i.e., whether they are excluded from or counted against the success metric.
[§3.3 and Algorithm 1] Section 3.3 says the detector uses 'reflections from vial threads visible in the blue channel,' but Algorithm 1 converts the ROI to HSV and applies a color mask. Please align the description in the text with the actual algorithm (e.g., specify that the blue channel is selected via hue or via a fixed color range).
[Figure 8] Figure 8 shows a Chemspeed failure, not a prototype failure. The caption and the sentence 'the Chemspeed station cannot detect capping failure Fig. 8' should be clarified so readers do not confuse the two systems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical hardware validation with external baselines and no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical hardware paper. The central claims (100% capping/uncapping success and 0.54% average daily weight loss) are measured outcomes, not derivations from fitted parameters or self-citations. The 100% success rate is reported under explicitly disclosed conditions (pre-selected non-defective vials, manually oriented as in Fig. 7), and the paper acknowledges in §5 that defective vials cause failures; this is a limitation on external validity, not a circular step. The vision-based failure detector operationally defines 'capped' from thread visibility, but the detector output is not forced by construction: the system could have flagged failures, and the independent sealing experiment provides a separate mass-loss measure. The only apparent self-citation, reference [17], appears in the Discussion as a contextual contrast ('Unlike workflows where robots directly cap vials [17]') and is not load-bearing for the paper's conclusions. There is no equation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper should not be penalized for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims depend on a friction-based tightening mechanism, an optical capping-failure heuristic, and the assumption that measured weight loss is evaporation. The only hand-set parameter is the vision threshold, and the paper provides no torque or vision accuracy calibration.

free parameters (1)

Vision contour area threshold
Algorithm 1 uses a manually chosen threshold on the area of detected contours to classify capping failure; the value is not reported and the detector's accuracy is not validated.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Friction between the rubber rail and the cap is sufficient to tighten caps to a secure seal without torque control
§3.1 and Fig. 3 describe the friction-based capping principle; no torque measurement is reported.
domain assumption Reflections from vial threads visible in the blue channel indicate an unsealed cap
§3.3 and Algorithm 1 rely on this optical cue; detection accuracy is not quantified.
domain assumption Weight loss over three days reflects solvent evaporation through the seal rather than leakage
§7 states the loss is 'primarily due to vapour evaporation rather than leakage,' but no leak check such as vial inversion is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Open-source Capping Machine Suitable for Confined Spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFX67FSA

@misc{pith2026250603743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Open-source Capping Machine Suitable for Confined Spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFX67FSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03743}
}

read the original abstract

In the context of self-driving laboratories (SDLs), ensuring automated and error-free capping is crucial, as it is a ubiquitous step in sample preparation. Automated capping in SDLs can occur in both large and small workspaces (e.g., inside a fume hood). However, most commercial capping machines are designed primarily for large spaces and are often too bulky for confined environments. Moreover, many commercial products are closed-source, which can make their integration into fully autonomous workflows difficult. This paper introduces an open-source capping machine suitable for compact spaces, which also integrates a vision system that recognises capping failure. The capping and uncapping processes are repeated 100 times each to validate the machine's design and performance. As a result, the capping machine reached a 100 % success rate for capping and uncapping. Furthermore, the machine sealing capacities are evaluated by capping 12 vials filled with solvents of different vapour pressures: water, ethanol and acetone. The vials are then weighed every 3 hours for three days. The machine's performance is benchmarked against an industrial capping machine (a Chemspeed station) and manual capping. The vials capped with the prototype lost 0.54 % of their content weight on average per day, while the ones capped with the Chemspeed and manually lost 0.0078 % and 0.013 %, respectively. The results show that the capping machine is a reasonable alternative to industrial and manual capping, especially when space and budget are limitations in SDLs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03743 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Low-cost capping machine for confined spaces. Key components include a capping failure detector, a vial locking mechanism, a hopper, capping and uncapping lanes, and a manual control panel. The compact form factor allows deployment in constrained spaces such as fume hoods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Vial holder and its locking mechanism. The image illustrates the engagement between the bearing and the cam when the vial holder moves to the left. This mechanism interaction causes the two fasteners to move towards one another, which locks the vial in place. The movement can be seen as the gap between the red and blue lines. 3 Capping Machine Design This section presents the design of the capping machine, which en… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Capping system and its schematic diagram. First, the vial is placed when the vial holder is at position 1. Then, the vial holder moves to position 2. The capping process is achieved by utilising the friction between the cap and the rubber rail, which tightens the cap as it passes below the cap feeder on its way to the home position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Arduino-based DC Motor Control Circuit Schematic of the Capping Machine. This circuit design ensures safe control of the DC motor by using a manual control panel and an Arduino controller with protection mechanisms. Relays are shown in their unpowered states. 3.2 Elect…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Capping failure detector. On the left side of the image, the algorithm, after defining a region of interest (ROI), applies a mask and segments the light reflected through the vial’s threads, indicating capping failure. On the right side of the image, after segmenting t…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Experimental setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Correct vial positioning and defects. A common defect can be observed in the top left of the image, where the vial on the left side is missing a thread. This defect leads to resistance or poor placement during capping and may cause the capping machine to fail to secure…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The Chemspeed station failing to cap a defective vial. Normally, the caps rack is where the manipulator attempts to place the caps. However, due to an unsuccessful uncapping attempt, the manipulator attempted to place the entire vial there, resulting in a crash. the vi…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Sci- ence347(6227), 1221–1226 (2015)

Li, J., Ballmer, S.G., Gillis, E.P., Fujii, S., Schmidt, M.J., Palazzolo, A.M.E., Lehmann, J.W., Morehouse, G.F., Burke, M.D.: Synthesis of many differ- ent types of organic small molecules using one automated process. Sci- ence347(6227), 1221–1226 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5414, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaa5414

work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa5414 2015
[2]

ACS Cen- tral Science9(8), 1525–1537 (2023)

Salley, D., Manzano, J.S., Kitson, P.J., Cronin, L.: Robotic modules for the programmable chemputation of molecules and materials. ACS Cen- tral Science9(8), 1525–1537 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.3c00304, https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.3c00304

work page doi:10.1021/acscentsci.3c00304 2023
[3]

Nature 583(7815), 237–241 (2020)

Burger, B., Maffettone, P.M., Gusev, V.V., Aitchison, C.M., Bai, Y., Wang, X., Li, X., Alston, B.M., Li, B., Clowes, R., et al.: A mobile robotic chemist. Nature 583(7815), 237–241 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

Advanced Materials 35(6), 2207070 (2023)

Wu, T.C., Aguilar-Granda, A., Hotta, K., Yazdani, S.A., Pollice, R., Vestfrid, J., Hao, H., Lavigne, C., Seifrid, M., Angello, N., Bencheikh, F., Hein, J.E., Burke, M., Adachi, C., Aspuru-Guzik, A.: A materi- als acceleration platform for organic laser discovery. Advanced Materials 35(6), 2207070 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202207...

work page doi:10.1002/adma.202207070 2023
[5]

In: 2022 International Conference on Recent Trends in Microelectronics, Au- tomation, Computing and Communications Systems (ICMACC)

Paul, J.E., G, L.: Cost efficient automatic filling system for differently sized bot- tles. In: 2022 International Conference on Recent Trends in Microelectronics, Au- tomation, Computing and Communications Systems (ICMACC). pp. 1–6 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMACC54824.2022.10093437

work page arXiv 2022
[6]

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN pp

Kumar, A.A., Rao, P.S.: Automation of bottle manufacturing, filling and capping process using low cost industrial automation. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN pp. 2278–0181 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

In: Third International Conference on Mechanical Design and Simulation (MDS 2023)

Yao,Q.,Chai,C.,Liu,X.,Pang,W.,Shen,D.,Cao,X.:Designofpneumaticcontrol system for automatic bottle capping device. In: Third International Conference on Mechanical Design and Simulation (MDS 2023). vol. 12639, pp. 35–43. SPIE (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

In: 2022 International Engineering Conference on Electrical, Energy, and Artificial Intelligence (EICEEAI)

Mahrez, A., Hilmy, A., Alasoad, A., Yahya, A.E., Yahya, K., Amer, A., Attar, H.: Design a plc-based automated and controlled liquid filling-capping system. In: 2022 International Engineering Conference on Electrical, Energy, and Artificial Intelligence (EICEEAI). pp. 1–5. IEEE (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 17 references

[9]

In: 2020 IEEE Conference on Telecommunications, Optics and Computer Science (TOCS)

Zhang, S., Ji, J., Zhao, Y., Li, Y.: Control system design of automatic capping machine based on s7-300 plc. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on Telecommunications, Optics and Computer Science (TOCS). pp. 337–339. IEEE (2020)

2020
[10]

SLAS TECHNOLOGY: Translating Life Sciences Innovation26(3), 320–326 (2021)

Jaeger, J.W., Adkins, S.C., Perez-Tamayo, S.C., Werth, K.E., Hansen, G., Nimunkar, A.J., Radwin, R.G.: Automated device for uncapping multiple-size bio- analytical sample tubes designed to reduce technician strain and increase produc- tivity. SLAS TECHNOLOGY: Translating Life ...

2021
[11]

In: 2016 23rd International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP)

Kumar, A., Pillearachichige, K., Sharifi, H., Shaw, B., Noble, F.K.: Design of end- effectors for a chemistry automation plant. In: 2016 23rd International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP). pp. 1–5. IEEE (2016)

2016
[12]

LIMITED,Z.T.:Zonesuncappingmachines.https://www.zonesun.com/collections/cap- screwing, accessed: 25-11-2024

2024
[13]

https://www.azenta.com/intellixcap-tube- capping-decapping-sealing-systems?, accessed: 25-11-2024 14 F

SCIENCES, A.L.: Azenta intellixcap™. https://www.azenta.com/intellixcap-tube- capping-decapping-sealing-systems?, accessed: 25-11-2024 14 F. Munguia-Galeano et al

2024
[14]

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Water, retrieved September 20, 2024

for Biotechnology Information (2024), N.C.: Pubchem compound summary for cid 962, water. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Water, retrieved September 20, 2024

2024
[15]

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Acetone, retrieved September 20, 2024

for Biotechnology Information (2024), N.C.: Pubchem compound summary for cid 180, acetone. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Acetone, retrieved September 20, 2024

2024
[16]

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethanol, retrieved September 20, 2024

for Biotechnology Information (2024), N.C.: Pubchem compound summary for cid 702, ethanol. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethanol, retrieved September 20, 2024

2024
[17]

Lunt, A.M., Fakhruldeen, H., Pizzuto, G., Longley, L., White, A., Rankin, N., Clowes, R., Alston, B., Gigli, L., Day, G.M., Cooper, A.I., Chong, S.Y.: Modular, multi-robot integration of laboratories: an autonomous workflow for solid-state chemistry". Chem. Sci.15, 2456–2463 (...

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sci- ence347(6227), 1221–1226 (2015)

Li, J., Ballmer, S.G., Gillis, E.P., Fujii, S., Schmidt, M.J., Palazzolo, A.M.E., Lehmann, J.W., Morehouse, G.F., Burke, M.D.: Synthesis of many differ- ent types of organic small molecules using one automated process. Sci- ence347(6227), 1221–1226 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5414, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaa5414

work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa5414 2015

[2] [2]

ACS Cen- tral Science9(8), 1525–1537 (2023)

Salley, D., Manzano, J.S., Kitson, P.J., Cronin, L.: Robotic modules for the programmable chemputation of molecules and materials. ACS Cen- tral Science9(8), 1525–1537 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.3c00304, https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.3c00304

work page doi:10.1021/acscentsci.3c00304 2023

[3] [3]

Nature 583(7815), 237–241 (2020)

Burger, B., Maffettone, P.M., Gusev, V.V., Aitchison, C.M., Bai, Y., Wang, X., Li, X., Alston, B.M., Li, B., Clowes, R., et al.: A mobile robotic chemist. Nature 583(7815), 237–241 (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Advanced Materials 35(6), 2207070 (2023)

Wu, T.C., Aguilar-Granda, A., Hotta, K., Yazdani, S.A., Pollice, R., Vestfrid, J., Hao, H., Lavigne, C., Seifrid, M., Angello, N., Bencheikh, F., Hein, J.E., Burke, M., Adachi, C., Aspuru-Guzik, A.: A materi- als acceleration platform for organic laser discovery. Advanced Materials 35(6), 2207070 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202207...

work page doi:10.1002/adma.202207070 2023

[5] [5]

In: 2022 International Conference on Recent Trends in Microelectronics, Au- tomation, Computing and Communications Systems (ICMACC)

Paul, J.E., G, L.: Cost efficient automatic filling system for differently sized bot- tles. In: 2022 International Conference on Recent Trends in Microelectronics, Au- tomation, Computing and Communications Systems (ICMACC). pp. 1–6 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMACC54824.2022.10093437

work page arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN pp

Kumar, A.A., Rao, P.S.: Automation of bottle manufacturing, filling and capping process using low cost industrial automation. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN pp. 2278–0181 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

In: Third International Conference on Mechanical Design and Simulation (MDS 2023)

Yao,Q.,Chai,C.,Liu,X.,Pang,W.,Shen,D.,Cao,X.:Designofpneumaticcontrol system for automatic bottle capping device. In: Third International Conference on Mechanical Design and Simulation (MDS 2023). vol. 12639, pp. 35–43. SPIE (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

In: 2022 International Engineering Conference on Electrical, Energy, and Artificial Intelligence (EICEEAI)

Mahrez, A., Hilmy, A., Alasoad, A., Yahya, A.E., Yahya, K., Amer, A., Attar, H.: Design a plc-based automated and controlled liquid filling-capping system. In: 2022 International Engineering Conference on Electrical, Energy, and Artificial Intelligence (EICEEAI). pp. 1–5. IEEE (2022)

work page 2022