IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0147140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Simple and Low-Cost Monitoring System to Investigate Environmental Conditions in a Biological Research Laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Akshay Gurdita
  • Heather Vovko
  • Mark Ungrin

Abstract

Basic equipment such as incubation and refrigeration systems plays a critical role in nearly all aspects of the traditional biological research laboratory. Their proper functioning is therefore essential to ensure reliable and repeatable experimental results. Despite this fact, in many academic laboratories little attention is paid to validating and monitoring their function, primarily due to the cost and/or technical complexity of available commercial solutions. We have therefore developed a simple and low-cost monitoring system that combines a “Raspberry Pi” single-board computer with USB-connected sensor interfaces to track and log parameters such as temperature and pressure, and send email alert messages as appropriate. The system is controlled by open-source software, and we have also generated scripts to automate software setup so that no background in programming is required to install and use it. We have applied it to investigate the behaviour of our own equipment, and present here the results along with the details of the monitoring system used to obtain them.

Suggested Citation

  • Akshay Gurdita & Heather Vovko & Mark Ungrin, 2016. "A Simple and Low-Cost Monitoring System to Investigate Environmental Conditions in a Biological Research Laboratory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147140
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147140
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147140&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0147140?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonard P Freedman & Iain M Cockburn & Timothy S Simcoe, 2015. "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Seibold, Heidi & Charlton, Alethea & Boulesteix, Anne-Laure & Hoffmann, Sabine, 2020. "Statisticians roll up your sleeves! There’s a crisis to be solved," MetaArXiv frta7, Center for Open Science.
    3. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2019. "Standing on the Shoulders of Science," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 215, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    5. Antica Culina & Ilona van den Berg & Simon Evans & Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar, 2020. "Low availability of code in ecology: A call for urgent action," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    7. Muradchanian, Jasmine & Hoekstra, Rink & Kiers, Henk & van Ravenzwaaij, Don, 2020. "How Best to Quantify Replication Success? A Simulation Study on the Comparison of Replication Success Metrics," MetaArXiv wvdjf_v1, Center for Open Science.
    8. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    9. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    10. Julia Koehler Leman & Sergey Lyskov & Steven M. Lewis & Jared Adolf-Bryfogle & Rebecca F. Alford & Kyle Barlow & Ziv Ben-Aharon & Daniel Farrell & Jason Fell & William A. Hansen & Ameya Harmalkar & Je, 2021. "Ensuring scientific reproducibility in bio-macromolecular modeling via extensive, automated benchmarks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    12. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    13. Muradchanian, Jasmine & Hoekstra, Rink & Kiers, Henk & van Ravenzwaaij, Don, 2020. "How Best to Quantify Replication Success? A Simulation Study on the Comparison of Replication Success Metrics," MetaArXiv wvdjf, Center for Open Science.
    14. Wang, Xuefeng & Zhang, Shuo & Liu, Yuqin & Du, Jian & Huang, Heng, 2021. "How pharmaceutical innovation evolves: The path from science to technological development to marketable drugs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    15. Martin Backfisch, 2018. "The Development of Firm Size and Innovativeness in the Pharmaceutical industry between 1989 and 2010," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201813, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    16. Matthias Steinfath & Silvia Vogl & Norman Violet & Franziska Schwarz & Hans Mielke & Thomas Selhorst & Matthias Greiner & Gilbert Schönfelder, 2018. "Simple changes of individual studies can improve the reproducibility of the biomedical scientific process as a whole," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    18. Jeff Miller & Rolf Ulrich, 2019. "The quest for an optimal alpha," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    19. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Stavroula Kousta & Christine Ferguson & Emma Ganley, 2016. "Meta-Research: Broadening the Scope of PLOS Biology," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-2, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.