Laboratory professionals have relied on manual pipetting methods for centuries, and they certainly have their advantages, including relatively low-cost equipment and simple techniques. However, as sample volumes decrease and accuracy requirements increase, the disadvantages of manual pipetting become more and more serious.
pipette tips
A reasonable alternative is to consider automated pipetting equipment that can provide higher throughput and accuracy. But these solutions also have their drawbacks and may not be the best choice for all applications. So how do you decide which technology to use? Here, we explore the pros and cons of manual and automated pipetting and explain how to decide which is best.
Advantages and disadvantages of manual pipetting
Having a technician for pipetting applications is the norm in most laboratories, and this approach has several key benefits. Yongyue Medical's on-site pipette calibration experts explain that the upfront cost of manual pipetting equipment is lower and the time required to train technicians is minimal. Lab staff can easily perform multiple sample runs and switch between applications with minimal setup.
That said, there are several drawbacks to manual pipetting, some of which become more pronounced as requirements change over time. A key issue is human error. If technicians use inconsistent techniques, there is a risk of concentration variations. This, in turn, can impact data quality and even cause costly detection re-runs. Consistency and accuracy become increasingly important as modern techniques require extremely small sample sizes and analytical instruments become more sensitive.
Another disadvantage is the occurrence of repetitive strain injury, and pipetting is considered one of the most repetitive tasks in the laboratory. One study showed that handling a pipette doubles the risk of hand disease.
Determine if automation provides a better solution
Automated pipetting equipment overcomes many of the challenges of manual methods, resulting in significantly improved accuracy and precision of detection, a particularly important consideration in molecular applications that require accurate and consistent sample preparation. Automated methods also increase speed and often allow equipment to operate unattended, allowing researchers to focus on other aspects of the study rather than repetitive tasks.
However, automating processes is not without its drawbacks. These methods are usually complex and require a long training time. Devices can be difficult to reconfigure between runs, and applications are still vulnerable to human error to some extent.
So, how do you know if the benefits of automation outweigh the disadvantages? Where accuracy is very important, the decision is fairly straightforward. We recommend that automated pipetting is often preferable in applications using highly sensitive analytical instruments; for example, next-generation sequencing and qPCR.
In other cases, a sensible approach is to weigh the costs and benefits of implementing an automated system. It is important to consider not only the up-front purchase cost, but also the resources spent on training employees to use the equipment properly. These are then compared to the cost savings achieved through increased throughput and productivity. Also consider avoiding other costs, such as those associated with assay re-runs and personal injury.
