Switching Pipette Brands Mid-Project: What Went Right—and Wrong
Switching Pipette Brands Mid-Project: What Went Right—and Wrong
Blog Article
How the Switch Happened
Switching pipette brands in the middle of an important project wasn’t something I planned. Like most researchers, I grow comfortable with specific tools, and I had developed a solid workflow with the brand of micropipettes our lab had used for years. But during the second phase of my project—right in the middle of a high-throughput qPCR study—our primary pipettes began showing signs of wear. The tip cones loosened, the plungers didn’t feel smooth anymore, and a few started leaking air during aspiration.
While waiting for calibration services and repairs, our department procured a new set of micropipettes from a different brand. They were supposed to be of equal quality, possibly even better. I was hesitant at first, but with a deadline approaching, I had no choice but to adjust. I told myself a pipette is just a pipette—how different could it really be?
Related: Also check Micropipette to learn more about pipette.
The First Few Days of Adjustment
The new pipettes looked sleek and modern, and the digital volume display was easier to read. But from the very first use, I noticed differences. The plunger resistance felt lighter, which threw off my muscle memory during aspirating and dispensing. My thumb was used to a certain pressure, and suddenly I was overdrawing or underdrawing volumes without realizing it.
The tip fitting was another hurdle. The brand required a specific tip type, and while our lab had some universal tips, they didn’t always fit snugly. A few times, tips popped off mid-use or didn’t seal well, which introduced inconsistencies in volume delivery. I started double-checking each attachment, wasting time that normally would have gone into actual work.
It felt like I had to relearn something I had already mastered. My pipetting rhythm broke, and so did my confidence in the data being produced. I began to wonder whether switching mid-project had been a bigger risk than I had anticipated.
What Improved with the New Brand
After I got through the adjustment phase, some advantages started to show. Longer pipetting sessions proved to benefit greatly from the lower plunger pressure. I was able to maintain accuracy across several plates and felt less thumb fatigue. I did not realize how important the new pipettes' more comfortable grip and smoother ejection mechanics would be for extended periods of repetitive work.
I eventually came to trust the volume accuracy of the new pipettes. Initially, I started performing verification steps more frequently, confirming volumes with balances and controls. My initial skepticism eventually subsided as I realized how well their accuracy held up. I even started using the same brand's multi-channel versions and liked how easily they matched 96-well plates.
After I adjusted, the newer pipettes gave me a new sense of control and ergonomic relief, but the transition was not smooth. They were simply different, not superior or inferior. However, those distinctions were more significant than I had anticipated in the midst of a closely monitored project.
Where It Went Wrong
The change made in the middle of the project did cause some issues, despite the long-term advantages. The pipetting technique differences before and after the switch were the most evident problem. Even minor changes in delivery style or pressure could have introduced inconsistencies across sample sets, and I was halfway through the data collection process. Comparing older findings with more recent ones became more challenging, particularly when it came to minute variations in gene expression.
Coordination within the team was another unforeseen setback. We occasionally shared tasks, and other lab members continued to use the original pipettes. As a result, two sets of pipettes with varying force mechanics, tip requirements, and calibration styles were in rotation. It was simple to make mistakes, and there were a few instances where someone unintentionally used the incorrect tip or set the volume incorrectly because of display differences.
The importance of documentation increased even further. I had to note that the brand had changed and clearly label which pipette was used for each batch of samples. In order to preserve internal consistency, we made sure that all replicates for important assays were carried out using the same brand and included a note in our final report acknowledging the equipment transition.
What I Learned from the Experience
This experience taught me that pipettes—though small—can have a significant impact on scientific outcomes, especially in projects that rely heavily on precise liquid handling. I learned to never underestimate how a change in tool, even one that seems minor, can disrupt data continuity.
Moving forward, I now ensure that pipette brands remain consistent throughout the lifecycle of a project whenever possible. If a switch is necessary, I isolate the datasets before and after the change and repeat critical assays for consistency. I also document every tool change, no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time. These records matter more than you’d think—especially when troubleshooting or publishing.
The transition wasn’t ideal, but it forced me to grow as a more meticulous and observant researcher. It also gave me the chance to discover a new tool that I now trust and recommend. Switching pipette brands mid-project came with challenges, but in the end, it strengthened both my data discipline and my adaptability in the lab.
Report this page