Marlene Frank, product manager at INTEGRA Biosciences
CREDIT: Marlene Frank
Marlene Frank is a product manager at INTEGRA Biosciences, where she specializes in handheld pipettes, EVOLVE manual and SWITCH hybrid pipettes, as well as the pipet controller PIPETBOY (GENIUS and acu2). Marlene has a strong background in laboratory science, engineering, and biotechnology, with over 10 years of experience in product management.
Pipetting is one of the most common routine tasks in the laboratory, especially for scientists working on high-throughput or repetitive workflows, so the physical demands can add up over time. Repeated plunger action, tip loading and ejection, and wrist movements may contribute to strain and repetitive stress injuries (RSIs), while discomfort can also affect pipetting technique, accuracy, precision, and productivity. In this Q&A, Marlene Frank explains the physical demands of manual pipetting, the design features that can make repetitive workflows easier, and applications where electronic pipetting and automation can provide meaningful benefits.
Q: What are the risk factors that make routine pipette handling physically demanding over time?
A: Before I started working in industry as a product manager, I worked in a lab, and I was pipetting a lot. At one point, I encountered problems with my hand, but I didn’t know about RSIs or that they could be caused by pipetting. I was just getting on with the work, and my pain was going from bad to worse.
Once you start thinking about the motions involved in pipetting, you see that all the risks are kind of obvious. Moving a plunger is repetitive, and many researchers do it at least 1,000 times a day. Another issue is repeated turning of the plunger, which is needed for volume adjustment. Hand movements can cause wrist problems, which, in turn, can change hand position and posture. You must also think about other factors, such as the diameter and shape of the pipette, and the forces required during use. I am therefore glad that I could help to develop the SWITCH hybrid pipette, which has been optimized for these parameters, so that today’s lab scientists hopefully won’t struggle with the same problems I had from pipetting.
Q: Which pipette design features make the biggest ergonomic difference in high-throughput or repetitive workflows?
A: For high-throughput work, multichannel pipettes, electronic pipettes, and automation can all make a difference in reducing repetitive movements. A researcher can fill a 96-well plate with a single-channel pipette, for example, but that means they must press and release the plunger 96 times, which is not good in terms of ergonomics. For someone preparing many plates, that repetition quickly adds up.
Using multichannel or electronic pipettes with up to 96 channels, like the MINI 96, can improve this process. The next step is going from repetitive processes to automation. With a system such as the INTEGRA ASSIST PLUS pipetting robot, scientists can program their electronic pipettes to work automatically on the robot. It’s important to consider the best product and the right fit for your budget, since this can be a constraint.
Q: Can you share some insight into specific applications that are best suited for electronic pipetting systems?
A: Many laboratory experts perform repeat dispensing for applications such as PCR. These workflows are often performed with either manual pipettes or sometimes electronic pipettes. Scientists may be resistant to using multichannel pipettes for PCR because transferring master mix to a reservoir may lead to the unnecessary loss of expensive reagents.
One solution involves working from a 1 mL manufacturer tube instead of a reservoir and using a hybrid pipette, such as the INTEGRA SWITCH, which allows users to prepare the master mix manually, like with any other mechanical pipette. The additional electronic repeat dispense function can then be used to distribute the master mix into many tubes, saving time, improving throughput, and minimizing reagent loss.
Such an approach can be used for cell culture preparation as well. Users may turn to fully electronic pipettes based on method or sample needs. For example, dissociating cell clusters requires manual repeated pipetting up and down. Electronic pipetting can do this in a very controlled manner, with a single finger, without repeated manual plunger action. Once a researcher knows the optimal settings for a specific cell line, they can just program a pipette, such as the VIAFLO electronic pipette, to ensure the same speed and volume every time. Fully electronic pipettes help to provide much more reproducible workflows and significant relief over manual pipetting.
Q: Why should lab managers treat pipetting ergonomics as a performance issue, rather than just a comfort or well-being concern?
A: If a person has an RSI from less-than-ideal pipette ergonomics, this is likely to get worse over the longer term if they continue to strain. Scientists affected by RSIs may need to leave the lab for a time to recover, maybe days or even longer.
Additionally, as RSIs progress, researchers may compensate by changing their pipetting technique, posture, or the way they apply plunger and tip forces. Those changes can impact the accuracy and precision of pipetting. Throughput can also be affected due to impaired ability. So, pipetting ergonomics is not only relevant for the person experiencing an RSI but also to lab managers and the lab overall, in terms of operational logistics and costs.
Q: What’s the best approach for lab managers to take when outfitting labs with pipetting solutions?
A: I think the best starting point is understanding what applications are being performed. Lab managers should consider what type of work and how much is involved, as well as the importance of throughput and reproducibility. Of course, the budget is important as well. The goal is to find the right balance between the lab’s workflow requirements and the level of investment.
Ergonomic factors should also be part of the evaluation. The trouble that factors such as plunger action, sample loading, and tip ejection forces can cause from constant daily use cannot be overstated. When I was in the lab, I had to use significant force to attach the tips properly and an equal amount of force to eject them afterward. Over time, these small actions place a substantial physical burden on the user. However, this is not the case with GRIPTIPS pipette tips, which require extremely low loading and ejection forces and never leak or fall off the pipetting head. They therefore reduce the forces needed to secure tips, helping to decrease the strain on the user.
Once lab managers understand their workflows and priorities, it can be helpful to speak with a liquid handling expert for their best recommendations. Customers sometimes come to us with a very clear idea of the product they believe they need. But after discussing the application and the problems they are trying to solve, it may turn out that another product is the right solution. This is why consultation with experts is so important and helpful.
These considerations, among others, are the main drivers of our product design. We want to make it easier for labs to find the perfect tools for their workflow and performance requirements, while also reducing the physical demands placed on users.
To learn more, visit Integra Biosciences
