TY - JOUR
T1 - Pipetting Performance across Laboratory Personnel
T2 - A Comparative Study
AU - Özcan, Ömer.
AU - Grundel, Patrick J. M.
AU - Heijboer, Annemieke C.
AU - den Elzen, Wendy P. J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact [email protected].
PY - 2026/5/1
Y1 - 2026/5/1
N2 - Background: Accurate and precise pipetting is critical for reliable laboratory results, especially when handling small volumes or sensitive analytical techniques. Despite the common use of piston-operated pipettes, operator-dependent variability remains a major source of error. This study aimed to evaluate pipetting performance among laboratory personnel with varying levels of experience. Methods: The study included 108 participants: 26 laboratory school students (first to third year), 10 PhD students, 10 clinical chemists, and 62 laboratory technicians. Technicians were stratified into 3 groups based on the extent of sensitive manual pipetting in their work: minimal (Group A), moderate (Group B), and high (Group C). Pipetting performance was evaluated using gravimetric replicates at 10 µL and 100 µL volumes, and a dilution task involving serial dilutions of 1 M copper sulfate. Accuracy and precision metrics were compared across groups. Results: The median coefficient of variation (CV%) was lower for 100 µL replicates (0.3% to 0.8%) than for 10 µL replicates (1.4% to 5.9%). Laboratory students showed the greatest variability and longest task completion times, although performance improved with advancing school year. Ten percent of participants exceeded ISO-defined accuracy limits for 10 µL pipetting, and 22% for 100 µL. Imprecision limits were surpassed by 36% and 20% of participants for 10 µL and 100 µL, respectively. Group C technicians achieved optimal dilution performance (R2 = 1.00), while students showed the highest deviation. Conclusions: Pipetting performance was significantly influenced by experience level and task sensitivity. Even experienced personnel occasionally failed to meet ISO standards, underscoring the need for ongoing training and performance assessment.
AB - Background: Accurate and precise pipetting is critical for reliable laboratory results, especially when handling small volumes or sensitive analytical techniques. Despite the common use of piston-operated pipettes, operator-dependent variability remains a major source of error. This study aimed to evaluate pipetting performance among laboratory personnel with varying levels of experience. Methods: The study included 108 participants: 26 laboratory school students (first to third year), 10 PhD students, 10 clinical chemists, and 62 laboratory technicians. Technicians were stratified into 3 groups based on the extent of sensitive manual pipetting in their work: minimal (Group A), moderate (Group B), and high (Group C). Pipetting performance was evaluated using gravimetric replicates at 10 µL and 100 µL volumes, and a dilution task involving serial dilutions of 1 M copper sulfate. Accuracy and precision metrics were compared across groups. Results: The median coefficient of variation (CV%) was lower for 100 µL replicates (0.3% to 0.8%) than for 10 µL replicates (1.4% to 5.9%). Laboratory students showed the greatest variability and longest task completion times, although performance improved with advancing school year. Ten percent of participants exceeded ISO-defined accuracy limits for 10 µL pipetting, and 22% for 100 µL. Imprecision limits were surpassed by 36% and 20% of participants for 10 µL and 100 µL, respectively. Group C technicians achieved optimal dilution performance (R2 = 1.00), while students showed the highest deviation. Conclusions: Pipetting performance was significantly influenced by experience level and task sensitivity. Even experienced personnel occasionally failed to meet ISO standards, underscoring the need for ongoing training and performance assessment.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105037941785
U2 - 10.1093/jalm/jfag006
DO - 10.1093/jalm/jfag006
M3 - Article
C2 - 41633407
SN - 2576-9456
VL - 11
SP - 460
EP - 469
JO - journal of applied laboratory medicine
JF - journal of applied laboratory medicine
IS - 3
ER -