By Donal O’Sullivan, BSc. Reviewed by Michael Anderson, MBA.

When Should Laboratories Use Low-Retention Pipette Tips?

What Does “Low Retention” Mean in a Pipette Tip?

During aspiration and dispensing, liquid interacts with the internal surface of the pipette tip. Depending on the properties of the liquid and the tip surface, some liquid may remain behind after dispensing rather than being transferred to the receiving vessel.

Low-retention pipette tips are designed to reduce this residual liquid.

Manufacturers achieve low-retention behaviour using different approaches to the internal tip surface. Depending on the product, these may include modification of the polypropylene surface, plasma treatment or other manufacturing technologies intended to reduce wetting and liquid retention. Some low-retention surfaces are more hydrophobic than conventional polypropylene, but the mechanism and resulting surface properties are product-specific and should be confirmed from the manufacturer’s technical documentation.

Importantly, “low retention” is not a single standardised performance specification. Technologies and measured performance can differ between manufacturers and tip ranges. Laboratories should therefore avoid assuming that all products described as low-retention will behave identically.

For a broader explanation of pipette tip formats and their role within liquid handling, see LabFriend UK’s Complete Guide to Pipette Tips, Pipetting Accuracy & Laboratory Liquid Handling.

When Can Liquid Retention Become Important?

A small amount of residual liquid is not necessarily important in every transfer.

The significance depends on what is being transferred, how much is being transferred and what happens downstream. The same amount of residual liquid could be inconsequential during one routine transfer but more relevant when the working volume is small or the reagent is difficult or expensive to replace.

Low-retention tips therefore become most useful when the consequences of incomplete delivery matter to the method.

Low-volume transfers

As transfer volumes decrease, liquid remaining on the tip surface can become more important relative to the intended transfer.

This does not mean that a low-retention tip automatically solves low-volume pipetting problems. Pipette operating range, the performance of the pipette with the selected tip, tip fit and seal, operator technique, evaporation and the physical properties of the liquid can all influence low-volume performance. A pipette that has been calibrated or verified with one tip type should not automatically be assumed to provide identical delivery performance with a different tip.

However, where visible or otherwise significant liquid retention is occurring, the tip surface is one variable worth investigating.

Liquids containing detergents or with low surface tension

Some liquids wet polypropylene surfaces more readily than water and can leave a film on the internal wall of a conventional tip after dispensing.

Detergent-containing solutions are a common laboratory example. Manufacturer studies using solutions containing detergents have demonstrated that residual liquid can differ between conventional and low-retention tip surfaces.

The extent of the benefit is dependent on the liquid and the particular tip technology. It should not be converted into a universal percentage improvement applicable to every laboratory workflow.

Valuable or limited-volume reagents

Where reagents are expensive, difficult to prepare or available only in small quantities, unnecessary residual liquid may have a practical cost.

A low-retention tip may therefore be worth evaluating where the laboratory repeatedly observes material remaining in the tip or where recovery is sufficiently important to justify tighter control of this part of the transfer.

The objective is not simply to buy a more specialised consumable. It is to determine whether reducing retention produces a useful improvement in the actual workflow.

Protein and enzyme workflows

Proteins, enzymes and other biological samples can present recovery challenges, but their behaviour depends on the particular biomolecule, formulation, concentration and liquid-handling conditions.

Low-retention tips may therefore be useful in some protein and enzyme workflows, particularly where sample loss or reagent recovery is a concern.

Low retention and low protein binding are not interchangeable specifications. A low-retention tip is designed primarily to reduce liquid remaining on the tip surface after dispensing; this does not by itself demonstrate that adsorption of a particular protein, peptide or enzyme to the tip material is reduced. Where biomolecule adsorption is a material concern, laboratories should review product-specific protein-binding data or evaluate recovery using the actual biomolecule and formulation rather than relying on a low-retention claim alone.

Viscous liquids

High viscosity can slow liquid movement during aspiration and dispensing and can increase the time required for complete delivery. Residual liquid from a viscous sample may therefore reflect both its flow behaviour and its interaction with the tip surface; a low-retention surface addresses the latter but does not remove the effects of viscosity itself.

Low-retention tips may help reduce surface-related retention for some viscous liquids, but they do not correct aspiration or dispensing errors caused by viscosity. Depending on the liquid and method, slower aspiration and dispensing, an appropriate dwell time, reverse pipetting, or use of a positive-displacement pipette may provide better control. The pipette manufacturer’s instructions should be followed when selecting a technique for non-aqueous or highly viscous liquids.

A low-retention surface should therefore not be treated as a substitute for selecting an appropriate technique for a viscous sample.

Conventional vs Low-Retention Pipette Tips

The choice is best made according to the workflow rather than by assuming that one tip type should replace the other throughout the laboratory.

The important distinction is between possible technical benefit and necessary specification.

If a conventional tip already provides satisfactory recovery and transfer performance for a validated routine workflow, changing to a low-retention tip simply because the technology exists may add cost without solving a real problem.

What Low-Retention Tips Do Not Solve

Low-retention performance describes one characteristic of a pipette tip. It should not be used as shorthand for overall tip quality or suitability.

Low retention should also not be treated as synonymous with low binding. Low-retention performance concerns liquid remaining in the tip after dispensing, whereas low-binding performance concerns adsorption of sample components such as proteins or other biomolecules to the material surface. If adsorption of a specific analyte is a concern, require evidence relevant to that analyte rather than assuming that a low-retention claim demonstrates low binding.

A low-retention tip does not by itself establish:

• correct fit with a particular pipette;
• a reliable pipette-to-tip seal;
• sterility;
• DNase-free or RNase-free status;
• filter or aerosol-barrier performance;
• chemical compatibility;
• suitability for a particular assay;
• correct pipetting technique.

These requirements need to be assessed independently.

This is particularly important when laboratories are comparing tip suppliers. A tip can have useful low-retention characteristics and still be unsuitable for a particular pipette or workflow. Conversely, a conventional tip with good functional fit may be entirely appropriate where liquid retention is not a significant source of loss or variability.

How Should a Laboratory Decide Whether Low-Retention Tips Are Worth Using?

A proportionate assessment starts with the workflow rather than the product label.

1. Identify whether retention is actually relevant.
Check whether liquid consistently remains in the tip after dispensing, but do not rely on visual inspection alone. Residual films can be difficult to see, particularly with clear detergent-containing solutions. Where retention could affect the method, assess its practical effect using a suitable quantitative comparison, such as gravimetric delivery, photometric measurement with an appropriate test solution, or recovery of the relevant analyte.

2. Consider the consequence.
The case for low-retention tips is stronger when incomplete delivery could affect a small-volume transfer, consume valuable reagent or reduce recovery of limited sample.

3. Separate retention from other causes.
If transfers are inconsistent, do not assume the tip surface is responsible. Pipette condition, tip fit, aspiration and dispensing technique, evaporation and liquid properties may also contribute.

4. Compare realistic alternatives.
Where low-retention tips appear justified, compare products using the actual pipette, working volume and representative liquid wherever practical. Do not assume that products carrying the same “low retention” description provide equivalent performance.

5. Confirm the other required specifications.
Check manufacturer documentation for the tip's volume range, pipette compatibility and any sterility, purity, filter or other specifications required by the workflow.

For an established or performance-sensitive method, compare the current and proposed tips using the same pipette model, operator, target volume, liquid, dispensing technique and environmental conditions. Define the method-relevant acceptance criteria before testing, use replicate transfers for each tip type, and compare both average recovery or delivered volume and transfer-to-transfer variability. Where the method is validated or otherwise controlled, document the assessment through the laboratory’s applicable change-control procedure before routine implementation.

When Are Conventional Pipette Tips Still the Better Choice?

Low-retention tips should not become a default specification where there is no identified need.

For many routine buffer, reagent-preparation and general liquid-handling tasks, a correctly fitting conventional polypropylene tip can provide the required performance. If the liquid dispenses satisfactorily, recovery is adequate and the method is performing consistently, there may be little reason to introduce a specialist tip.

This is particularly relevant to laboratories trying to control recurring consumables expenditure. The aim should be to specify low-retention performance where it contributes useful value, not to increase the specification of every pipette tip used across the laboratory.

For an established workflow, the purchasing comparison should consider more than the unit price of the tip. Include any measurable reduction in reagent or sample loss together with the costs of qualification, inventory management and implementation of a new consumable. A higher-priced low-retention tip is justified only where the resulting technical or operational benefit is relevant to the workflow.

For growing biotechnology laboratories, that can mean maintaining conventional tips for routine work while evaluating low-retention formats for selected workflows where reagent recovery or residual liquid is genuinely important.

What Should You Check Before Buying Low-Retention Tips?

The words “low retention” alone are not enough to make a purchasing decision.

Before selecting a product, check:

• Pipette compatibility: confirm from the tip or pipette manufacturer’s documentation that the proposed tip is compatible with the specific pipette model. For performance-sensitive work, do not treat physical attachment alone as evidence of satisfactory compatibility; the fitted tip must provide an appropriate seal and acceptable delivery performance with the pipette.
• Volume and pipette range: confirm that the tip has sufficient capacity for the intended transfer and is specified for the pipette model and operating volume being used. Tip capacity and the pipette’s specified operating range are related purchasing considerations but are not the same specification.
• Low-retention evidence: review the manufacturer’s technical data rather than relying on the product name alone. Check which test liquid and volume were used, what conventional or competing tip was used as the comparator, how residual liquid was measured, the number of replicate measurements reported and whether the data include variability as well as an average result. Give greatest weight to evidence generated under conditions that resemble the intended workflow.
• Surface technology: do not assume that all manufacturers use the same treatment or manufacturing process.
• Sample and chemical compatibility: confirm that the tip material and any surface modification are suitable for the solvents, reagents and sample types used in the workflow. Do not infer chemical compatibility from a low-retention claim; compatibility and low-retention performance are separate product characteristics.
• Surface-treatment and additive information: where the assay is sensitive to introduced contaminants, determine whether the low-retention property is produced by a permanent surface modification, a coating or another treatment, and review any relevant manufacturer information on substances that could migrate from the tip into the sample. This may be particularly relevant for trace analysis, sensitive enzymatic reactions or downstream mass-spectrometric analysis.
• Required purity specifications: verify each required claim separately, such as DNase-free, RNase-free, pyrogen or endotoxin specification, and absence of other contaminants relevant to the assay. Where the workflow requires documented quality evidence, confirm the stated acceptance limit, test method and availability of lot-specific or product-level certification rather than relying on general terms such as ‘laboratory grade’ or ‘PCR clean’.
• Sterility: confirm separately where a sterile consumable is required.
• Filter requirement: decide independently whether aerosol-barrier protection is needed.
• Quality documentation and traceability: where required by the laboratory’s quality system, confirm the availability of relevant product specifications, lot identification, certificates or declarations supporting claimed purity or sterility attributes, and notification arrangements for significant product changes. The documentation required should be proportionate to the regulatory and quality requirements of the workflow.
• Workflow performance: where the method is sensitive to a consumable change, evaluate the proposed tip under representative conditions before routine implementation.

This avoids turning “low retention” into an assumed quality grade. It is a functional characteristic that should be selected alongside the other specifications required by the application.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are low-retention pipette tips more accurate than standard tips?

Low-retention pipette tips are not inherently more accurate than standard pipette tips. They are designed to reduce liquid remaining on the internal tip surface. Where retention causes incomplete delivery, reducing that retention may reduce delivery bias and, in some workflows, improve repeatability. Delivery performance still depends on the complete pipette–tip system, selected volume, liquid properties, pipette condition and operator technique.

Do I need low-retention tips for every low-volume transfer?

No. Low volume can make residual liquid proportionally more important, but it does not mean every low-volume workflow requires low-retention tips. The decision should depend on the liquid, the method and whether retention is materially affecting the transfer.

Are low-retention tips useful for viscous liquids?

Low-retention pipette tips can be useful for viscous liquids when surface-related liquid retention contributes to incomplete delivery. However, viscosity also affects aspiration and dispensing behaviour, so low-retention tips do not solve every viscosity-related pipetting problem. Appropriate technique and, where necessary, the choice of pipetting system should also be considered.

Should I use low-retention tips for proteins and enzymes?

Low-retention pipette tips are worth evaluating for protein and enzyme workflows when residual liquid could materially affect reagent or sample recovery. Their suitability depends on the particular biomolecule, formulation and workflow. Low retention should not be assumed to reduce adsorption of a protein, peptide or enzyme; where biomolecule adsorption is important, review product-specific binding data or evaluate recovery under representative conditions.

Are all low-retention pipette tips equivalent?

No. “Low retention” is not a single standardised performance specification, and manufacturers use different technologies and test methods. Compare relevant documentation and, where performance matters, assess the proposed tip within the intended workflow.

Can a low-retention tip replace a filter tip?

No. Low retention and aerosol-barrier filtration perform different functions. A tip may incorporate both characteristics, but low-retention behaviour alone does not provide aerosol protection.

Choosing Low-Retention Tips According to the Workflow

Low-retention pipette tips are most useful when reducing residual liquid has a meaningful consequence for the laboratory.

That may be the case with low-volume transfers, detergent-containing or low-surface-tension liquids, selected viscous samples, or workflows involving valuable biological reagents. In routine applications where conventional tips already deliver satisfactory performance, the additional specification may provide little practical benefit.

The most reliable approach is therefore selective rather than universal: identify where retention matters, compare appropriate tip options under representative conditions and confirm that compatibility and other required specifications are independently satisfied.

Laboratories considering this specification can browse low-retention pipette tip options within the LabFriend pipette-tip range and compare products for their pipette, volume range and workflow.

Written by: Donal O’Sullivan, BSc, Co-Founder and Sales Director, LabFriend UK. Donal brings deep chemistry-led technical expertise across analytical chemistry, biochemistry, environmental monitoring, laboratory instrumentation, consumables and scientific product selection.

Reviewed by: Michael Anderson, MBA, Founder and Managing Director, LabFriend UK. Michael reviews LabFriend UK content for customer relevance, commercial accuracy, operational practicality and alignment with LabFriend UK’s laboratory supply model.

Related Reading

TheComplete Guide to Pipette Tips, Pipetting Accuracy & Laboratory LiquidHandling