One Graduate Student Could Only Run Two Samples in an Afternoon: The Bottleneck in Microplastic Detection Was Not “Accuracy,” but “Can We Actually Process Enough Samples?”
This is a delivery case from a microplastic laboratory at a university in East China.
Before the system was introduced, the laboratory’s normal workflow was that one graduate student could spend an entire afternoon and complete only two samples. About three months after the AML518 Fully Automated Micro-Raman Analysis System was installed, the laboratory gradually adopted a new workflow: sample preparation during the day, loading the samples before leaving work, and collecting the reports the next morning.
The reason the customer initially contacted us was actually very straightforward:
“A large amount of research time is being consumed by repetitive work.”
For a microplastic laboratory that needs to process large numbers of water samples, the factor limiting detection capacity is not necessarily whether an instrument is “accurate enough,” but whether the entire detection workflow can continuously and efficiently process enough samples.
1. The Bottleneck in Microplastic Detection Was Not Necessarily Instrument Accuracy, but Manual Operations
The laboratory mainly conducts research on microplastics as emerging contaminants and routinely processes large batches of water samples. Previously, it used an imported Fourier-transform infrared microscopy system.
One graduate student spent an entire afternoon and ultimately completed only two samples.
This was not an isolated incident. It represented a typical problem in the daily workflow of laboratories conducting this type of research. Almost every step—from focusing, adjusting laser power, setting integration time, screening particles, to interpreting spectra—required manual intervention.
It took 3~4 days from sample preparation to final results, and one person could complete a maximum of 2~3 samples per day.
At the same time, the instrument interface was entirely in English, resulting in a relatively long learning curve for new users. For research teams that need to continuously expand their sample throughput, operator training and repetitive operations further consume valuable research time.
The customer’s exact description of the problem was:
“A large amount of research time is consumed by repetitive work.”
Therefore, this equipment upgrade was not simply about replacing one analytical instrument. It addressed a more practical question:
How can microplastic detection be transformed from a highly manual process into a more automated workflow?
2. Why Has Microplastic Detection Become Something Laboratories “Have to Do”?
In 2022, the General Office of the State Council’s Action Plan for the Control of New Pollutants explicitly listed microplastics as emerging contaminants.
The real driver behind laboratories expanding their detection capabilities, however, has been the accumulation of relevant health evidence over the past three years.
It is important to emphasize that all of the following studies are correlational studies and do not establish causality. For example, there is currently no definitive conclusion regarding whether microplastic accumulation in the brain occurs before or after dementia.
| Research Area | Main Findings | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Cardiovascular Risk | 304 carotid artery patients were enrolled, with 257 followed for approximately 34 months; patients with microplastics/nanoplastics detected in plaques had a 4.53-fold higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality than those without detected particles | The New England Journal of Medicine, 2024 |
| Accumulation in Brain Tissue | Comparison of 52 autopsy samples: the concentration of microplastics in the brain in 2024 was approximately 50% higher than in 2016 and was 7~30 times higher than in the liver/kidneys; levels in patients with dementia could be 3~5 times those in individuals without dementia | Nature Medicine, 2025 |
| Intestinal Tumors | Microplastics were detected in 56.4% of 188 intestinal tumor samples, with PET accounting for the highest proportion (40.8%); patients with detected microplastics had a higher risk of postoperative recurrence | Nature Health, 2026 |
The significance of these studies is not simply to claim that “microplastics definitely cause a particular disease.” Rather, they have further increased research demand for microplastic exposure, distribution, and associations with health outcomes.
Therefore, there is no need to exaggerate the potential risks, but detection capabilities need to be established as soon as possible. This is also the practical reason why laboratories are expanding their testing capabilities.
3. How Should Laboratories Choose a Microplastic Detection Technology? The Key Is One Word: “Wet”
There is more than one technical route for microplastic detection.
At present, domestic microplastic-related standards in China are being developed separately for different sample matrices:
- Surface water uses micro-Raman spectroscopy (SL/T 849—2025, the first domestic industry standard for microplastic detection);
- Soil uses micro-infrared spectroscopy (under consultation);
- Aquatic products use laser infrared spectroscopy (SC/T 9452—2025).
For laboratories that need to process samples from different matrices, the key consideration is not simply purchasing a machine that “meets a certain standard.” Instead, laboratories need to consider:
Whether the equipment can accommodate different sample matrices and whether the entire detection process can form a stable automated workflow.
| Technology | Lower Particle-Size Limit | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Micro-Raman Spectroscopy | Approximately 1 μm | Can perform wet measurements, with the shortest sample-preparation workflow; susceptible to fluorescence interference |
| Micro-Infrared Spectroscopy | 10~20 μm | Usually requires dry-film preparation, making sample preparation more demanding |
| Laser Infrared (LDIR) | Approximately 20 μm | Automated and rapid scanning, suitable for high-throughput screening |
| Py-GC/MS | — | Provides only mass fraction, without single-particle size and morphology information |
If Raman spectroscopy is selected, the key consideration is essentially two words:
Wet measurement.
Water samples do not need to be converted into dry films, and the shorter sample-preparation workflow makes it possible to further integrate robotic handling and achieve full-process automation from sample loading through analysis.
Of course, micro-Raman spectroscopy also has its own technical limitations, one of the most important being fluorescence interference.
The corresponding approach is to suppress fluorescence using longer-wavelength lasers—this is also an important reason for using a dual-laser configuration.
4. After Equipment Replacement: From Manual Monitoring to Automated Detection
The AML518 is built around micro-Raman spectroscopy and is equipped with a robotic linkage system.
The following are our product parameters:
| Item | Our Product Parameters |
|---|---|
| Automation Scope | Full process from sample loading, scanning, focusing, AI particle identification, and spectral acquisition to report generation |
| Laser Configuration | Dual-laser configuration with 785 nm and 1064 nm lasers |
| Parallel Processing Capacity | Up to 100 samples can be loaded in a rolling sequence per batch, supporting 24-hour unattended operation |
| Scanning Speed | Approximately 1,800 photographs per microscope slide, requiring approximately 18 minutes |
| Identification Range | 50~5000 μm, covering 21 common polymers |
| Recovery Rate (Our Internal Test) | 91% for 300 μm particles and 97% for 1000 μm particles |
From the perspective of the actual laboratory workflow, the change is straightforward:
Prepare samples during the day → load the samples before leaving work → let the system run automatically → collect the reports the next morning.
This means researchers can spend less time on repetitive operations and devote more time to experimental design, data analysis, and research itself.
It should be emphasized that equipment specifications do not necessarily represent the final detection results under every laboratory condition. Before purchasing, we recommend conducting a test run using the actual sample matrices from your own laboratory.
5. Which Applications Do We Not Recommend This Equipment For?
Every microplastic detection system has its own application boundaries.
If a laboratory’s research focus closely matches any of the following scenarios, these limitations should be carefully evaluated before purchase.
1. Research Primarily Focused on Nanoplastics
The automated identification lower limit of this system is 50 μm, while <1 μm still requires Py-GC/MS.
Therefore, if the primary research focus is nanoplastics rather than automated single-particle detection of microplastics, another analytical route should be considered.
2. Dark-Colored or Filler-Containing Particles
Raman identification can be challenging for these types of samples, and the accuracy for such samples will be lower than the nominal value.
Therefore, for dark-colored, pigment-containing, or filler-containing particle samples, actual samples should be tested before purchase rather than relying solely on theoretical specifications.
3. Expecting the Equipment to Solve “Inter-Laboratory Comparability” on Its Own
An automated system can reduce errors caused by manual operations, but it cannot independently solve all data consistency issues between different laboratories.
Whether data can be compared across laboratories ultimately depends on:
Standardization + widespread use of reference materials.
This is not a problem that any single instrument can solve independently.
Frequently Asked Questions: How Should Laboratories Choose Microplastic Detection Equipment?
Is There a Unified National Standard for Microplastic Detection?
There is currently no unified mandatory national standard covering all sample matrices. Standards are being developed separately according to different matrices: SL/T 849—2025 is already available for surface water, while ecological and environmental standards for soil and marine applications are still under consultation.
How Should Laboratories Choose Between Imported and Domestic Microplastic Detection Equipment?
It depends on the specific application scenario.
For mature spectral libraries, recognition by international journals, and nanoscale analytical capabilities, imported general-purpose platforms remain mainstream. For high throughput, routine testing, multi-matrix screening, and situations where budgets and available personnel are limited, domestic fully automated dedicated equipment has more obvious efficiency advantages.
A practical combination is:
“Use imported systems for precision, and domestic systems for volume.”
Ultimately, the decision should be based on the laboratory’s sample types, detection particle-size range, routine sample volume, automation requirements, and budget, preferably after actual testing.
Can Fully Automated Microplastic Detection Equipment Solve “Data Incomparability”?
It can significantly reduce human errors, such as missed detections, incorrect identifications, and duplicate counting.
However, whether data can be compared across laboratories ultimately depends on standardization and widespread use of reference materials, rather than something any single instrument can solve independently.
Are the Detection Methods for Microplastics and Nanoplastics Interchangeable?
No.
Microplastics can be analyzed using micro-Raman spectroscopy / infrared spectroscopy for particle-by-particle identification of particle size and polymer type. For nanoplastics (<1 μm), the mainstream approach remains the Py-GC/MS mass-fraction method. The information dimensions provided by these methods are not interchangeable.
What Applications Is This Equipment Least Suitable For?
There are mainly two categories:
The first is research primarily focused on nanoplastics, because the automated identification lower limit is 50 μm.
The second is dark-colored, pigment-containing, or filler-containing particle samples, for which Raman identification accuracy will be lower than the nominal value.
Why Is a Dual-Laser Configuration Necessary?
When shorter-wavelength lasers are used for excitation, fluorescence generated by the sample itself may overwhelm the Raman signal.
The 785 nm and 1064 nm dual-laser configuration is used to suppress fluorescence backgrounds in complex-matrix samples. This is a prerequisite for determining whether Raman spectroscopy can be directly applied to water samples.
Data Sources and Methodological Notes
Standard information is sourced from publicly released documents issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.
The health-related studies are respectively sourced from publicly published papers and reports in The New England Journal of Medicine (Marfella et al., 2024), Nature Medicine (Nihart et al., 2025), and Nature Health (2026). All are correlational studies and do not establish causal conclusions.
The AML518 performance parameters are our published product specifications. Parameters vary between different models.
Customer information in this case has been anonymized, and time references have been presented in relative terms.
