Outsource vs In-House ICP-MS Testing
Buying an ICP-MS makes sense when trace-metal volumes are high and steady and you can sustain clean sample preparation, argon supply and skilled operators. Otherwise outsourcing to laboratories already running the method — often with accreditation — is usually lower risk.
Often kept in-house
- High-volume routine elemental analysis
- Process or product release where turnaround is critical
Often outsourced
- Low or irregular volumes
- Regulated compliance data requiring certification
- Unusual matrices or speciation work
Factors to weigh
- Testing volume and how predictable it is
- Equipment capital cost and depreciation (obtain real supplier quotations)
- Operating costs: consumables, gases, reference materials, service contracts
- Staff expertise, training and retention
- Facility requirements: space, utilities, ventilation, environmental control
- Calibration, maintenance and instrument qualification
- Method validation and quality system (e.g. ISO/IEC 17025 if accredited results are needed)
- Turnaround needed versus outside laboratory turnaround plus shipping
- Sample logistics, stability and holding times
- Expected instrument utilization
Common questions
- Is ICP-OES a cheaper alternative?
- ICP-OES has higher detection limits but lower complexity; if your limits allow it, it may be sufficient.
- Is there a volume where in-house pays off?
- There is no universal figure. Compare fully loaded in-house cost — equipment, staff, calibration, consumables, quality overhead — against real outside quotations for your actual annual volume.