Blog | Organomation

Organomation Dual Plate MICROVAP vs Biotage TurboVap 96 Dual

Written by Organomation | February 26, 2026

 

If your lab runs two 96-well plates a day—or ten—evaporation quickly becomes the step that dictates everything else.

Chromatography systems may finish in minutes, but sample prep can still take hours. When analysts are waiting on plates to dry, throughput drops, overtime rises, and reporting deadlines get tight. That’s why many academic and environmental labs upgrade to dual-plate nitrogen evaporators to standardize concentration and keep workflows moving.

Two common options are the Organomation Dual Plate MICROVAP and the Biotage TurboVap 96 Dual. Both automate nitrogen blowdown for microplates. But the day-to-day experience—and long-term operating cost—can feel very different depending on your application.

Below is a plain-English comparison focused on what actually matters in the lab, not just spec sheets.

👉 For the complete side-by-side technical table, download the full comparison matrix here.

 

At a Glance: How These Systems Think Differently

Dual Plate MICROVAP → Efficiency & durability first
Designed for labs that want lower nitrogen use, chemical resistance, and predictable operating costs.

TurboVap 96 Dual → Feature-driven evaporation
Designed for labs that prefer heated nitrogen and gentler conditions for certain sensitive samples.

Both evaporate two plates. The difference is how much it costs you to do it every day.

Capacity & Workflow (Where both systems are similar)

Both platforms:

• Hold two 96-well microplates
• Provide independent gas control per plate
• Fit easily inside a fume hood
• Support moderate-throughput workflows

For most academic or environmental labs, capacity is not the deciding factor. Either system can handle routine batch sizes. The real differences show up after installation—when you start running plates daily.

Nitrogen Consumption - The Hidden Cost Most Labs Don’t Calculate

If you only compare features, both systems look similar.  If you compare gas demand, they don’t. One platform runs at substantially lower pressure and flow, while the other requires significantly higher nitrogen input.

That difference affects:

• Generator sizing
• Cylinder replacement frequency
• Utility bills
• Compressor wear
• Long-term operating cost

For labs running evaporation all day—especially environmental testing labs processing 50–200+ samples daily—nitrogen efficiency can become the largest lifetime expense. In many facilities, gas costs exceed the original equipment cost within a few years.

👉 The full matrix shows exact nitrogen requirements and side-by-side consumption numbers

Temperature Strategy:  Speed vs Gentle Handling

Temperature control shapes evaporation behavior.

Higher block temperatures:

→ Faster dry-down
→ Better for organic solvents and routine extracts
→ Ideal for throughput-focused labs

Heated nitrogen:

→ More gradual evaporation
→ Helpful for delicate or temperature-sensitive samples

If your lab is focused on speed, EPA methods, or batch processing, higher block temps usually matter more. If you’re working with fragile biological samples, heated nitrogen may be beneficial.

Solvent Compatibility

Many real-world workflows include:

• Acidified extracts
• Corrosive chemistries
• Semi-volatile extractions

Not every evaporator tolerates these conditions equally. Systems rated for corrosive solvents reduce:

• Maintenance issues
• Premature wear
• Unexpected downtime

For regulated environmental labs, durability and chemical resistance often matter more than cosmetic features like touchscreens.

👉 Solvent compatibility and safety ratings are detailed in the comparison matrix

 

Which Labs Typically Prefer Each?

Academic Research Institutions

Common priorities:

• Tight budgets
• Mixed sample types
• Ease of use for students
• Low operating cost

These labs often benefit from:

• Gas efficiency
• Simpler controls
• Lower total cost of ownership

Environmental Testing Laboratories

Common priorities:

• EPA method compliance
• Reproducibility
• Fast turnaround
• Strong ROI

These labs usually prioritize:

• Nitrogen efficiency
• Faster cycles
• Chemical durability
• Predictable operating expense

For high-throughput environments, efficiency compounds quickly.

 

The Practical Takeaway

Both systems automate dual-plate evaporation effectively. But the biggest differences show up in:

• Nitrogen usage
• Operating cost
• Temperature capability
• Chemical resistance

If you want lower lifetime costs and rugged performance, one approach stands out. If you need heated nitrogen for gentler evaporation, the other may fit better. The right choice depends less on features—and more on your daily workload.

Get the Full Side-by-Side Comparison

This overview highlights the main distinctions, but serious buyers usually want deeper details before making a decision.

Our downloadable matrix includes:

✔ Exact nitrogen consumption
✔ Gas supply requirements
✔ Temperature specs
✔ Solvent compatibility
✔ Safety considerations
✔ Configuration details
✔ Evaluation checklist for your lab

👉 Download the complete MICROVAP vs TurboVap comparison matrix or contact sales@organomation.com for a workflow consultation.