Independent citizen science pilot · 1,000 kits
Hey — I'm Andrew. I'm running a citizen science pilot using fluorescence imaging to visualize suspected microplastic particles in urine, with accredited-lab verification on a subset of samples. Same protocol I used to map microplastics in 100+ LA homes.
Free U.S. shipping · Ships within 7 days · Pilot capped at 1,000
Not a medical test. Not a diagnostic tool. A citizen science study, run together.
Hey — Andrew here
All the water data is public on the water map I run. Every time I posted a result, the top comment was the same: okay, but what about what's already inside us?
Honest answer — I don't know yet. Fluorescence imaging with Nile Red is well-documented for hydrophobic particles in environmental and biological matrices. Whether it works at scale on urine using smartphone cameras is the open question this pilot is trying to answer.
The $50 kit fee covers what it costs to run this correctly. Here's the budget.
Rough budget for 1,000 kits
What this is
What this isn't
01
$50, free U.S. shipping, capped at 1,000. Ships within 7 days.
02
Collect a sample, stain it with the included dye, photograph the filter under blue light.
03
Upload the photo. You get a particle count and the image. Aggregate data goes into the public dataset.
Each participant gets the photograph of their own filter. I don't interpret what it means for your health — I just help you see what's there.
The science
Nile Red is a fluorescent dye that binds to hydrophobic particles, including most plastics, and glows pink under blue light. The method I use is adapted from Leonard et al., 2022, Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters.
The method has well-known limitations. It can stain non-plastic hydrophobic material like lipids and biofilm. It won't pick up hydrophilic plastics. It tells you what fluoresces in your sample — it doesn't tell you what that means for you. I'm transparent about all of that, in writing, up front.
That's exactly why this is a study. To map out where the method works, where it doesn't, and how consistent it is across hundreds of participants and phone cameras.
Known limitations · how the kit handles them
Nile Red stains non-plastic hydrophobic material (lipids, proteins, biofilm). Urine is a biological matrix where this happens more than in water.
→ Hydrogen peroxide digestion step before staining, to break down biological residues. Procedural blanks processed alongside every batch.
Fluorescence is not chemical identification. A glowing particle could be plastic — or something else.
→ A subset of samples is cross-validated against FTIR/Raman spectroscopy at an accredited lab. That's what tells us, across the dataset, whether what the imaging detects is actually microplastic.
Contamination from collection containers, airborne fibers, and lab plastics is a real risk in microplastics work.
→ Kit ships with PTFE filters and non-plastic sample materials. Blanks processed with every batch.
Particles smaller than ~10µm may not be reliably detected by a smartphone camera.
→ The method is framed as visualization, not an exhaustive measurement. Smaller-particle detection is what the lab subset is for.
How the study actually works
The lab verification is what lets us say, across the dataset, whether the at-home imaging is actually catching microplastics or just background fluorescence. Without that step, this is just glow-counting. With it, we can actually validate the protocol — that's why the two layers exist together.
Don't take my word for it
I'd rather you trust your AI than me. Copy the prompt below into ChatGPT, Claude, or Perplexity. It'll dig into the peer-reviewed work — including UCLA's Ozcan Lab on smartphone fluorescence imaging — and tell you whether what I'm describing actually holds up.
I'm considering buying a $50 kit from an independent citizen science pilot. Here's the design — please evaluate it. PROTOCOL (at-home, every participant): - Hydrogen peroxide digestion step on the urine sample before staining, to break down lipids, proteins, and other biological residues that fluoresce under Nile Red. - Nile Red staining of digested sample. - Filtration through a PTFE filter (non-plastic membrane). - Smartphone fluorescence imaging of the filter under blue-light excitation, in a kit-provided imaging box. - Output: particle count + filter image. - Method adapted from Leonard et al. 2022 (Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters); smartphone fluorescence imaging work from UCLA's Ozcan Lab. CROSS-VALIDATION (subset): - A subset of samples is sent to an accredited lab for FTIR/Raman spectroscopy to chemically confirm whether fluorescent particles are actually microplastic versus something else. CONTAMINATION CONTROLS: - PTFE filters and non-plastic sample-contact materials in the kit. - Procedural blanks processed alongside every batch. POSITIONING: - Output is framed explicitly as visualization for citizen-science participation, not as diagnostic, clinical, or "body burden" measurement. Research this design and the underlying methods. Tell me what you think: what holds up, what's still weak, what additional controls a credible version of this should have, and anything that looks shaky or unsupported. Be direct.
If your AI calls bullshit on something, I want to hear it. Email me directly and I'll address it.
No. This is a particle visualization study. The output is a photograph of fluorescent particles on a filter. I don't interpret it medically and you shouldn't either. If you have health concerns, talk to a doctor.
Particles in the sample that bind to Nile Red and fluoresce pink under blue light. That includes most plastics, and also some non-plastic hydrophobic material like lipids or biofilm. The method's limitations are well-documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
You'll get a photo of your stained filter and a particle count from the image. That's it. No interpretation. No comparison to a 'normal range,' because no normal range exists for this.
Both. You're buying a $50 kit, but the data is used as part of an ongoing citizen science study comparing at-home imaging to accredited lab methods. The science part isn't a marketing hook — it's how we figure out whether this protocol actually holds up at scale.
Hardware, assembly, the dye and filter, shipping, and a chunk of the regulatory and legal review needed to run this correctly. Rough budget is on the page above.
Eventually, yes — I want this to be a real business. The first 1,000 kits aren't where that happens, though. That budget goes to lawyers and materials so the science and the legal framing are solid before scaling.
Your photo and particle count are yours. Aggregate, anonymized data may be published as part of the study. Your email is used only for order communication and study updates.
Hi — I'm Andrew. I built and ran an independent citizen-science microplastics study on tap water in LA. This is the next phase of that work, extended to urine samples. Same protocol, same transparency, same caveats.