AbstractBackgroundPlatelet concentrates (PLT) can be manufactured using a combination of apheresis collection devices and suspension media (plasma or platelet additive solution (PAS)). It is unclear how platelet quality and hemostatic function differ across the current in‐use manufacturing methods in the United States. The objective of this study was therefore to compare baseline function of PLT collected using different apheresis collection platforms and storage media.Study Design and MethodsPLT were collected at two sites with identical protocols (N = 5 per site, N = 10 total per group) on the MCS® + 9000 (Haemonetics; “MCS”), the Trima Accel® 7 (Terumo; “Trima”), and the Amicus Cell Separator (Fresenius Kabi, “Amicus”). MCS PLT were collected into plasma while Trima and Amicus PLT were collected into plasma or PAS (Trima into Isoplate and Amicus into InterSol; yielding groups “TP”, “TI” and “AP”, “AI”, respectively). PLT units were sampled 1 h after collection and assayed to compare cellular counts, biochemistry, and hemostatic function.ResultsDifferences in biochemistry were most evident between plasma and PAS groups, as anticipated. MCS and TP had the highest clot strength as assessed by viscoelastometry. AI had the lowest thrombin generation capacity. Both TP and TI had the highest responses on platelet aggregometry. AI had the greatest number of microparticles.DiscussionPlatelet quality and function differ among collection platforms at baseline. MCS and Trima platelets overall appear to trend toward higher hemostatic function. Future investigations will assess how these differences change throughout storage, and if these in vitro measures are clinically relevant.