However, further improvements in sample preparation are necessary to fully exploit the potential of MicroED for analytical purposes. The experiments conducted using the three mixtures have provided us with valuable insights into the factors that may impact compositional analysis. It was observed during sample preparation that the crystals had different physical properties, which influenced the efficiency of grid preparation. For instance, some materials were harder and less prone to breaking into the required size for MicroED, while others were brittle and more easily prepared. Secondly, electrostatic charging of the powder during grinding can cause an excess of powder to attach to the interior of the vial rather than onto the EM grid. Thirdly, the physical shearing of the sample may impact the crystallinity, although this is more often experienced with protein samples rather than small molecules or salts. Notably, we observed that around 70-80% of the selected crystals underwent automatic data processing and were successfully identified. We could conclude that a few crystals were too small to produce a high-quality diffraction pattern or were damaged prior to the experiment. We further noticed that the carbon support was not always flat even within a single grid square which could have led to errors in the estimation of the eucentric height of individual crystals. As a result a few crystals partially rotated out of the beam center during data collection. It is likely that with improved crystal selection criteria and a local eucentric height determination, the throughput could be further improved to the limitations of the sample itself, determined by variations in the diffraction properties of individual crystals within the sample.