Analyzing Hanna Ammonia checker Hi784, chemistry and performance

[Malcontent]

Which Hach version you thinking of?
You only need two if it's freshwater.
One version, Hach hides some reagents in the cap.

What does seawater need? Citrate?

Hach ammonia salicylate
sodium salicylate	54-21-7	40-50%
sodium nitroferricynade	14402-89-2	<1%
m-nitrophenol	554-84-7	<0.5%
sodium citrate	68-04-2	40-50%
sodium tartrate	868-18-8	10-20%
Hach ammonia cyanurate
lithium hydroxide, anhydrous	1310-65-2	1-5%
sodium dichloroisocyanurate	2893-78-9	1-3%
sodium citrate	68-04-2	80-90%
sodium tartrate	868-18-8	5-15%

Hanna HI784:

"A" (liquid)
sodium hydroxide	1310-73-2	2-5%
"B" (powder)
not disclosed
"C" (powder)
sodium salicylate	54-21-7	50-100%
triclosene sodium dihydrate	51580-86-0	1-2.5%
sodium nitroprusside dihydrate	13755-38-9	1-3.5%

 

[taricha]

What does seawater need? Citrate?

right. citrate or other chelator to suppress the precipitation. The hanna B packet is that chelator.
There's also a chlorine / hypochlorite in there somewhere as the salycilate reaction needs it. Don't know if it's a tiny undeclared amount, or if one of the hach chemicals produces it during the reaction.
The chlorine/hypochlorite often goes in along with the high pH additive in several kits - Red Sea, API etc.

 

[Lasse]

@taricha

Old thread but I have done some analysis of my tank (soon 8 years old) with active denitrification in a reversed flow DSB. I have use Hanna Marine Master and the new ammonia version with powder. I was not very surprised of the measurements (see graph for march) because I know that I have a lot of bacterial (Heterotrophs) breakdown of organic matter

In April/May I have done 3 measurements with the same reagent - they show 0.15, 0.17 and 0.21.

A couple od days ago I got another batch of test reagents (I have wait for it) and after reading this thread I decide that I should do a test on a saltwater sample that´s not supposed to contain any NH3/NH4. I use OCEAMO corrector as my bulk saltwater. Its a liquid salt blend with controlled contain of different components. The zero test shows 0.06 ppm NH3/NH4 and this will be my method artefact that I will withdraw from my readings of my DT´s water using this batch of reagents. I did a test on my DT´s water and it was 0.05 ppm NH3/NH4. Because the accuracy is ± 0.05 ppm - the two tests show basically the same result.

Because I suspect that my water below my DSB contain a lot of NH3/NH4 - I will do a test of this water later on.

IMO - the Hanna NH3/NH4 test is good enough to use in reefing - especially with the new reagents.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

@taricha

Old thread but I have done some analysis of my tank (soon 8 years old) with active denitrification in a reversed flow DSB. I have use Hanna Marine Master and the new ammonia version with powder. I was not very surprised of the measurements (see graph for march) because I know that I have a lot of bacterial (Heterotrophs) breakdown of organic matter

In April/May I have done 3 measurements with the same reagent - they show 0.15, 0.17 and 0.21.

A couple od days ago I got another batch of test reagents (I have wait for it) and after reading this thread I decide that I should do a test on a saltwater sample that´s not supposed to contain any NH3/NH4. I use OCEAMO corrector as my bulk saltwater. Its a liquid salt blend with controlled contain of different components. The zero test shows 0.06 ppm NH3/NH4 and this will be my method artefact that I will withdraw from my readings of my DT´s water using this batch of reagents. I did a test on my DT´s water and it was 0.05 ppm NH3/NH4. Because the accuracy is ± 0.05 ppm - the two tests show basically the same result.

Because I suspect that my water below my DSB contain a lot of NH3/NH4 - I will do a test of this water later on.

IMO - the Hanna NH3/NH4 test is good enough to use in reefing - especially with the new reagents.

Sincerely Lasse

When I carefully remove pore water from my 3 cm sand bed with a device to minimize infiltration of surface water into the collection tube I also measure ammonia in this range. This pore water also has elevated phosphate and lower oxygen. I would love to perform this measurement in aquaria suffering dinoflagellate and cyanobacteria blooms on the sand.

Your zero point is in the range we found for the modified API ammonia test. It is likely caused by the catalyst used in the test which turns yellow. We could probably decrease the zero point in the Hanna test by decreasing the reagent charge, but that would require a recalibration of the Checker. Also, the upper range would likely fall below 2.5 ppm

 

[Lasse]

From Dan's chart, his seneye reading 0.037 could correlate to somewhere around ~0.13ppm actual free ammonia.

Do you mean that seneye shows a measurement that is only 28% of the real value. If this is true - IMO - seneye would be worthless in order to decide if a water is toxic or not. This means that if you have pH 8.1 (as an example) and your seneye shows 0.14 (this level is not acute toxic but you should stay alert) i reality is around 0.51 and this concentration is direct and acute toxic.


I did some analyses below my DSB today - please see here. I publish them in my own thread because this is dynamite and some supermans kryptonite.

Build Thread - Lasses Dream Build

It looks looks like posts in the lounge forum not show up in latest post list. Do not miss this. Its pictures that few have seen before https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-great-elk-migration.715097/page-4#post-12454266 Sincerely Lasse

www.reef2reef.com

Sincerely Lasse

 

[taricha]

Do you mean that seneye shows a measurement that is only 28% of the real value. If this is true - IMO - seneye would be worthless in order to decide if a water is toxic or not.

Yep.
Well I wouldn't say it's worthless - it's super useful. But I certainly would want to calibrate it against a few known ammonia and pH values before deciding what the raw seneye reading actually meant.
Dan's data tells me this sort of calibration really is necessary.

 

[Lasse]

Well I wouldn't say it's worthless - it's super useful. But I certainly would want to calibrate it against a few known ammonia and pH values before deciding what the raw seneye reading actually meant.
Dan's data tells me this sort of calibration really is necessary.

I still will say its worthless for most users that´s not have a degree in inorganic chemistry in its pocket. Some people here talk about it as holly grail for people when they start their aquariums and if seneye show low figures - just in with fish. Dan´s data says that if you do not calibrate it - you can´t trust it

Much easier with Hanna Marine Master or the marin total ammonia checker, pH, temp salinity and this calculator or a method that guarantees that the start will not create any high NH3 concentration (my fifteen steps or simulare method dosing very, very. very low amounts of ammonium chloride - lesser than 0.02 mg/L NH3/NH4 with the same frequency -1 week every third day, second week every second day and third week - every day. Adding nitrification bacteria in one or another way is also needed. In this start you can also use Hanna in order to control that the total ammonia does not build up.

Sincerely Lasse

​

 

[brandon429]

That’s another false statement Lasse. You’re good at those. Try running a search when I mentioned seneye and see how many years I’ve been saying to calibrate them on a running tank first before making proofs. In private messages Dan and I and Taricha talked about calibration every time, it goes back years on file.

I said the opposite about just dumping in fish on a low reading, I mentioned calibration every time.


When you try and slip a falsehood among good science that needs to be called out, the rest of what you typed read pretty well though.

Here’s from 2020, I think we started talking about calibrating them in ‘18 or ‘19 as the searches show.

 

[Garf]

That’s another false statement Lasse. You’re good at those. Try running a search when I mentioned seneye and see how many years I’ve been saying to calibrate them on a running tank first before making proofs. In private messages Dan and I and Taricha talked about calibration every time, it goes back years on file.

I said the opposite about just dumping in fish on a low reading, I mentioned calibration every time.


When you try and slip a falsehood among good science that needs to be called out, the rest of what you typed read pretty well though.

Can you point out where Lasse is making falsehoods?

 

[brandon429]

Second sentence post #107

Who was he referring to? I’ve sold it as a grail before and he and I are always debating it’s utility in threads. if he means someone else based on a litany of posts on file then that’s news to me.

 

[Garf]

Second sentence post #107

Who was he referring to? I’ve sold it as a grail before and he and I are always debating it’s utility in threads. if he means someone else based on a litany of posts on file then that’s news to me.

Ok. From my reading of your threads, you get seneye users to fiddle the figures down to 0.001 or 0.002. in my mind this makes the seneye useless for it's intended purpose of indicating a dangerous ammonia condition, therefore risking livestock.

 

[Lasse]

Someone feels hit

Dan´s calibration is one thing - its clear in his article that the seneye show too small figures (around 28% of the real value) - but to adverse other peoples to write down a reading that shown some NH3 to 0.001 - 0.002 only based on the fact the mature reefs have shown to have a reading of 0.04 and some people says it is impossible that a mature reef can have this - is a total other thing. If you use Dan´s calibration curve - a seneye reading of 0.04 is i reality 0.14 if seneye´s pH reading are right. At 0.14 mg/L NH3 - things start to be nasty. If someone advise that 0.04 should be read as 0.001 - 0.002 - Huston - we have a problem......

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Someone feels hit

Dan´s calibration is one thing - its clear in his article that the seneye show too small figures (around 28% of the real value) - but to adverse other peoples to write down a reading that shown some NH3 to 0.001 - 0.002 only based on the fact the mature reefs have shown to have a reading of 0.04 and some people says it is impossible that a mature reef can have this - is a total other thing. If you use Dan´s calibration curve - a seneye reading of 0.04 is i reality 0.14 if seneye´s pH reading are right. At 0.14 mg/L NH3 - things start to be nasty. If someone advise that 0.04 should be read as 0.001 - 0.002 - Huston - we have a problem......

Sincerely Lasse

In any case - shouldn't a 'scientific instrument' be designed to give the correct number - i.e. automatically do whatever needs to be done in the softwear/design? If it's as "easy" to use the seneye as people say - why wouldn't they build this calibration step into the device itself? hmmmm