Are Hanna Checkers The Gold Standard In Hobby Grade Test Kits?

[Peair]

I’ve noticed how Reefers often compare various test kits to Hanna checkers, and wonder if they are considered the gold standard in hobby grade testers? And if they are, why buy anything else? I get having backups, but it seems some people really have a hard time figuring out what to believe, and tend to go with what the Hanna checker says anyway. What’s your take on it?

Right now I am using Hanna Master Marine, I found it easier and more convenient then the others with the easy step by step on screen read out, and the price was not bad.

 

[Gumbies R Us]

Following! I've been curious about getting Hanna's before!

 

[AlyciaMarie]

I prefer to have the same test from a few different brands. Overkill, I know, but I like to compare the results. I don't have a Hannah Checker (yet), but when I get one, I will likely keep using other test as well.

 

[GARRIGA]

Alkalinity range being 7-12 means I can use a titration test based on drops. Double the sample volume and get that down close enough to 0.5 dkh.

Calcium doesn't seem needed at exactly 440 therefore drops.

Mag impossible to test and I'll follow Randy's recipe. No drops.

Ph probe I have.

Phosphates for me don't need to be 0.03 at the moment and again drops good enough as I can discern between zero and 0.25. If I end up getting Sticks requiring that then perhaps Hanna on my list but first I'll attempt with drops and visual observation.

If tomorrow Hanna developed a tester that did all tests with one tool and one reagent then I'd buy it. When they came out with their universal I almost dropped my jaw until I realized one tester but individual vials. I want less. Not organization.

 

[TomTheSeagull]

I use the Hanna for alk, phosphate, salinity and PH. The PH probe started seeming "off", so I bought a salifert kit - sure enough, PH probe was inaccurate. Bought a new electrode for the Hanna PH probe and now it and the salifert kit are in synch.

For Nitrate, Ive tried hanna, salifert API - I'm not happy with any of them. Then I met Nyos. Love Nyos Nitrate kit.

 

[jroger]

I’m looking to snag a Hanna for my phosphates but have seen MANY reviews boasting inconsistent readings. Has anyone else had this happen? I am certain my phosphates spike when I use any sort of pellets or Reef Roids…

 

[areefer01]

I do not think they are 'the gold standard'. I do think people tend to think they are/believe their results more often - because you see an actual number. There are many things that can cause testing errors with Hanna.

EDIT - I did not mean to imply that hanna had more errors than other tests commonly used

Tend to agree here. They have a few kits that are easy to use such as alk, phosphate, and nitrate so maybe that is why some think it is the "standard" /shrug.

Manual testing at the end of the day still has the human factor. Battery, reagent expiration, did I catch the color change, count the drops correctly, use the correct water sample size, get all of the reagent out of the packet, shake for proper time, shake vigorously, and more. Give the same kit to Bob, Ken, and Sally, have them run a series of tests, and how do the results compare.

I've been running a few tests over the past 50 days and my Hanna Nitrate 782 is all over the place. Battery, bad batch of reagents (not expired mind you but very low results), consistent shaking, and similar challenges place the results all over. I just roll with it and take the std dev, median, and std error and use those.

Not nocking the product as it is easy to use and quick. Just find it interesting more so when fellow hobbyist are using it to compare to automated solutions and expect them them to match.

Edit: also this is hobby grade stuff and/or hobbyist experience. I do not perform lab level tests or chemistry on a daily basis nor is it my line of work.

 

[braaap]

Tend to agree here. They have a few kits that are easy to use such as alk, phosphate, and nitrate so maybe that is why some think it is the "standard" /shrug.

Manual testing at the end of the day still has the human factor. Battery, reagent expiration, did I catch the color change, count the drops correctly, use the correct water sample size, get all of the reagent out of the packet, shake for proper time, shake vigorously, and more. Give the same kit to Bob, Ken, and Sally, have them run a series of tests, and how do the results compare.

I've been running a few tests over the past 50 days and my Hanna Nitrate 782 is all over the place. Battery, bad batch of reagents (not expired mind you but very low results), consistent shaking, and similar challenges place the results all over. I just roll with it and take the std dev, median, and std error and use those.

Not nocking the product as it is easy to use and quick. Just find it interesting more so when fellow hobbyist are using it to compare to automated solutions and expect them them to match.

Edit: also this is hobby grade stuff and/or hobbyist experience. I do not perform lab level tests or chemistry on a daily basis nor is it my line of work.

I’ve tested using Hanna and had my wife test. We got the exact same results. And she didn’t know what she was doing and had to read the card.

 

[GARRIGA]

Sadly new to anything think that used by advanced in their field or hobby must be only option yet often fail to consider purpose of use. For example, outside of Sticks, why do we need PO4 at 0.03 to 0.09 ppm? GHA, cyano and dinos seem to appear and thrive regardless if bottomed out or what may be considered high yet gold standard has this very narrow range as if it applies universally once you add salt and any polyps.

Cool kids use Hanna. Obviously misinformed must use API and I'm the latter and dam proud of it

 

[Reef.]

The reason why people use other methods are because hanna are not the gold standard, and people define the term gold standard differently, could be cost, accuracy, ease of use etc

I highly rate their po4 checker and nitrate but the rest you can keep.

 

[fish farmer]

Sadly new to anything think that used by advanced in their field or hobby must be only option yet often fail to consider purpose of use. For example, outside of Sticks, why do we need PO4 at 0.03 to 0.09 ppm? GHA, cyano and dinos seem to appear and thrive regardless if bottomed out or what may be considered high yet gold standard has this very narrow range as if it applies universally once you add salt and any polyps.

Cool kids use Hanna. Obviously misinformed must use API and I'm the latter and dam proud of it

And you hit on the big takeaway with much of advice/hobby standards I feel become absolute....is it pertaining to acros or discoma mushrooms.

 

[GARRIGA]

And you hit on the big takeaway with much of advice/hobby standards I feel become absolute....is it pertaining to acros or discoma mushrooms.

Don’t forget the regurgitation that API sucks by many who likely never used it yet want to sound cool as if in the know club

 

[areefer01]

I’ve tested using Hanna and had my wife test. We got the exact same results. And she didn’t know what she was doing and had to read the card.

I believe you. That is one reason why I will often say that two hobbyist can use the same piece of gear and have opposite experiences. Was just sharing my thoughts and experience with the Hanna kits.

 

[Reefer Matt]

Don’t forget the regurgitation that API sucks by many who likely never used it yet want to sound cool as if in the know club

I started with API also. They are useful, but a little messy to the uninitiated. At least the last time I used them. I wrapped the vial cap in paper towel when I shook them. I eventually switched to Hanna because I got tired of asking my wife which shade was what (Not color blind either, lol). But if the Reefer is cool with their test kit and the tank is fine, there’s no reason to switch, imo.

 

[GARRIGA]

I started with API also. They are useful, but a little messy to the uninitiated. At least the last time I used them. I wrapped the vial cap in paper towel when I shook them. I eventually switched to Hanna because I got tired of asking my wife which shade was what (Not color blind either, lol). But if the Reefer is cool with their test kit and the tank is fine, there’s no reason to switch, imo.

This has made testing considerably easier and I feel more accurate. Use the 20ml vials which I believe same used by Red Sea.

 

[MnFish1]

The reason why people use other methods are because hanna are not the gold standard, and people define the term gold standard differently, could be cost, accuracy, ease of use etc

I highly rate their po4 checker and nitrate but the rest you can keep.

The 'gold standard' is usually (in the 'testing world') referring to the standard to with other tests are compared with regards to accuracy and precision. PS - agree with your review!

 

[dr_vinnie_boombatz]

100% agree for their egg colorimeter testers & temp checker. People complain about the calcium tester but mine works great, I use the Hanna deionized water with it. I only question my recent Mg tester, not sure if its 100% but ICP will soon tell...

I don't use their salinity meter.

 

[MnFish1]

100% agree for their egg colorimeter testers & temp checker. People complain about the calcium tester but mine works great, I use the Hanna deionized water with it. I only question my recent Mg tester, not sure if its 100% but ICP will soon tell...

I don't use their salinity meter.

The interesting thing is that the ICP may not tell - unless you took a sample at the same time - and tested the same water sent for the ICP. ICP tests have errors as well.

 

[PharmrJohn]

I'll be using Hanna for NO3, PO4, Salinity and ALK. AqueForest for Mg and Red Sea for Ca.

 

[areefer01]

The interesting thing is that the ICP may not tell - unless you took a sample at the same time - and tested the same water sent for the ICP. ICP tests have errors as well.

What is more interesting is that it is yet again a different testing methodology that hobbyist are trying to compare to. When will we learn...