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

[kvansloo]

I just sent a new Hanna Nitrate tester back due to inaccurate results. one day it would read .27 the next it would show 75.00 if you can't trust it don't use it.

 

[Dan_P]

My simple answer:no, except for very low phosphate levels.

The salinity checker is far from the best salinity device, for example.

What is your more thoughtful answer?

Is there a different gold standard for each analyte? Dose your rating include the variability of test results from human judgement of color comparisons?

 

[GARRIGA]

What is your more thoughtful answer?

Is there a different gold standard for each analyte? Dose your rating include the variability of test results from human judgement of color comparisons?

Solve test color concerns by photographing against the sample card then making best guess. Spectrum of light irrelevant since both the card and water sample both under the same light. Fact is I'm not seeking precision considering I'm using hobby grade tests and not lab equipment for values that science can't convince me have to ride such a narrow edge of compliance.

Below is me knowing that for my needs both not alarming. First turns blue and next turns deep red and I'm going to go seek the source of the problem. Likely not going to bother with a second test although might test NO2 to exclude from why so red.

Were I color blind, guessing I'd still be able to compare like shades. Plus displayed on my computer screen makes everything much easier.

 

[Dan_P]

Solve test color concerns by photographing against the sample card then making best guess. Spectrum of light irrelevant since both the card and water sample both under the same light. Fact is I'm not seeking precision considering I'm using hobby grade tests and not lab equipment for values that science can't convince me have to ride such a narrow edge of compliance.

Below is me knowing that for my needs both not alarming. First turns blue and next turns deep red and I'm going to go seek the source of the problem. Likely not going to bother with a second test although might test NO2 to exclude from why so red.

Were I color blind, guessing I'd still be able to compare like shades. Plus displayed on my computer screen makes everything much easier.

Yeah, when there is no need for maintaining a narrow parameter range, a lower precision measurement is appropriate.

 

[VintageReefer]

I use them (happily) for alk, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, phosphate.

I think a common issue is using the right amount of sw. You have to fill a vial to a 10ml line and it’s very easy to be slightly over or under the line. I’ve heard of the printed line not accurately marking the 10ml spot. the kits (most) testing devices and reagents are designed to use 10 ml water. Are you filling the vial with exactly 10ml? Do you go by the line? Are you aware of surface tension and how to factor for a meniscus ? I’m sure many people do and many don’t.

This next item I’ll link has been a game changer for my tests and consistency

Amazon.com

a.co

Push the plunger to the first set point, put in the tank, release slowly. Push plunger to second set point over your test vial. Boom. Perfect 10ml sample. Exactly the same every time.

 

[BiggestE22]

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?

Gold standard. No hobby grade test kit is infallible. I plan to use Ztge Tridents excuse I hate manual testing more than any other maintenance

 

[VintageReefer]

Gold standard. No hobby grade test kit is infallible. I plan to use Ztge Tridents excuse I hate manual testing more than any other maintenance

What is ztge?

 

[BiggestE22]

What is ztge?

Miss typed laying in bed.

 

[VintageReefer]

Miss typed laying in bed.

Oh I get it. Your going to use Neptune trident. That’s a good solution but $$$ not everyone can spare.

 

[GARRIGA]

Yeah, when there is no need for maintaining a narrow parameter range, a lower precision measurement is appropriate.

Outside of a few Sticks. Do we really need such narrow ranges? Seems every new to the hobby aspires to climb that mountain and treats every polyp as if PO4 0.03-.0.09 set in stone and dare not fall out of it otherwise dire consequences such as total tank crashes the results.

 

[GARRIGA]

Started down that rabbit hole of lab micropipettes but I must be clumsy because I'd never get the same results even with the one's not having a range and luckily found this. Plus those lab grade micropippets need calibration and the better models cost a bit. Doubt the EZY DOSE is precise but feel confident that each dosage the same as last and trends what I seek.

 

[GARRIGA]

Gold standard. No hobby grade test kit is infallible. I plan to use Ztge Tridents excuse I hate manual testing more than any other maintenance

Never been a fan of any testing, either. Same as you, only reason I'm considering an automated solution. Older I get. Lazier I get.

Not calling you lazy, BTW. Just me

 

[danimal1211]

I use them (happily) for alk, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, phosphate.

I think a common issue is using the right amount of sw. You have to fill a vial to a 10ml line and it’s very easy to be slightly over or under the line. I’ve heard of the printed line not accurately marking the 10ml spot. the kits (most) testing devices and reagents are designed to use 10 ml water. Are you filling the vial with exactly 10ml? Do you go by the line? Are you aware of surface tension and how to factor for a meniscus ? I’m sure many people do and many don’t.

This next item I’ll link has been a game changer for my tests and consistency

Amazon.com

a.co

Push the plunger to the first set point, put in the tank, release slowly. Push plunger to second set point over your test vial. Boom. Perfect 10ml sample. Exactly the same every time.

I do the same and have the 1ml version for Alk reagent.

 

[Atalien2005]

I use them (happily) for alk, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, phosphate.

I think a common issue is using the right amount of sw. You have to fill a vial to a 10ml line and it’s very easy to be slightly over or under the line. I’ve heard of the printed line not accurately marking the 10ml spot. the kits (most) testing devices and reagents are designed to use 10 ml water. Are you filling the vial with exactly 10ml? Do you go by the line? Are you aware of surface tension and how to factor for a meniscus ? I’m sure many people do and many don’t.

This next item I’ll link has been a game changer for my tests and consistency

Amazon.com

a.co

Push the plunger to the first set point, put in the tank, release slowly. Push plunger to second set point over your test vial. Boom. Perfect 10ml sample. Exactly the same every time.

I use them (happily) for alk, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, phosphate.

I think a common issue is using the right amount of sw. You have to fill a vial to a 10ml line and it’s very easy to be slightly over or under the line. I’ve heard of the printed line not accurately marking the 10ml spot. the kits (most) testing devices and reagents are designed to use 10 ml water. Are you filling the vial with exactly 10ml? Do you go by the line? Are you aware of surface tension and how to factor for a meniscus ? I’m sure many people do and many don’t.

This next item I’ll link has been a game changer for my tests and consistency

Amazon.com

a.co

Push the plunger to the first set point, put in the tank, release slowly. Push plunger to second set point over your test vial. Boom. Perfect 10ml sample. Exactly the same every time.

This is what I use also and works like a charm!

 

[PopBot16]

The PO4 ULR Checker is the only one you really need. I like the NO3 HR checker too, but not really necessary.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What is your more thoughtful answer?

Is there a different gold standard for each analyte? Dose your rating include the variability of test results from human judgement of color comparisons?

A more extended discussion would be to first define gold standard. To me, as a scientist, that term would imply high accuracy and have no weighting to convenience or ease of use or cost. Others here are using the term differently, and that’s of course, fine.

In the truest sense, none of the Hanna devices are the gold standard by my definition. No science lab would use them for important measurements. Look at what companies such as Oceamo use to add to their icp data. They are not Hanna checkers. They are lab instruments of various sorts, such ion chromatography.

I have nothing in particular against most of the Hanna checkers (although I think the calcium checker is poorly designed and the conductivity meter is not even close to the best available). They may often be the best choice for some folks for some parameters.

While I think the case is often overstated, I do agree that since exact and “correct” values are often not needed by reef aquarists, reproducibility of even somewhat incorrect answers is valuable and may be fine.

I do think that folks using them should always check the Hanna specs for accuracy. Several times a week I am pointing out to folks that even Hanna says the values they are seeing in some scenario are not exact enough to support some claim or concern. The digital precision gives folks a false sense of accuracy.

For alk, I would claim a real titration of a large volume of tank water with a quality standard acid is the gold standard. That’s one of the few high accuracy tests that folks can inexpensively do at home.

For salinity, there are a few options, including high precision glass hydrometers and conductivity meters. All need to be validated for accuracy, IMO.

 

[Reefer Matt]

To be clear, this discussion is about the realm of hobby grade testers in comparison to each other, and not lab grade equipment.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

To be clear, this discussion is about the realm of hobby grade testers in comparison to each other, and not lab grade equipment.

I understand. That's why I gave just a short answer directly to that point. But when pressed for a longer discussion, I expanded on how I think many folks have a false sense of how good they are and I would not use the term gold standard to apply to any of them.

 

[Reefer Matt]

I understand. That's why I gave just a short answer directly to that point. But when pressed for a longer discussion, I expanded on how I think many folks have a false sense of how good they are and I would not use the term gold standard to apply to any of them.

Yeah, I use three different test kits myself for different parameters. I noticed how some Reefers say that they compare other tests to the Hanna checkers, and think the other kit is wrong if it isn’t the same result. I think maybe because it shows a number it makes it more believable than color shades, etc.? I aim for consistency in a range over pinpoint accuracy myself. I appreciate your input as well! Thanks!

 

[GARRIGA]

I think maybe because it shows a number it makes it more believable…

Richard Ross said exactly that on a recent podcast. Same podcast mentioned 0.9 PO4 which caught Marc Mekevsen off guard thinking he had mentioned 0.09