Are test kits as inaccurate as the reviews say?

[Lebowski_]

It seems like basically every test kit I read about, the reviews are pretty poor, and I can't figure out if it's user error or if there really is quality issue. I've looked at Hanna, Red Sea, Salifert, NYOS, all the same: "Test kit was inaccurate when checked against a probe/controller".

Seems like most people like Hanna for HR Nitrate and Phosphate, Aquaforest for Mag, and Salifert for the other params.

 

[iamacat]

I think as with anything in this hobby, consistency is key. So if you are trying to solve an issue regarding something rarely or never tested, it’s going to be a potentially misleading result.

for core testing IMO all that matters is using the same test kits for YOUR system over time to have an accurate understanding when one of those trends off the mark.

 

[jda]

Some of them are. Some of them are not. Even a perfect test kit can get a bad review from a moron trying to use it who put more time into the negative review than the test.

I also like Salifert for dKh, calcium and magnesium. I do have a Hannah for ultra low phosphorous. I have a hannah for nitrate, but never use it.

Most test kits use the same methods/chemicals for the testing, so you are paying for sometimes ease, larger vials and readings, etc. For example, La Motte is well known for precise tests, but they use the same stuff as salifert - the only real difference is that sometimes a drop from Salifert will only partially change the color from blue to red needing a second drop whereas the La Motte will usually change it with one drop. I can kinda take the difference between the two readings and don't need to pay many times more than the Salifert. Some people cannot handle the half-change and it freaks them out.

Probes are the weak link of this hobby. Period. They are hobby grade, not reliable and drift often. Apex, GHL, etc. a are toys in the reliability world. I would trust a good test kit over a probe any day. The only exception to this are the probes in Ranco temp controllers that seem to last a super long time, but I still have a mercury thermometer to check it every once in a while.

 

[fullinfusion]

Personally I like to use the Hannah checkers. I'm somewhat color blind so they do serve a purpose for myself. I can't really say I'm color blind but my perception of colors is a little different than what my wife can perceive.

For testing magnesium I use the Red Sea pro kit. I can distinguish the color change and that's not a big deal for me. If I use salifert test kits where I have to match it to a color index card that's where my problem Lays. I can say it's this color but five other people will tell me no it's that color.

IMHO most of the Hannah Checkers are pretty darn accurate. I use calcium, HR nitrate, UL phosphorus, dkh, and Red Sea pro for mag. Some people love the digital checkers and others say their garbage but then again if you don't do the test consistently your numbers will be off.

Any kit out there has its pros and cons but a majority of the good test kits will keep you in the ballpark for actual readings.

 

[iamacat]

Personally I like to use the Hannah checkers. I'm somewhat color blind so they do serve a purpose for myself. I can't really say I'm color blind but my perception of colors is a little different than what my wife can perceive.

For testing magnesium I use the Red Sea pro kit. I can distinguish the color change and that's not a big deal for me. If I use salifert test kits where I have to match it to a color index card that's where my problem Lays. I can say it's this color but five other people will tell me no it's that color.

IMHO most of the Hannah Checkers are pretty darn accurate. I use calcium, HR nitrate, UL phosphorus, dkh, and Red Sea pro for mag. Some people love the digital checkers and others say their garbage but then again if you don't do the test consistently your numbers will be off.

Any kit out there has its pros and cons but a majority of the good test kits will keep you in the ballpark for actual readings.

I too have moved to the Hanna checkers. I’m not taking an eye test everytime I test my tank. Not sure I ever had a matching color.

 

[fullinfusion]

I too have moved to the Hanna checkers. I’m not taking an eye test everytime I test my tank. Not sure I ever had a matching color.
View attachment 3152313

Lol that was a great reply haha..

Yeah I can see why Hannah Checkers get a bad rap.
Personally this is all I do it. I read the instructions. I wipe down the glass vial before, during, and after my tests. I then rinse them out with distilled water and then I fill up the vial full of distilled water so I don't get any type of staining or watermarks that dry up in the glass.

The calcium checker you can kind of make a game out of it, after I've done my final step and shake vigorously for 15 seconds I'll ask my wife... What do you think the calcium number is just by looking up the color? And I'll also take a guess.. if it's quite blue I know I'm somewhere in the 430 to 450 range and if it's slightly on the darker side that's where we have fun guessing what it's going to display after pressing the button.

 

[Potatohead]

I believe the consistency of the people performing the tests is far, far lower than the consistency of the tests themselves.

 

[Lebowski_]

Lol that was a great reply haha..

Yeah I can see why Hannah Checkers get a bad rap.
Personally this is all I do it. I read the instructions. I wipe down the glass vial before, during, and after my tests. I then rinse them out with distilled water and then I fill up the vial full of distilled water so I don't get any type of staining or watermarks that dry up in the glass.

The calcium checker you can kind of make a game out of it, after I've done my final step and shake vigorously for 15 seconds I'll ask my wife... What do you think the calcium number is just by looking up the color? And I'll also take a guess.. if it's quite blue I know I'm somewhere in the 430 to 450 range and if it's slightly on the darker side that's where we have fun guessing what it's going to display after pressing the button.

I prefer to make contact and smile while shaking the vials

 

[Lebowski_]

Do you guys ever test, write down the results, then immediately take a water sample to your LFS (if they are willing to test) or send ICP to confirm accuracy?

 

[fullinfusion]

Do you guys ever test, write down the results, then immediately take a water sample to your LFS (if they are willing to test) or send ICP to confirm accuracy?

Lfs use API so no thank you.

My tank is too new to spend on an ICP test but I do keep a handwritten journal of what my results are everyday that I test.

Besides I can't afford an ICP test. I spend all my money paying bills and buying new equipment. If you work for WB then chop chop! Hurry up with my delivery LOL.

My current tank is only 4 months old tomorrow. We just went small to make sure that I wasn't throwing a bunch of money away getting back into the hobby after a 20-year leave of absence. So basically in 3 months I bought and I'm still waiting for my water box to show up. I've got all the gear sitting and waiting on WB to get their acts together and deliver my tank.. then I'm going to have a super new tank

 

[ScottB]

Pinpoint accuracy isn't really all that feasible or important IMO. As long as the result comes within my expected range, I am good. Accuracy COULD be more important if the reefer is running ultra low nutrients, but that is not a tightrope I care to walk.

NO3 5 to 15? Cool (Hanna HR or Salifert is fine)
PO4 .08 to .16? Cool (Hanna ULR only)
ALK 7 to 8.5? Cool (Salifert is fine)
Ca 450 to 500 Cool (Salifert is ok) My Ca never moves much TBH.
Mg 1350 to 1400? Cool (Salifert is okay)

 

[iamacat]

Do you guys ever test, write down the results, then immediately take a water sample to your LFS (if they are willing to test) or send ICP to confirm accuracy?

Yes, just did that with ICP to confirm

 

[DHill6]

Do you guys ever test, write down the results, then immediately take a water sample to your LFS (if they are willing to test) or send ICP to confirm accuracy?

Yes, I’ve tested using Hanna. Sent same water out for Icp. Very, very close.

 

[tatmanfish]

I've used various companies over the years and can't say I've had any really bad test kits. Sometimes user error or expired reagents, but every kit I've used has been accurate enough. Even when compared with other test kits, the results are pretty much in the same acceptable range.

 

[KStatefan]

Do you guys ever test, write down the results, then immediately take a water sample to your LFS (if they are willing to test) or send ICP to confirm accuracy?

Yes. I like to know if I am in the same range. My last test sent in my Oceamo results compared to mine. I wish i would have tested alk twice my test was the last one from the bottle of regent.

Salinity 33.1 - 33.3
Alk 8.87 - 9.5
Calcium 394 - 410
Mag 1288 - 1330
Phosphate 0.436 - .490
Nitrate 29.26 - 27.4

 

[KStatefan]

I believe the consistency of the people performing the tests is far, far lower than the consistency of the tests themselves.

This and not following the directions

 

[Enderg60]

Short answer, YES. Our kits, even hanna, are HIGHLY inaccurate. A +- 5% is pretty good.

BUT there are very few tests we do where we actually need accuracy that high.

More so we need consistancy. If your calcium is 400 vs 430 isnt really a big deal, but keeping that number stable IS important.

 

[Reef.]

Do you guys ever test, write down the results, then immediately take a water sample to your LFS (if they are willing to test) or send ICP to confirm accuracy?

Probably useful if you are inexperienced but I trust myself more than a busy LFS, if they use different test to you the results may be different too, again if you are not experienced this may make you think the difference is down to you and not the tests.