HOBBY GRADE TEST KITS CAN OUTPERFORM ICP MEASUREMENTS…REALLY??

[lpramos]

Question 1: Yes, Potassium!

Developing a potassium test, salifert-style (or alternative)

The Salifert potassium test is a pretty good test. Here's some regression data I did using known KCl additions. This kit that I had was giving measured values responding to K additions about 30% lower than the addition amount. This is not too bad, can be corrected by controlling the drop size...

www.reef2reef.com

This is very important, since Salifert's test kit may not reappear.

Salifert Potassium Test Availability

Has anyone here had any recent luck finding Salifert potassium test kits for sale? Or know why they are no longer available? They are out of stock at BRS. I spoke with a customer service rep and he said their system shows them as being backordered for over a year. Most other online sellers...

www.reef2reef.com

I thought you'd be using an egg, but no matter. Any news?

 

[lpramos]

Let me re-word Question 2: Is there an ICP-MS that the common man can afford that you experts would recommend?

 

[Pod_01]

Let me re-word Question 2: Is there an ICP-MS that the common man can afford that you experts would recommend?

Just my opinion.
If Fauna Marin ICP-OES has been working for you, I would stick with it. FM is great at providing e-mail support and clarifying any questions.
They do have the coral farm and lab combo that i don’t think anyone else has. I suspect they are quite aware of all the issues discussed here. They also provide traditional test kits.

Sorry I have nothing on ICP-MS to contribute.

 

[Rick Mathew]

Do you think Hanna could make an accurate enough and reliable Potassium checker? I am not a huge fan of the Salifert kit but I also don't have much experience with it so it is still a daunting test IMO

All of the current potassium tests that I am familiar with currently use a titration method to determine the level of potassium, in which you are looking for a "change" in color...Just like the Salifert test. These do not lend themselves to spectrophotometric (Hanna CHecker) procedure which make their measurements on the change in the absorption (color) of the chemistry to determine the level of the element being tested for ...Although @Dan_P and @taricha have a clever idea they are working on that might just change this....I will let them speak to this if they wish.

I actually have had good success with the Salifert test , but it looks like it will no longer be available in the US...At least that is my understanding. The ICP are quite good and the fact you are testing regularly with FM is helpful

 

[Rick Mathew]

Let me re-word Question 2: Is there an ICP-MS that the common man can afford that you experts would recommend?

Actually I do not have one to recommend..

 

[Thales]

Let me re-word Question 2: Is there an ICP-MS that the common man can afford that you experts would recommend?

All the same procedural and and transparency issues for hobby Icp, including running the instrument in ways that outside the hobby doesn’t (shortcuts), would also apply to MS.

 

[Reefahholic]

Lol…that 1% +/- ICP accuracy.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Lol…that 1% +/- ICP accuracy.

I mean - isn't trying to track and dose some 50 elements via mass spec testing somewhat the definition of perfectionism?

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Has icp turn around gotten better? How are people solving for waiting on results that come in at varying times and using that in an effective way without constantly playing catch up?

Or is that the idea? Treat your tank today, based on results from last week?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Has icp turn around gotten better? How are people solving for waiting on results that come in at varying times and using that in an effective way without constantly playing catch up?

Or is that the idea? Treat your tank today, based on results from last week?

I think that moving forward looking backward at trends is ok once those trends are establish. I think (again) my issue here is the accuracy and precision of the tests being used to identify those trends and subsequent dosages.

I am not (at all) against ICP testing. I am just not sure that it offers what people think it does and am not sure of the actual real world benefit. Given more data, I think I could end up on either side of this. What doesn't sway me is a successful aquarium, as there are just SO MANY variables and placebo/fallacy/dumb-luck can't be absolutely ruled out and 'moonshining' or triton, etc, micro dosing can't be exclusively ruled in. The data uncertainty makes the certain results attributable to the dosing somewhat uncertain

 

[areefer01]

Has icp turn around gotten better? How are people solving for waiting on results that come in at varying times and using that in an effective way without constantly playing catch up?

Or is that the idea? Treat your tank today, based on results from last week?

I've only used ATI but the best turn around time I've seen is results in 7 days. California to US collection to Germany processed and report. That is rare but more often than not it is between 7 and 9 days for me. West coast may be part of the reason but who knows.

I put one of your comments in bold for emphasis because I think this is very important to note. Similar with eDNA testing. The turn around times are such that we can't realistically triage immediate needs. I understand it is not the same as patient care but the concept is similar never the less. Problem. Oh no, what do I do. Oh wait, I'll send off an ICP test and wait...

I believe there may be one or two, maybe more, ICP local to the US now but again you are still waiting for shipping, expedited or not, and then processing & queue times. I think as @BeanAnimal noted trending aspect is probably the bigger thing but this is just personal opinion.

I have a lot of results over the users using ATI and have to say outside the pretty data I would have been better off putting that money in the bank.

 

[areefer01]

I was not able to edit my post above but I meant to include good job by those collecting and assessing the data. Regardless of ones view we has hobbyist should acknowledge the time and effort by those doing this type of work. It does provide value to our hobby. So thank you.

 

[Rick Mathew]

I was not able to edit my post above but I meant to include good job by those collecting and assessing the data. Regardless of ones view we has hobbyist should acknowledge the time and effort by those doing this type of work. It does provide value to our hobby. So thank you.

Most welcome.

 

[Reefahholic]

How are people solving for waiting on results that come in at varying times and using that in an effective way without constantly playing catch up?

How are you solving for being in the dark with more than 50% of your chemistry?

Even if the reefer is waiting 4 weeks, when the results are received, low elements are being supplemented back, and possible pollutants are being addressed. So they are still in a better place rather than not having that data.

 

[Dan_P]

Has icp turn around gotten better? How are people solving for waiting on results that come in at varying times and using that in an effective way without constantly playing catch up?

Or is that the idea? Treat your tank today, based on results from last week?

I get the situation you are driving at.

Are you assuming that solving trace element imbalances is a critical care activity? Just wondering, because if the answer is no, then the wait might be OK.

Also, what are you assuming about the size of the acceptable concentration range for trace elements? If it is wide, maybe the wait is not critical.

Finally, what are you assuming about the effects of incorrect trace element concentrations? If it is a matter of the coral just being off for a week or two, maybe the wait is not critical.

And then there is my assumption that trace element concentrations are not the leading cause of failed reefs and are more likely to be a refinement to your husbandry technique. If true, the wait is fine.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

How are you solving for being in the dark with more than 50% of your chemistry?

Even if the reefer is waiting 4 weeks, when the results are received, low elements are being supplemented back, and possible pollutants are being addressed. So they are still in a better place rather than not having that data.

I can see it being used as a method to answer unknown questions when something is going on that you can't quite figure out.

Most times it's nothing that a big water change can't fix. Worst case would be heavy metals from a rusting magnet and proactively adding something to obsorb that would be better than waiting for results. Then it circles back to, can I trust the results? And if so, how much better or worse is it now than when I took the sample?

As far as being unaware of the levels of all those trace elements, it doesn't seem to make a difference. I can post before and after pictures of great color morphs and coral growth too, and make my tank the poster child for the methods and husbandry that I champion.

But, chances are, I'm giving credit to something that at best plays a small role in my tanks success.

To me, I view most of this more as dogma, something that allows you to make sense of it all, something that you can put your finger on and point to as a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the guy that says, I need scientific experiments with peer reviewed blah blah blah... to make me change my mind. Most of what we do in this hobby is geared around anecdotal methodology. Most of the time methods are teased out as either being good, bad, or just a fad by more people doing it and sharing their results.

When it comes to individual trace element dosing based on icp results, a metaphor that seems to fit is, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?" It's clear that you think it is, but for me... not so much.

 

[Reefahholic]

If it is wide, maybe the wait is not critical.

Let’s be fair…you guys only did “one” experiment for 8 elements. You do not know the margin of error for 40+ elements.

 

[Reefahholic]

I can see it being used as a method to answer unknown questions when something is going on that you can't quite figure out.

Most times it's nothing that a big water change can't fix. Worst case would be heavy metals from a rusting magnet and proactively adding something to obsorb that would be better than waiting for results. Then it circles back to, can I trust the results? And if so, how much better or worse is it now than when I took the sample?

As far as being unaware of the levels of all those trace elements, it doesn't seem to make a difference. I can post before and after pictures of great color morphs and coral growth too, and make my tank the poster child for the methods and husbandry that I champion.

But, chances are, I'm giving credit to something that at best plays a small role in my tanks success.

To me, I view most of this more as dogma, something that allows you to make sense of it all, something that you can put your finger on and point to as a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the guy that says, I need scientific experiments with peer reviewed blah blah blah... to make me change my mind. Most of what we do in this hobby is geared around anecdotal methodology. Most of the time methods are teased out as either being good, bad, or just a fad by more people doing it and sharing their results.

When it comes to individual trace element dosing based on icp results, a metaphor that seems to fit is, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?" It's clear that you think it is, but for me... not so much.

As you know…ICP isn’t new to the market. Yes, there are some questionable labs, but thousands of people have been using ICP as a guide with good success for several years now. To name a few…People like Unique, Cherry, ACI, TSA, etc. To say we don’t know the real world benefits just isn’t true. We’ve sent hundreds of thousands of analyses out. We see multiple analyses weekly in our group from all the different labs, because when new people come into the group they typically have several analyses left over (from what they were previously using), and will use them before they transition to OCEAMO. Some reefers abroad only have access to Trition, Fauna, etc which is fine for the majority of elements. We look at all the lab data constantly. Not only that, Andre does weekly QC on elements and other products on the market so that we can avoid pollution. We know the real world benefits. We’ve been seeing them in thousands of reefs for over 5 years.

^^^ Would we continue to send ICP’s if we thought they were inaccurate/ inconsistent, we didn’t see results, or if the trending wasn’t there? Of course not.

It is not a coincidence when new reefers come into our group with a tank that is absolutely jacked, and suddenly it starts to recover and get better and better, and at the same time we hear the reefer saying this is the best their tank has ever looked, or they’ve never had this much success. How does that happen? It’s the ICP data that’s guiding that reefer along with our dosing tools. The chemistry becomes stronger and the tank is responding. It’s not at all rocket science.

I’ve offered to compare chemistry with all who guided this experiment. I will extend the offer to you and @BeanAnimal as well since neither of you are against ICP, but merely skeptics. I want to see if I can make you a believer.

Going off the logic portrayed in this thread, if ICP data “isn’t accurate enough”, and the margin of error is too high to dial in elements, my chemistry should be somewhere out in left field. Or let’s say we both have a 50/50 chance at main elements, Halogens, nutrients, and trace elements.

Let’s stop talking, and start looking at chemistry results from this point forward keeping an open mind, and we’ll let each reefer make his or her own decisions in the end.

 

[Reefahholic]

I've only used ATI but the best turn around time I've seen is results in 7 days. California to US collection to Germany processed and report. That is rare but more often than not it is between 7 and 9 days for me.

I’d say that is pretty accurate. Mine usually took about 8 days. For some reason they have been slacking lately. Not sure what is going on. I wouldn’t use them until whatever is currently going on there is cleared up. Lately, I’ve heard several reports of reefers waiting 3-4 weeks for results. They used to be really consistent when I was using them.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Let’s be fair…you guys only did “one” experiment for 8 elements. You do not know the margin of error for 40+ elements.

Your logic is digging itself a hole…

You can’t turn the evidence for 8 tested (some major and not overly complex) being off by some degree to argue the 40 untested to be closer to some degree.

Your tank looks wonderful so keep doing what you are doing by all means! Attribute it to the ICP-MS driven dosing that you subscribe to. I just am not convinced that the correlation can be made.