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

[Reefahholic]

As I have said from the beginning. I don't think that ICP is useless, I now question the stock being put into it as the "better" testing method or "gold standard" testing method to reference other tests off of.

I can’t say it’s the gold standard, but I feel the reliability is enough to make smart dosing decisions for most elements. As I’ve said before, we don’t have to act if something appears to be off. For many elements ICP is our only way to measure them. Newer studies indicate that many trace metals are far too important to leave out (or let them become depleted). I think it’s smart to keep a low level consistently available for the corals.

 

[Reefahholic]

To that end, I just recently started keeping SPS again after a 7 year break where the tank ran on autopilot with fish and some softies and a brain that survived with zero water changes, no dosing, no feeding, no skimmer etc. during at least 5 years of that period.

Fair enough. We’ll exclude you from this comparison.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think this kind of spllit in the discussion comes from differing base assumptions about objective truth and reality. For me, just because we say something is true now doesn't mean it will be true later given compelling evidence. For other people something that is 'true' can never change.

I’m in the latter group: truth/reality is fixed.

If something is true now, then imo, a fuller understanding will continue to show it to be true.

If a fuller understanding changed our
thoughts about the original idea, then it wasn’t true before.

Maybe it would be clearer if we discussed some sort of example.

It is true that my dog is nearby, and I don’t see how a fuller understanding of the world can make that untrue.

If I claimed she was sleeping nearby, I might later find she was actually dead, or pretending to sleep, or in an coma, etc., and that would change my thought and show my original idea was wrong.

 

[Reefahholic]

I would also say that I am not against the whole concept of moonshiners or similar methods and have been on the fence about trying. The results presented in this very thread have added to my hesitation to invest the time and money.

Well, let’s do this. If you have a Facebook, PM me under “Reefahholic Houston” and I’ll add you to the group only to come in as an observer if you like. Look at all the ICP data resulting weekly from different companies, and examine the results and stories from different reefers coming in with absolutely horrible tanks on the brink of death. Then watch as the start coming back to life. I must say it’s truly satisfying to see.

All of the tools are free and you can download them and play around.

At the very least, you may want to supplement a few elements that “you” consider important as a start. You don’t have to use our products to do it unless you’re using our tools. But for a veteran reefer it can easily be done once you find the element you like and know its potency.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’m in the latter group: truth/reality is fixed.

If something is true now, then imo, a fuller understanding will continue to show it to be true.

If a fuller understanding changed our
thoughts about the original idea, then it wasn’t true before.

Maybe it would be clearer if we discussed some sort of example.

It is true that my dog is nearby, and I don’t see how a fuller understanding of the world can make that untrue.

If I claimed she was sleeping nearby, I might later find she was actually dead, or pretending to sleep, or in an coma, etc., and that would change my thought and show my original idea was wrong.

Without delving to deep into the philosophical realm… the what We accept and know as truth today may not be tomorrow. As understanding evolves and/or the scientific method uncovers new truths, some old truth are proven false. We accept the truth of you dog, it is reasonable. But howdo differentiate that from accepting that the atom is the smallest form of matter, or the electron, or quark, etc. As at one point each of those was accepted as the truth in context to our best understanding.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

We accept the truth of you dog, it is reasonable. But howdo differentiate that from accepting that the atom is the smallest form of matter, or the electron, or quark, etc. As at one point each of those was accepted as the truth in context to our best understanding.

I think that just a matter of definition. I don’t consider most claims of biggest, smallest, best, brightest, etc. to be truth terms. The truth is to describe what it is, not to claim what it might be relative to unknown things.

I’m certainly open to hearing of something I consider true reality that could be proven wrong that is not at the extreme of mental illness, matrix like reality issues, alien mind control, and the like.

Maybe I’m just much more guarded in what I call truth or reality than others.

In the context of this thread, there is an absolutely true reality of how many iron atoms are in a water sample collected from a reef tank. There is no likelihood that in the future we will discover that it actually varies based on something we do not currently understand, at least not to any extent that can matter.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I think that I understand your take and I agree for the most part, especially in context to this thread. I think the philosophical part is where that line between certainty and belief lies.

 

[jda]

Anybody who wants to compare tank to tank can check back in with me after doing 5 years of the same thing. Seen too many of these fads come and go, too many fanboys quit the hobby without ever going long enough to notice that their fandom was just fandom, and also those that are around are no longer doing what they are fanboying in the first place.

Other than DSR, they all will come and go... Zeo to a smaller degree. Nothing else has stood any test of time.

I really don't care about anybody short term success with any method. Those folks have yet to figure out that it was the focus and effort that mattered and not the method.

This has been my truth in the hobby since about 1991.

 

[Thales]

No, it’s the particular method, because I’ve helped several reefers completely recover their systems using ICP data to dose what is missing and remove undesirables.

So many people that champion a particular method are convinced that that method is something more than it is - despite the bagillions of successful counter examples.

 

[Thales]

I’m in the latter group: truth/reality is fixed.

If something is true now, then imo, a fuller understanding will continue to show it to be true.

If a fuller understanding changed our
thoughts about the original idea, then it wasn’t true before.

Maybe it would be clearer if we discussed some sort of example.

It is true that my dog is nearby, and I don’t see how a fuller understanding of the world can make that untrue.

If I claimed she was sleeping nearby, I might later find she was actually dead, or pretending to sleep, or in an coma, etc., and that would change my thought and show my original idea was wrong.

I think that is the former group not the latter. People in the latter group don’t leave space to consider the possibility their original idea to be wrong.

 

[Reefahholic]

Other than DSR, they all will come and go... Zeo to a smaller degree. Nothing else has stood any test of time.

I really don't care about anybody short term success with any method. Those folks have yet to figure out that it was the focus and effort that mattered and not the method.

This has been my truth in the hobby since about 1991.

I’m in Glenn’s DSR group also. I follow a lot of different methods to compare.

I don’t think that 10 years would be considered short term. It doesn’t have anything to do with being a fanboy of a particular method. I wouldn’t have any problem running DSR if I lived in the EU. I don’t have a problem with Full Triton. All these methods utilize ICP and correct low or missing elements which I believe is important.

The Moonshine method has higher purity elements, because Andre does frequent QC (ICP-MS) which is how we found these recent issues. I also feel that our tools are easier, and give the most/best guidance. That is why I’ve been using the method. It’s too easy, and I prefer to use products that are being tested for pollutants, or starting out with the purest raw elements.

 

[Reefahholic]

FYI, for anybody wondering….Andre did not wake up one morning and decide to start the Moonshine Method as a business opportunity. That’s not how it came about at all.

Many reefers were buying frags at his house and people were wondering what the heck he was doing to get that kind of growth and color. People started paying him to use the same elements, and ultimately wanted help with dosing, corrections, pollutants, etc. Eventually the demand become so high that the Moonshine method was born. It was never planned. This is probably how the DSR method started also. It’s very close to the same, but Glenn has 3-4 different variations of his method. I believe Triton has 2 variations. The Core7 (multiple elements in one bottle). I’m not a fan. Or the Full Triton method which would be similar to Glenn’s full method and Andre’s method. All of which accomplish the same thing by correcting low or elevated elements. It’s definitely not rocket science.

I would have no problem using any of these methods as long as the elements have good purity, the ICP lab is OCEAMO (ICP-MS), and everything is addressed as a whole, such as depleted or elevated elements, source water, pollution/purity, etc. If the method does that I’m onboard. It does help to have great tools. Andre is here with me in Houston so it was easier to use his method. Plus, I had a bad experience with Triton Core 7 twice. So I gave up.

 

[taricha]

would also say that I am not against the whole concept of moonshiners or similar methods and have been on the fence about trying. The results presented in this very thread have added to my hesitation to invest the time and money.

There's some aspects of moonshiners we might have data to be able to say something about, and some we don't.
Moonshiner's takes the position that ATI and Oceamo are good vendors to use, suggesting that on elements they both can measure - they should be close. This seems to be generally true in data sets I've seen - Closer than some other vendors are to each other. It also takes the position that between Oceamo and ICP-A, (offering ICP-MS service) Oceamo is a better one. As I've said, data I've seen also generally points more in that direction than against it.

Moonshiners also seems premised partially on being able to trend many ppb and below elements. We didn't use any standards exactly in that range to evaluate vendors on those directly, so we can't say much there. But we've seen some elements be very stable and measured well at low single digit ppb levels (like Mo) and some seem unstable and difficult to get a measure that reflects what's in the sample water (like Fe and sometimes P). My suspicion is that most of low traces act somewhere in between Mo and Fe, probably more like Mo. But without data there, it would be unwise to assume elements at levels we can't (or haven't) checked are better behaved than elements we can check.

You haven’t looked at enough OES data. Some ultra trace are showing up and some are aren’t. To name one…Cobalt.

Here was 4 OES vendors sent 4 samples with Co spiked from zero to ~1ppb.
None made detections, except ICP-A.

and in context, in this data set ICP-A had "detections" of all kinds of elements (90% reported as zero by other vendors), in totally inconsistent ways....

Which is to say, reporting finding elements that other vendors report as zero/undetectable is not always a sign of better performance - sometimes it's much worse performance (nonsense).

So it makes me cautious whenever somebody says they can do or measure something that isn't doable by anybody else. Independent verification becomes important.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Here was 4 OES vendors sent 4 samples with Co spiked from zero to ~1ppb.
None made detections, except ICP-A.

and in context, in this data set ICP-A had "detections" of all kinds of elements (90% reported as zero by other vendors), in totally inconsistent ways....

Which is to say, reporting finding elements that other vendors report as zero/undetectable is not always a sign of better performance - sometimes it's much worse performance (nonsense).

My mind goes straight to human interference to correct anomalies.

How likely is it for the person that's preparing the reports for customers to make assumptions that certain elevated elements are unlikely and then decide to remove those from the report?

"Hey wait a minute, usually when there's cobalt present, there's also elevated nickel... this doesn't add up, therefore one of these is untrue"

 

[areefer01]

I don’t think that 10 years would be considered short term. It doesn’t have anything to do with being a fanboy of a particular method. I wouldn’t have any problem running DSR if I lived in the EU. I don’t have a problem with Full Triton. All these methods utilize ICP and correct low or missing elements which I believe is important.

I don't believe DSR uses ICP testing but maybe it has changed.

 

[areefer01]

There's some aspects of moonshiners we might have data to be able to say something about, and some we don't.
Moonshiner's takes the position that ATI and Oceamo are good vendors to use, suggesting that on elements they both can measure - they should be close. This seems to be generally true in data sets I've seen - Closer than some other vendors are to each other. It also takes the position that between Oceamo and ICP-A, (offering ICP-MS service) Oceamo is a better one. As I've said, data I've seen also generally points more in that direction than against it.

Moonshiners also seems premised partially on being able to trend many ppb and below elements. We didn't use any standards exactly in that range to evaluate vendors on those directly, so we can't say much there. But we've seen some elements be very stable and measured well at low single digit ppb levels (like Mo) and some seem unstable and difficult to get a measure that reflects what's in the sample water (like Fe and sometimes P). My suspicion is that most of low traces act somewhere in between Mo and Fe, probably more like Mo. But without data there, it would be unwise to assume elements at levels we can't (or haven't) checked are better behaved than elements we can check.




Here was 4 OES vendors sent 4 samples with Co spiked from zero to ~1ppb.
None made detections, except ICP-A.

and in context, in this data set ICP-A had "detections" of all kinds of elements (90% reported as zero by other vendors), in totally inconsistent ways....

Which is to say, reporting finding elements that other vendors report as zero/undetectable is not always a sign of better performance - sometimes it's much worse performance (nonsense).

So it makes me cautious whenever somebody says they can do or measure something that isn't doable by anybody else. Independent verification becomes important.

Out of curiosity I looked at my data for Cobolt. ATI ICP.

Note: I do not use additive based products. I use Tropic Marin salt and All For Reef. Around 2018 - 19 I was using ESV 2 part.

 

[BeanAnimal]

There's some aspects of moonshiners we might have data to be able to say something about, and some we don't.
Moonshiner's takes the position that ATI and Oceamo are good vendors to use, suggesting that on elements they both can measure - they should be close. This seems to be generally true in data sets I've seen - Closer than some other vendors are to each other. It also takes the position that between Oceamo and ICP-A, (offering ICP-MS service) Oceamo is a better one. As I've said, data I've seen also generally points more in that direction than against it.

Moonshiners also seems premised partially on being able to trend many ppb and below elements. We didn't use any standards exactly in that range to evaluate vendors on those directly, so we can't say much there. But we've seen some elements be very stable and measured well at low single digit ppb levels (like Mo) and some seem unstable and difficult to get a measure that reflects what's in the sample water (like Fe and sometimes P). My suspicion is that most of low traces act somewhere in between Mo and Fe, probably more like Mo. But without data there, it would be unwise to assume elements at levels we can't (or haven't) checked are better behaved than elements we can check.




Here was 4 OES vendors sent 4 samples with Co spiked from zero to ~1ppb.
None made detections, except ICP-A.

and in context, in this data set ICP-A had "detections" of all kinds of elements (90% reported as zero by other vendors), in totally inconsistent ways....

Which is to say, reporting finding elements that other vendors report as zero/undetectable is not always a sign of better performance - sometimes it's much worse performance (nonsense).

So it makes me cautious whenever somebody says they can do or measure something that isn't doable by anybody else. Independent verification becomes important.

This post pretty much confirms what I intuitively felt was the case after reading the data presented in this thread and others. Is there enough clarity in the noise to base dosing decisions on or is it just feel good data regardless of the noise? I don't know. Reefahaloc and the moonshiners certainly trust the data return and their system results - I am just not sure if I do (back to that correlation/attribution thing).

Thanks for the response with added data.

 

[Reefahholic]

My suspicion is that most of low traces act somewhere in between Mo and Fe, probably more like Mo. But without data there, it would be unwise to assume elements at levels we can't (or haven't) checked are better behaved than elements we can check.

Mo is easily detected on both OES and MS. It’s the Ultra Trace elements that OES cannot detect accurately. Elements like Fe, Mn, Co, Cr, Cu, & Se. They usually don’t show up if really low, but they will if they’re already overdosed. If very low, sometimes you’ll still see Co and Mn show up, but they’re not trustworthy on OES to make a smart dosing decision.

Here was 4 OES vendors sent 4 samples with Co spiked from zero to ~1ppb.
None made detections, except ICP-A.

I thought you guys sent a MS with ICP-A? If you did, it would make a little sense that he detected 0.46, and the others came back at zero. Although it would still make sense if he picked up the higher spiked sample as noise, because like I mentioned before, Cobalt is one trace metal that has slightly better sensitivity than most of the others and when the machine is at the LLOD, it might pop up, but it won’t be accurate.

Which is to say, reporting finding elements that other vendors report as zero/undetectable is not always a sign of better performance - sometimes it's much worse performance (nonsense).

Not sure why you put (nonsense). I agree with most of what you said, but I’m unsure what you meant about nonsense. Anyway, ICP-MS will find those ultra trace elements that OES will not. I’ve seen that over and over again. The sensitivity is good. 0.05 ug/L or better for most elements. Uranium is probably the most sensitive.

 

[Rick Mathew]

Many things we know in this hobby come from anecdotal evidence.

How would you classify this experiment done on these 8 elements? Are you implying it was completely controlled in a lab setting without any variables? We may need to look into this experiment more.

Every experiment, measurement and analysis has variables...This experiment is no exception...it was just an experiment in which we did the best we could as I am sure the ICP vendors did, to minimize the variation...but for sure it is not zero.

 

[Reefahholic]

Out of curiosity I looked at my data for Cobolt. ATI ICP.

Note: I do not use additive based products. I use Tropic Marin salt and All For Reef. Around 2018 - 19 I was using ESV 2 part.

Yep, all zero just like I mentioned. It’s either very low or depleted. My guess is that it’s in there, but probably between about .05 to 0.2 ug/L.