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

[areefer01]

It comes down to the ranges each labs use - I would not for example change from lab A one month - and lab B the second month

Without a doubt. In fact that was never my intention and it was just by blind luck that they are that close. As I noted I never went to compare them until something was mentioned earlier. So out of curiosity I went back through the data I had and tried to note what the values are. I could be totally wrong on the measurement value. The numbers are correct though.

I did two samples from Oceanmo that year and it was to see how the personalized feedback felt. I stayed with ATI in the end since I had more data points. No other reason.

 

[MnFish1]

I guess I'm still waiting for the conclusion from the investigators - as what to do for the average reefer. Spiked samples, etc - All introduces an error possibility - I still despite mountains of data do not know what the point was/is

 

[BeanAnimal]

The thread and most of the conversations is about accuracy and repeatability of measurements, not ICP vendors advise regarding the returned results.

The purpose was to compare home testing to ICP. The data and conclusion are the results and put forth in the first few posts. The rest is discussion of those results and how they apply to the validity of the moonshiners method or similar trace dosing methods.

 

[Reefahholic]

Glenn is on another level for sure and an amazing hobbyist. I was only replying that I didn't think he was ICP driven based on my understanding.

I don’t think they’re ICP driven like we are, but I’m pretty sure many of his members and even Glenn are checking chemistry from time to time with ICP. I’ll ask him.

 

[Reefahholic]

Since it was asked earlier or talked about I have an ATI and Oceamo somewhat close as it relates to sample date. I've never compared them before but this is back in February of 2021.

Just threw them into excel real quick for more noise and fun.

That looks like two OES to me or you’re system has too much demand for AFR. If I had to guess I’d say their both OES. OCEAMO has OES and MS, so keep that in mind when you order.

 

[Pod_01]

Since it was asked earlier or talked about I have an ATI and Oceamo somewhat close as it relates to sample date. I've never compared them before but this is back in February of 2021.

Just threw them into excel real quick for more noise and fun.

Just my completely non professional observation.

They look very similar and P that I am always interested is close.
But look at the Iodine???? Did something get shifted. From one I am sitting on my hands the other I am dosing (Some magic potion).

But, these days I would look at the corals especially devil hand and if those polyps are out and happy I would go for ATI result with respect to Iodine.

 

[areefer01]

Just my completely non professional observation.

They look very similar and P that I am always interested is close.
But look at the Iodine???? Did something get shifted. From one I am sitting on my hands the other I am dosing (Some magic potion).

But, these days I would look at the corals especially devil hand and if those polyps are out and happy I would go for ATI result with respect to Iodine.

Looks like that could have been my error. Good catch. Not sure how I put N/A on there but I'm guessing I didn't see it when I put it together. Sorry about that.

ATI: 76.28
Oceamo: 77

 

[Pod_01]

Looks like that could have been my error. Good catch. Not sure how I put N/A on there but I'm guessing I didn't see it when I put it together. Sorry about that.

ATI: 76.28
Oceamo: 77

I was looking at it for my own greedy reason.
I like to see the pro reefers ICP result so that way I can interpret some of my own result.

Thank you,

 

[Reefahholic]

Yes. This was from a data set involved in an earlier study. Not the current one.

Ok I see.

If you know of some prediction where we could see a difference in data based on the different tech specs of the OES machines "green" vs "blue" or FM vs ATI, is be interested in hunting for the data to back it up.

https://extranet.spectro.com/-/media/900C64F1-2683-412A-B4BA-D551C1723C98.pdf

Exactly. None of those elements were spiked to detectable amounts, so those four samples are identical regarding those elements. Note that ATI only reported two elements and their values were fairly consistent. Whereas ICP-A reported many elements fluctuating from 0 to several ppb from one replicate to the next. Hence "nonsense" - shorthand for reporting numbers that are well smaller than the measurable uncertainty - so could be zero and ought to have been reported as such.

I don’t know how many times I need to say it, but from what I’ve seen multiple times I would NOT use ICP-A, and your data also confirmed the same if it’s accurate.

ICP testing companies do math to calculate total phosphorous from the po4 value that they get above, or use a total phosphorous color changing test kit

I think OCEAMO directly measures both of I remember correctly. ATI calculates the PO4 value from the total phosphorus. I’ll have to ask Christoph.

• OES is better with small amounts of some elements
• MS is better with small amounts of others
• MS perhaps is better with a wider range of elements

For me…MS is better across the board.

An interesting question would be do the different ICP companies have different 'normal ranges - (i.e. if element xxx is between 1 and 3

Each company will list a certain target range where they feel based off, NSW parameters, their own research, experience, anecdotal data, etc. Nobody fully agrees, but most are fairly close for many elements. We elevate elements, but I’ve noticed Fauna has a much higher range with several elements. One that comes to mind is Cu. We keep 0.7 ug/L at the top end, and his ideal range is 4!!

 

[Reefahholic]

You could test 10 average tanks with any OES and then 10 using OCEAMO MS. I bet you I could guess 8 out of 10 of which are OCEAMO’s MS vs the OES just by looking at all the results.

Maybe 10 out of 10.

Let me know if you want to test me.

 

[Pod_01]

Fauna has a much higher range with several elements. One that comes to mind is Cu. We keep 0.7 ug/L at the top end, and his ideal range is 4!!

Been running at those levels and higher (on occasion) no issues that I seen.

 

[ingchr1]

...but from what I’ve seen multiple times I would NOT use ICP-A, and your data also confirmed the same if it’s accurate...

There are also other reasons to not use them. I sent in a sample and got my RODI results, but the results for my tank remained in pending status. I contacted them several times inquiring about it but never got resolution. They responded to my initial emails, but after that they never responded back.

 

[Reefahholic]

Been running at those levels and higher (on occasion) no issues that I seen.

4 ug/L of copper is pretty high, but I’ve seen much higher w/o issues, but just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

 

[Reefahholic]

I’ve seen Cu in the teen’s and 20’s with no issues, but fluorescence can start becoming affected. I’d never run anywhere near Fauna’s optimal range. I haven’t seen many examples of NSW having copper levels of 4 ug/L. Not saying it’s not possible, but I think that is pretty high for NSW.

I’d bring it down below 1-2 ug/L. If above 20, you’re begging for STN/RTN.

 

[Reefahholic]

Since it was asked earlier or talked about I have an ATI and Oceamo somewhat close as it relates to sample date. I've never compared them before but this is back in February of 2021.

Just threw them into excel real quick for more noise and fun.

So we’re these both OES? It’s either that or AFR isn’t keeping up with your tank. Iodine looks good though.

 

[Reefahholic]

There are also other reasons to not use them. I sent in a sample and got my RODI results, but the results for my tank remained in pending status. I contacted them several times inquiring about it but never got resolution. They responded to my initial emails, but after that they never responded back.

In the beginning it was scary what they were recommending. I’m sure a few people crashed their tanks.

 

[Pod_01]

4 ug/L of copper is pretty high, but I’ve seen much higher w/o issues, but just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

I hear you, not ignoring your advice.
But, at the moment the tank is running the best in years so I am really making minor changes here and there. The Cu level is steady and I have not added any for 6+ months. When I was using AFR the Cu was always depleted.

The spike was due to my RODI unit needing a change and I caught it with ICP RO test.

 

[Reefahholic]

I hear you, not ignoring your advice.
But, at the moment the tank is running the best in years so I am really making minor changes here and there. The Cu level is steady and I have not added any for 6+ months. When I was using AFR the Cu was always depleted.

The spike was due to my RODI unit needing a change and I caught it with ICP RO test.

I wouldn’t let it get much higher. Keep us updated. One thing I know about Cu is that if the tank is growing well, it’s being consumed quickly. It’s a little odd that it’s staying stable w/o any supplementation. It’s probably in something you’re feeding. How long ago did you check your source water?

Fe, Mn, Co, Cr, Cu, Se, Zn, Ni….all get used rapidly in a thriving system.

 

[Reefahholic]

You can find a bunch of different answers on trace metals in seawater, but here’s a few.

 

[Reefahholic]

Note that ATI only reported two elements and their values were fairly consistent. Whereas ICP-A reported many elements fluctuating from 0 to several ppb from one replicate to the next. Hence "nonsense" - shorthand for reporting numbers that are well smaller than the measurable uncertainty - so could be zero and ought to have been reported as such.

I figured you might be interested in this. This was a comparison we did back in 2019 between ATI and ICP-A. Pay really close attention from Nickel down to Tin. Lol. That’s called nonsense!