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

[Thales]

How do you determine accuracy with your 2-part dosing, CaRx, or hobby grade test kits?

You don't, it's all trending, generalities, and hope.

Christoph has tested his machines and does QC.

Every testing vendor says that.

When I dose .05-1 ug/L and that element increases as expected that’s how.

Cool. I'd like to see that data in a spreadsheet with a bunch of examples.



And please stop adding words like 'perfect' and stop with the 'lol's' we are almost getting somewhere, and it would be sad to see it go south for no good reason.

 

[areefer01]

The testing issue has been around forever. Either do it yourself the same way every time, or find someplace that you trust for whatever reason and just stick with that Comparing different testing vendors will drive you crazy and mostly add to confusion rather than adding clarity. In my 2014 phosphate Macna talk I talked about this and how the some of results in the talk were from the lab at CAS, but more importantly, by the same person in the lab who I knew was a stickler for the protocol they liked. Since we really don't have any information on who or how any of the testing companies are doing much of anything, our choice comes inside a large black box inside several other black boxes.

I consider testing in this hobby a matter of trending, not accuracy, so I care about precision more than accuracy, and like things like the trident because it takes some variability out of the equation.

Accurate and precise Von (and I'll mispronounce his full name, sorry) was accurate and precise. I also recall you saying nice.

 

[Reefahholic]

Have you not been reading? You really cannot. Which is why it is smart to think about why you should pay a service for this... or more importantly fanboy for any service.

That’s your subjective opinion.

I’ve asked you to compare chemistry, coral color, and growth with the man that made the method, but you avoided the comparison.

You can’t prove your way of supplementing is any better can you. So let’s compare your system to some moonshiners.

Let me know when you’re ready.

 

[jda]

You might want to consider stepping back a bit and maybe have a quick self discovery moment... this is not a moonshiners thread. We are talking about hobby grade test kits vs ICP testing. I think that I have laid out my opinions and some facts/truth/whatever on the topic, and identified which are which very well.

 

[MnFish1]

You might want to consider stepping back a bit and maybe have a quick self discovery moment... this is not a moonshiners thread. We are talking about hobby grade test kits vs ICP testing. I think that I have laid out my opinions as some facts/truth/whatever on the topic, and identified which are which very well.

in that case having read all of the threads - For the tests measured with hobbiest test kits - they are relatively the same as the ones tested by ICP - The issue (which - for some reason - no one can tell from this thread) - is the other elements. So - let's just say - hobbits test kits are as good as ICP based on those tests. However there are no Hobbyist kits for many of the elements.

 

[jda]

That is partially true.

First, there are really good test kits that are better than the ones most of us use - subjective, but I think that most of the smart folks would agree more than they would not. Hach, LaMotte are better than Salifert, Red Sea, etc. at least in my mind. If some company was transparent, then that might help people trust them... but we have black boxes. For all that I know, they use an $11 salifert test kit and not something that is likely better.

Second, for most of the other elements, hobby test kits are probably better since they can detect the useful compounds and not just count atoms. Iodide test kit is better than total I. Free/available fe is better than total fe. Free, cheated vs organically bound copper ...and so on. I would argue that any hobby test kit that tests for an actual form is better than ICP wholesale.

No, there is not many test kits for all of the compounds found in a reef tank. Counts of atomic elements does not seem to matter, or at least nobody has pointed out anything the few times that i have asked.

 

[Reefahholic]

You might want to consider stepping back a bit and maybe have a quick self discovery moment... this is not a moonshiners thread. We are talking about hobby grade test kits vs ICP testing. I think that I have laid out my opinions as some facts/truth/whatever on the topic, and identified which are which very well.

You said that ICP isn’t working well. It’s not accurate. There’s no way to verify the results we’re getting.

I’m saying let’s let the corals and chemistry talk. “Everybody” is after COLOR correct?
Everybody is after “Growth.”

How do we determine things are working well? We look at Color, Growth, and Chemistry. We look at the stability of the system.

How do you know your CaRx is working? How do you measure that with perfect precision? How do you know exactly how much PAR you’re getting? Do we need a scientific lab setting with 100K equipment to determine these things? I’d say that you will never know the exact amount of PAR hitting your corals, but you can look at the color and growth to determine if they’re getting enough or too much.

 

[rtparty]

Glad to see this measuring contest is still going on.

Just for the record, my dad could beat up your dad. That is all

 

[Reefahholic]

So - let's just say - hobbits test kits are as good as ICP based on those tests. However there are no Hobbyist kits for many of the elements.

Exactly, they’re SEVERELY LIMITED.

The only way they’re dealing with that is to dismantle ICP.

I find it rather strange that the CHEMISTRY forum is limited to 8-10 elements which take a lot of work to test with hobby grade test kits.

 

[Reefahholic]

Glad to see this measuring contest is still going on.

Just for the record, my dad could beat up your dad. That is all

I found it funny how you tested every salt brand on the market, but when I challenged you with your own chemistry, I never heard back from you again.

Too many people discrediting ICP, and taking about how useless it is, but yet when it comes to comparing their own chemistry and coral colors against ICP-MS (that, according to them is useless) they don’t want to do it.

 

[MnFish1]

I found it funny how you tested every salt brand on the market, but when I challenged you with your own chemistry, I never heard back from you again.

Too many people discrediting ICP, and taking about how useless it is, but yet when it comes to comparing their own chemistry and coral colors against ICP-MS (that, according to them is useless) they don’t want to do it.

I think a lot of people criticizing ICP think that water changes are fine as well (me included)

 

[Reefahholic]

We gave them the data to show how we know the analyses are accurate, but it wasn’t good enough.

Correctness and repeatability of ICP-MS seawater measurements

Hello Everyone! This is a „takeout“ from the reef moonshiners thread, which can be found here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/moonshiners-method-feedback.996193/ One point raised in this thread is that quality from seawater labs is often seen with a lot of skepticism. I would like to quote...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[rtparty]

I found it funny how you tested every salt brand on the market, but when I challenged you with your own chemistry, I never heard back from you again.

Too many people discrediting ICP, and taking about how useless it is, but yet when it comes to comparing their own chemistry and coral colors against ICP-MS (that, according to them is useless) they don’t want to do it.

I did test a lot of salt brands. I also found a lot of inconsistencies and poor data in those tests. The "poor data" could simply be input error by ATI or it could be a totally blown result. We don't know.

After talking to multiple ICP operators (those who have zero monetary gain from talking to me), I found my results likely had serious issues that no credible lab would ever certify.

I even talked about this at length with Deven in the lives.

The biggest takeaway from my testing is getting a better idea of where the big 3 are in each salt and how each salt mixed and stored for a week.

I have no interest in comparing my tank to anybody else's. I can't think of a bigger waste of my time than someone wanting to "compare sizes" so they can pound their chest.

 

[MnFish1]

I did test a lot of salt brands. I also found a lot of inconsistencies and poor data in those tests. The "poor data" could simply be input error by ATI or it could be a totally blown result. We don't know.

After talking to multiple ICP operators (those who have zero monetary gain from talking to me), I found my results likely had serious issues that no credible lab would ever certify.

I even talked about this at length with Deven in the lives.

The biggest takeaway from my testing is getting a better idea of ere the big 3 are in each salt and how each salt mixed and stored for a week.

I have no interest in comparing my tank to anybody else's. I can't think of a bigger waste of my time than someone wanting to "compare sizes" so they can pound their chest.

1. It would be nice if you would post those results (i.e. were there replicates, etc)
2. You SEEM to be implying that people are saying something that results in personal gain for them (not sure I agree)
3. I agree that its very difficult to replicate ICP results - and it really depends on their methods - but interested - in what your labs said?

 

[Reefahholic]

I think a lot of people criticizing ICP think that water changes are fine as well (me included)

Water changes can work well if you’re changing a large enough volume frequently. There are specific systems or
circumstances where the growth becomes so rapid and the biomass starts to take up 40 - 50% of the actual water volume. In that situation, it would likely become very difficult to keep up with water changes alone. It also depends on exactly what you’re trying to accomplish in your reef. Everybody has different goals.

 

[jda]

Why is this so important to you? Do you need validation that what you are doing is right? Do you have more at stake than just a hobbyist interest? What do you care if people want to follow what you do? As far as I can tell, there is not much on this thread that is truly inaccurate. If you like what you are doing, then just offer your opinion and move on... let the rest go. Trying to be more like @Thales, i see no compelling reason that the rest of this is truly hobbyist behavior.

 

[taricha]

I'll engage on these....

Please correct me if I get any of these wrong.

Facts:

• ICP testing companies do titration test for alk, calcium and magnesium

If they report alk, they do so chemically yes. But no ICP vendor does titration for Ca, Mg, K etc to my knowledge. They do ICP-OES, or ICP-MS, or Oceamo will do ion chromatography.

ICP testing companies do color changing test for po4 and no3

Some don't - some just get the P value from the ICP machine. Others realize they can do better with a colorimetric test for PO4. Some report both without guiding the user that the chemical PO4 might be better than the ICP P-value.
ATI and oceamo measure nitrate by ion chromatography, not colorimetric kits.

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

They multiply ICP P value by the ~3.06 factor to get PO4 if they measure from the ICP machine.
Nobody is doing a chemical digestion for total organic phosphorus unless you do Triton N-DOC.

• Plasma ONLY can detect elemental levels of things and not compounds
• Plasma ONLY can count elemental atoms and does not know any form that anything is in

assume the first statement means the same as the second one, which is correct. 1st statement shouldn't be taken to mean that ICP is somehow blind to an element if it's in a compound.

Nobody has yet to produce any actual scientific facts or research saying how elemental atom counts are useful for dosing amounts

I think I disagree. Just because it doesn't measure the form of Iodine, doesn't mean I don't know what forms of Iodine are likely in my system. We know under seawater conditions what forms many things are going to be in - every Randy article on elements in seawater talks about what fraction end up in different forms. A small number of elements might have some difficult to predict behavior. But if I put in I2, I know it's going to change to Iodide and iodate, and end up mostly as iodate over time.

• 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

The elements that are better by OES are very few (I forget which ones), The elements that are better by MS are vastly more.

There is no collaboration between ICP companies on standards or best practices - Christoph has said as much so I am assuming that this is still fact

yep, even though they might be close on many elements, they will usually throw a few "big" disagreements to let you know they aren't interchangeable

Kinda in the same vein as above, are we sure that MS vs OES is really the difference in anything, or is Christoph just better than others? Given that there is no actual evidence that one type is better than another even if more granular, why not him?

here's an academic paper where they sent a seawater reference to a bunch of labs and told them to do their best.

State of the art in the determination of trace elements in seawater: a worldwide proficiency test

The ICP-MS did far better at trace metals (statistically rigorous, not just that they reported more numbers with decimals)
check figure 4. It's what you are wanting to see.
ICP-MS was more capable for this test, and most of those labs probably weren't Christoph.

 

[Dan_P]

We gave them the data to show how we know the analyses are accurate, but it wasn’t good enough.

Correctness and repeatability of ICP-MS seawater measurements

Hello Everyone! This is a „takeout“ from the reef moonshiners thread, which can be found here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/moonshiners-method-feedback.996193/ One point raised in this thread is that quality from seawater labs is often seen with a lot of skepticism. I would like to quote...

www.reef2reef.com

I liked that thread.

It does not bring us any closer to answering the question about the accuracy and precision of a vendor’s ICP results. And testimonials certainly do not help. We are left wondering why it hasn’t been answered after all these years.

 

[Reefahholic]

I liked that thread.

It does not bring us any closer to answering the question about the accuracy and precision of a vendor’s ICP results. And testimonials certainly do not help. We are left wondering why it hasn’t been answered after all these years.

Ok, I’ve already asked this question twice, but never received an answer. What exactly are you guys looking for? Like, what data or information will you be happy with if he can get it.? I will ask Christoph if he can provide that information to you “if it’s possible” to get. I think if I remember correctly, some of the information is impossible to get. I do not remember the specifics, but I think it had something to do with they way the analysis are be performed maybe.? Something alone those lines. He can only give you guys what is possible to give, please let me know and I’ll try my best to get it.

 

[Rick Mathew]

How are you determining perfect accuracy on anything in this hobby. Please elaborate!

I don't know that there is such a thing as "perfect" accuracy...However there are methods for determining accuracy. The primary requirement is you have to know the "true" value...This is usually represented by a agreed upon reference standard...In the case of our project we chose to use National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ....I think the ICP vendors use similar standards. THis would be the target for measurement...You them make multiple measurement and determine the Repeatability (Variation in measurements by the same person or operator) and Reproducibility (Variation in the measurement made by different people) Using this data and some statistical methods one can make a statement on the accuracy and precision of the test protocol..It is usually reported by a ± value or sometimes % Relative error...This would represent the range of error one might expect in the measurement...However the very fact there is this ± error indicates it is for sure not perfect

Here is an article that describes in detail the the idea https://www.webassign.net/question_assets/unccolphysmechl1/measurements/manual.html