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

[MnFish1]

"Some experiments had 4 sample sets, some had 3, some had 2 and some had 1. They were sent to multiple vendors up to a maximum of 4 individual vendors. In all but one experiment all of the samples were shipped to the vendors at the same time. "

 

[MnFish1]

But - rather than criticize - I would just like to hear your conclusions - end results - what are you trying to say? I read the results from the current study - etc etc.

 

[Reefahholic]

BRS did some interesting ICP-MS testing back in 2018. This is why it’s critical to send ICP samples out even if you don’t act on the data. It’s always good to know what’s in your tank, and the products we’re dosing. They can/will buildup over time.

BRS tested Kalk, Alkalinity, Calcium, and Magnesium. They use a certified lab called NSL Analytical out of Cleveland, Ohio. Link below:

NSL Analytical | Reliable Chemical and Metallurgical Testing

NSL Analytical provides testing services for chemical, metallurgical, polymer & powder materials for aerospace, additive manufacturing & more.

www.nslanalytical.com

They listed the full ICP data reports which you will see (I’ll leave a link below), and also made some nice data purity comparison charts.

BRS Pharma Additives - Chemical Purity Analysis Charts

A full ICP analysis of BRS Pharma bulk additives compared to other major reef tank additive brands.

www.bulkreefsupply.com

 

[Thales]

Curious - and if so I agree with you - you have not been doing hobbyist tests since March>

Yep, here is some more infor in case it is helpful https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/are-elevated-nutrients-a-problem-or-not.1007773/post-11763404

 

[ingchr1]

...This is why it’s critical to send ICP samples out even if you don’t act on the data...

If one is not going to act on the data, then how can it be critical?

If you are gathering all this data and not doing anything with it, then what's the point? One would just be wasting money.

 

[KStatefan]

Back to post #1

I want to thank @Rick Mathew , @taricha and @Dan_P for taking the time and money to do these (test experiments comparisons)

 

[Reefahholic]

If one is not going to act on the data, then how can it be critical?

If you are gathering all this data and not doing anything with it, then what's the point? One would just be wasting money.

Exactly, but if some reefers are not “comfortable yet” making dosing decisions, they can at least remove or stop dosing undesirable products, and change exhausted RODI filters or membranes.

 

[Rick Mathew]

Back to post #1

I want to thank @Rick Mathew , @taricha and @Dan_P for taking the time and money to do these (test experiments comparisons)

Most welcome...I love it that you are a Kent State fan...my wife and I graduated from there...Many fond memories

 

[KStatefan]

Most welcome...I love it that you are a Kent State fan...my wife and I graduated from there...Many fond memories

Not Kent State Kansas State

 

[Rick Mathew]

Not Kent State Kansas State

Still a great school

 

[bluerider098]

Except for the trident and other apex related stuff, I haven't tested anything since March, and October before that.

Ha, I haven't tested anything but alk 1x in like 4 months. I really dislike testing.

I've enjoyed reading thru the banter on this thread though.

 

[jason2459]

Seems like now is a good time as things have calmed a bit. I thought I might post some of these comments in communication I had previously with ENC Labs around seawater testing. I've done quite a lot of testing and experimenting. I still have yet to post quite a few things as life happens.

I'll just post some excerpts as I had a lot of back and forth communication. I got very little back from other labs.

"You will probably get at least six different test results from three or four labs (some may re-run them with better attention to detail). Hard to say which are correct. Even the expert marine chemists struggle with measuring many of the elements in seawater. Nevertheless, I would like to participate some day.
ICPOES is not the best technique for high TDS samples. ICPMS is better but now finding AA to be superior for many elements. Voltammetry is extremely sensitive for some elements but time-consuming."

"ICPMS struggles to reach the levels of most of the trace elements in NSW. ICPOES can handle many of the major and minor components (if done carefully) but certainly not the traces. Just one example, antimony in NSW averages 0.2 ppb. ICPMS might be able to achieve that with minimal dilution but certainly not ICPOES. If you're getting numbers above detection limits on the traces, I'm quite sure they are falsely elevated. Much of the data out there is simply incorrect."

"-Almost all of the traces have detection limits too high for seawater. See attached file with reference values for NSW. As I have written previously, ICPOES is OK for some of the majors and minors but not the traces. Even if they're above detection limits, you lose accuracy and precision near them.
-Running sulfur for sulfate is not recommended. Sulfate should be run by IC or even turbidimetrically.
-Many labs report detection limits of what their instrument can measure (IDL-Instrument Detection Limit) but almost all ICP analyses of seawater are diluted (at least 10X). This brings actual sample detection limits up by that factor (known as Sample Detection Limit). I would ask what dilution samples are actually measured at and what are those Sample Detection Limits.
ICP in general, has a lot of interferences (optical for OES and mass for MS) especially in complex matrices like seawater and salt. We are in the midst of evaluating a new ICPMS. After submitting samples to about five of the major manufacturers, results vary considerably. Even the instrument application experts struggle with the seawater and salt matrix.
One ICP run for all those elements attracts a lot of attention. Its relatively fast and easy (especially if its a simultaneous run instead of a sequential analysis). The better seawater labs use a variety of techniques that require more time and effort."

 

[Thales]

Seems like now is a good time as things have calmed a bit. I thought I might post some of these comments in communication I had previously with ENC Labs around seawater testing. I've done quite a lot of testing and experimenting. I still have yet to post quite a few things as life happens.

I'll just post some excerpts as I had a lot of back and forth communication. I got very little back from other labs.

"You will probably get at least six different test results from three or four labs (some may re-run them with better attention to detail). Hard to say which are correct. Even the expert marine chemists struggle with measuring many of the elements in seawater. Nevertheless, I would like to participate some day.
ICPOES is not the best technique for high TDS samples. ICPMS is better but now finding AA to be superior for many elements. Voltammetry is extremely sensitive for some elements but time-consuming."

"ICPMS struggles to reach the levels of most of the trace elements in NSW. ICPOES can handle many of the major and minor components (if done carefully) but certainly not the traces. Just one example, antimony in NSW averages 0.2 ppb. ICPMS might be able to achieve that with minimal dilution but certainly not ICPOES. If you're getting numbers above detection limits on the traces, I'm quite sure they are falsely elevated. Much of the data out there is simply incorrect."

"-Almost all of the traces have detection limits too high for seawater. See attached file with reference values for NSW. As I have written previously, ICPOES is OK for some of the majors and minors but not the traces. Even if they're above detection limits, you lose accuracy and precision near them.
-Running sulfur for sulfate is not recommended. Sulfate should be run by IC or even turbidimetrically.
-Many labs report detection limits of what their instrument can measure (IDL-Instrument Detection Limit) but almost all ICP analyses of seawater are diluted (at least 10X). This brings actual sample detection limits up by that factor (known as Sample Detection Limit). I would ask what dilution samples are actually measured at and what are those Sample Detection Limits.
ICP in general, has a lot of interferences (optical for OES and mass for MS) especially in complex matrices like seawater and salt. We are in the midst of evaluating a new ICPMS. After submitting samples to about five of the major manufacturers, results vary considerably. Even the instrument application experts struggle with the seawater and salt matrix.
One ICP run for all those elements attracts a lot of attention. Its relatively fast and easy (especially if its a simultaneous run instead of a sequential analysis). The better seawater labs use a variety of techniques that require more time and effort."

Yep. Kinda what we said in our article about it.

 

[Dan_P]

Well - I don't see any statistical analysis of the data you presented - but - they can't be compared in the first place since you did 3 tests for some tests and 1 for the others. There is no way to judge statistical significance. You seem to be guesstimating - as to whether the ICP tests are equivalent or better/worse. I have no clue.

Try this.

A popular viewpoint is to trust an ICP result over a hobby kit result, that is, ICP is accurate. What we did was to show how well hobby tests measure the difference in concentration of eight analytes between two solutions. Since we know what the difference was, we were able to demonstrate how well the tests performed across multiple users performing triplicate tests. If you assume ICP is accurate like many aquarists, you only need one test from multiple vendors to challenge the assumption. We showed that hobby tests can provide results similar to ICP results irrespective of the vendor.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ok, so you’re admitting that how you’re current way of testing is no better. So the question is why such strong opinions in regards to ICP results?

I think there are many unanswered questions that are not answered by posting pictures of aquariums.

Accuracy is obviously one of them. A great tanks says nothing about accuracy.

But if you want to focus on results, that’s an entirely different discussion topic.

In that vein, there are still many unanswered questions, not least of which is how would the same tank look by dosing all of the same chemicals at an “average” level rather than an icp controlled level.

 

[MnFish1]

Try this.

A popular viewpoint is to trust an ICP result over a hobby kit result, that is, ICP is accurate. What we did was to show how well hobby tests measure the difference in concentration of eight analytes between two solutions. Since we know what the difference was, we were able to demonstrate how well the tests performed across multiple users performing triplicate tests. If you assume ICP is accurate like many aquarists, you only need one test from multiple vendors to challenge the assumption. We showed that hobby tests can provide results similar to ICP results irrespective of the vendor.

Yes - and a popular viewpoint is since Hanna gives a 'digital readout' of x.xx - it's somehow more accurate than visual tests. I'm going to suggest that you don't really know what the differences were - since there could have been spiking errors - and you did not compare the 2 groups similarly - i.e. 3 samples of each. And - none of the tests test what would happen in a real-life scenario in a tank - with organics, etc floating around. So - I guess I would say - at the end - There is no difference between any of the tests - tested (ICP though measures many more - so I would say its POTENTIALLY better given that they are offering more results (which of course can be meaningless). End result to my perspective - if you use ICP all good. If you use hobbyist tests - all good). There is no difference. But - in the back of my mind - I keep wondering if this wasn't a solution in search of a problem in the first place?

 

[Reefahholic]

But if you want to focus on results, that’s an entirely different discussion topic.

Yes, let’s focus on results from this point forward. I just fragged so more Miyagi tort to sell. Those darn inaccurate ICP-MS.

More blue:

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, let’s focus on results from this point forward. I just fragged so more Miyagi tort to sell. Those darn inaccurate ICP-MS.

More blue:

Showing a picture of a nice tank using icp to build the case it is a desirable method is no more convincing than showing a picture of an old man smoking a cigarette to build the case that cigarettes are perfectly safe.

Since one can show great tanks with and without icp testing, and one can show poor tanks with and without icp testing, I would want to see some actual comparative tanks of the sort I mentioned, where the only difference is using icp to determine trace element doses vs using some sort of average doses of those same trace elements.

I suspect such comparisons do not exist, and I’d personally be somewhat surprised if there was a clear difference.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Yes, let’s focus on results from this point forward. I just fragged so more Miyagi tort to sell. Those darn inaccurate ICP-MS.

More blue:

I don't understand, I can show you results of equally impressive corals in a frag tank (cell phone, no orange filter, no post processing)

and claim waterchanges and high pH is the reason for my success.

Seriously, I literally just do auto water changes and refill kalkwasser reactor. Test alkalinity once a week (if that).

So, can I use this to say you're wasting your money? Absolutely not. For the same reason I can't emphatically claim my method to be the reason for my success.

 

[Reefahholic]

where the only difference is using icp to determine trace element doses vs using some sort of average doses of those same trace elements.

I’d absolutely love to do that. The results are very obvious.