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

[LgTas]

Fantastic report. Loved reading this. I know Triton use local labs so I suspect variability depending on where in the world you're located. In Aus it's outsourced to Ozean Pty Ltd so we're at the mercy of how this company maintains and calibrates their machine.

I've been toying with the idea of send the same sample of water to ATI, Triton, and the accredited Water Quality lab that does all our state water testing (and reports error ranges in their results). Has this been done before and is it worth doing given its only 1 sample per tester (it would be too expensive to do more)?

 

[jason2459]

You have about 8 or so hobby grade test kits which I’d argue the average reefer has a difficult time performing and reading the results.

Totally agree with this. And hopefully they have a decent LFS that can help them with tests and/or testing. ICP is a good option as well.

 

[Rick Mathew]

A big thanks for all the work you guys did. It’s nice to know that we can get pretty accurate results from our own testing methods. Makes me feel a lot better knowing I’m as close as possible knowing where things are.

Most welcome...glad it is helpful

 

[taricha]

It sort of lends credit to, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

Within reason, yep.
You'd go broke then mad, or vice versa if you tried to hunt down an unknown issue buying and testing one kit at a time.
ICP makes hunting for the unknown possible.
But if you know what you are tracking and you have the right kit for the job, ICP isn't likely to be much of an improvement for that element. (probably works with your oil change analogy.)

And while it wasn’t the intent, this also proves multiple ICP companies shouldn’t be trusted at all IMO

Things look better in some ways and worse in others on different days. Some vendors seem to have bad days a LOT of days.

So, what do you make of the Triton performance? It looked out of line with the other tests and figures.

Right. it wasn't Triton's best day, but probably not their worst day either. Sanjay's Reefbuilders article shows the spread of ICP vendors on one sample, and on that day - Triton was more in the middle of the pack, but still they had a few issues there too.
Without the context of a lot of other tests, you won't know if you are getting an ICP vendor on one of their good days or bad days. So you just have to factor it in to your idea of the uncertainty built in to these reports.

 

[Rick Mathew]

Fantastic report. Loved reading this. I know Triton use local labs so I suspect variability depending on where in the world you're located. In Aus it's outsourced to Ozean Pty Ltd so we're at the mercy of how this company maintains and calibrates their machine.

I've been toying with the idea of send the same sample of water to ATI, Triton, and the accredited Water Quality lab that does all our state water testing (and reports error ranges in their results). Has this been done before and is it worth doing given its only 1 sample per tester (it would be too expensive to do more)?

Thank you....glad you found it interesting...If you decide to do your sample experiment would love to see the results


Rick

 

[Reefahholic]

If we're paying for a service I wouldn't expect anything more then the accuracy of the testing equipment and not the person behind it.

The problem is that it also depends very much on the software, people performing the test, maintaining the equipment, and a clean environment.

One of my biggest concerns is with many trace metals. You have companies reporting values that “appear” to be more accurate or as accurate using a dual side radial view which is less sensitive than a axial plasma view. Tell me how this happens.?

What I’ve started to notice over time is that some trace metals have better sensitivity than others on OES (elements such as Mn or Co), but I would never trust anything under 1 ug/L from OES which happens to be where many of the targets are. Once the machine is at the detection limit, the margin of error is too large to be trustworthy (even if it’s giving a value that “appears” accurate), the machine still lacks the sensitivity needed to get down below 1 ug/L, and the error can go either way (+/-) making it appear accurate if the result is under 1 ug/L for something like Mn. At that point it’s most likely noise and the result is skewed. Many of these companies will set/increase their trace metal target ranges “higher” so the guidance will say “value is too low” to sell their products.

With ICP-MS you don’t need to manipulate targert values or ranges. Typical detection limits for most elements are around 0.05 ug/L or better. My lowest target is about 0.26 ug/L. So you can see that even though we have that sensitivity we’re not at the machines LLOD.

Get a good look at this man below. Don’t think I haven’t challenged him many times. Ask him. I never believe anything I’m told very easily. I want to see some results first or do it myself to find out. So far I can tell you Christoph has been really honest and I’ve been very happy with my results and the results I’ve seen from others. Believe me, I’m looking at it daily.

Unfortunately I have sent my money to people like this before:

 

[IntrinsicReef]

Are you dosing iron?

Yes. I dose Red Sea Trace colors iron, and in two systems with Pax Bellums I dose their Iron/ Manganese as well. So a substantial amount

 

[jason2459]

The problem is that it also depends very much on the software, people performing the test, maintaining the equipment, and a clean environment.

I agree and what I hope I'm paying for to help maintain that equipment and environment so the tests can stay with in their acceptable ranges.

 

[Reefahholic]

Not even looking at the averages. Look at them all individually.

Same here, because I know better.

but still shows there are some serious things to consider with ICP testing

Nothing is perfect. My argument is that most folks will be waaaaaay better off testing 40+ elements rather than limiting themselves to 8 or so. Pollutants can make or break a system. Catching them early can save your tank. It’s taken my system 18 months to finally get going with dry rock. Imagine if one Heater started to leach Tungsten before I caught it. Or a Jebao Wavemaker magnet started to leach Neodymium. You’d see it on ICP and save your Acro’s before it nukes the system.

When my lights come on in the morning
I feel much more confident knowing I’m looking at 50+ elements every 3-4 weeks than I would trusting myself to test 8 with hobby grade kits. I’m not saying they’re not accurate, I’m just making the point that I don’t trust myself, I’m too lazy to do all the tests, and we don’t have enough hobby grade kits for many important elements. My
Corals are growing very well right off the bottom of the tank, and a lot of that is contributed to controlling or eliminating pollutants.

That feeling in the morning after the lights come on and you know it’s much less likely that a magnet is leaching is priceless.

 

[Pod_01]

I am always confused with P/PO4:

amount.

From the results of previous work it (3a) is known that the storage

I am really not sure what is compared here, I guess I just don’t understand P.
My understanding is Hanna checker regardless of type only measure Ortho-Phosphate PO4.
ICP measures P (element) then provides calculation for total PO4 (made up of all types and Ortho-phosphate is one).
Since the two methods measure different things what do the results mean?

I believe P/PO4total/PO4 Ortho etc… is critical for a reef tank yet I find it confusing on what is measured and what to do.

 

[Reefahholic]

Yes. I dose Red Sea Trace colors iron, and in two systems with Pax Bellums I dose their Iron/ Manganese as well. So a substantial amount

Two things:

1. If you’re not sending ICP-MS and Iron is under a few ug/L (in most cases it will be) you’ll never see it on OES. It’s not that it’s completely depleted (but it could be with a lot of thriving Marco’s in a growing system), but typically you’ll see it very low if you’re dosing it. Low as in .05 to 0.1 ug/L, and you can only see it on a good ICP-MS.

Let me illustrate below with a picture. These were results right before and after transitioning to ICP-MS. As you can see, they were detected on MS.

2. You’ll need to double or triple your Iron dose with Macro’s if they’re growing well. Not only are they consuming rapidly, but also the corals if they’re growing well. Many of us are at 10x, 20x 30x the starting dose.

 

[Miami Reef]

“Fantastic, I will consider it maybe some day, but what about the other 40+ elements that you’re not testing for?”

Regular water changes and feeding. Boom. Done.

Great tanks have been made without ICP.

 

[Reefahholic]

I agree and what I hope I'm paying for to help maintain that equipment and environment so the tests can stay with in their acceptable ranges.

Depends on the lab you’re using. Some labs only want your money. The problem we’re having in the hobby is that it’s not affordable to certify/staff these labs. You can do it, but it will only drive up the cost for the hobbyist that’s already too expensive. Not only that, it’s hard to find quality people who actually care and perform well.

 

[Reefahholic]

Regular water changes and feeding. Boom. Done.

Great tanks have been made without ICP.

Ha…let’s revisit Element X.

 

[Reefahholic]

Even Randy will tell you it’s very difficult to maintain trace elements with water changes alone.

 

[Miami Reef]

Even Randy will tell you it’s very difficult to maintain trace elements with water changes alone.

How do you know there aren’t other additions of trace elements besides for water changes? Like food. The water change works in addition to feeding the tank, not independently.

Who says a trace element needs to be at starting concentration at all times?

 

[Reefahholic]

How do you know there aren’t other additions of trace elements besides for water changes? Like food. The water change works in addition to feeding the tank, not independently.

Who says a trace element needs to be at starting concentration at all times?

Sure feeds can bring them in as well as water changes. Or let’s say you’re using a 2-part with traces.

The problem is that they’re all inconsistent and lack the precision needed to stay in a targeted range.

Let’s examine our ICP results to find out. Anybody want to participate right now?

 

[Miami Reef]

The problem is that they’re all inconsistent and lack the precision needed to stay in a targeted range.

If moonshiners is what you’re leading to, then yes, use ICP for it. You can’t test and dose all those additives without the ICP test. We can’t test for all those elements, and it’s way too many.

For the reefers that don’t use Moonshiners, ICP is NOT necessary IMO.

 

[IntrinsicReef]

Two things:

1. If you’re not sending ICP-MS and Iron is under a few ug/L (in most cases it will be) you’ll never see it on OES. It’s not that it’s completely depleted (but it could be with a lot of thriving Marco’s in a growing system), but typically you’ll see it very low if you’re dosing it. Low as in .05 to 0.1 ug/L, and you can only see it on a good ICP-MS.

Let me illustrate below with a picture. These were results right before and after transitioning to ICP-MS. As you can see, they were detected on MS.

2. You’ll need to double or triple your Iron dose with Macro’s if they’re growing well. Not only are they consuming rapidly, but also the corals if they’re growing well. Many of us are at 10x, 20x 30x the starting dose.

I think that is part of my surprise from this report. I haven't seen iron on my ICP OES reports, but this data is suggesting I can get an accurate reading from a Hanna checker. I agree it is utilized at high rates by coral and algae. Which makes it exciting I can monitor it more continuously with a home kit.

 

[rtparty]

Sure feeds can bring them in as well as water changes. Or let’s say you’re using a 2-part with traces.

The problem is that they’re all inconsistent and lack the precision needed to stay in a targeted range.

Let’s examine our ICP results to find out. Anybody want to participate right now?

The day the hobby starts preaching a monthly $85 ICP test is required for a successful tank is the day we won’t have to worry about the hobby any longer. It will be gone.