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

[Reefahholic]

@reefaho

But again, how do we know that the MS value is correct and/or the standard to be judged against?

To make that leap you have to ignore the data presented in the opening pages of this thread.

You’ll have to find that out for yourself. I’ve already seen 50,000x more data than what’s in this thread. My decision wasn’t hard. I’m completely comfortable with OCEAMO ICP-MS exclusively. I’ve been making corrections and dosing from their data, observing my own system, and observing everyone else’s. Everything responds accordingly, and I haven’t seen many issues if any at all. I honestly can’t even think of one. The only issue I’ve had with ICP was when several of us had a high Cu level with ATI. That was it. Next analysis was normal. Another incident I had a high Zn level and cross-checked with a different lab the following day and that was confirmed that I had overdosed Zinc to about 17 ug/L. After 40-60 things begin to check out.

Other than that one circumstance with Cu, I did have fairly decent luck with ATI until the tank took off (and no water changes). At that point, for me personally, it was imperative to use OCEAMO’S MS to see those ultra trace elements. I don’t like to be in the dark with trace metals and that’s just what it is with any OES for many of the elements. I’m an not sure how Andre and other members had such good luck before unless they were performing water changes while using ICP-OES. Like I continue to mention, the ultra trace elements that show up on OES aren’t trustworthy “enough” to make smart dosing decision’s especially if they’re on the low end. For that reason I can’t use it anymore. It’s simply a waste of my time honestly and money for what I’m. trying to accomplish. Others may find value if they’re just trying to check on the majority of elements, and they’re performing frequent large water changes.

I’ll try to explain (again) why I don’t like OES. Let’s say Cobalt shows up at 5 ug/L. I’d consider that “probably” accurate on OES, but that is not where I keep my Cobalt level. My target is 0.5-0.8 ug/L, so even if the lab is detecting Cobalt at 5 ug/L it’s useless to me. I need the sensitivity below 1 ug/L for many elements which OES is “struggling” and “will not” get down there “accurately” for many trace metals. I used Co as an example, because it has better sensitivity than other trace metals, but is still useless on OES for my target range. I’d never trust any of them below 1-2 ug/L. I’ve come to this conclusion after looking at almost every OES on the market for a long time. The sensitivity isn’t there for most trace metals and the few that show up can’t be fully trusted. I don’t care what they say. I’ve seen it over and over again.

 

[Reefahholic]

That large table is exactly what one hopes is reported, right? It's not pretending to get values below their limit of detection. They do not suggest dosing any of those that they believe are below their detection limit that I can see.

I wish that were the case Randy, but I’m pretty sure ATI would give dosing recommendations for these elements reading (u.n) even though they don’t know where that value actually is. For example, the values could already be at 1-2 ug/L and they can’t detect it accurately for the majority of Ultra Trace elements. If you were to use their dosing recommendations you could easily overdose, but that likely wouldn’t have a significant effect. However, It’s not ideal for my target ranges. My personal targets for most ultra trace elements are under 1 ug/L. I would not want to potentially elevate them as high as 3 ug/L or more, because of the lack of sensitivity from ICP-OES.


On the flip-side…you can see Triton’s slider-bars are in the “green zone” even though the values are at “zero.” However, Despite the “depleted value” and being in the “green zone” Triton is relying on your ignorance, and gives dosing recommendations in a way that seems to put you in control. Essentially, you can either dose or do nothing. Both options are ok!

They basically say…”you can dose up if you want, and here are some following advantages that a higher manganese level “could bring” if you decide to dose up.”

Why is Triton implying the “undetectable value” for Manganese is in the green zone, but then tries to sell you on possible advantages? I thought green zone = good! Is it good or not??? I’ll use Mn as an example above. Then they say…here’s guidance on how to dose Mn, and here’s the link to the product you need in our store.

Notice they also say…”if you want to “restore” the “NATURAL VALUE” (implying the ocean typically has values in a detectable range), please refer to our recommended dosage below. Lol. The really funny thing is they probably can’t even detect it if it’s under 1 ug/L.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I wish that were the case Randy, but I’m pretty sure ATI would give dosing recommendations for these elements reading (u.n) even though they don’t know where that value actually is. For example, the values could already be at 1-2 ug/L and they can’t detect it accurately for the majority of Ultra Trace elements. If you were to use their dosing recommendations you could easily overdose, but that likely wouldn’t have a significant effect. However, It’s not ideal for my target ranges. My personal targets for most ultra trace elements are under 1 ug/L. I would not want to potentially elevate them as high as 3 ug/L or more, because of the lack of sensitivity from ICP-OES.


On the flip-side…you can see Triton’s slider-bars are in the “green zone” even though the values are at “zero.” However, Despite the “depleted value” and being in the “green zone” Triton is relying on your ignorance, and gives dosing recommendations in a way that seems to put you in control. Essentially, you can either dose or do nothing. Both options are ok!

They basically say…”you can dose up if you want, and here are some following advantages that a higher manganese level “could bring” if you decide to dose up.”

Why is Triton implying the “undetectable value” for Manganese is in the green zone, but then tries to sell you on possible advantages? I thought green zone = good! Is it good or not??? I’ll use Mn as an example above. Then they say…here’s guidance on how to dose Mn, and here’s the link to the product you need in our store.

Notice they also say…”if you want to “restore” the “NATURAL VALUE” (implying the ocean typically has values in a detectable range), please refer to our recommended dosage below. Lol. The really funny thing is they probably can’t even detect it if it’s under 1 ug/L.

There are several issues here, including your assumptions about detection limits without actually knowing what they are, but I certainly agree that companies should not give values when those values are below their detection limits (if any actually do).

I’m not having a problem with dosing recommendations for any value above detection limits. You might not agree with their recommended levels, but there is little info available on the extremely complex subject of bioavailability and toxicity of trace elements in seawater to the elements we keep.

Suppose the hypothesis is viewed differently. Is there any evidence that the lowest OES detectable level of any required trace element is actually too much and is causing toxicity issues?

If not, then I don’t see a problem.

 

[Reefahholic]

Suppose the hypothesis is viewed differently. Is there any evidence that the lowest OES detectable level of any required trace element is actually too much and is causing toxicity issues?

When considering toxicity, it’s kinda broad to me in the sense that we could be taking about current RTN/STN. Or maybe levels in general that are on the higher end that aren’t necessarily toxic ATM, but could cause negative impacts or lead to toxicity in the future as they continue to increase.

I will tell a brief story of the latter. This is what I observed back when we were still using ATI-OES. Before many of us officially adopted OCEAMO’s ICP-MS, we did not actually know where the ultra trace elements were, but since we dosed them daily we knew they were there (at least for a minimal amount of time) at lower levels until we dosed again 24 hrs later. Andre always said to keep them “undetected” on OES, because he feared if they became detected, they were already overdosed beyond the targets he was comfortable with.

Have you ever head the saying, “A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.?” I believe he knew he had a bird in the hand (even if the elements were low), because of the daily dosing. However, many reefers wanted to see the values populate on ICP even after being warned not to let them become detectable.

I remember hearing a few guys telling others to just dose enough to where they show up detectable, and then hold that dose. Several people followed this advice and got into trouble. “Some” or “Multiple” trace metals became slightly overdosed IMO. They started to have a lot of issues, and some had issues for months.

For example:
Everything was going well, and then the tank took a bad turn and things seemed to be really screwed up. I do want to make it clear that this was only a select few who didn’t follow the methodology. Although I do not know exactly what caused the issues, I’m pretty sure it was due to many of the metals being too elevated. I won’t say completely overdosed, but it definitely had a negative impact on the system.

This pattern seemed to repeat itself when people had several trace metals showing up on OES, so I continued to follow Andre’s advice and kept them undetected even though I really desired to know where they were at. Andre had extensive talks with ATI and other labs so I was confident in what I saw personally, and what he was telling me.

However, when many started to transition over to ICP-MS, and even before that transition took place, Andre was the only one sending ICP-MS. I was already looking at several of his analyses. He sent me about 10 at one time and I combed through all of them, and noticed that all of the trace metals were there, but searching his previous ATI-OES results, they were undetectable. At that point I got really excited, and I started to carefully observe all analyses after people were switching over to MS, and I noticed the same thing (even with members using other OES labs). You can come search this in our group. On average, most guys/gals were falling around 0.1-0.2 or under. Some just barely showing up at 0.05 ug/L, but most people did have detectable levels of all the metals unless unusual circumstances existed. I didn’t stop observing there. I also started to watch as people were now receiving guidance on MS to dose up when before there was “zero guidance” on ultra trace elements. You can see the difference in the volume of information below (MS vs OES).

As folks were dosing up, I was watching very closely. I was not only seeing their values respond as expected, but was seeing the same in my own system. There is a surge in growth and consumption at the same time, but you can still see it.

I told this story many times, but it’s worth mentioning again. My tank just started to take off right before I switched over to MS, and the color at that time had become very pale. It wasn’t that the metals weren’t available, but the system was sucking those elements down so fast that it wanted/needed more, and the elements were probably about to become completely depleted had I keep sending OES, and continued my no water change routine.

When I started to dial up Fe, Mn, Co, Cr, Cu, Se, Zn, Ni, and V…it made a marked difference in color/growth/stability. I remember reaching out to Andre just prior to that, and saying “what the heck is going on man.” “My colors were popping and now things are extremely pale.” We determined that the tank was outgrowing some of its resources, and my higher PO4 level (was experimenting with Dino’s) may also have contributed. In this cause, it was several of the elements I mentioned above that turned out to be the culprit. I can’t say for sure which ones, but when I dosed them all up at the same time the colors became very vivid again, and the health of the corals looked way better. So I’m convinced that these elements make a marked difference with color, growth, and stability. Even my Pod population and coralline algae growth exploded. So I’m convinced.


I don’t think anybody really knows the perfect levels, but I’d say I’ve seen some pretty high “individual” levels of certain elements that didn’t appear to cause much problems. Corals are definitely able to adapt to some unusual environments as long as the change is gradual.

For example…Copper and Vanadium in the 20’s, Zinc 20-30’s, Iodine 600+, etc. I think it’s when several elements are all elevated too high at one time or when other elements are depleted is when stuff starts to check out. If potassium is too low certain Tenuis will check out. If iodine is over 800-1,000 you’re begging for RTN. If Zinc is getting up to 40-60+ you’re about to have some STN/RTN. If you have a new system with acros and your PO4 is .01, you’re gonna loose some pieces if you do not have enough nutrition going in.

For me, that’s why I believe it’s important to keep everything as close to what we consider to be normal target ranges so that if one element is severely off, it will not have the impact it would if many elements were severely off all at the same time.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

When considering toxicity, it’s kinda broad to me in the sense that we could be taking about current RTN/STN. Or maybe levels in general that are on the higher end that aren’t necessarily toxic ATM, but could cause negative impacts or lead to toxicity in the future as they continue to increase.

I will tell a brief story of the latter. This is what I observed back when we were still using ATI-OES. Before many of us officially adopted OCEAMO’s ICP-MS, we did not actually know where the ultra trace elements were, but since we dosed them daily we knew they were there (at least for a minimal amount of time) at lower levels until we dosed again 24 hrs later. Andre always said to keep them “undetected” on OES, because he feared if they became detected, they were already overdosed beyond the targets he was comfortable with.

Have you ever head the saying, “A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.?” I believe he knew he had a bird in the hand (even if the elements were low), because of the daily dosing. However, many reefers wanted to see the values populate on ICP even after being warned not to let them become detectable.

I remember hearing a few guys telling others to just dose enough to where they show up detectable, and then hold that dose. Several people followed this advice and got into trouble. “Some” or “Multiple” trace metals became slightly overdosed IMO. They started to have a lot of issues, and some had issues for months.

For example:
Everything was going well, and then the tank took a bad turn and things seemed to be really screwed up. I do want to make it clear that this was only a select few who didn’t follow the methodology. Although I do not know exactly what caused the issues, I’m pretty sure it was due to many of the metals being too elevated. I won’t say completely overdosed, but it definitely had a negative impact on the system.

This pattern seemed to repeat itself when people had several trace metals showing up on OES, so I continued to follow Andre’s advice and kept them undetected even though I really desired to know where they were at. Andre had extensive talks with ATI and other labs so I was confident in what I saw personally, and what he was telling me.

However, when many started to transition over to ICP-MS, and even before that transition took place, Andre was the only one sending ICP-MS. I was already looking at several of his analyses. He sent me about 10 at one time and I combed through all of them, and noticed that all of the trace metals were there, but searching his previous ATI-OES results, they were undetectable. At that point I got really excited, and I started to carefully observe all analyses after people were switching over to MS, and I noticed the same thing (even with members using other OES labs). You can come search this in our group. On average, most guys/gals were falling around 0.1-0.2 or under. Some just barely showing up at 0.05 ug/L, but most people did have detectable levels of all the metals unless unusual circumstances existed. I didn’t stop observing there. I also started to watch as people were now receiving guidance on MS to dose up when before there was “zero guidance” on ultra trace elements. You can see the difference in the volume of information below (MS vs OES).

As folks were dosing up, I was watching very closely. I was not only seeing their values respond as expected, but was seeing the same in my own system. There is a surge in growth and consumption at the same time, but you can still see it.

I told this story many times, but it’s worth mentioning again. My tank just started to take off right before I switched over to MS, and the color at that time had become very pale. It wasn’t that the metals weren’t available, but the system was sucking those elements down so fast that it wanted/needed more, and the elements were probably about to become completely depleted had I keep sending OES, and continued my no water change routine.

When I started to dial up Fe, Mn, Co, Cr, Cu, Se, Zn, Ni, and V…it made a marked difference in color/growth/stability. I remember reaching out to Andre just prior to that, and saying “what the heck is going on man.” “My colors were popping and now things are extremely pale.” We determined that the tank was outgrowing some of its resources, and my higher PO4 level (was experimenting with Dino’s) may also have contributed. In this cause, it was several of the elements I mentioned above that turned out to be the culprit. I can’t say for sure which ones, but when I dosed them all up at the same time the colors became very vivid again, and the health of the corals looked way better. So I’m convinced that these elements make a marked difference with color, growth, and stability. Even my Pod population and coralline algae growth exploded. So I’m convinced.


I don’t think anybody really knows the perfect levels, but I’d say I’ve seen some pretty high “individual” levels of certain elements that didn’t appear to cause much problems. Corals are definitely able to adapt to some unusual environments as long as the change is gradual.

For example…Copper and Vanadium in the 20’s, Zinc 20-30’s, Iodine 600+, etc. I think it’s when several elements are all elevated too high at one time or when other elements are depleted is when stuff starts to check out. If potassium is too low certain Tenuis will check out. If iodine is over 800-1,000 you’re begging for RTN. If Zinc is getting up to 40-60+ you’re about to have some STN/RTN. If you have a new system with acros and your PO4 is .01, you’re gonna loose some pieces if you do not have enough nutrition going in.

For me, that’s why I believe it’s important to keep everything as close to what we consider to be normal target ranges so that if one element is severely off, it will not have the impact it would if many elements were severely off all at the same time.

I have to ask,

Are your posts in this thread your words or are you a mouthpiece for another interested party?

 

[Reefahholic]

I have to ask,

Are your posts in this thread your words or are you a mouthpiece for another interested party?

My words. A mouthpiece for who? Psxerholic or Christopher…

All you have to do is PM them. Both will have a conversation with you. They don’t hide. I just speak highly of things I truly believe in. I’m in it to win it, and I only follow what I see get the best results.

As I said before, there is only one reefer I’ve seen outgrow pretty much everybody else (Thomas Baker), and he is using the same method I am with same ICP lab. If somebody can show me better results, and teach me how to replicate their success I’d be all over it. The problem is that somebody or method doesn’t exist.

Here’s Thomas’s massive Tyree Pinky the Bear. This is a daylight pic, but you get the idea. I can’t even fit the whole colony on my screen.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

My words. A mouthpiece for who? Psxerholic or Christopher…

Just asking, it seems to me that you're in contact with people that have more skin in the game and that you're getting your talking points from them.

I just speak highly of things I truly believe in. I’m in it to win it, and I only follow what I see get the best results.

There's a word for this, indoctrination. I'm willing to bet if the circumstances were different and you first discovered basic reef tank husbandry can achieve the same if not better results than all the work involved with reef moonshine, you'd be debating that as the best approach.

You keep showing pictures as proof but for every picture you show, 10 others can be used to rebut the idea that using icp to drive trace element dosing is the reason for that accomplishment.

In the course of 1 year this reef raft starfire has gone from a frag to this:

300g tank 30" from front to back of the tank. Waterchanges and kalk did this, but not really, the experience that I've picked up during my tenure as a reef keeper has done this.

I get that in your mind, icp results are what's driving your passion, and I don't want to take that away from you. But you have to at least consider for one moment that Thomas' large pinky the bear is a result of his skills and not the result of the tools he uses.

 

[Rick Mathew]

My words. A mouthpiece for who? Psxerholic or Christopher…

All you have to do is PM them. Both will have a conversation with you. They don’t hide. I just speak highly of things I truly believe in. I’m in it to win it, and I only follow what I see get the best results.

As I said before, there is only one reefer I’ve seen outgrow pretty much everybody else (Thomas Baker), and he is using the same method I am with same ICP lab. If somebody can show me better results, and teach me how to replicate their success I’d be all over it. The problem is that somebody or method doesn’t exist.

Here’s Thomas’s massive Tyree Pinky the Bear. This is a daylight pic, but you get the idea. I can’t even fit the whole colony on my screen.

very nice!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As I said before, there is only one reefer I’ve seen outgrow pretty much everybody else (Thomas Baker), and he is using the same method I am with same ICP lab. If somebody can show me better results, and teach me how to replicate their success I’d be all over it. The problem is that somebody or method doesn’t exist.

We all know that there are a great many factors that go into coral growth rates and coloration, and I think most people would not even put trace elements at the top of the list of important factors, which also include pH, alkalinity, lighting, nutrients, feeding, flow, and possibly others.

Thus, I’m not really getting how the claimed coral growth being dependent on your chosen method of trace element control fits into this complex puzzle.

Why are you focusing on this one aspect as critical?

 

[BeanAnimal]

My hat in this ring…

‘I am not trying to discredit moonshiners, or any particular method. I see a lot of anecdotal evidence but can’t get past the broken compass analogy. Are you finding your way despite the broken compass or is It not really the compass you are following even if you think that you are.

Yes, you have looked at 50,000 ICP tests and think you have a knack for extrapolating what is valid data and what is not… but the error has been shown to be significant. So how do you verify your calculus, other than ”get good color and growth”? Which may or can be attributed to many things.

Moreover, you sing the praises of MS and appear to acknowledge the OES is not as reliable, but if I look back some months or years I think I will find you and your cohorts preaching the same about EOS when it was the only game in town.

I am still on the fence with regard to trying moonshiners, but honestly not sure that I want to invest the money given the results of the date presented here.

 

[Reefahholic]

Just asking, it seems to me that you're in contact with people that have more skin in the game and that you're getting your talking points from them.

Well, I’m a group expert in our group so hopefully I know a little about what I’m talking about. I’ve been on the shine twice.

There's a word for this, indoctrination. I'm willing to bet if the circumstances were different and you first discovered basic reef tank husbandry can achieve the same if not better results than all the work involved with reef moonshine, you'd be debating that as the best approach.

I’ve tried every approach. Nothing comes close for me. If you like the basic approach then why are you so involved in this thread.

 

[Reefahholic]

We all know that there are a great many factors that go into coral growth rates and coloration, and I think most people would not even put trace elements at the top of the list of important factors, which also include pH, alkalinity, lighting, nutrients, feeding, flow, and possibly others.

Thus, I’m not really getting how the claimed coral growth being dependent on your chosen method of trace element control fits into this complex puzzle.

Why are you focusing on this one aspect as critical?

It’s common sense for most people. If the corals use all of these elements in the ocean, why would anybody let them become depleted in their systems now that we can test for them?

Anyone can claim that trace elements are nonessential, but the newest studies disagree.

 

[jason2459]

Anyone can claim that trace elements are nonessential,

I don't think anyone claims that.

 

[Pod_01]

It’s common sense for most people. If the corals use all of these elements in the ocean, why would anybody let them become depleted in their systems now that we can test for them?

Anyone can claim that trace elements are nonessential, but the newest studies disagree.

From the reading on Reef2Reef there seems to be two lines of thought:
1) Trace elements can be obtained from food / fish poop etc…
2) Trace elements need to be in the water column

I just don’t think there is any evidence that I read that tells me 1 or 2 are correct. I suspect it is both so I feed fish, feed corals and make sure most traces on that chart are available.

There is the 3rd where some claim that some water change and kalk alone can grows SPS just as well. Feeding or trace elements are not required. This one just blows my mind, not sure what the missing steps are.

 

[Reefahholic]

think you have a knack for extrapolating what is valid data and what is not… but they error has been shown to be significant.

OK, one experiment with 8 elements outside of a lab setting with freshly mixed saltwater that is prone to errors and contamination issues.

Moreover, you sing the praises of MS and appear to acknowledge the OES is not as reliable, but if I look back some months or years I think I will find you and your cohorts preaching the same about EOS when it was the only game in town.

Even with OES, reefers were still getting better results, because they were able to fix source water issues, pollutants, and many depleted elements. Let’s just be honest, most people aren’t wanting to test for K, I, and Sr at home. Those tests are a pain. There’s only a few stick-heads doing that. The majority of reefers are tried of testing and trying to match or read colors. Most only test for ALK, CAL, MAG, NO3, and PO4. Some do not test at all because it’s pita.

Everybody is moving to ICP-MS now, and those that haven’t jumped on the train are getting scared, because they know that monitoring and making corrections on 50+ elements using a calculator with quality ICP data will have an huge advantage. You will see noobs outgrowing experienced hobbyists. It’s already happening.

Anybody could try to persuade me to stick with hobby grade kits, but there is no way I’d ever go back to running a reef with 8 hobby grade test kits. ICP-MS data is too important to ignore. I’ll keep using the Hanna checkers for ALK, PO4, & NO3….and Red Sea or Salifert for CAL and MAG in-between analyses, but those are the only tests I’m performing at home. The end.

 

[Reefahholic]

I don't think anyone claims that.

So they are important. Thank you!

 

[Reefahholic]

From the reading on Reef2Reef there seems to be two lines of thought:
1) Trace elements can be obtained from food / fish poop etc…

This is simi true. They come in form many things.

Let me talk about facts.

1. Most people are almost depleted or completely depleted with many trace elements.

2. I’ve seen pros (I won’t name names) that are nearly depleted on several elements. For example…Potassium in the 200’s, Iodine in the 20’s, Fluoride 0.30, Barium 2, Nickel 0, Zinc 0, Iron 0, Manganese 0, etc…

Then they taking about the “bad bacteria monster” treating the entire tank with Cipro.


No, it was the salt!

 

[Reefahholic]

Here’s a prime example of why you should be monitoring your tank with ICP.

Gotta watch that 55 ug/L Zinc!

 

[d2mini]

I can't even get through the first post let alone 30+ pages of what looks like some uhhh.... interesting arguments.

After 12+ years of doing both hobby grade at-home kits from various manufactures, and various ICP tests, I know that ICP tests will test for a ton of things I will not be testing for at home because the test either isn't available as an at-home kit, or it's such a PITA to use and I can't trust it's/my accuracy with it.
ICP tests are consistent enough and that's what matters. It's a hobby, and the consistency/accuracy I see from ICP is good enough for me, used as an addition to my hanna and salifert kits for Alk, Calc, Mag, P04 and NO3 which i test at home.

My tanks have done well with daily AWC and CaRx, and my latest tank is doing well on the Shine. Different strokes, either has worked for me.

So in that regard (for me, no offense to anyone else in this thread).... this all seems like a lot of hubbaballoo over nothing.

 

[Pod_01]

This is simi true. They come in form many things.

Let me talk about facts.

1. Most people are almost depleted or completely depleted with many trace elements.

2. I’ve seen pros (I won’t name names) that are nearly depleted on several elements. For example…Potassium in the 200’s, Iodine in the 20’s, Fluoride 0.30, Barium 2, Nickel 0, Zinc 0, Iron 0, Manganese 0, etc…

Then they taking about the “bad bacteria monster” treating the entire tank with Cipro.


No, it was the salt!

It would be nice to see some of the successful keepers who do not use ICP or add trace elements etc… to see what the ICP values are.
Honestly it makes me wonder sometimes if I am overthinking this reef keeping.

I am not fan of antibiotic in a reef tank, never used it and hopefully never will. But the way people are stating to use them (I am basing it on R2R) I suspect soon we will have super bug….