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

[Garf]

Has anyone calculated any cost difference between the all singing, all dancing ICP testing, element replacement, compared to a say 1.5% daily waterchange (using basic at home testing). Not that I believe the results will be similar to high end reefers but for 95% of reef tank keepers?

 

[Reefahholic]

Has anyone calculated any cost difference between the all singing, all dancing ICP testing, element replacement, compared to a say 1.5% daily waterchange (using basic at home testing). Not that I believe the results will be similar to high end reefers but for 95% of reef tank keepers?

It’s probably close to the same cost.

With increasing supply/demand issues for raw materials, pollutants can be easily introduced through salt/water changes. We saw that not long ago, several tanks got nuked. Manufacturers are switching from company to company trying to get it cheap and where it’s available.

IMO, water changes are too inconsistent and you loose precision. They also cause a destabilizing event every time you do one unless you have AWC’s setup. If I do a water change, it takes the tank a while to get back to the same stability, and growth it was getting before the change.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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.

I’m not claiming they are not needed, and have said so hundreds of times. You make the argument against icp dosing sound ignorant by pointing out the obvious.

It has many flaws.

That said, it may well be a great system, perhaps the single best system.

But ignoring or glossing over its flaws does not help convince people.

Since I’m tired of beating a dead horse here, I’m going to step back from trying to get you to address these flaws, and I’ll focus
my time elsewhere.

But I’d have to say that if you cannot convince a chemist that this chemistry intensive method is what you claim, I think your arguments need improvement.

 

[Garf]

It’s probably close to the same cost.

With increasing supply/demand issues for raw materials, pollutants can be easily introduced through salt/water changes. We saw that not long ago, several tanks got nuked. Manufacturers are switching from company to company trying to get it cheap and where it’s available.

IMO, water changes are too inconsistent and you loose precision. They also cause a destabilizing event every time you do one unless you have AWC’s setup. If I do a water change, it takes the tank a while to get back to the same stability, and growth it was getting before the change.

This is a little off topic but do you think Tropic Marin (my chosen media) actually ICP there product, or rely on suppliers to specify composition? To be honest, I depend on them knowing what they are doing.

 

[Thales]

I’m not claiming they are not needed, and have said so hundreds of times. You make the argument against icp dosing sound ignorant by pointing out the obvious.

It has many flaws.

That said, it may well be a great system, perhaps the single best system.

But ignoring or glossing over its flaws does not help convince people.

Since I’m tired of beating a dead horse here, I’m going to step back from trying to get you to address these flaws, and I’ll focus
my time elsewhere.

But I’d have to say that if you cannot convince a chemist that this chemistry intensive method is what you claim, I think your arguments need improvement.

I juat wrote a whole thing with quotes and responses but decided not to post it at all because the dead horse tastes boring.

 

[pixelhustler]

Amazing work. Speechless. I only have one thing to say:

tHe tRiToN mEthoD

 

[rtparty]

Has anyone calculated any cost difference between the all singing, all dancing ICP testing, element replacement, compared to a say 1.5% daily waterchange (using basic at home testing). Not that I believe the results will be similar to high end reefers but for 95% of reef tank keepers?

This is just for MY CURRENT SITUATION….

At 50 cents a gallon for saltwater (kind of high but we will go with it) it costs me $390 a year to do weekly water changes. Again, assuming perfect routine and discipline here.

My first order (might have been 2 separate orders) from Andre at Reef Moonshiners just to get some basic elements was around $400. This doesn’t include buying Brightwell stuff from BRS. I later bought more specialized elements like Rubidium, some carbohydrate mix, and some brown elements that I don’t recall the name. Mud something? I was easily $500 in elements plus monthly ICP tests at $45 each for the first 6 months or so. Now days it’s like $65-85 for ICP MS.

So roughly double the cost to run RM. This doesn’t take into account that water changes do far more than just bring some elements back. Water changes aren’t great at element replenishment but they bring back some.

 

[Garf]

Amazing work. Speechless. I only have one thing to say:

tHe tRiToN mEthoD

LOL. I was doing algae scrubbing when that came out. It was preached then on the scrubber site that feeding alone would provide everything, algae and coral alike. I Don’t think that folks understand that algae are in it for themselves.

 

[Rick Mathew]

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

Not exactly clear on what you mean by ""outside of a lab setting"?...It is true that any experiment will have errors and the potential for contamination. That being said any errors or contamination of the samples would be equally distributed to all testers (ICP and Hobby Grade) base on the experimental layout. This should then be reflected equally in the test results.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

I’ve tried every approach. Nothing comes close for me.

That's basically my point, just because many other approaches were tried and didn't work doesn't mean they're flawed. It could mean that adequate amount of time to achieve results weren't met and a new approach was already in the works. I'd ask you to stop sending in water samples and dosing altogether and see if you notice any difference after a year or two.

I’m a group expert in our group so hopefully I know a little about what I’m talking about.

What does it take to become a group expert in the echelons of reef moonshiners?
How subjective is that title?

If you like the basic approach then why are you so involved in this thread.

My approach is definitely not basic, it's more nuanced. I'm always open to learn new ideas and like many others, I'm open to pushing the reefing frontier outwards. I was hoping against all hope that you would at least provide something I could sink my teeth into and say, "yes, that makes sense." But quite the opposite has happened.

I'm not concluding that this approach is all smoke and mirrors but it all circles back to how can you trust icp analysis to the point that you're going to base an entire dosing regimen around it.

Something that didn't seem to get much traction was the suggestion that you can simply forego icp testing and dose your trace elements based on logic. And before you say, "then you'll be dosing blindly". For the most part, I think that's already the case.

With all that data that your community is collecting, dosing averages should be evedent and it would be a good experiment to see if simply dosing averages without icp analysis yeild the same perceived results?

I'd be tempted to take part in that experiment.

 

[Reefahholic]

That said, it may well be a great system, perhaps the single best system.

But ignoring or glossing over its flaws does not help convince people.

But I’d have to say that if you cannot convince a chemist that this chemistry intensive method is what you claim, I think your arguments need improvement.

But 8 difficult perform, and hard to read hobby grade test kits have zero flaws. Got it. I will switch over now! Which ones do I need to use to test source water and 20 pollutants?

 

[Reefahholic]

This is a little off topic but do you think Tropic Marin (my chosen media) actually ICP there product, or rely on suppliers to specify composition? To be honest, I depend on them knowing what they are doing.

Which media are you referring to?

 

[Reefahholic]

Not exactly clear on what you mean by ""outside of a lab setting"?...It is true that any experiment will have errors and the potential for contamination. That being said any errors or contamination of the samples would be equally distributed to all testers (ICP and Hobby Grade) base on the experimental layout. This should then be reflected equally in the test results.

Let’s say you guys performed a flawless experiment. The majority of reefers have a difficult time getting accurate numbers of the easier tests like CAL, MAG, NO3, and PO4. Much less K, I, Si, and Sr.

If you sent me data from 20 reefers (even pros) to diagnose a system that had issues, I’d much prefer to see ICP data rather than Hobby grade data. Why? I find that it is more consistent and easier to see what is going on in a system. Let’s face it, the average reefer is not good or consistent at testing.

Recently I had a guy reach out. He said his Calcium was low (200’s). I told him to send ICP just to verify where all the parameters were because he was having some issues.

Guess what the Calcium level was?

As you can see above, ICP is very valuable because not everybody can get accurate numbers. Also noticed that was OES and look at the values for Co, Cr, and Cu.

 

[rtparty]

Let’s say you guys performed a flawless experiment. The majority of reefers have a difficult time getting accurate numbers of the easier tests like CAL, MAG, NO3, and PO4. Much less K, I, Si, and Sr.

If you sent me data from 20 reefers (even pros) to diagnose a system that had issues, I’d much prefer to see ICP data rather than Hobby grade data. Why? I find that it is more consistent and easier to see what is going on in a system. Let’s face it, the average reefer is not good or consistent at testing.

Recently I had a guy reach out. He said his Calcium was low (200’s). I told him to send ICP just to verify where all the parameters were because he was having some issues.

Guess what the Calcium level was?

As you can see above, ICP is very valuable because not everybody can get accurate numbers. Also noticed that was OES and look at the values for Co, Cr, and Cu.

As a “group expert” how did you not question the calcium result and understand it was poor testing or bad test kit? Don’t need an ICP test to know that 250ppm calcium is all but impossible in our systems. Especially when he is dosing that amount already.

We don’t need an ICP test to see that

 

[Reefahholic]

I'd ask you to stop sending in water samples and dosing altogether and see if you notice any difference after a year or two.

I already know the answer to that though. It’s simple.

I'm always open to learn new ideas and like many others, I'm open to pushing the reefing frontier outwards. I was hoping against all hope that you would at least provide something I could sink my teeth into and say, "yes, that makes sense." But quite the opposite has happened.

You certainly don’t seem open.

Let me ask you a serious question. All BS aside. Does Monitoring 50 elements and correcting anything low, checking source water, and making sure pollution levels are absent or low make sense?

 

[Reefahholic]

As a “group expert” how did you not question the calcium result and understand it was poor testing or bad test kit? Don’t need an ICP test to know that 250ppm calcium is all but impossible in our systems. Especially when he is dosing that amount already.

We don’t need an ICP test to see that

I did. He changed reagents and cross-checked it too. At that point I was thinking what is going on here.

I was happy to see that value with OCEAMO’s testing because they are measuring Calcium with two independent methods (IC and ICP). Any further dosing would have likely started nuking corals.

 

[Reefahholic]

@rtparty

It’s things like this that make you smile.

Another reefer steps into the light.

 

[areefer01]

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.

Well one could argue why are you involved in the thread as well. Or I for that matter. The thread is about hobby grade test kits and performance to X number of measurements of ICP. It is not about an additive based method providing equal to or better results than one that isn't running it.

If truth be told if one was to go down the additive route I think they would find useful information here and by following you. The passion is real and you have a good understanding of the program.

I just don't believe this thread is the place for it after 600+ posts. If that makes sense.

 

[Reefahholic]

I want to go back to water changes. Can somebody explain how to keep stable trace element values doing water changes?

Let’s say several elements like Fe, Mn, Co, Cu, Cr, Se, Zn, Ni, K, I, Sr, etc…are completely depleted. What volume of water should one change (and change consistently) on a 100/G fast growing acro system to bring these elements back up to normal values (or a specific range) to keep these elements there. Furthermore, which salt brand should they use for this that has all these elements present (for sure), and how would they know what the ratios are or if the elements are in there in the first place w/o doing ICP-MS?

I bet that would cost more money than any ICP test/ method combined, and the problem is that water changes alone (even at 100%) can never get me to the elevated levels I’m currently running at now.

We recently saw GSW had Mn levels (and other elements) that were through the roof. How beneficial is that spike to corals? Not beneficial at all. I’d argue they don’t like big water changes at 28x the normal value of some elements. Yes?

 

[Reefahholic]

Well one could argue why are you involved in the thread as well. Or I for that matter. The thread is about hobby grade test kits and performance to X number of measurements of ICP.

Well, to answer that question let’s look at the tile below.

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

That was how I got involved. The title makes it sound like ICP testing is a joke, and to be honest, it rubbed me the wrong way. If the thread would have be titled in lower case letters and said something like…

“Hobby grade test kits might be able to outperform some ICP Measurements (specifically looking at 8 elements).”

Maybe then…I wouldn’t have got involved. For me personally, the data from one experiment is not enough to prove anything. When I started to feel comfortable with ICP, I didn’t just look at one analysis. It took multiple analyses to convince me. I didn’t want to kill all my corals.

The passion is real and you have a good understanding of the program.

You hit the nail on the head. I’m just a reefer that loves the hobby. Plain and simple.