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

[Reefahholic]

Do the ICP vendors require samples to be filtered to obtain accurate results?

Most EU labs are filtering their samples. For nutrients it helps increase accuracy, and I’d assume it could help with other elements, but that’s just a guess. I do not know. Limiting microbial activity sounds logical to me, but I’m not a PhD Chemist. I just feel better about the overall results when the samples are filtered, especially for nutrients. Grab you a couple CHROMAFIL’s and do a experiment. Maybe you can talk Christoph into sending you 20 mL’s of his nutrient stabilizer.

 

[Reefahholic]

Thanks for the reply, I understand what you are saying and that is a fair and important question. The best way to describe my test environment is to use pictures. The pictures below are my water testing lab where the samples were prepared and where I tested my samples.

When I prepare my salt water for testing I use 1000 mL volumetric flasks. I don't take it from my salt mix tank....as you said a chance of contamination.

I do filter my samples before testing. I did not filter the samples I sent to the other 2 testers or the ICP vendors except as instructed by OCEMO

You are correct our samples were tested in "real time" and in addition we also stored the test samples for at least 7 days and retested to simulate transit time that ICP samples have....Those results can be seen in the charts "HOBBY GRADE TESTER'S STATISTICS"

My Water Testing Lab​

This is the Spectrophotometer I Use for Standards Preparation Validation
@taricha pointed me to it...great tool​

This was the lab I was referring to. Very nice sir. If you all had setup’s like this I’d feel much more confident with results.

 

[Reefahholic]

But how would cross contamination change the fact that ICP labs were, on average, consistently less accurate than hobby grade test kits? Across multiple parameters tested?

How are you drawing that conclusion from one experiment? If I gave you data from one ICP analysis and said…”look, it’s accurate! We tested against a certified lab.” Would that be enough to convince you?

 

[Rick Mathew]

This was the lab I was referring to. Very nice sir. If you all had setup’s like this I’d feel much more confident with results.

Thank you sir...Just FYI no other labs were involved in setting up the samples for the experiment...I did the sample preparation....The others just tested the samples I sent to them...both the Hobby Grade Testers as well as the ICP vendors...so the results they reported were from whatever lab set up they have...

 

[Rick Mathew]

Show off

Sometimes you just have to show your cards!!

 

[Reefahholic]

Thank you sir...Just FYI no other labs were involved in setting up the samples for the experiment...I did the sample preparation....The others just tested the samples I sent to them...both the Hobby Grade Testers as well as the ICP vendors...so the results they reported were from whatever lab set up they have...

Well, that makes me feel better.

 

[Reefahholic]

Sometimes you just have to show your cards!!

I have to say, that is one of the nicest home labs I’ve seen. I wish I had that kind of space. Are you using Eppendorf single channel pipette’s? I need to find some good cheaper ones. I can’t afford the stuff I have at work, but they are very accurate.

 

[pixelhustler]

How are you drawing that conclusion from one experiment? If I gave you data from one ICP analysis and said…”look, it’s accurate! We tested against a certified lab.” Would that be enough to convince you?

The experiment doesn't test one dataset against one certified lab. It tests multiple ICP tests from different labs against multiple hobby grade test kits from different people. And it paints a consistent trend across the board: ICP are less accurate than hobby grade kits.
How would a contaminated sample reverse those trends? This experiment creates multiple "control groups" (not the correct use of this term) by using multiple hobby-grade testers and multiple labs, testing multiple parameters from one common water sample. The trends seen in these results are very consistent. Which means many things would have had to go wrong to skew the results so consistently in one direction. The methodology is just too thorough to paint an overall skewed picture.

In other words, your hypothesis is that ICP tests, specifically OCEAMO, are more accurate than hobby-grade kits. So the trends seen in the results would need to reverse (ie hobby grade kits are less accurate, ICP are most accurate). Given they all came from one water sample, there would need to be either:

-One or multiple contaminants that skewed the results across multiple parameters in the same "direction" (opposite).
-Every person testing with hobby grade kits made the same mistake that yielded very similar results

This doesn't seem plausible.

 

[Reefahholic]

ICP are less accurate than hobby grade kits.

It appears some ICP labs might be less accurate than a few hobby grade test kits which is not surprising to me and why I don’t use them. I can’t draw that same conclusion yet for all of the labs. I think more data is needed.

I’d be willing to bet if you did that experiment several times you would not get the same results if you averaged a decent amount of data.

 

[ingchr1]

Most EU labs are filtering their samples. For nutrients it helps increase accuracy, and I’d assume it could help with other elements, but that’s just a guess. I do not know...

Just a general question for all, specifically for running a reef tank.

Is it only important to know what is in a filtered sample of water, or to know everything floating around in our systems?

 

[Reefahholic]

Let’s just say theoretically that those eight hobby grade test kits had a margin of error that was 2-3% less than some of the better ICP labs. Would anybody here take the position that ICP data is purposeless? Would you let that prevent you from correcting the majority of elements, checking source water, or dealing with pollutants?

We need to remember that only some elements have the potential to nuke a tank (with the smaller margin of error we’re talking about here). It would take a much larger margin of error to achieve toxicity.

Not only that, but we’re in the drivers seat. We have the ability to look at each individual element and decide if that value is trending in a way that we would expect. In the event that something appears to be inaccurate or severely off, hold the dose! Or simply email/call the lab for further clarification. Only one time in the last 3-4 years have I needed to send a second ICP to verify a Zinc result. It actually turned out to be accurate (overdosed), and the other lab was very close to the original value. The point I’m trying to make is that we shouldn’t be limiting ourselves. I get it, you guys are doing the right thing and proceeding cautiously. I cannot disagree with that.
I just believe most reefers would really benefit from sending regular ICP-MS (or OES), and looking at that data, and acting on non-critical elements (at minimal) or those you feel comfortable with. For example, know some of these salt companies are spiking the salt with 28x the normal value for Manganese. You could easily start correcting that element. It wouldn’t matter if the margin of error was +/- 5%.

Another thing some of you testers should do is test Potassium, Iodine, Strontium, etc….the same time you collect your ICP sample and start comparing the data. Then ask yourself this question. Is the margin of error difference enough to effect my tank in a negative way? If that answer is no, dose that element to the normal level. I think you will observe that after you start doing this the system will become more stable, have faster growth, and better color. Just a thought. We’re all trying to achieve the same thing here. We need to come together and get on the same team.

 

[Reefahholic]

Just a general question for all, specifically for running a reef tank.

Is it only important to know what is in a filtered sample of water, or to know everything floating around in our systems?

Do you mean like detritus or organic matter?

 

[ingchr1]

Do you mean like detritus or organic matter?

By filtering the samples, does that leave a gap in information? Is a part of the complete picture of what is going on in the system being missed?

I don't know the science of ICP, can the tests be run ununfiltered? Is there any benefit to an unfiltered sample?

 

[Reefahholic]

By filtering the samples, does that leave a gap in information? Is a part of the complete picture of what is going on in the system being missed?

I don't know the science of ICP, can the tests be run ununfiltered? Is there any benefit to an unfiltered sample?

As far as I know, filtering increases nutrient accuracy. I’m not sure if this applies to some of the other elements. I’ll need to reach out to Christoph to find out. Since all of our water is filtered, I’m guessing there’s not much benefit to unfiltered samples. That is just a guess, but I’ll find out for you. The only vial that is unfiltered is the red cap vial for RO water. This is probably because it’s just freshwater.

ICP-Sampling | Reef Moonshiners

Reef Moonshiner's ICP MS OES Testing and Sampling Instruction

www.reefmoonshiners.com

Here’s some comments from Christoph:

 

[ingchr1]

...Since all of our water is filtered, I’m guessing there’s not much benefit to unfiltered samples. That is just a guess, but I’ll find out for you....

What do you consider filtered?

In my tank all I run is a skimmer. No socks, fleece or roller mat. Would that fall under filtered?

Thank you

 

[Pod_01]

What do you consider filtered?

In my tank all I run is a skimmer. No socks, fleece or roller mat. Would that fall under filtered?

Thank you

Wow someone who runs the way I do (Strictly speaking on the filtration side). I do use bit of activated carbon, maybe a smidge different.

In this configuration I always consider the corals as filters… Natural type of filter, maybe.

 

[Reefahholic]

What do you consider filtered?

In my tank all I run is a skimmer. No socks, fleece or roller mat. Would that fall under filtered?

Thank you

We were talking about filtered ICP sample water.

 

[Reefahholic]

Wow someone who runs the way I do (Strictly speaking on the filtration side). I do use bit of activated carbon, maybe a smidge different.

In this configuration I always consider the corals as filters… Natural type of filter, maybe.

I used to like filtration, but now the only thing in my sump is a skimmer. Periodically I run a small amount of GAC, but that’s about it. The calcium reactor media is probably equivalent to having some bio media.

 

[Dan_P]

The experiment doesn't test one dataset against one certified lab. It tests multiple ICP tests from different labs against multiple hobby grade test kits from different people. And it paints a consistent trend across the board: ICP are less accurate than hobby grade kits.
How would a contaminated sample reverse those trends? This experiment creates multiple "control groups" (not the correct use of this term) by using multiple hobby-grade testers and multiple labs, testing multiple parameters from one common water sample. The trends seen in these results are very consistent. Which means many things would have had to go wrong to skew the results so consistently in one direction. The methodology is just too thorough to paint an overall skewed picture.

In other words, your hypothesis is that ICP tests, specifically OCEAMO, are more accurate than hobby-grade kits. So the trends seen in the results would need to reverse (ie hobby grade kits are less accurate, ICP are most accurate). Given they all came from one water sample, there would need to be either:

-One or multiple contaminants that skewed the results across multiple parameters in the same "direction" (opposite).
-Every person testing with hobby grade kits made the same mistake that yielded very similar results

This doesn't seem plausible.

Very clearly reasoned.

 

[Reefahholic]

Do the ICP vendors require samples to be filtered to obtain accurate results?

I asked Christoph about the filter. He said it’s for everything. Small particles of food, detritus, or whatever can potentially affect the reading/accuracy. The nutrient stabilizer basically freezes any microbial activity in the blue cap vial. The filter also helps to reduce most of the microbes making into the sample in the first place.