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

[Pod_01]

What the Berlin method? Lots of live rock and a skimmer? Many of us have been running this for years.

Is Berlin filtration method lot of live rock or some live rock. I have very sparse rock work, maybe 5 to 10lb at most in 65gal system. Also 3lb is what might count as live rock.
Lot of live rock is North America variation of Berlin method.

Also part of Berlin method is weekly water changes and many people don’t do those for example Reefahholic.

Honestly I don’t think many run the Berlin filtration method.

Regardless I was bit surprised, because if you read R2R a lot of reefers have fuge, scrubber, fleece, socks, GFO etc… , likely run all at the same time and they wonder why they have corals that don’t grow. I don’t think these other filtration methods are part of the original Berlin filtration method.
Just my observation.

 

[JCOLE]

Unless I'm overlooking something, this thread was about hobby-grade test kits that performed as well as or better than ICP. That, I believe, was demonstrated, and that is what should be discussed. I'm not sure why this thread has now become ICP is this the be-all and end-all of reefkeeping? All of this is not fair to those who devoted so much time and effort to carrying out these tests.

In my opinion, ICP can be a useful tool when used properly. However, acting as if ICP is the reason for amazing tanks is, in my opinion, foolish. If you believe that using ICP is the only way to have an amazing reef tank, I believe all of the TOTM's at Reef Central prior to the ICP era would like to speak with you.

 

[Wasabiroot]

Kind of you to say. I have been building it for several years...Birthdays and Christmas is part of the supply chain ...I had to vacate my closet ...the local thrift store was very happy.

Every addition is directed to either enhance accuracy / precision and or make the testing easier. Keeping it well organized is inherited from my father..."If your organized you can be more effective in your work and decrease the chances of error" ...One other lesson he instilled in me was "pretty does not equal good and chaotic does not equal bad. It is the craftsman not the tools that do the work...learn and practice your craft and make it a goal to continuously get better"...Pretty good advice from my perspective.

Here are the Pipettes I use

I have been tempted to purchase one of these to aid in filling my Hannah cuvettes with more accuracy/precision. I have found 10ml plunger syringes a reasonable substitute. Would you say they are worth the purchase, or are they a better value proposition if you are doing a more rigorous test regimen? They're obviously going to be much closer to the desired mL but is that difference worth 30 bucks is what I'm asking (from a casual hobbyist perspective)?

 

[Pod_01]

1. The filtered/stabilized sample that oceamo uses is specifically for PO4. Based on storage studies by Rick over the years and data I've seen myself - it seems justified.

Just a silly question. I am not a chemist/ biologist just a part time reefer.
Oceamo method sounds like the ideal solution to preserve PO4 (not sure but sounds like it).
Since the labs know what collection tube is used (that’s fixed) and they know how long the sample is in the tube (they know when it was collected), so would they not be able to work out how much of PO4 was lost in transit and make corrections in the final result/report. Not ideal but something that sounds like a reasonable solution to me, assuming some P was measured in the sample.

Regardless, I am still confused with the P comparison in this study. I am quite sure Hanna only measures Ortho-phosphate PO4, ICP measure P (element). I am still not sure how the two can be compared.
What confuses me is that Ortho-phosphate PO4 might not be the dominant form in aquarium or is it?

 

[Rick Mathew]

I have been tempted to purchase one of these to aid in filling my Hannah cuvettes with more accuracy/precision. I have found 10ml syringes a reasonable substitute. Would you say they are worth the purchase, or are they a better value proposition if you are doing a more rigorous test regimen

To me they are worth it...First they are able to be calibrated...Second they speed up the testing especially if you are doing several tests..Third they provide more accuracy and precision if they are used correctly and calibrated...My 2 cents worth

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just a silly question. I am not a chemist/ biologist just a part time reefer.
Oceamo method sounds like the ideal solution to preserve PO4 (not sure but sounds like it).
Since the labs know what collection tube is used (that’s fixed) and they know how long the sample is in the tube (they know when it was collected), so would they not be able to work out how much of PO4 was lost in transit and make corrections in the final result/report. Not ideal but something that sounds like a reasonable solution to me, assuming some P was measured in the sample.

Regardless, I am still confused with the P comparison in this study. I am quite sure Hanna only measures Ortho-phosphate PO4, ICP measure P (element). I am still not sure how the two can be compared.
What confuses me is that Ortho-phosphate PO4 might not be the dominant form in aquarium or is it?

To be clear, orthophosphate is nearly the only form in any natural environment. The phosphorus in DNA, RNA, proteins, phospholipids, etc. are all orthophosphate.

We need the limiting term inorganic orthophosphate to make the distinction you are making.

Normally inorganic orthophosphate is substantially higher than any other form in reef tanks, but of course, if it is very low then other (organic) forms may be higher.

ICP for P should never be lower than an ordinary test kit result for phosphate on the same sample.

 

[Wasabiroot]

Unless I'm overlooking something, this thread was about hobby-grade test kits that performed as well as or better than ICP. That, I believe, was demonstrated, and that is what should be discussed. I'm not sure why this thread has now become ICP is this the be-all and end-all of reefkeeping? All of this is not fair to those who devoted so much time and effort to carrying out these tests.

In my opinion, ICP can be a useful tool when used properly. However, acting as if ICP is the reason for amazing tanks is, in my opinion, foolish. If you believe that using ICP is the only way to have an amazing reef tank, I believe all of the TOTM's at Reef Central prior to the ICP era would like to speak with you.

We are passionate folks, us reefers. You're lucky this study wasn't about halides vs leds

 

[Pod_01]

To be clear, orthophosphate is nearly the only form in any natural environment. The phosphorus in DNA, RNA, proteins, phospholipids, etc. are all orthophosphate.

We need the limiting term inorganic orthophosphate to make the distinction you are making.

Normally inorganic orthophosphate is substantially higher than any other form in reef tanks, but of course, if it is very low then other (organic) forms may be higher.

ICP for P should never be lower than an ordinary test kit result for phosphate on the same sample.

Thank you Randy, this clarified my cloudy understanding of P.

It is just some response on R2R talk about other forms of PO4 that Hanna or titration test don’t pick up that is critical. Also that the one these kits measure is waste product (not important, detrimental to corals) and my head blows up. Then I sit there going, now what????

I am getting there slowly….. I think.

 

[rtparty]

This is soooooooo True!

The more I learn, the less I know

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, so just to cloud up things further, it appears that many marine bacteria can pass through 0.2 micron filters, and once in a zone free from larger grazers, can grow faster.

I'm not sure if the Oceamo protocol kills these bacteria, by the "preservative", but if it does not, it would not be correct to assume no further bacterial growth is taking place in the samples awaiting analysis.

https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2016-560/bg-2016-560.pdf

"The diversity of the regenerated bacteria community was comparable to that of the original bacterial community, and most of the identified bacteria were typical marine bacteria (members of Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria and Bacteroidetes), indicating that the 0.2 µmfilterable forms of typical marine bacteria show rapid growth under the no grazing and low competition conditions present in the FSW bottles. "

 

[Rick Mathew]

OK, so just to cloud up things further, it appears that many marine bacteria can pass through 0.2 micron filters, and once in a zone free from larger grazers, can grow faster.

I'm not sure if the Oceamo protocol kills these bacteria, by the "preservative", but if it does not, it would not be correct to assume no further bacterial growth is taking place in the samples awaiting analysis.

https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2016-560/bg-2016-560.pdf

"The diversity of the regenerated bacteria community was comparable to that of the original bacterial community, and most of the identified bacteria were typical marine bacteria (members of Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria and Bacteroidetes), indicating that the 0.2 µmfilterable forms of typical marine bacteria show rapid growth under the no grazing and low competition conditions present in the FSW bottles. "

From my previous work it took 7 ppm Cl or a hefty amount HNO3 to stabilize the PO4 measurement

 

[jda]

Total P using a kit from Hach, or the like, is often more than 6x as much as po4 in my tanks. For the real ICP places that actually measure total P and not do an equation, it is significantly higher than po4.

If you just let water sit on the counter in a vial with the lid off, the po4 level that can be detected with ascorbic acid will go up over a few days, or at least it does for me. I get 1-3 ppb if I test immediately, but about 5x if you let the same tank water sit for a few days.

Most of the research shows that hosts collect the meta/polyphosphate first since they can store that away for later use... and also use any other things on the compounds to bind to waste and expel.

 

[Reefahholic]

I was referencing this quote. It sounded like you were talking about tank water, not sample water going into the ICP machine.

Ok
The question I have, is there benefit to the hobbyist to know how their tank water tests filtered vs unfiltered?

Not really.

 

[Reefahholic]

This thread is predicated on a precision that simply does not appear to be available.

No precision? Then let’s compare water Chemistry.

 

[jda]

Oh, God, here we go again... wanting to compare water chemistry to criterion that don't exist. Here comes another 10-20 pages of nothingness.

 

[jda]

Can we get Master Aquarist John Brexit to ajudicate the precision-ness of this contest?

Did I just date myself? ...some of you know what I mean... probably the ones who have had good water parameters for decades.

 

[BeanAnimal]

No precision? Then let’s compare water Chemistry.

This is not about my water vs your water, I don't even need to have an aquarium to participate in the discussion about the principles at play here.

In any case, you just made my point. Even if I wanted to compare my water to yours WE CAN'T compare water chemistry at the level that you wish because the tests available at this time do not appear to be accurate or precise enough to trust. Your "standard" is your interpretation.

To that end, we don't (even come close) to agreeing (nor is it the topic of this thread as much as you want it to be) on what should actually be IN the water we are measuring. I can sum that up easily too with a simple analogy. Our breathable atmosphere contains numerous compounds and elements that can be tested for. These include things like Arsenic, Chromium, Mercury, Asbestos, various radioactive isotopes, etc. If you were designing the life support system for a deep space mission, would you sample our air and ensure that all of those things were included?

I (again) am not against trace dosing or ICP testing, but I am against unproven rhetoric or speculation that is passed off as science or hard fact. I see part of what you folks are doing as a very needed step in the right direction, but I also see a lot of zealotry and the later is starting to really show through as this discussion unfolds.

Alas, I think the conversation (or at least ours) has runs its course, as we have now hit the "1v1 me bro" point.

Best of luck. Who knows, maybe one day I will be in the group attempting to see what the method can do for me.

 

[rtparty]

Oh, God, here we go again... wanting to compare water chemistry to criterion that don't exist. Here comes another 10-20 pages of nothingness.

My dad says to meet on the 9th green at 9pm. He is ready for the fight

 

[BeanAnimal]

My dad says to meet on the 9th green at 9pm. He is ready for the fight

Buddy Revell:
You and me, we're gonna have a fight. Today. After school. Three o'clock. In the parking lot. You try and run, I'm gonna track you down. You go to a teacher, it's only gonna get worse. You sneak home, I'm gonna be under your bed.

Can we get Master Aquarist John Brexit to ajudicate the precision-ness of this contest?

Did I just date myself? ...some of you know what I mean... probably the ones who have had good water parameters for decades.

Shh - I attribute all of my success to John and the magic tube of magnets. I tried to build my own but couldn't source the right electrical tape.

 

[Reefahholic]

This is not about my water vs your water

They make bold claims, but don’t like to be called out on it.