I Received a NEW Trident NP Nitrate & Phosphate Tester!!!!

[thedon986]

So, to complicate things a bit. I have been running monthly ICPs with ATI for the last few months and received my June results this morning. Below are my readings from the last few months with a Hanna taken at the same time. June was the first NP results I had.

PO4
June ICP = .01. NP = .02 Hanna = (the one time i didn't take a hanna however (day before.18 day after .13)
May ICP = .09 Hanna = .15
April ICP = .07 Hanna = .16

I have also heard nutrient results can very with ICP as the sample can be affected over time in transit.....however, results are interesting.

Also, I don't think Randy is a fan of ICP phosphate testing

 

[Dr. Reef]

I am also getting different results.
Tested phos 0.07 and nitrates 32 off Trident while my idip exact says 0.02 and 14.
Big difference

 

[areefer01]

I am also getting different results.
Tested phos 0.07 and nitrates 32 off Trident while my idip exact says 0.02 and 14.
Big difference

Maybe. Idip instructions say Nitrate is 1 - 50 +/- 10 and you need to average over 3 back to back tests. Phosphate is listed as a range of 0.08 - 3 +/-8.

 

[David_CO]

Which Hanna do you have? 736 or 774? Thanks for the heads up on the Salifert....I havent used their PO4 kit.

I have both but only use the 736 at this point. Occasionally if i get a number im skeptical of I pull out the 774 for a comparison.

That very well could be but the Hanna testers are also prone to human error. At least in my experience I should say. I have been using both the Hanna high range nitrate HI782 and the phosphate low range HI713 for well over 45 contiguous days and the results are interesting. Especially with the HI782 nitrate.

• Shake vigorously
• Empty complete packet
• 10 ml display water
• Sample time consistency
• Battery level

All play a part with the results for manual testing. At least for me. I don't feel too bad as I remember the BRS video with a couple different staff all using the same kits and manual tests. Results varied. I am not saying anything about that content other than manual testing has a human factor that we need to consider especially with Hanna's reagent packs and visual titration change.

This is not in defense of just stating the obvious. With automation we are expecting, and assuming, that things are done the same way. The variance here is, of course, sample area contamination. Did my dosing happen at the time of the scheduled test. ATO kick in? Feeding? Things like this can impact automation and of course software bugs although that should be static now since it has been launched. Oops still can happen...

I agree with you. especially on the shaking part. My only argument is interpreting any phosphate tests that rely on your eye discerning color differences when your tank is under 0.10 phosphate is a not a good way to go about things.

 

[Dr. Reef]

Maybe. Idip instructions say Nitrate is 1 - 50 +/- 10 and you need to average over 3 back to back tests. Phosphate is listed as a range of 0.08 - 3 +/-8.

Phos:
At 8% accuracy range 0.02 x8%= 0.0016 which would put 0.02 at 0.0216 with the window of accuracy.
So idip =0.0216
While NP 0.07 with a window of accuracy 0.01 would put it at low end of 0.06.

Idip 0.0216 vs NP 0.06 (calculations with accuracy range in mind)


No3:
I have last 3 days of idip results of 14 , 21 , 12. Average 15.6
At 10% accuracy window of idip 15.6x10%= 1.56
15.6+1.56= 17.16
While NP 32 ppm with window of accuracy 1 ppm would put it at low end of 31ppm

Idip 17.16 vs NP 31 (calculations with accuracy range in mind)

Almost 2-3 times the difference

 

[braaap]

might not be a flop, but not a useful tool for those running sub 0.1 phos tanks

I mean..... Mine is dead accurate still. Running between .03 and .06. I do my manual hanna test just after the NP finishes. So far they have been dead on every single time.

 

[areefer01]

Phos:
At 8% accuracy range 0.02 x8%= 0.0016 which would put 0.02 at 0.0216 with the window of accuracy.
So idip =0.0216
While NP 0.07 with a window of accuracy 0.01 would put it at low end of 0.06.

Idip 0.0216 vs NP 0.06 (calculations with accuracy range in mind)


No3:
I have last 3 days of idip results of 14 , 21 , 12. Average 15.6
At 10% accuracy window of idip 15.6x10%= 1.56
15.6+1.56= 17.16
While NP 32 ppm with window of accuracy 1 ppm would put it at low end of 31ppm

Idip 17.16 vs NP 31 (calculations with accuracy range in mind)

Almost 2-3 times the difference

It wasn't about the numbers but rather that all tools have their margin of error and requirements. Even using the same manufacture but different model numbers won't align.

Hanna phosphate 713
±0.04 ppm ±4% of reading
Result: .54

Hanna phosphate 736
±5 ppb ±5% of reading
Result: 200 flashing (200 ppb = 0.613 ppm minimum but could be higher as it only lists what flashing 200 represents)

I'm not going to do the math but running those numbers through my head they are not the same... 20 ml water sample divided between the two kits - so source water same location and time.

 

[areefer01]

I mean..... Mine is dead accurate still. Running between .03 and .06. I do my manual hanna test just after the NP finishes. So far they have been dead on every single time.

Mind if I ask sample line? Away from dosing, ATO, etc?

 

[areefer01]

Forgot to add @Dr. Reef not arguing with you - that is important to note. As I read through the post(s) trying to understand the hobbyist expectations if that makes sense.

 

[Dr. Reef]

Forgot to add @Dr. Reef not arguing with you - that is important to note. As I read through the post(s) trying to understand the hobbyist expectations if that makes sense.

No not at all. I am also trying to understand everything.
It's my first test off NP and hopefully maybe it need a break in time and maybe over time I can trust it over other devices

 

[braaap]

Mind if I ask sample line? Away from dosing, ATO, etc?

My tank is an AIO. So my area is small to keep them separate. That said my sample lines are both right by the water input and my dosing is by water output. Furthest away from each other that they can be.

 

[chondro]

Heres the problem...most of us trust the HANNA, and for good reason. If the NP was giving us stable numbers, we can cross reference the NP with the HANNA and act accordingly. However, how are we supposed to this this when the NP is always showing 0?

I own a retail shop, and my wife runs a manufacturing company. So we know about prices and why they are what they are, unlike most people. So Im not going to ***** that this thing is 750 bucks. But....at 750 bucks it best do what you say it will do, and... more importantly, when concerns are brought up....don't you dare tell me..."Good Enough"

 

[Reefer Matt]

I’m genuinely curious what Reefers are hoping this product will solve for them.

 

[chondro]

I’m genuinely curious what Reefers are hoping this product will solve for them.

I cant speak for others, but for me, I was hoping to use it to help automate carbon dosing. Sometimes life gets in the way, and I cant test. I no longer blindly carbon dos anymore. Learned my lesson when I got Dinos.

 

[Dr. Reef]

I am a retailer as well so I am not complaining about prices because we buy in bulk and wholesale.
Still for the cost I paid and we got 10 of them 9 for customers and 1 for myself the equipment seems to be working the way it should be i guess.

I tested today with 3 different kits and the results are as follows

NP 0.01 qnd 27.7
Hanna 0.04 and 30
Idip 0.04 and 14

So in my case hanna answer np see to be close within their margins or accuracy.

 

[cubsfan16]

I’m genuinely curious what Reefers are hoping this product will solve for them.

For me, problem one is manually testing, I can't test when I'm out of town. I've had nutrients bottom out on me twice this year leading to Dinos. Paired with a DOS I am dosing nitrates and phosphate, the idea was, PO4 dip below .08 up the dose till I get back over .10....the same I do with the regular trident when Alk dips. In the last 3 years I have only lost coral to nutrient swings, mainly because I always know where my Alk is at with the Trident, automated water changes and monthly ICP and been fortunate to avoid pests/infections. When I'm at home, I just look at the tank and can generally tell where it's at and test with the Hanna once a week or less. Also, in general, more data is better, it is what advances the hobby....if accurate. Seeing trends over time has improved my understanding of changes I've made to the tank....sure you can manually test on the same frequency time, but I ain't got time for that.

 

[JeffB418]

I’m genuinely curious what Reefers are hoping this product will solve for them.

Personally I want a general idea of where my levels are. I run a coral heavy farm so I have to constantly keep up on feeding to maintain phos levels. Otherwise they bottom out and I have big issues and takes me weeks to get back to happy. Personally I didn’t care if it read anywhere near actuals. I just wanted somewhat of a trend I could monitor. If I see it dropping, increase my manual feeding accordingly. If things too high, back off.

Cant really see any trends when every result I get is 0.

I’ve been working with support for over a week and today basically got told “your trident is working fine and the measurement of 0 is accurate” (paraphrasing this because of the disclaimer statement in their emails about direct use of their words). They go on to tell me my data shows a gentle downward trend, and that I can “trust the NP And use it to show trends”. Well that’s fine and dandy except for that I’ve been feeding heavy and basing my feeding (like I always did in the past) off my Hanna results. And I have watched my Hanna trend UP from 0.03 to over 0.09. All the while the trident NP still reads 0. They go on to tell me that Hanna error and the NP error of margin can give you a difference of up to 0.03/0.04 at the low end. Which I totally agree is possible. But at the same point the day I measured 0.09 I wouldn’t have expected 0 if the above margins came into play.

In the end this does not seem like the right tool for me. I typically dance in the 0.05-0.1 range (on the Hanna) to keep my systems happy. If I can’t get any trend-able data on the trident within that Hanna range, then I can’t make dependable feeding decisions. Others seem to have no issues with sub 0.1 measurements so maybe there is some additive or other chemical interaction happening that I can’t explain between the method the Hanna uses and the trident. I honestly don’t know.

 

[Richard baker]

mine is dead accurate with oceamo icp ms as of last week

 

[braaap]

Mine continues to test dead on to my Hanna checkers.

But if mine wasn’t you can bet I’d be returning it. Some of what I’m hearing is unacceptable. If Hanna is showing .06 for phosphate the NP should be within .02-.03. The fact that people are showing .08 on other testers and the NP is showing 0 is not correct.

 

[buruskeee]

I’m genuinely curious what Reefers are hoping this product will solve for them.

I believe this has much more value to a newer tank than a mature tank. Newer tanks you have to stay on top of nutrients as dinos are prevalent without the biome established. Testing with Hannahs every other day to get nitrate or phosphate dosing/input via feeding is a pain with all the shaking, making sure you get all the reagent in, making sure the glass vial is smudge free - sure it take 10 minutes only, but it’s a lot of shaking and very annoying to do. With that often if a test regiment, the cost of the NP is not much more than getting the Hannah’s and replenishing a box of reagents every month ($30 for both 25 count pack). The quicker you get your nutrients stable, the quicker you can focus on something else to stabilize.

For an established tank, I don’t see the value as nutrients are pretty stable and you can test as in frequent as biweekly or monthly.