API Nitrate Reagents are ‘Usable’ With the Hanna Checker

[Reef Builders]

The Hanna Nitrate Checker is one of our favorite new aquarium tools to measure the nutrients in our reef tanks but the only limiting factor has been getting enough of the official Hanna nitrate reagents. We’ve been carefully doling out which tanks are most deserving of very accurate nitrate measurements until we found out that…
Source

Continue reading...

 

[shakacuz]

this could definitely help in a pinch when you run out of reagents.

 

[Gtinnel]

I tried using the API reagents and my water tested at 3ppm whereas with the Hanna reagent I got 6. Now a 3 ppm difference isn't insignificant but a 50% is IMO. I did only run the test once maybe I should try a few more times to see if that one was a one off.

Also I didn't realize the reagents were still hard to get. Everytime I've looked for them recently they have been in stock on several online vendors. Saltwater aquarium and aquacave (two websites I order from regularly) both currently have them in stock.

 

[unchaotic]

Does it work with the Low Range tester as well?

 

[damsels are not mean]

I tried using the API reagents and my water tested at 3ppm whereas with the Hanna reagent I got 6. Now a 3 ppm difference isn't insignificant but a 50% is IMO. I did only run the test once maybe I should try a few more times to see if that one was a one off.

Considering how much lower the cost per test is with this, you could double or triple up on tests and still save money. Anyways I think the goal with a hobby grade test should be accuracy, not precision. If you can recreate results over and over even if they are technically wrong (even by a lot!) it shows you trends, which is all that matters.

I don't really care what number my nitrates are but if they are trending up quickly something has gone wrong. On the other hand if they are consistently staying low I know I can feed more and see what happens.

 

[Gtinnel]

Considering how much lower the cost per test is with this, you could double or triple up on tests and still save money. Anyways I think the goal with a hobby grade test should be accuracy, not precision. If you can recreate results over and over even if they are technically wrong (even by a lot!) it shows you trends, which is all that matters.

I don't really care what number my nitrates are but if they are trending up quickly something has gone wrong. On the other hand if they are consistently staying low I know I can feed more and see what happens.

I'm a little confused about your point of view. You state that accuracy is more important than precision but then go on to explain why precision is more important.

In my opinion there is a balance between the two. If the precision is so far off that I have to test 3 times to trust the results then I'm going to use another testing method. Ecspecially since using the Hanna takes close to 10 minutes to perform the test. I'm not going to spend 30 minutes testing to get a reading that I can partially trust.
As for accuracy, I agree that knowing the exact correct t value of your tank usually isn't critical, but for me personally I care about the difference between my nitrates being 10ppm or 20ppm. Accuracy gets even more important for a tank that is approaching zero. Sure a few ppm difference isn't much, but it's a big difference between your nitrate being at 2 or 0, at that point accuracy is very important.

As for cost if you have to perform 3 tests with Api reagents then the cost of the Hanna reagents isn't too much more.

Knowing the process to use the api reagents could be handy in a pinch but ultimately the Hanna reagent doesn't seem to be hard to find anymore. Plus with the stated precision issues why not just use another brand test kit if you can't find the Hanna reagents?

 

[damsels are not mean]

I'm a little confused about your point of view. You state that accuracy is more important than precision but then go on to explain why precision is more important.

In my opinion there is a balance between the two. If the precision is so far off that I have to test 3 times to trust the results then I'm going to use another testing method. Ecspecially since using the Hanna takes close to 10 minutes to perform the test. I'm not going to spend 30 minutes testing to get a reading that I can partially trust.
As for accuracy, I agree that knowing the exact correct t value of your tank usually isn't critical, but for me personally I care about the difference between my nitrates being 10ppm or 20ppm. Accuracy gets even more important for a tank that is approaching zero. Sure a few ppm difference isn't much, but it's a big difference between your nitrate being at 2 or 0, at that point accuracy is very important.

As for cost if you have to perform 3 tests with Api reagents then the cost of the Hanna reagents isn't too much more.

Knowing the process to use the api reagents could be handy in a pinch but ultimately the Hanna reagent doesn't seem to be hard to find anymore. Plus with the stated precision issues why not just use another brand test kit if you can't find the Hanna reagents?

If I can get the API results to be consistently off by some amount then they are accurate. If I can get 3-4x as much testing for the same amount of money, or test 3-4x as often while still being able to use a colorimeter to do it (again increasing accuracy), then that's really a world of difference. The hanna reagents get expensive when you want to test a lot.

 

[damsels are not mean]

The Hanna Nitrate Checker is one of our favorite new aquarium tools to measure the nutrients in our reef tanks but the only limiting factor has been getting enough of the official Hanna nitrate reagents. We’ve been carefully doling out which tanks are most deserving of very accurate nitrate measurements until we found out that…
Source

Continue reading...

It seems based on the section in the article about the poor results with some tests that the lower end is more off than the upper end? Is this a pattern in the full data set? There are only 2 points in the article so it could be coincidence.

 

[Gtinnel]

If I can get the API results to be consistently off by some amount then they are accurate.

No, if you can get the reading to be off by a consistent amount then the reading are precise but not accurate. A high level of precision if you know how far off they are from the actual value would be sufficient for a test, but from the linked article the precision of using the api reagents was an issue.

 

[damsels are not mean]

No, if you can get the reading to be off by a consistent amount then the reading are precise but not accurate. A high level of precision if you know how far off they are from the actual value would be sufficient for a test, but from the linked article the precision of using the api reagents was an issue.

oh had it backwards

 

[Reef.]

The hanna has a spec,of +/- 2ppm the example given in the above article for the accuracy using api test kit with the Hanna, is a 1ppm reading with API reagent may give a plus 50% higher reading of 2ppm, that is still within the spec of the Hanna.

Very few people would be concerned if their nitrate was 1ppm above where they thought it was.

The article doesn’t make it clear if the api reagent gives a 50% higher reading across the full range of the Hanna checker, for example a reading of 10 was in fact 20ppm, but even then if it was consistent it would still be useful.

 

[calli]

Hey All,

I actually have started testing this theory over the past couple of months, I am not complete but I thought I would drop in for some data sharing. I still have another 10 tests or so left of Hanna reagents.

I see a lot of question above about the accuracy vs consistency, I hope that the data I have should help with your discussions. Number 1, who says the Hanna reagents are accurate as the API test alone, really we are dealing with two hobby grade kits in both cases here.

Secondly, if I told you my result was 3ppm with one kit and 2ppm with another kit, you would not even question, and say, "Nitrates seem to be inline with where they need to be." In fact, 2ppm and 3ppm are very good numbers. That being said, I am only looking for a baseline and if I am close to the Hanna kit results, I am good to say use the API reagents with the Hanna checker. I also think I will spot check with the Hanna reagents at about the one month to two month ranges, just to be sure.

Notes on the data;

There was a point at the start where a couple of the API reagent tests and one of the Hanna reagent test I found some wonky numbers. (Jan 22, Feb 21, and Mar 2) That being said, I think that had to do with me shaking the vials when I should have been just gently rocking them back and fourth to mix. Since I made mental note of this I had my results turn out much better.

Another note is to make sure you are doing the test 'exactly' the same way each time. I know this is supposed to be a given, however, I have made sure to fill the bottle each time with the meniscus at the line each and every time. If you had a scale this would be even more accurate. *below is the process I have been using, however, I vigorously shake both reagents before the test.

Also, you can see the greyed out boxes at the bottom, Apr 17, 18 and 19. These are days that I dosed .5 ppm of NeoNitro into the system to bring up the No3 from below 1ppm. During this time I had been using MBClean, I have since stopped the MBClean and hope to level out my No3 at this point forward. BUT, you can see even the API test picked up the up tick in No3.

 

[Malcontent]

Isn't zeroing with Hanna reagents done before any reagents are added?

 

[calli]

Isn't zeroing with Hanna reagents done before any reagents are added?

The Hanna Checker is one reagent, so yes, we want the difference from plain water to after reagent. However, in the API test, they are measuring from reagent 1 to reagent 2. Sorry, I don't understand the technical behind it, and maybe there is another way to perform the test?

 

[Malcontent]

The Hanna Checker is one reagent, so yes, we want the difference from plain water to after reagent. However, in the API test, they are measuring from reagent 1 to reagent 2. Sorry, I don't understand the technical behind it, and maybe there is another way to perform the test?

Sci-Hub | The determination of nitrate in sea water. Analytica Chimica Acta, 29, 272–279 | 10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88614-6

Pipette 25 ml of the sea water sample into the reductor, and wash it through with four 5 mL portions of distilled water. Collect the percolate and washings in a 50 ml graduated flask. Add 1 mL of sulphanilamide reagent and allow to stand for at least 2 and not more than 8 min. Add 1 ml of naphthyletllyleneciiamine reagent and dilute to volume with distilled water. After not less than 10 min and not more than 2 hr, measure the optical density of the solution at 543 rnp in a cell of appropriate length against a compensator containing distilled water.

 

[calli]

Sci-Hub | The determination of nitrate in sea water. Analytica Chimica Acta, 29, 272–279 | 10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88614-6

LOL, you broke my brain. hahah I will have a read through this later, thank you!!

 

[calli]

No, if you can get the reading to be off by a consistent amount then the reading are precise but not accurate. A high level of precision if you know how far off they are from the actual value would be sufficient for a test, but from the linked article the precision of using the api reagents was an issue.

But they are comparing Hanna reagents (not known if they are accurate either) to API and calling those not accurate based on Hanna which are also not accurate. On top of all that, both tests can be performed incorrectly and thus giving a wrong reading anyway.

I have been testing for a couple months and still will keep going with this test, however, I am more concerned about the number I get week over week. Just to set my mind at ease I would also spot check with a Hanna test once every couple of months too.

 

[calli]

Does it work with the Low Range tester as well?

No, not that I know of or have seen.

 

[calli]

this could definitely help in a pinch when you run out of reagents.

I don't think this process would be good if you were using in a pinch. I would say you would want to run the API all the time or the Hanna all the time.

I only say this, as we look for trends in numbers. I was going to use the API reagents and spot check once in a while to see what the Hanna one said every couple of months.

 

[Gtinnel]

But they are comparing Hanna reagents (not known if they are accurate either) to API and calling those not accurate based on Hanna which are also not accurate. On top of all that, both tests can be performed incorrectly and thus giving a wrong reading anyway.

I have been testing for a couple months and still will keep going with this test, however, I am more concerned about the number I get week over week. Just to set my mind at ease I would also spot check with a Hanna test once every couple of months too.

It’s cool that you’ve ran a long term test using both reagents. I agree that testing with the Hanna reagent then testing with the ATI reagent and having different values doesn’t mean that the API reagents gave the wrong value. For any of these tests to be valid these tests really should be performed on a sample with a known value, or at least be ran with tests from other manufacturers to see how they compare.

I will say that when there is a difference between the tests using the two reagents I tend to trust the reagent that was made to be used with the tester, although that doesn’t mean it to the one that’s the most accurate.