ARE ALL ICP TEST SNAKE OIL AND JUST for numbers nuts ?

[hsosa]

Good afternoon Reef addicts and Reef degenerates ! Ok guys I have tried Triton and ati icp test I have done 3 test in the last 7 months. In my experience the test have helped me in managing my reefs elemements and I have seen growth and good coloration. I have been lurking on reef sites and there's seems to be a consensus that dosing elements and icp test are not valid and a waste of money. Do you guys agree with this sentiment? I have been reefing since 1997 back in the day there was no such thing as ICp and barely any test kits everything was done by trial and error experience and eye. fast forward to today. now we have ICP test that test all important elements in saltwater. We have come to find out that not all ICP test are the same and in fact the technology to test marine saltwater is not up to par the result is the consumer gets false reading ,bad reading s and start dosing all these elements and ruin their reef. I haven't heard of this happening it may have happened to a a reefer. now im thinking that it is a waste of money and that the technology is not yet there to have consistent ICP test from a reliable company ? am I wrong in this assumption ? are we just throwing our money away on these elements and testing ? I mean some elements like strontium I found out is something that doesn't need to be dosed? but they sell strontium ? is this all just marketing hype and instagram and for people that love to follow numbers? should we just take a step back and forgo icp testing altogether and go back to the late 90s?

 

[flashsmith]

I think alot of it is marketing hype trying to get your money. I've never worried about micro dosing. Is it beneficial maybe? Some people are control freaks and want everything perfect and want to know every step of the process. I'm not that guy. I run my systems the way I run my business. I hate to micro manage anything and I don't care about the process as long as the results are what I want at the end of the day. Then and only then if something isn't right at that point start to dissect a solution. I think trying "over correct" by throwing a cocktail in a tank only causes more issues. I only test for the big ones and let my corals tell me when I need to intervene.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There are many questions here. IMO, many of the answers revolve around unrealistic expectations by aquarists of what the values mean.

As to ICP itself, the technology is certainly capable of providing accurate results. It is a tried and proven technology. That said, when implemented in a way that costs very little to do a lot of elements, many simplifications and shortcuts must be taken compared to quantifying a single element, spending a fair amount of time on each one, and thus costing a lot more money. A seawater matrix is not necessarily a plug and play setting, and not all companies may spend the time and expertise needed to properly develop accurate methods.

I would not assume that all ICP are accurate, nor that all companies provide inaccurate info.

But how accurate is needed is in the eye of the reefer. Is 2x a suitable range of uncertainty for, say, vanadium? I'd personally say yes, but 2x is certainly not adequately accurate for a major ion like potassium.

One big complicating factor is that the concentration says nothing about the chemistry. 32 ug/L of, say, tin, does not adequately describe what it is, since it counts all tin equally and you do not know the chemical form, and thus, do not know whether it is toxic or not. As an example of how this might matter, if one had an ICP result for N, that doesn't say if it is ammonia, nitrate, cyanide, TNT, or an amino acid. The interpretation of whether 5 ppm is an issue obviously depends on which of these (or something else) that N actually is.

Another big issue that that we have relatively little data on what levels are actually needed for many trace elements. It will vary by chemical form and by organism, but even finding one concentration for one chemical form for one organism is close to impossible.

IMO, ICP is a tool. Tools can be used properly, and can be misused or misunderstood.

 

[Dan_P]

I think Randy’s notion that the relationship between trace element concentration and success keeping coral is a incompletely understood subject (Iparaphrase) is very, very important. The next very important notion is that trace element measurement that is available to us via ICP trace element measurement has a precision that is unlikely as good as that of a Hanna Checker. It comes down to we don’t exactly know what we need and we don’t know exactly what we have.

I claim to be certain this is our situation but I am in the dark about what it means. Are some of us benefitting? Are some of us wasting our money? Probably “yes” and “yes”. Trace element analysis does not seem to be revolutionizing the hobby and yet I can‘t dismiss it as snake oil, but how about over promised.

 

[reeFnerD#38401]

There are many questions here. IMO, many of the answers revolve around unrealistic expectations by aquarists of what the values mean.

As to ICP itself, the technology is certainly capable of providing accurate results. It is a tried and proven technology. That said, when implemented in a way that costs very little to do a lot of elements, many simplifications and shortcuts must be taken compared to quantifying a single element, spending a fair amount of time on each one, and thus costing a lot more money. A seawater matrix is not necessarily a plug and play setting, and not all companies may spend the time and expertise needed to properly develop accurate methods.

I would not assume that all ICP are accurate, nor that all companies provide inaccurate info.

But how accurate is needed is in the eye of the reefer. Is 2x a suitable range of uncertainty for, say, vanadium? I'd personally say yes, but 2x is certainly not adequately accurate for a major ion like potassium.

One big complicating factor is that the concentration says nothing about the chemistry. 32 ug/L of, say, tin, does not adequately describe what it is, since it counts all tin equally and you do not know the chemical form, and thus, do not know whether it is toxic or not. As an example of how this might matter, if one had an ICP result for N, that doesn't say if it is ammonia, nitrate, cyanide, TNT, or an amino acid. The interpretation of whether 5 ppm is an issue obviously depends on which of these (or something else) that N actually is.

Another big issue that that we have relatively little data on what levels are actually needed for many trace elements. It will vary by chemical form and by organism, but even finding one concentration for one chemical form for one organism is close to impossible.

IMO, ICP is a tool. Tools can be used properly, and can be misused or misunderstood.

Why waste your money? Just let the tank speak for itself since none of the numbers are predictive of what likely will happen if you don't intervene.

 

[Cwentz758]

I recently did my first ICP test mainly to see if I had contaminated water. I’ve been in the hobby about 6-7 years on and off and have yet to have great success with corals. So I guess I’m using it to see where I need to improve my water quality not really to chase numbers

 

[HuduVudu]

I found Vanadium in my tank with ICP. Maybe it was problem maybe not but it definitely had me hunting the source.

I also found high nickel and iron. This was a feedback on something that had happened before and it indicated to me that I needed more water changes to try to dilute out.

I agree with all of what @Randy Holmes-Farley says ... it's tool. How you use the tool is up to you. Whether it is helpful is how well you use it.

I think it is a helpful tool for me and I am grateful for the tech that allows it.