Comparison: Fauna Marine ICP Analysis vs. ATI-OES ICP Analysis

[Big E]

I have done the ATI test twice, a common issue with the RODI test is false levels of PO4 and NO3. Lots and lots of folks on here have had the same issue. I am not talking high values, just values. Because I expected zero.

Did you take your sample from a storage container? My RODI results were zero from ATI on nutrients.............I took the sample right from the output of my RO/DI unit while it was running.

 

[Sierra_Bravo]

The results are in!

Let's take a look at the reports. I'm going to post the images, then a comparison between the two, and last I'll ask for help deciphering what it actually means - I have a few issues that are apparent on both reports. Please keep in mind I have only a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between what I'm reading and what it really means for my tank; chemistry is not in my background

ATI-ICP test was posted on Friday, 4/24, nine days after I had first mailed it in. I did not get an email notice, you have to periodically check the website to see if it has posted. The report is laid out well, has easy to visualize graphical indicators to compare results against acceptable ranges, and has a summary page of recommendations.

The Fauna Marin report was posted today, 4/27, twelve days after I mailed it in. I received an email notification along with an attached PDF. The report was broken down in categories with the measured result, a wide reference range, and a recommendation on corrections/dosing. There was also a link included that would take you straight to Fauna Marin product page for you to purchase what you need to dose, should you wish.

First impressions were that the ATI test was easier to read and tested for a wider range of items. I was surprised that the Fauna Marin test did not provide entries for very basic parameters such as dKH, salinity, or nitrates. The Fauna Marin test was able to obtain a measurement of some of the elements that ATI showed as below undetectable levels, namely manganese, vanadium, phosphorus, and phosphates.

These water samples were taken at exactly the same time and I was surprised that there was quite a bit of difference for several of them. There was a significant spread between the two for magnesium, sulfur, calcium, and aluminum. I did not understand the measurements provided for silicon and iodine between the two tests - they seem completely off. (corrected - had the uniot measurement wrong)

I summarized the two reports in the table below. An "X" indicates the test was not offered while "n.n." and "n.u" are not detectable.

To address the obvious: My salinity is way off, and I determined over the weekend that this was a result of a bottle of Brightwell calibration fluid having evaporated and changing the solution. This seems to have started having an effect over the last few months, which has coincided with some random STN that I have not been able to understand. I posted a thread about it here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/r...on-fluid-evaporated-salinity-at-1-030.714049/ If nothing else, I would not have realized this issue without having performed these tests.

Phosphates and nitrates being low coincided with my Red Sea tests which were performed at about the same time and those levels have been corrected since the test. Nothing else really stands out to me on the ATI test as needing immediate attention. Molybdenum could be dosed, but that would be the only other thing I see that may have an effect. All else is pretty much in range on the ATI test.

I will say that if I only had the Fauna Marin test and had never done one of these before, I'd be a little nervous. At first glance, almost everything tested shows that it needs a correction, and if I went verbatim to the instructions I'd be buying a lot of products and making a lot of adjustments. For the life of me, I don't see why it would be necessary to dose copper, barium, or a number of others listed, but again, I don't claim to know all the chemistry.

I'll let others speak to the accuracy or validity of the information provided here, but as only a layman chemist and a hobbyist reefer, for me, the ATI-ICP test seems to be more understandable, more thorough, and my usable for my purposes of the two tests.

I'd welcome any and all feedback. Thanks for reading!

 

[cedwards04]

I would suggest you spend some time researching the reef moonshiner method. If nothing else, it will give you a ton of insight on what these test results mean for your tank.

 

[xaflatoonx]

The two test kits vary WIDELY in the ones you have highlighted.

I wonder what causes that and what they each have to say in terms of why its so different.

 

[PSXerholic]

Man, your Fluoride is extremely low!
Also your Iodine comparison is incorrect, they are almost the same measurement, you compare micro against milligram per Liter.

I'm going to have another comparison coming up shortly as well:
ATI, Triton, ICP-Anal , Oceamo, Fauna Marin all compared against each other.

I still use ATI for my digital "ICP Assessment and dosing generator tool" ;-)
Looking however forward to the next comparison.

-Andre

Eye candy for attention ......

 

[drawman]

Calibration solution can be a pain. FWIW I've had much better luck with AquaCraft but I have also had a brand new bottle that was slightly off. Generally they are consistent. The one brightwell bottle I bought was way off unfortunately when I compared it to multiple tanks (including sps vendors).

 

[teller]

Man, your Fluoride is extremely low!
Also your Iodine comparison is incorrect, they are almost the same measurement, you compare micro against milligram per Liter.

I'm going to have another comparison coming up shortly as well:
ATI, Triton, ICP-Anal , Oceamo, Fauna Marin all compared against each other.

I still use ATI for my digital "ICP Assessment and dosing generator tool" ;-)
Looking however forward to the next comparison.

-Andre

Eye candy for attention ......

Hi,
Not only Iodine but also Silicone is in mg/l, not ug/l in the FM assessment.

 

[PSXerholic]

Hi,
Not only Iodine but also Silicone is in mg/l, not ug/l in the FM assessment.

That's ok, in the comparison he did convert from mg to microgram correctly. EDIT, while I was posting this, lol.

 

[Sierra_Bravo]

Man, your Fluoride is extremely low!
Also your Iodine comparison is incorrect, they are almost the same measurement, you compare micro against milligram per Liter.

Hi,
Not only Iodine but also Silicone is in mg/l, not ug/l in the FM assessment.

I corrected the unit measurement on silicon and iodine - thanks for that.

 

[Sierra_Bravo]

Man, your Fluoride is extremely low!
Also your Iodine comparison is incorrect, they are almost the same measurement, you compare micro against milligram per Liter.

I'm going to have another comparison coming up shortly as well:
ATI, Triton, ICP-Anal , Oceamo, Fauna Marin all compared against each other.

I still use ATI for my digital "ICP Assessment and dosing generator tool" ;-)
Looking however forward to the next comparison.

-Andre

Eye candy for attention ......

Is there a benefit to trying to correct the flouride levels?

 

[PSXerholic]

Is there a benefit to trying to correct the flouride levels?

Absolutely! Not just that I would pimp Fluoride with my way of doing Reefing, but your's is even far below the NSW level, which can't be good.
See below a link to Michael Paletta talking about his recent experience with Trace Elements.
Also a free article from HAWE Balling on Traces overall and a thread on R2R on the method I do for Trace Elements.
Have a sniff, can't hurt:

Reef moonshiners program

I did a search in the forums and ran across a few threads where it is mentioned, but no real discussion. So who all is using the reef moonshiners program/dosing elements on their tanks? Who is having success with it? I'd love to discuss this further as it has me a little intrigued.

www.reef2reef.com

Mike Paletta talking about Nutrients, Trace Elements and Lighting in modern Reef tanks

One hour of a very interesting talk from Mike Paletta concerning some of the most important Reefing subjects in modern Reef Tanks. He did also shared his first investigation results from a few very successful tanks and the parameter that are maintained in those. Very interesting his views on...

www.reef2reef.com

(PDF) Trace elements, functions, sinks and replenishment in reef aquaria

PDF | Trace elements in closed or semiclosed marine aquaria are a matter of permanent discussion. As the name states the concentrations of trace... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

PIC for attention ;-)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I am surprised and very disappointed how different the values for magnesium and sulfur are.

Someone (or both) is doing a bad job.

 

[drawman]

I am surprised and very disappointed how different the values for magnesium and sulfur are.

Someone (or both) is doing a bad job.

Same. Makes me curious to see the results @PSXerholic gets when he does his comparison test.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I just saw someone else post crazy high sulfur (sulfate) in a Fauna ICP.

I am worried they have a problem with measuring it.

ICP results help

I have a reefer 250 that has been running roughly 2 months. I cycled using bacteria and ammonia chloride. Marco rock and special grade reef sand(not live). I’m on a well so my water goes through a softener,carbon tank then a marine depot ro/do unit. I don’t know really how to read any results...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[TexAgReefer]

Here are my results in my comparison of Fauna Marin and Triton. Biggest differences highlighted yellow in last column. Samples were pulled at the exact same time from the same location.

 

[PSXerholic]

Here are my results in my comparison of Fauna Marin and Triton. Biggest differences highlighted yellow in last column. Samples were pulled at the exact same time from the same location.

Out of subject, but take care of Barium! I have made the experience that low Barium below 5 is subject to RTN/STN problematic tanks in 95% of the cases. Just an observation from hundreds of tanks.

 

[PSXerholic]

I am surprised and very disappointed how different the values for magnesium and sulfur are.

Someone (or both) is doing a bad job.

Agree, something is appearing fishy here.
High Sulfur is usually from high magnesium corrections due to the mix of most Magnesium supplements.
The FM test also compares higher in Calcium/Potassium equal to ATI just both higher.

Increased Sulfur over the limits as here would very likely lead actually to some sort of bacteria bloom, hence I trust the ATI test more.

Well, the ICP machines need a lot of maintenance and adjustments and is a complex science. Nuff said on that subject.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Out of subject, but take care of Barium! I have made the experience that low Barium below 5 is subject to RTN/STN problematic tanks in 95% of the cases. Just an observation from hundreds of tanks.

Count me as skeptical. Barium has no known biological role.

 

[PSXerholic]

Count me as skeptical. Barium has no known biological role.

Randy, normally I would not spend the efforts to answer this with evidence.
For you however, it will be an honor ;-)
I will dig out some scientific evidence to support my statement, but this will take me a while.
The answers will be found in the bio chemistry field.

However in the meantime, please trust or at least notice this "observation" as a hobbyist.

 

[ReefHog]

I'm going to have another comparison coming up shortly as well:
ATI, Triton, ICP-Anal , Oceamo, Fauna Marin all compared against each other.

Hoping to see these results. I've done FM and ATI myself and prefer the ATI simply because it has three of the basic parameters that FM does not. I test KH and Nitrate weekly and SG during water changes. Also have the Apex Salinity/Conductivity probe. So while probably not necessary, I like to be able to back up my test results to confirm my test kits and testing procedures.