*COPPERSAFE WARNING* along with Research on Hanna Instruments High Range Copper Checker

[HotRocks]

One question I have with using the Hanna Checker is whether we actually know how the measurement corresponds the therapeutic levels? Many people have done checks with it and it appears to be consistent (i.e. gives similar readings when doing different checks on the same sample.) That I've seen, no one has done any checks to see how accurate it is or verified the relationship to the measurements given and therapeutic/toxic levels of copper; those have just been assumed. Am I missing anything here?

I guess I am a little confused by your question. Are you asking how we arrive at the "known" therapeutic levels of each type of copper?

 

[Huff747]

Think he's asking about this type of scenario. It's precise but is it accurate.

 

[Kyl]

Reference solution testing (which I believe HR has done) is the ultimate way to ensure accuracy.

Accuracy @ 25°C/77°F ±0.05 ppm ±5% of reading

@Hanna Instruments Could provide the exact detail that would probably make clearer sense.

 

[Sleepydoc]

Yes, Huff's picture shows part of my question. From the results shown in this thread, the Hanna Checker is clearly quite precise. A reference solution would help to show that it is accurate.

The other half of the question, is whether it's accurate for the solutions we're measuring I don't know the chemistry of CopperSafe, Copper Power or Cupramine, but CopperSafe and Copper Power are both chelated copper solutions. That generally means that part of the copper exists as free copper and part exists bound to another chelating agent. The first question is which parts are biologically active? Typically it would be the freee copper component, but I don't know for sure. The next question is how does the reading on the Hanna checker correlate with the biologically active component of the compound? Finally what is the correlation between that and therapeutic levels?

As an example, say we need a free copper concentration of 0.5 ppm to be therapeutic. I develop a new treatment, MegaCopper that is chelated. such that there are 10ppm of total copper in solution, but 9.5ppm are chelated so a total copper concentration of 10 gives a free, therapeutic concentration of 0.5

Now Humble fish, thinking I'm an idiot, develops his own chelated copper treatment, HumbleCopper. His chelating compound only binds 90% of the copper instead of 95%, so you would need a total copper concentration of 5 ppm to get a free copper concentration of 0.5.

Now things get more complicated - We take these compounds and react them with the Hanna reagents to run though our Hannah checker. Say that the free copper is accurately measured but that the chelated copper from HumbleCopper is only half reacted with the reagent, so the hanna checker actually reads 0.5 + ½*4.5 = 2.75ppm. The compound on MegaCopper on the other hand reacts completely so the Hanna Checker reads 10ppm. In both cases, the copper level is therapeutic, but the reading on the hanna checker is grossly different. Another potential interaction could occur if the chelating agent absorbs light in the spectrum that the Checker uses to read the level.

I'm sure this is part of what Hanna Instruments is looking at. You have to know the specific copper compounds used and the chemistry of those with your reagent to know if you results from the Hanna Checker are truly accurate or not.

Hopefully this makes sense - maybe I'm over thinking it, but the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to continue using cupramine for now, simply because I know I have an accurate test for it.

 

[rkpetersen]

One question I have with using the Hanna Checker is whether we actually know how the measurement corresponds the therapeutic levels? Many people have done checks with it and it appears to be consistent (i.e. gives similar readings when doing different checks on the same sample.) That I've seen, no one has done any checks to see how accurate it is or verified the relationship to the measurements given and therapeutic/toxic levels of copper; those have just been assumed. Am I missing anything here?

Measurements are being compared to calculated target levels based on dilution of the known or assumed concentrations of copper in the various products. These have been pretty much spot on target with Copper Power, and considerably variable with recent batches of Copper Safe. Seems like the checker is measuring total copper present, with or without chelation.

 

[HotRocks]

Yes, Huff's picture shows part of my question. From the results shown in this thread, the Hanna Checker is clearly quite precise. A reference solution would help to show that it is accurate.

The other half of the question, is whether it's accurate for the solutions we're measuring I don't know the chemistry of CopperSafe, Copper Power or Cupramine, but CopperSafe and Copper Power are both chelated copper solutions. That generally means that part of the copper exists as free copper and part exists bound to another chelating agent. The first question is which parts are biologically active? Typically it would be the freee copper component, but I don't know for sure. The next question is how does the reading on the Hanna checker correlate with the biologically active component of the compound? Finally what is the correlation between that and therapeutic levels?

As an example, say we need a free copper concentration of 0.5 ppm to be therapeutic. I develop a new treatment, MegaCopper that is chelated. such that there are 10ppm of total copper in solution, but 9.5ppm are chelated so a total copper concentration of 10 gives a free, therapeutic concentration of 0.5

Now Humble fish, thinking I'm an idiot, develops his own chelated copper treatment, HumbleCopper. His chelating compound only binds 90% of the copper instead of 95%, so you would need a total copper concentration of 5 ppm to get a free copper concentration of 0.5.

Now things get more complicated - We take these compounds and react them with the Hanna reagents to run though our Hannah checker. Say that the free copper is accurately measured but that the chelated copper from HumbleCopper is only half reacted with the reagent, so the hanna checker actually reads 0.5 + ½*4.5 = 2.75ppm. The compound on MegaCopper on the other hand reacts completely so the Hanna Checker reads 10ppm. In both cases, the copper level is therapeutic, but the reading on the hanna checker is grossly different. Another potential interaction could occur if the chelating agent absorbs light in the spectrum that the Checker uses to read the level.

I'm sure this is part of what Hanna Instruments is looking at. You have to know the specific copper compounds used and the chemistry of those with your reagent to know if you results from the Hanna Checker are truly accurate or not.

Hopefully this makes sense - maybe I'm over thinking it, but the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to continue using cupramine for now, simply because I know I have an accurate test for it.

You are way over my head with all of this. I can tell you @Christoph who is a chemist, enlightened us very early on when all of this came about, there was likely nothing in the reagent that should interfere with our readings due to use in saltwater. I am sure he could also enlighten us a bit on your questions. I am sure you are right that they are looking much deeper into this. I am far from a chemist. So to answer your original question, yes the therapeutic levels are assumed by direction of manufacturer. Furthermore the most interesting part of this is that out of 5 coppers I tested, all matched the manufacturers dosing instructions/yields with the exception of copper safe.

 

[Brew12]

Hopefully this makes sense - maybe I'm over thinking it

It does make sense, but I do think you are over thinking it.

Hanna isn't only making these instruments for hobby use. They need to make sure they have the testing documentation to back up any claims they make. This testing and documentation will take time and resources to develop. They may even have to have the results certified by a second party.

I think it is clear that these work well enough for our intended use. Would it hold up to scrutiny if used as part of a scientific study measuring the impact of copper use at a fish farm? Our testing wouldn't. Their testing needs to.

 

[Josh Kraft]

So this all turned out to be very timely for me. I've used Cupramine with the Seachem test (The Salifert test may technically work, but is way to inaccurate, IMO) and the owner of my LFS said she had switched to Coppersafe some time ago as she felt it was easier/less toxic on the fish, so I picked up a bottle of Coppersafe. I overdosed and killed some fish in the past following the instructions on the bottle for Cupramine, so I waited to dose my QT until I found an adequate test kit. BRS actually directed me to the Hanna checker and after reading a few pages here I ordered one last night. Very glad I didn't empirically dose Coppersafe!

From what I can tell:

• There appear to be some questions regarding the concentration/dosing of Coppersafe.
• Copper Power appears to be more consistent. By my (and other's) experience
• Cupramine needs to be dosed conservatively.
• The therapeutic window on any copper treatment is relatively narrow, so you should never dose copper without testing and following.

As I already have Coppersafe and would have to mail order Copper Power, I'm planning on using the Coppersafe I have (Lot 2937FID101, Exp 10-20-19), dosing conservatively and following the levels with the Hanna checker.

One question I have with using the Hanna Checker is whether we actually know how the measurement corresponds the therapeutic levels? Many people have done checks with it and it appears to be consistent (i.e. gives similar readings when doing different checks on the same sample.) That I've seen, no one has done any checks to see how accurate it is or verified the relationship to the measurements given and therapeutic/toxic levels of copper; those have just been assumed. Am I missing anything here?

I ordered my copper power from pet mountain, it was cheaper than everywhere, and shipped fast.

https://www.petmountain.com/product...wer-copper-power-marine-copper-treatment.html

 

[4FordFamily]

So this all turned out to be very timely for me. I've used Cupramine with the Seachem test (The Salifert test may technically work, but is way to inaccurate, IMO) and the owner of my LFS said she had switched to Coppersafe some time ago as she felt it was easier/less toxic on the fish, so I picked up a bottle of Coppersafe. I overdosed and killed some fish in the past following the instructions on the bottle for Cupramine, so I waited to dose my QT until I found an adequate test kit. BRS actually directed me to the Hanna checker and after reading a few pages here I ordered one last night. Very glad I didn't empirically dose Coppersafe!

From what I can tell:

• There appear to be some questions regarding the concentration/dosing of Coppersafe.
• Copper Power appears to be more consistent. By my (and other's) experience
• Cupramine needs to be dosed conservatively.
• The therapeutic window on any copper treatment is relatively narrow, so you should never dose copper without testing and following.

As I already have Coppersafe and would have to mail order Copper Power, I'm planning on using the Coppersafe I have (Lot 2937FID101, Exp 10-20-19), dosing conservatively and following the levels with the Hanna checker.

One question I have with using the Hanna Checker is whether we actually know how the measurement corresponds the therapeutic levels? Many people have done checks with it and it appears to be consistent (i.e. gives similar readings when doing different checks on the same sample.) That I've seen, no one has done any checks to see how accurate it is or verified the relationship to the measurements given and therapeutic/toxic levels of copper; those have just been assumed. Am I missing anything here?

One way we “knew” it was accurate was that with all forms of copper (cupramine, copper power, cuprion, and homemade copper) dosed per manufacturer instructions yielded almost exactly the concentration proposed by that manufacturer — except for coppersafe which was any man’s guess depending on batch number.

 

[BigJohnny]

Yes, Huff's picture shows part of my question. From the results shown in this thread, the Hanna Checker is clearly quite precise. A reference solution would help to show that it is accurate.

The other half of the question, is whether it's accurate for the solutions we're measuring I don't know the chemistry of CopperSafe, Copper Power or Cupramine, but CopperSafe and Copper Power are both chelated copper solutions. That generally means that part of the copper exists as free copper and part exists bound to another chelating agent. The first question is which parts are biologically active? Typically it would be the freee copper component, but I don't know for sure. The next question is how does the reading on the Hanna checker correlate with the biologically active component of the compound? Finally what is the correlation between that and therapeutic levels?

As an example, say we need a free copper concentration of 0.5 ppm to be therapeutic. I develop a new treatment, MegaCopper that is chelated. such that there are 10ppm of total copper in solution, but 9.5ppm are chelated so a total copper concentration of 10 gives a free, therapeutic concentration of 0.5

Now Humble fish, thinking I'm an idiot, develops his own chelated copper treatment, HumbleCopper. His chelating compound only binds 90% of the copper instead of 95%, so you would need a total copper concentration of 5 ppm to get a free copper concentration of 0.5.

Now things get more complicated - We take these compounds and react them with the Hanna reagents to run though our Hannah checker. Say that the free copper is accurately measured but that the chelated copper from HumbleCopper is only half reacted with the reagent, so the hanna checker actually reads 0.5 + ½*4.5 = 2.75ppm. The compound on MegaCopper on the other hand reacts completely so the Hanna Checker reads 10ppm. In both cases, the copper level is therapeutic, but the reading on the hanna checker is grossly different. Another potential interaction could occur if the chelating agent absorbs light in the spectrum that the Checker uses to read the level.

I'm sure this is part of what Hanna Instruments is looking at. You have to know the specific copper compounds used and the chemistry of those with your reagent to know if you results from the Hanna Checker are truly accurate or not.

Hopefully this makes sense - maybe I'm over thinking it, but the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to continue using cupramine for now, simply because I know I have an accurate test for it.

This is exactly what I have been thinking about and the reason I haven't purchased or trust the checker yet.

 

[HotRocks]

This is exactly what I have been thinking about and the reason I haven't purchased or trust the checker yet.

I also sent a sample of my current QT to a lab.

Results yeilded within .02ppm of my test average from the checker.

 

[Sashaka]

When I got home from work, my Hanna order was waiting for me on the porch! All but one box of regents arrived and the one box of regents that is on back order is on the way! I'm so psyched! Thank you Hanna!

BTW: I get the need to be sure the conclusions about the Hanna checker's ability to accurately read all forms of copper is valid. Still, I rationalized buying the Hanna high range tester before Hanna finishes their internal testing because it gives me piece of mind. Why? It can read copper levels results with more accuracy to manufacturers recommended dosages than my eyes can using the API copper test kit. So, even if the tester is found by Hanna not to be as ideal as we all think, for me, it's still going to work better to determine therapeutic levels of copper than my current practices using the API kit.

I keep wondering if all the problems I've had this past year with not being able to cure sick fish is due to my inability to read the API copper test kit well enough. I am grateful to think those days are over!

 

[HotRocks]

When I got home from work, my Hanna order was waiting for me on the porch! All but one box of regents arrived and the one box of regents that is on back order is on the way! I'm so psyched! Thank you Hanna!

Get to testing lol!

 

[drstardust]

I also sent a sample of my current QT to a lab.

Results yeilded within .02ppm of my test average from the checker.

I have not tested quite as extensively as you and @4FordFamily, but I would completely put faith in this checker for hobby use based on our collective experience. Even if the checker doesn’t pass the intense scrutiny of Hanna, this will not dissuade me from continuing to use this checker for my purposes moving forward.

 

[HotRocks]

I have not tested quite as extensively as you and @4FordFamily, but I would completely put faith in this checker for hobby use based on our collective experience. Even if the checker doesn’t pass the intense scrutiny of Hanna, this will not dissuade me from continuing to use this checker for my purposes moving forward.

I have to agree^^^. 100%.
Hopefully we will hear from them soon enough!

 

[BigJohnny]

I also sent a sample of my current QT to a lab.

Results yeilded within .02ppm of my test average from the checker.

Oh nice, what copper product?

 

[Sashaka]

Get to testing lol!

Will do! I'll try to post some results with pictures...if I can get clear enough ones with my lousy phone camera. ;Photogenic

 

[HotRocks]

Oh nice, what copper product?

Copper Power. I took two hanna tests.
1.83ppm, 1.85ppm
Lab Result 1.82ppm

 

[Big G]

A reference solution would help to show that it is accurate.

Don't know if anyone has addressed this part of your post, but they do sell a "calibration sample" so you can check the accuracy of your particular Hanna Checker. The Checker cannot be adjusted, but at least you have this sample that is rated good for about a year according to the sticker on the box. I checked my Hanna Checker with the calibration solution and it is within the range Hanna posted.

 

[Josh Kraft]

Mines here too! After I eat I'll test my bottles of copper safe. I wish my copper power was here, not til Monday though