Correctness and repeatability of ICP-MS seawater measurements

[Christoph]

Hello Everyone!

This is a „takeout“ from the reef moonshiners thread, which can be found here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/moonshiners-method-feedback.996193/

One point raised in this thread is that quality from seawater labs is often seen with a lot of skepticism. I would like to quote user jda here:

So what is the plan if it becomes apparent that Oceamo is a joke, like nearly every other reefing company? I am not saying that they are, only that if they are not, they are in a super-small minority. They are mostly a black box. The few that have checked their results against other see big discrepancies. Why should anybody put more faith in them than they have other companies who have let hobbyists down? As Dr. Joshi points out, there is no evidence that anything that they produce is accurate, nor the other companies.

Is reliance a too much of a leap of faith? Everybody please consider that this could just be a fad to trust ICP in totality.

This promted me to reply, and id like to share my thought on some of the raised aspects. With all respect I do not think the majority of reefing companies are “a joke”. In my opinion many companies have contributed very valuable aspects and products to reefkeeping, and have often been innovative. Of course there are also negative examples (like the Vibrant story, which got a lot of attention).

Regarding our laboratory being a black box, id like to respectfully disagree. I have been very open about used methodologies, and I am posting regularly here on R2R to give background info on lab procedures. If there is specific questions I am always happy to help and answer them.

Unfortunately the review Dr. Joshi made (can be found here) is not suitable to define which company delivers good data, and which company does not. – One would require to send samples with known composition to the labs (like certified reference material) and then compare.

We are using certified reference material ERM CA-403 for internal quality control in our ICP-MS seawater runs. This material is issued by the European commission, and thus fulfills highest quality standards. You can read more about this reference material (including the certificate of analysis) in my post here.


What is missing from Dr Joshis review on ReefBuilders was the information about correctness and repeatability of the laboratory data. – Two key aspects to “trust” and make use of seawater laboratory results.

I can show this data for our lab (Oceamo) here. Since we measure the ERM CA-403 reference material within every ICP-MS sequence, I have combined the results of the last 18 measurements (conducted on individual days between end of may and July) in diagrams. At this point id like to swear that I have not left out a single data point because it was an outlier.

Now to the data:

Arsenic: Certified value 1,90 µg/l (uncertainty 0,13 µg/l)

Cobalt: Certified value 0,074 µg/l (uncertainty 0,011 µg/l)

Copper: Certified value 0,87 µg/l (uncertainty 0,13 µg/l)

Manganese: Certified value 2,47 µg/l (uncertainty 0,11 µg/l)

Molybdenum: Certified value 12 µg/l (uncertainty 0,6 µg/l)

Nickel: Certified value 1,04 µg/l (uncertainty 0,16 µg/l)

Lead: Certified value 0,098 µg/l (uncertainty 0,01 µg/l)

Zinc: indicative value 4,6 µg/l (uncertainty 0,6 µg/l)

Selenium: indicative value 0,06-0,094 µg/l (higher uncertainty in CRM)

Uranium: not certified in CRM, still shown to show stability

Another aspect id like to point out is cost. We are among the highest priced ICP companies on the market, especially for the ICP-MS analysis. We are reading posts from both sides:

1) Too expensive 2) cant be quality data if the price is below 100 USD

I’ve got around 50 ICP tests with ATI at this point. I’ve talked to multiple people who actually run and process ICP testing because of my salt testing experiment.

Even though it puts a damper on my experiment, ICP testing is far from reliable or accurate. Especially when you’re paying less than a $100 for a test lol

Id like to point out that trace element analysis is not cheap (instruments, running costs, service costs, chemicals, invested time and energy,…) – and bigger commercial labs are often scratching their head how we are able to offer such a broad spectrum of analytical techniques for a fairly low price that is compatible with hobbyist use.

This is possible because of several points: 1) We are not ISO certified (or any other exernal certification). Certification (which is of course nice to have) is a huge cost factor, and we would need to raise prices far beyond hobbyist levels. 2) Replacement parts/consumeables: We replace expensive materials (like ICP-MS cones, torches, etc) when its necessary to do so, and not in fixed intervals. This of course requires good knowledge of machines and methods. 3) Labour: Im spending a lot of time in the lab myself, to save on labour cost. – Otherwise it would not be feasible.


I hope this helps to gain trust in our results, and to oben the “black box” a little bit more! If you are having questions, im happy to answer them!


All the best,

Christoph


Some background info to my person: Christoph Denk, fanatic reef aquarist and founder/CEO of Oceamo, based in Austria. PhD level chemist (University of Technology, Vienna, Austria). Had academic positions (senior scientist), as well as industry positions (development of radioparmaceuticals including pharmaceutical quality management systems).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you for the info, Christoph.

 

[jda]

As the owner of a reefing company, you surely know of the others that have ruined the trust of much of the community. This is the environment that you have to work in, fair or not. These type of posts definitely help your credibility, so thank you.

Dr. Joshi's suggestion to get communicate and partner with the other companies to set a baseline and standards, is a good one IMO (I am paraphrasing). I hope that you do this with the others offering MS, or at least try.

As a professional chemist, I think that you might even echo my thoughts a bit to not trust the results in totality, but to also apply some reasonable thought to some numbers that might come back.

 

[Christoph]

As the owner of a reefing company, you surely know of the others that have ruined the trust of much of the community. This is the environment that you have to work in, fair or not. These type of posts definitely help your credibility, so thank you.

Dr. Joshi's suggestion to get communicate and partner with the other companies to set a baseline and standards, is a good one IMO (I am paraphrasing). I hope that you do this with the others offering MS, or at least try.

As a professional chemist, I think that you might even echo my thoughts a bit to not trust the results in totality, but to also apply some reasonable thought to some numbers that might come back.

Hello!

thank god here in the EU we did not have that many incidents of reefing companies "loosing trust" of the community. Very well possible some things happened on the US market that i am not even aware of. However, my goal is to win as much trust as possible, from both US and EU customers ;-)

Regarding your last sentence: Yes, reasonable thought is always necessary, Trace element analysis is a demanding process regarding the machines, tha laboratory surrounding, the involved personnel, etc. There is many things that can go wrong. Dr Joshis results show that there is quite huge variation for some elements. However i do not want to comment on results/work from other laboratories, but can just tell how we are handling things.

all the best,
Christoph

 

[jda]

Since I think that probably every ICP company would espouse their impressive consistency, can you speak towards any outside testing that you have done to verify that your results are accurate? Also, how do you know when to replace wearable items? Do you have stock solutions, or something, that you use to know when items need replaced?

IMO, just by engaging in dialogue and not defensive and argumentative gibberish makes you more credible. I appreciate you answering questions.

This is mostly off topic, but do you see anything in the future that can determine what forms some of the elements are in? As you know, some forms are helpful, some are not and some are super dangerous. I would pay more for this.

 

[Dan_P]

Hello Everyone!

This is a „takeout“ from the reef moonshiners thread, which can be found here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/moonshiners-method-feedback.996193/

One point raised in this thread is that quality from seawater labs is often seen with a lot of skepticism. I would like to quote user jda here:




This promted me to reply, and id like to share my thought on some of the raised aspects. With all respect I do not think the majority of reefing companies are “a joke”. In my opinion many companies have contributed very valuable aspects and products to reefkeeping, and have often been innovative. Of course there are also negative examples (like the Vibrant story, which got a lot of attention).

Regarding our laboratory being a black box, id like to respectfully disagree. I have been very open about used methodologies, and I am posting regularly here on R2R to give background info on lab procedures. If there is specific questions I am always happy to help and answer them.

Unfortunately the review Dr. Joshi made (can be found here) is not suitable to define which company delivers good data, and which company does not. – One would require to send samples with known composition to the labs (like certified reference material) and then compare.

We are using certified reference material ERM CA-403 for internal quality control in our ICP-MS seawater runs. This material is issued by the European commission, and thus fulfills highest quality standards. You can read more about this reference material (including the certificate of analysis) in my post here.


What is missing from Dr Joshis review on ReefBuilders was the information about correctness and repeatability of the laboratory data. – Two key aspects to “trust” and make use of seawater laboratory results.

I can show this data for our lab (Oceamo) here. Since we measure the ERM CA-403 reference material within every ICP-MS sequence, I have combined the results of the last 18 measurements (conducted on individual days between end of may and July) in diagrams. At this point id like to swear that I have not left out a single data point because it was an outlier.

Now to the data:

Arsenic: Certified value 1,90 µg/l (uncertainty 0,13 µg/l)

Cobalt: Certified value 0,074 µg/l (uncertainty 0,011 µg/l)

Copper: Certified value 0,87 µg/l (uncertainty 0,13 µg/l)

Manganese: Certified value 2,47 µg/l (uncertainty 0,11 µg/l)

Molybdenum: Certified value 12 µg/l (uncertainty 0,6 µg/l)

Nickel: Certified value 1,04 µg/l (uncertainty 0,16 µg/l)

Lead: Certified value 0,098 µg/l (uncertainty 0,01 µg/l)

Zinc: indicative value 4,6 µg/l (uncertainty 0,6 µg/l)

Selenium: indicative value 0,06-0,094 µg/l (higher uncertainty in CRM)

Uranium: not certified in CRM, still shown to show stability

Another aspect id like to point out is cost. We are among the highest priced ICP companies on the market, especially for the ICP-MS analysis. We are reading posts from both sides:

1) Too expensive 2) cant be quality data if the price is below 100 USD



Id like to point out that trace element analysis is not cheap (instruments, running costs, service costs, chemicals, invested time and energy,…) – and bigger commercial labs are often scratching their head how we are able to offer such a broad spectrum of analytical techniques for a fairly low price that is compatible with hobbyist use.

This is possible because of several points: 1) We are not ISO certified (or any other exernal certification). Certification (which is of course nice to have) is a huge cost factor, and we would need to raise prices far beyond hobbyist levels. 2) Replacement parts/consumeables: We replace expensive materials (like ICP-MS cones, torches, etc) when its necessary to do so, and not in fixed intervals. This of course requires good knowledge of machines and methods. 3) Labour: Im spending a lot of time in the lab myself, to save on labour cost. – Otherwise it would not be feasible.


I hope this helps to gain trust in our results, and to oben the “black box” a little bit more! If you are having questions, im happy to answer them!


All the best,

Christoph


Some background info to my person: Christoph Denk, fanatic reef aquarist and founder/CEO of Oceamo, based in Austria. PhD level chemist (University of Technology, Vienna, Austria). Had academic positions (senior scientist), as well as industry positions (development of radioparmaceuticals including pharmaceutical quality management systems).

Good post Christoph.

I have a quick question. What is preventing Oceamo from stating the accuracy and precision for each element in their ICP report?

 

[Rick Mathew]

Thanks for this nice post Christoph, some good information. So just to be sure I understand; each of these 18 points on each element is a measurement of a calibration standard at different points in time...correct?

 

[Jposch]

Good post Christoph.

I have a quick question. What is preventing Oceamo from stating the accuracy and precision for each element in their ICP report?

This would definitely be nice. See accuracy and precision data is what keeps me from buy hanna checkers. The magnesium is just awful. Going by taste would like be just as good. That ±5% matters alot at 1200-1500ppm

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

This would definitely be nice. See accuracy and precision data is what keeps me from buy hanna checkers. The magnesium is just awful. Going by taste would like be just as good. That ±5% matters alot at 1200-1500ppm

Using standards I get about +-40ppm on all of the mag tests. Consistently at least, if my aquafirest or red sea kit is testing -40 of the standard, the kit will continue to be that far off in my experience. I haven't used a standard on a hannah yet, but I am curious if that variance of +-5% will also be consistent with the reagent pack.

 

[hunterallen40]

Hello Everyone!

This is a „takeout“ from the reef moonshiners thread, which can be found here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/moonshiners-method-feedback.996193/

One point raised in this thread is that quality from seawater labs is often seen with a lot of skepticism. I would like to quote user jda here:




This promted me to reply, and id like to share my thought on some of the raised aspects. With all respect I do not think the majority of reefing companies are “a joke”. In my opinion many companies have contributed very valuable aspects and products to reefkeeping, and have often been innovative. Of course there are also negative examples (like the Vibrant story, which got a lot of attention).

Regarding our laboratory being a black box, id like to respectfully disagree. I have been very open about used methodologies, and I am posting regularly here on R2R to give background info on lab procedures. If there is specific questions I am always happy to help and answer them.

Unfortunately the review Dr. Joshi made (can be found here) is not suitable to define which company delivers good data, and which company does not. – One would require to send samples with known composition to the labs (like certified reference material) and then compare.

We are using certified reference material ERM CA-403 for internal quality control in our ICP-MS seawater runs. This material is issued by the European commission, and thus fulfills highest quality standards. You can read more about this reference material (including the certificate of analysis) in my post here.


What is missing from Dr Joshis review on ReefBuilders was the information about correctness and repeatability of the laboratory data. – Two key aspects to “trust” and make use of seawater laboratory results.

I can show this data for our lab (Oceamo) here. Since we measure the ERM CA-403 reference material within every ICP-MS sequence, I have combined the results of the last 18 measurements (conducted on individual days between end of may and July) in diagrams. At this point id like to swear that I have not left out a single data point because it was an outlier.

Now to the data:

Arsenic: Certified value 1,90 µg/l (uncertainty 0,13 µg/l)

Cobalt: Certified value 0,074 µg/l (uncertainty 0,011 µg/l)

Copper: Certified value 0,87 µg/l (uncertainty 0,13 µg/l)

Manganese: Certified value 2,47 µg/l (uncertainty 0,11 µg/l)

Molybdenum: Certified value 12 µg/l (uncertainty 0,6 µg/l)

Nickel: Certified value 1,04 µg/l (uncertainty 0,16 µg/l)

Lead: Certified value 0,098 µg/l (uncertainty 0,01 µg/l)

Zinc: indicative value 4,6 µg/l (uncertainty 0,6 µg/l)

Selenium: indicative value 0,06-0,094 µg/l (higher uncertainty in CRM)

Uranium: not certified in CRM, still shown to show stability

Another aspect id like to point out is cost. We are among the highest priced ICP companies on the market, especially for the ICP-MS analysis. We are reading posts from both sides:

1) Too expensive 2) cant be quality data if the price is below 100 USD



Id like to point out that trace element analysis is not cheap (instruments, running costs, service costs, chemicals, invested time and energy,…) – and bigger commercial labs are often scratching their head how we are able to offer such a broad spectrum of analytical techniques for a fairly low price that is compatible with hobbyist use.

This is possible because of several points: 1) We are not ISO certified (or any other exernal certification). Certification (which is of course nice to have) is a huge cost factor, and we would need to raise prices far beyond hobbyist levels. 2) Replacement parts/consumeables: We replace expensive materials (like ICP-MS cones, torches, etc) when its necessary to do so, and not in fixed intervals. This of course requires good knowledge of machines and methods. 3) Labour: Im spending a lot of time in the lab myself, to save on labour cost. – Otherwise it would not be feasible.


I hope this helps to gain trust in our results, and to oben the “black box” a little bit more! If you are having questions, im happy to answer them!


All the best,

Christoph


Some background info to my person: Christoph Denk, fanatic reef aquarist and founder/CEO of Oceamo, based in Austria. PhD level chemist (University of Technology, Vienna, Austria). Had academic positions (senior scientist), as well as industry positions (development of radioparmaceuticals including pharmaceutical quality management systems).

@Christoph this is awesome data to see. I can tell you take great care in what you do, and have confidence in your results. Thank you so much for providing this data!

I will definitely continue to use oceamo's ICP.

I was wondering if you might be able to do a couple things for us...

Could we see the test environment? It would be great to see that these tests are in fact being done in a lab.

I was also wondering if there are any elements that are more accurately tested on OES than MS tests?

Lastly, after using your test for the past seven months or so... I've seen my magnesium going all over the place. My trident (I hear you laughing!) is very stable, and I use it to adjust my magnesium. Is magnesium particularly inaccurate on ICP tests, or is my magnesium really that unstable (I have seen it anywhere from 1280-1450 on ICP, but keep it stable around 1350 on my trident)?

 

[Dan_P]

@Christoph this is awesome data to see. I can tell you take great care in what you do, and have confidence in your results. Thank you so much for providing this data!

I will definitely continue to use oceamo's ICP.

I was wondering if you might be able to do a couple things for us...

Could we see the test environment? It would be great to see that these tests are in fact being done in a lab.

I was also wondering if there are any elements that are more accurately tested on OES than MS tests?

Lastly, after using your test for the past seven months or so... I've seen my magnesium going all over the place. My trident (I hear you laughing!) is very stable, and I use it to adjust my magnesium. Is magnesium particularly inaccurate on ICP tests, or is my magnesium really that unstable (I have seen it anywhere from 1280-1450 on ICP, but keep it stable around 1350 on my trident)?

The ICP results for Mg could be inconsistent.

Keep in mind no ICP vendor reports the accuracy and precision of their results. I guess that is why they have to work so hard to gain trust.

 

[Reefahholic]

Thank you for the info, Christoph.

Chemist to Chemist respect! Much appreciated!

 

[Reefahholic]

As a professional chemist, I think that you might even echo my thoughts a bit to not trust the results in totality, but to also apply some reasonable thought to some numbers that might come back.

Absolutely. It’s just like anything else. My Hanna HR Nitrate comes back with a crazy reading sometimes. Anything that is abnormal or doesn’t feel right should always be questioned especially if the element or amount being corrected could crash a system. I’m sure Christoph would be happy to double check an element/value like that.

 

[Reefahholic]

Since I think that probably every ICP company would espouse their impressive consistency, can you speak towards any outside testing that you have done to verify that your results are accurate? Also, how do you know when to replace wearable items? Do you have stock solutions, or something, that you use to know when items need replaced?

IMO, just by engaging in dialogue and not defensive and argumentative gibberish makes you more credible. I appreciate you answering questions.

This is mostly off topic, but do you see anything in the future that can determine what forms some of the elements are in? As you know, some forms are helpful, some are not and some are super dangerous. I would pay more for this.

Honestly, these types of questions do need to be asked. Nothing wrong with transparency. I just hope the cost doesn’t increase, because I can barely afford it now. We should be skeptical, but I’ve honestly seen enough to have a high amount of trust with OCEAMO’s analyses.

Yes there will be some uncertainties, but even in our Certified labs here in the hospital nothing is perfect.

I will add that I do work for one of the most prestigious hospitals in the state. So this is not some little hole in the wall facility. We have ANCC Magnet recognition, and hold many other awards. We have been voted best hospital in the state of Texas for 11 years in a row, and we’re ranked one of the top 15 hospitals in the Nation. So you better believe our machines are calibrated constantly and consistently. However, at some point you still have to exercise a little faith. Nothing is ever perfect.

 

[Reefahholic]

Good post Christoph.

I have a quick question. What is preventing Oceamo from stating the accuracy and precision for each element in their ICP report?

Dan_P what is your accuracy and precision for each element you currently test at home?

Can you share your information also so that we can compare your home test results to that of the ICP-MS. Thx.

 

[Reefahholic]

This would definitely be nice. See accuracy and precision data is what keeps me from buy hanna checkers. The magnesium is just awful. Going by taste would like be just as good. That ±5% matters alot at 1200-1500ppm

Can you also provide the accurate and precision data for your current hobby grade test kits since Hanna Checkers are awful. I may need to switch after combing through your data. Thx.

 

[Dan_P]

Dan_P what is your accuracy and precision for each element you currently test at home?

Can you share your information also so that we can compare your home test results to that of the ICP-MS. Thx.

We (@Rick Mathew, @taricha) have recently completed such a study. Rick is currently writing up the results. Should be an interesting post.

 

[Reefahholic]

We (@Rick Mathew, @taricha) have recently completed such a study. Rick is currently writing up the results. Should be an interesting post.

I’ll be waiting and interested to look at it, and I mean that with respect.

Here’s my question and this is not directed to you Dan_P or anybody else. This is just to provoke thought.


It really comes down to water chemistry. I think most will agree with that. I’ve never seen a reef with absent elements or depleted elements produce anything amazing. If it did, it definitely didn’t do it quickly. Corals may grow “slowly” over time and “adapt” to suboptimal conditions, but most reefers who care for their animals will not leave them in poor conditions if they know how to fix it. Isn’t that why we’re all here on these forums and social media groups? We’re sharing information looking for the “fastest” way to grow corals. We want our corals healthy and growing. We want colorful corals. Why would a person not correct depleted elements.? I may never understand. It can’t be about safety concerns. I’ll elaborate more below. I’ve seen guys literally spend their kids college money in this hobby chasing down coral growth. It’s really peculiar that some are so against correcting their chemistry. It’s the very foundation of coral growth.

In the beginning testing was limited to basic water parameters (pretty much still is at home). Reefers would have paid anything to have the technology and data we have available today. Back then, merely keeping a brown Acropora alive was considered a win. For years we wished and hoped we could test for “everything” and now we don’t want it.?

“We’ll, the ICP’s aren’t accurate.”

Which ICP? Yes, there’s been companies in it for the money and they’ll tell you anything, but I don’t see that with Christoph. He works hard, he’s a Chemist, and more importantly he’s one of us.

I’ve literally watched OCEAMO’s ICP-MS results color up my reef with targeted precision. There may be some uncertainties, but it’s not enough to effect my corals. I can tell you want it’s doing though, it’s growing them.

Double standards are being applied to ICP analysis or Reef Moonshiner’s who uses ICP analysis as a tool, but not for hobby grade test kits at home. Hobby grade kits are difficult to read for most folks. I personally don’t trust myself with Colorimetric, and Titration gives me a headache. I only use them when I can’t rely on ICP data, and I try to use Hanna Checkers so that I can get an actual number. I know their not perfect, but if you know your reef, you’ll know when a value isn’t accurate. If we apply these standards to ICP-MS, we need to apply them across the board. With limited data from hobby grade test kits, we can only correct about 1/4 of the elements. We can’t test for most pollutants. Source water likely isn’t being tested. If the issue is about safety, which sounds safer to you?

 

[Christoph]

Thanks for this nice post Christoph, some good information. So just to be sure I understand; each of these 18 points on each element is a measurement of a calibration standard at different points in time...correct?

Hello Rick,

almost. Its not a calibration standard, its a certified reference material (CRM). The CRM is provided from an outside source with clearly defined parameters of those trace elements. It is not used for calibration, but for internal quality control.

You can think of it as a sample that we are measuring every time we are turning on the ICP-MS to measure customer samples. The 18 points represent measured values of those elements at consecutive measurement-days from late May up until now (we are not measuring daily). I did not skip a single measurement-day.

I will get back to all other questions in this thread as soon as i am having a little more time. This one was quick to answer ;-)

All the best,
Christoph

 

[Dan_P]

I’ll be waiting and interested to look at it, and I mean that with respect.

Here’s my question and this is not directed to you Dan_P or anybody else. This is just to provoke thought.


It really comes down to water chemistry. I think most will agree with that. I’ve never seen a reef with absent elements or depleted elements produce anything amazing. If it did, it definitely didn’t do it quickly. Corals may grow “slowly” over time and “adapt” to suboptimal conditions, but most reefers who care for their animals will not leave them in poor conditions if they know how to fix it. Isn’t that why we’re all here on these forums and social media groups? We’re sharing information looking for the “fastest” way to grow corals. We want our corals healthy and growing. We want colorful corals. Why would a person not correct depleted elements.? I may never understand. It can’t be about safety concerns. I’ll elaborate more below. I’ve seen guys literally spend their kids college money in this hobby chasing down coral growth. It’s really peculiar that some are so against correcting their chemistry. It’s the very foundation of coral growth.

In the beginning testing was limited to basic water parameters (pretty much still is at home). Reefers would have paid anything to have the technology and data we have available today. Back then, merely keeping a brown Acropora alive was considered a win. For years we wished and hoped we could test for “everything” and now we don’t want it.?

“We’ll, the ICP’s aren’t accurate.”

Which ICP? Yes, there’s been companies in it for the money and they’ll tell you anything, but I don’t see that with Christoph. He works hard, he’s a Chemist, and more importantly he’s one of us.

I’ve literally watched OCEAMO’s ICP-MS results color up my reef with targeted precision. There may be some uncertainties, but it’s not enough to effect my corals. I can tell you want it’s doing though, it’s growing them.

Double standards are being applied to ICP analysis or Reef Moonshiner’s who uses ICP analysis as a tool, but not for hobby grade test kits at home. Hobby grade kits are difficult to read for most folks. I personally don’t trust myself with Colorimetric, and Titration gives me a headache. I only use them when I can’t rely on ICP data, and I try to use Hanna Checkers so that I can get an actual number. I know their not perfect, but if you know your reef, you’ll know when a value isn’t accurate. If we apply these standards to ICP-MS, we need to apply them across the board. With limited data from hobby grade test kits, we can only correct about 1/4 of the elements. We can’t test for most pollutants. Source water likely isn’t being tested. If the issue is about safety, which sounds safer to you?

Good points. Let me add one

As @Rick Mathew has pointed out, you cannot describe a test as good or bad until you decide how much accuracy and precision you need to make good decisions. If you are happy with a test result that is ”not too low and not too high” you have a different criteria for accuracy and precision than if you need x.xx ppm to make a decision. This is called “fit for purpose”. The problem is if you are missing information about accuracy and precision. You cannot decide if the test is fit for purpose. Trust is not a valid criteria to make that call. Imagine if a hospital only trusted not proved that blood test results were correct.