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).
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).
Last edited: