Despite API reputation, the Chemicals in the test kits are actually good

[PotatoPig]

My 2c as something of a newbie…

I suspect a large part of the reason many folks get wonky readings with API is that a lot of them are trying their first time at aquariums so bought API as it’s the kit at Petco/Petsmart **and** have little or no experience in doing these tests **and** have little/no experience in dosing ammonia for the bottle bac cycling.

So you get a nice Venn diagram where the people most likely to mess up some part of the dosing and testing are also most likely to be doing it while using API kits.

Then they go and get another kit for the next time they need to do an ammonia test (ie if they’re setting up a second aquarium) and by then they’re much more experienced in doing these tests so don’t mess it up.

 

[brandon429]

Well said T

 

[rtparty]

I thought about that after I posted. I haven't done a regression on the Alk or Ca test but I'll be shocked if the alk test isn't solid - super simple kit chemistry.
Calcium could be tricky though.

wow, really? I'd wondered before if there was a viable set of saltwater strip tests.
Strip tests make me feel dumb - I look at them like "but how did they get the singing people in the radio"?

If you go in with the right expectations and understand what to look for, they get plenty close enough for me. Especially since I’m just cross checking my Trident hasn’t gone whacky.

Even without the Trident, I’d trust them to be close enough. Only if I get a real whacky reading will I pull out the big boy kits to double check things.

 

[danenelsen]

Great read, very interesting! I've never had a problem with API. When compared to my Salifert tests, ammonia and pH always match up.

 

[taricha]

I suspect a large part of the reason many folks get wonky readings with API is that a lot of them are trying their first time at aquariums so bought API as it’s the kit at Petco/Petsmart **and** have little or no experience in doing these tests **and** have little/no experience in dosing ammonia for the bottle bac cycling.

So you get a nice Venn diagram where the people most likely to mess up some part of the dosing and testing are also most likely to be doing it while using API kits.

exactly this.

hmm.... maybe I need to rethink my argument here.
It's probably a better idea to tell people that their API kit is trash and to ignore it (not true) rather than tell them "you are bad at running chemical tests and you have no idea what you are doing right now." (more accurate)

 

[Mr. Mojo Rising]

I think its a non-issue, like many, I haven't tested for ammonia in years.

Every one of us been fooled by the API phosphate test kit, you want to try to defend that one?

 

[Reefer Matt]

When I began reefing, I used api kits, and never had a problem reading 0 ammonia. Not once. Where I struggled was which orange is which for nitrate. I always shook every bottle before use, and maybe that made a difference.

 

[Dan_P]

This topic is @Dan_P 's baby - I'm just running with it. Dan will even go further than I will and use some of the API kits that I won't mess with (NO3, PO4).

It's widely claimed that API tests can't be trusted and any values reported by API should be ignored until the hobbyist throws them in a trashcan and a more expensive test kit is purchased.
But when you measure the color response of these test kits to carefully made stock solutions of known concentration - you find that API kits perform exactly as they should in theory - forming color linearly proportional to the concentration.
I wanted to illustrate this by demonstrating the colorimetric performance of Total Ammonia, Nitrite, and High Range pH tests.

Here's API total ammonia test

Tightly linear over the range [0 - 2ppm]. The reagent amounts and ratios are tweaked a bit from the API box instructions for the range and the volume that I want to work with, but all the reagents are API. And whatever box of reagents I grab the performance is the same.


Next is the Nitrite - NO2 test.

With the recipe I'm working with, it stops being perfectly linear around 1ppm NO2 and above, so I use this when working with samples between [0 - 0.7ppm]. Above 1ppm, it still gets darker pink, just not in a clean linear way (at this reagent ratio).

And finally, here's API high range pH.
The pH test is a color indicator that's phenol red or very similar - it responds very well over the entire plausible range of saltwater pH. Here's the absorbance spectrum of the indicator in saltwater from pH of less than 7.0 to above 8.6.

The plot is showing the spectral data, but each of those colors is easily naked-eye distinguishable by comparison as well.

So if you do a ratio of the left peak and right peak absorbance and plot the log of that vs what a calibrated pH meter reads in the same solution you get this...

The log of the absorbance ratio is tightly linear to what my calibrated pH meter gives - within 0.05 pH units. (This means pH can be measured by recording color and no probe/calibration solution required, which is convenient sometimes.)

In all these examples, the technical details are unimportant, or at least the topic for another thread. What matters is that in all cases the API reagents are doing exactly what you want a chemical reagent to do. They have a repeatable, easily distinguished color response that is linear to the concentration of what you want to measure.

Here's an absurd example to drive the point home about the gap between how low the trust is of API vs how consistent the performance actually is.

I found this in a box in my garage: From the Lot numbers and the copyright info on the box and printed inserts - it was made in 2003.


So, how well does this 20yr old API ammonia kit work?
I used both API kits made 20 years apart to measure the same 0.0 and 1.0 ppm total ammonia saltwater solutions.

Pic taken at around 10 minutes - colorimetric measurements were made at around 30 minutes and I was a little shocked to see both kits gave completely identical results. ( I expected that the chlorine solution in reagent 2 would have lost its potency, but I guess the bottle was well sealed ... for 20 years. lol)


So when we say API results are "trash" etc (and there are some nonsensical results from API tests posted), we should probably talk about what we mean by that, and why they might be bad - because the chemistry is solid.

So telling somebody to go use a different set of chemicals to do the same thing seems unlikely to give a better result if the chemicals weren't the problem in the first place, right?

Dr. Wellfish says "Your garbage test results aren't my fault."

[Disclaimer, I don't love all API kits: NO3 and PO4 have too much lot to lot variation - so I'll always opt for hanna / red sea there.]

Another fascinating investigation.

I agree there is nothing wrong with API chemical tests except that the reagent formulations are optimized for fast test times and deep colors. Appropriate dilutions and longer development times give much better precision and accuracy, and a huge number of tests. One inherent problem is API reagent quality.

Because API makes tests with high color intensity and fast development time, highly consistent reagent concentration batch to batch is not necessary. If you run a more dilute formulation and measure color intensity with a photometer, the lot to lot variability can be bothersome.

 

[MnFish1]

Nice experiment. Unfortunately one does have to follow the instructions exactly or there can be deviations. Which is the same with any kit. I personally find salifert tests difficult to read. IMHO it’s personal preference

 

[Gumbies R Us]

Amazing work as always Taricha

 

[Hurricane Aquatics]

I've always kept the API test kits on hand as backup. I think they're one of the best to use when you are cycling.

I even had a bad Hanna alkalinity checker and the API was right.

 

[SteveMM62Reef]

case in point #1,967, 054

from the thread on our site: seneye vs api cycle, that below is the api reading which any interpreter, chemist to plumber to aircraft mechanic to common cable guy moonlighting as a cycle umpire would interpret as a total fail, not ready, toxic, that's as high as the chart for api reads and any owner of a cycling tank getting that reading will go buy nine more bottles of bac and wait 80 days until it reads yellow to proceed, fact.

BUT
in that thread, we get the rarest calibration available. owner has a calibrated seneye on this same water sample (is past day ten of waiting, after dosing dr tims bottle bac for cycling + ammonia) and that seneye reads .04 nh3 (still slightly high indicated some trimming need for the seneye unit but still functional as a baseline for the next proof step)

AND when he takes that same indicator slide over to a nano reef packed in corals and a small fish, a matured, running nano reef, that slide benchmarks at: .04 nh3 meaning in reality after seneye trimming its about .004 nh3 which explains the non toxicity in the matured nano reef.

this is what millions of api testers read, some variation of this misread below only they have no calibrated seneye to fact-check with

= total proof api is the bane of my existence. that reading below is just horrible. it's caused panic, fear, concern in thousands of non-tarichas

Looks like a “Doctored,” test, since all tubes are filled to the brim.

 

[brandon429]

If I showed you ten more though? (Searchable by anyone)

they’re not doctored, they’re overfilled. Some were underfilled

in 1 min flat you can find pictures of misreading tubes filled right, stated shaken, stated not expired

naturally you and I never get to verify any of it, subjectivity rules the game with color tube + comparison card cheap ammonia tests, and unreported/sometimes undetected confounds exist (one fav, not telling us they already spiked prime additive by seachem as a panic reaction) and they’re mixed in all levels reported by readers from their reef tank

watch the trend: ignore the tank pic, believe the kit always. All stalled cycle threads are test error events on this site, pull up any post for analysis.

all we get is the vial on a card not at zero, a pic or a video of a tank not in distress and without symptoms in 90% of cases where api shows positive ammonia

10% of the time, something has killed a fish (clicks avatar, sees post history, skips all disease preps) and that loss is blamed on whatever api said, which is always: your cycle is broken.

his reading above is part of a very rare quality seneye comparison, and it’s not the only one searchable. His follow up posting for the duration of the thread and other threads= unlikely doctor troll. Just a reefer with two test kits.


wanna see api‘s twin cousin red sea’s track record of misreads below? I’ve been collecting them, here. Every single tank in this thread is a symptomless reef tank shown, no cause, and a non digital test kit for total ammonia showing positive. We track the fear, the panic reaction buys and adds, the absolute unwillingness to factor fish disease in any loss scenario because of what these test kits cause in other people. There’s no doubt Taricha wields them like thors hammer, but in the workthread verse they’re wreckers.

 

[MnFish1]

Looks like a “Doctored,” test, since all tubes are filled to the brim.

The issue is that the tests are laying flat - which is not how you read API tests - they are read with the tubes held vertically, against the card - in bright light. The photo here also is in a shadow and difficult to interpret anything IMHO. According to the Seneye measurements - the ammonia is 0.04 - which is just below the 'alarm' level (>.05).

I don't think its a doctored test - however, its also an ammonia - according the the Seneye should probably have some active intervention. And certainly, the total ammonia per the API test is not 'normal'. There are many variables to look at with this case - and probably most of the other examples.

 

[MnFish1]

If I showed you ten more though? (Searchable by anyone)

they’re not doctored, they’re overfilled. Some were underfilled

in 1 min flat you can find pictures of misreading tubes filled right, stated shaken, stated not expired

naturally you and I never get to verify any of it, subjectivity rules the game and unreported/sometimes undetected confounds exist (one fav, not telling us they already spiked prime additive by seachem as a panic reaction)

all we get is the vial, a pic of a tank not in distress and without symptoms in 90% of cases where api shows positive ammonia

10% of the time, something has killed a fish (clicks avatar, sees post history, skips all disease preps) and that loss is blamed on whatever api said, which is always: your cycle is broken.

his reading above is part of a very rare quality seneye comparison, and it’s not the only one searchable. His follow up posting for the duration of the thread and other threads= unlikely doctor troll.

Curious - which test do you think the vast majority of reefers use when starting out? Second - are you saying that you have never seen a 'broken cycle' with another brand of test kit? Could what you're seeing be sampling error?

PS - his rare case also shows an ammonia (with Seneye) - thats too high and should probably not be stocking an aquarium without water changes

 

[brandon429]

Sustained Ammonia spikes are misreads

The reason you think your reef tank can’t control its ammonia is due to false training from old cycling science. That and you don’t own a seneye on the tank in question: if you did, you wouldn’t ever think your ammonia was out of control...

www.reef2reef.com

100% not broken cycles. 100% false misread ammonia alerts. If I built one of those collections for api, it would be 2.6 million pages long.


*T feel free to delete that since it’s mainly Red Sea. Not trying to sway topic, Red Sea isn’t api. I had examples of what api’s cousin does, api himself can be verified on google as all cycle concerners usually provide a tank pic that shows alternate verifications for ammonia (such as aged live rock, it’ll never permit ammonia noncontrol in a normal reef tank shown in the pics, we can see coralline, algae or benthic life forms for verify truly aged rocks in many api stalled tank examples)


I wouldn’t begin to post the actual api misread tests we’ve seen lately, it would fill up T’s thread.

 

[MnFish1]

@brandon429 Sorry I meant this to be included in the other posts - You have a feeling that you have a representative sample with the Seneye vs API. However, you're ignoring the multiple (real) studies that have been done by various people - with videos posted - showing that for the most part there are no differences between API and other brands - except the fact that some of the tests use smaller points between colors - meaning that theoretically they could be more reflective of the 'real' value.

 

[MnFish1]

@brandon429 PPS - Just because someone interprets their test as a 'stuck cycle' - does not mean its a problem of the test kit - more than likely its user error, overstocking or not giving all of the information. One example - if one follows the instructions on some of the Dr. Tims ammonia - to start with xx drops ammonia per xxx gallons - and that should give you 2 ppm ammonia. Per testing it does not always do so - due to drop size. Thus when I did my experiments - I used a syringe - and I believe 0.14 cc of NH4 provided a 2 ppm result consistently. However, if you use the Dr. Tims bottle, you could get anywhere from 2 to 8 ppm Ammonia. As I'm sure you're aware, ammonia > 5 ppm - can slow cycle/ be injurious to nitrifying bacteria.

 

[MnFish1]

@brandon429 PPS - Just because someone interprets their test as a 'stuck cycle' - does not mean its a problem of the test kit - more than likely its user error, overstocking or not giving all of the information. One example - if one follows the instructions on some of the Dr. Tims ammonia - to start with xx drops ammonia per xxx gallons - and that should give you 2 ppm ammonia. Per testing it does not always do so - due to drop size. Thus when I did my experiments - I used a syringe - and I believe 0.14 cc of NH4 provided a 2 ppm result consistently. However, if you use the Dr. Tims bottle, you could get anywhere from 2 to 8 ppm Ammonia. As I'm sure you're aware, ammonia > 5 ppm - can slow cycle/ be injurious to nitrifying bacteria.

By the way - very few people have problems with 'stuck cycles'. Though you've created a vocabulary of your own - no one else understand it - I've been reading posts for years - I don't understand it. I would suggest you change your area of expertise to 'the main issue quarantine' to the made up words, phrases, etc. that would lead anyone to think you are an expert in cycling tanks

 

[taricha]

wanna see api‘s twin cousin red sea’s track record of misreads below? I’ve been collecting them, here. Every single tank in this thread is a symptomless reef tank shown,

Right. The part of that discussion that I think is relevant here is that yes - API, Red Sea, Hanna and even Hach are the fundamentally the same total ammonia chemistry - "cousins" as you say - so whatever people are doing that might lead to misinterpretations of high ammonia on API, it's not from the reagents being bad - so the same people could just as easily generate the same conclusions from those other kits - because again the API reagents weren't the problem.