Favorite calcium test

[ReefJCB]

Im in the market for a calcium test kit, what are your favorite kits and why?

 

[Xclusive Reef]

I have used Hanna and Aquaforest I like Aqua Forest calcium test. Cheap and was just as accurate as hanna. been using it for a long time now

 

[Hitman]

Salifert: Accurate and available almost anywhere.

 

[JVU]

The annoying thing about the Salifert CA test, which I use, is that one of the dropper bottles (CA2) is unbelievably unreliable. Sometimes you get a normal drop but most of the drops are only a variable fraction of a full drop volume, so you are always left guessing how many drops you’ve actually put in. It is very frustrating.

There are lots of complaints about this, why don’t they just use a better tip for the bottle, like they do for everything else?!

The only reason I checked out this thread was to find a good alternative to Salifert.

 

[SDK]

Second vote for Aquaforest. Inexpensive, straightforward and consistent....

 

[Butuz]

+1 for Salifert

 

[jsker]

I use the Hanna and have the Aquaforest as a back up.

 

[Gareth elliott]

I use saliert too. All of the tests have a +/- 5% error percentage give or take. Only calcium test i dislike is the red sea one. Ive even found the api one within the same accuracy range. But titrating with a dropper bottle is quite tedious imo.

 

[JimWelsh]

+1 Salifert (until Neptune Trident comes out, that is).

 

[Hitman]

The annoying thing about the Salifert CA test, which I use, is that one of the dropper bottles (CA2) is unbelievably unreliable. Sometimes you get a normal drop but most of the drops are only a variable fraction of a full drop volume, so you are always left guessing how many drops you’ve actually put in. It is very frustrating.

There are lots of complaints about this, why don’t they just use a better tip for the bottle, like they do for everything else?!

The only reason I checked out this thread was to find a good alternative to Salifert.

You don't count the drops on a Salifert test kit you go by the number lines on the syringe

 

[KrisReef]

My calcium is very stable so I only measure Ca now and again to be certain it hasn’t gone off wandering.
I have a salifert that I use, but I like API because it is easy to use and close enough to indicate that the calcium is ok, or not.

API is fast to measure and very economical to purchase and I get the same results as the more expensive test kits.

 

[KrisReef]

Ahrgh!
The dreaded double post. Never try to use the IPhone when operating a BBQ.
Pork chops with jerk sauce, and this is the closest I got today to an April 1 joke.
Please forgive my careless error.

 

[JimWelsh]

You don't count the drops on a Salifert test kit you go by the number lines on the syringe

You do count the drops of Ca-2 in the Salifert kit, but it isn't quantitative; you just have to get enough hydroxide in the sample to precipitate the magnesium.

 

[JVU]

You don't count the drops on a Salifert test kit you go by the number lines on the syringe

I’m complaining about the drops of the CA2 step (as I said) not the CA3 step. I don’t have a problem with the CA3 titration step.

The bottle tip design makes the whole test less reliable and satisfying. Especially irksome since it was just a poor packaging decision many years ago that they can’t be bothered to fix.

 

[JimWelsh]

The bottle tip design makes the whole test less reliable and satisfying.

I agree with your frustration trying to use that bottle. I've developed a technique where I hold the bottle upright next to the vial, squeeze the bottle to expel some air, then flip it over while releasing the squeeze, letting the air bubble back in. Done correctly, it prevents stray drops, and leaves a slight vacuum in the bottle, giving good control over the drops.

As far as the test being less reliable, I'm not sure I agree. Like I said above, all you have to do is get enough of the reagent (a hydroxide, probably NaOH) into the vial to bind up all the magnesium. If in doubt, add another drop. Too much won't hurt, and you would have to seriously undershoot before you'd be adding too little to get the job done.

 

[JVU]

I agree with your frustration trying to use that bottle. I've developed a technique where I hold the bottle upright next to the vial, squeeze the bottle to expel some air, then flip it over while releasing the squeeze, letting the air bubble back in. Done correctly, it prevents stray drops, and leaves a slight vacuum in the bottle, giving good control over the drops.

As far as the test being less reliable, I'm not sure I agree. Like I said above, all you have to do is get enough of the reagent (a hydroxide, probably NaOH) into the vial to bind up all the magnesium. If in doubt, add another drop. Too much won't hurt, and you would have to seriously undershoot before you'd be adding too little to get the job done.

Thanks for the advice about using the bottle, I’ll try that.

In my opinion the fact that this is a point of discussion at all about unique ways to make the bottle work despite the design means it is lacking from a design perspective.

I definitely have had it mess up my results several times, then when I repeat using excess CA2 it works fine. I now usually just don’t count the smaller drops even though they aren’t nothing, so I’m wasting some reagent but it works.

I think it’s overall a good test besides this one issue, but obviously I’m not totally satisfied with it.

 

[JimWelsh]

Thanks for the advice about using the bottle, I’ll try that.

Pro tip: Hold the bottle with your hand "palm up" during the initial "squeeze", so that when you flip it over, it is in the natural position for delivering the drops.