First impressions of Hanna Magnesium Checker HI783 (No more titration for me)

Muffin87 · May 6, 2022

I got the magnesium checker about a week ago.

It's very easy to use, comparable to the Alkalinity checker in terms of ease of use. There's only one extra liquid reagent to mix with the unreacted sample water, when concocting the "blank" cuvette for C1.

When I first got it, I first checked its accuracy against a one year old bottle of ATI reference 1000 ml.
The bottle said 1313 ppm magnesium, the tester said 1380 ppm. My bad, old bottle and nearly used up.

Today, I checked its accuracy again against a new bottle of ATI reference that I've just got in a few hours ago.
Again, the ICP-tested bottle says 1313 ppm magnesium, but the test this time says 1345 ppm. Closer.

It seems to me that - in terms of accuracy - this is comparable to a titration test kit, like the Salifert one, just much easier, quicker, and with a digital read-out.
They both seem to have that plus minus 30 ppm range of uncertainty.
Perhaps, if I found a better way to measure the quantity of liquid reagents and water (instead of the provided syringes), the accuracy could be better.

Finally, in this test there's no powder reagent to get out of hellish foil pouches. That alone is a reason to rejoice!

glb · May 6, 2022

Muffin87 said:
I got the magnesium checker about a week ago.

It's very easy to use, comparable to the Alkalinity checker in terms of ease of use. There's only one extra liquid reagent to mix with the unreacted sample water, when concocting the "blank" cuvette for C1.

When I first got it, I first checked its accuracy against a one year old bottle of ATI reference 1000 ml.
The bottle said 1313 ppm magnesium, the tester said 1380 ppm. My bad, old bottle and nearly used up.

Today, I checked its accuracy again against a new bottle of ATI reference that I've just got in a few hours ago.
Again, the ICP-tested bottle says 1313 ppm magnesium, but the test this time says 1345 ppm. Closer.

It seems to me that - in terms of accuracy - this is comparable to a titration test kit, like the Salifert one, just much easier, quicker, and with a digital read-out.
They both seem to have that plus minus 30 ppm range of uncertainty.
Perhaps, if I found a better way to measure the quantity of liquid reagents and water (instead of the provided syringes), the accuracy could be better.

Finally, in this test there's no powder reagent to get out of hellish foil pouches. That alone is a reason to rejoice!

Thanks for the review! I didn’t realize it had come out.

Chrisv. · May 6, 2022

Nice! I may actually start testing magnesium!

fishface NJ · May 6, 2022

glb said:
Thanks for the review! I didn’t realize it had come out.

Is it out here in the States? Europe yes

Muffin87 · May 6, 2022

fishface NJ said:
Is it out here in the States? Europe yes

I'm in Italy. Got one from a Czech shop that sells them at the lowest price available.

ReeferboyJay · May 6, 2022

I also brought one today, I can't get it to read anywhere near right. I haven't got any ref solution to test it against but compared to my recent (Monday of this week) ICP results it's reading >400ppm to high. I have tested 3 times now, two of the tests were >1700ppm and one was >1500ppm. My ICP results from a sample taken on Monday were 1286ppm. I note that the instructions state both the reagents and sample water need to be between 18-28 degrees c. Tank water is 25.5 so that's OK, I do not have a spare temp probe to check the reagents, however as they've been indoors for several hours they should have certainly been within the acceptable range.

Dan Kfir · May 10, 2022

Muffin87 said:
I got the magnesium checker about a week ago.

It's very easy to use, comparable to the Alkalinity checker in terms of ease of use. There's only one extra liquid reagent to mix with the unreacted sample water, when concocting the "blank" cuvette for C1.

When I first got it, I first checked its accuracy against a one year old bottle of ATI reference 1000 ml.
The bottle said 1313 ppm magnesium, the tester said 1380 ppm. My bad, old bottle and nearly used up.

Today, I checked its accuracy again against a new bottle of ATI reference that I've just got in a few hours ago.
Again, the ICP-tested bottle says 1313 ppm magnesium, but the test this time says 1345 ppm. Closer.

It seems to me that - in terms of accuracy - this is comparable to a titration test kit, like the Salifert one, just much easier, quicker, and with a digital read-out.
They both seem to have that plus minus 30 ppm range of uncertainty.
Perhaps, if I found a better way to measure the quantity of liquid reagents and water (instead of the provided syringes), the accuracy could be better.

Finally, in this test there's no powder reagent to get out of hellish foil pouches. That alone is a reason to rejoice!

I also have this checker, but Always I get wrong results.

Muffin87 · May 10, 2022

Dan Kfir said:
I also have this checker, but Always I get wrong results.

I believe you must be very careful with the micro bubbles in the preparation of the blank.
Theyre very small but they are there.

chyllhouse · May 10, 2022

Muffin87 said:
I got the magnesium checker about a week ago.

It's very easy to use, comparable to the Alkalinity checker in terms of ease of use. There's only one extra liquid reagent to mix with the unreacted sample water, when concocting the "blank" cuvette for C1.

When I first got it, I first checked its accuracy against a one year old bottle of ATI reference 1000 ml.
The bottle said 1313 ppm magnesium, the tester said 1380 ppm. My bad, old bottle and nearly used up.

Today, I checked its accuracy again against a new bottle of ATI reference that I've just got in a few hours ago.
Again, the ICP-tested bottle says 1313 ppm magnesium, but the test this time says 1345 ppm. Closer.

It seems to me that - in terms of accuracy - this is comparable to a titration test kit, like the Salifert one, just much easier, quicker, and with a digital read-out.
They both seem to have that plus minus 30 ppm range of uncertainty.
Perhaps, if I found a better way to measure the quantity of liquid reagents and water (instead of the provided syringes), the accuracy could be better.

Finally, in this test there's no powder reagent to get out of hellish foil pouches. That alone is a reason to rejoice!

thanks for this was considering getting these testers

wotis11 · May 21, 2022

I just got mine in the mail today. I checked my magnesium in my tank and it said it was 1630. My trident says it is 1480 so I checked it with my Red Sea mag test and it came up with 1600. My trident reagents will need to be changed sometime this week so when I calibrate my trident I will check my Hanna checker against the calibration solution for my trident to see how close it is

rtparty · May 21, 2022

Reviews are pouring in for these and all of them are reading 300-400ppm high.

I figured this was another Hanna checker that is too good to be true

Muffin87 · May 21, 2022

rtparty said:
Reviews are pouring in for these and all of them are reading 300-400ppm high.

I figured this was another Hanna checker that is too good to be true

Lol clearly not all of them.

rtparty · May 21, 2022

Muffin87 said:
Lol clearly not all of them.

Out of the dozen plus I've seen, yours is the only one to be this close

homer1475 · May 22, 2022

wotis11 said:
I just got mine in the mail today. I checked my magnesium in my tank and it said it was 1630. My trident says it is 1480 so I checked it with my Red Sea mag test and it came up with 1600. My trident reagents will need to be changed sometime this week so when I calibrate my trident I will check my Hanna checker against the calibration solution for my trident to see how close it is

rtparty said:
Out of the dozen plus I've seen, yours is the only one to be this close

This one seems to be pretty precise. Red sea said 1600, hanna said 1630. Only odd number here is the trident saying 1480.

If 2 tests says they are close to each other, and one is wildly different, which one would you believe? From what I'm seeing, is they are pretty accurate.

Been on the fence about picking one up, as mag is something I only test like once a month. Might still as I simply hate titration tests.

rtparty · May 22, 2022

homer1475 said:
This one seems to be pretty precise. Red sea said 1600, hanna said 1630. Only odd number here is the trident saying 1480.

If 2 tests says they are close to each other, and one is wildly different, which one would you believe? From what I'm seeing, is they are pretty accurate.

Been on the fence about picking one up, as mag is something I only test like once a month. Might still as I simply hate titration tests.

Red Sea magnesium is one of the worst out there.

There are great posts on the BRS Facebook group about all of this. When the first to get them are all reporting high readings, it's not a coincidence

homer1475 · May 22, 2022

I'm, ok with high since all I'm looking for is above 1200. My tank is typically in the 1600 range anyways, and I never add mag. lol

Not on the book of faces, but thanks for the heads up.,

sublime275 · May 22, 2022

Just to add my experience with this tester. I received my mine yesterday and tried it out this morning. I first tested it using the Fauna Marin reference solution which has a listed Mg level of 1315 (which was been verified by my Salifert & Aquaforest test kits). The Hanna tester gave me readings of 1455, 1510 & 1580. As others have said it reads higher than it should and it also has a high level of variability between readings. More than the plus or minus 5% it states in its specifications. As much as I wanted to like this tester, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

Viet658 · May 22, 2022

The Hanna isn’t giving me consistent results. First test was flashing 1800 which means results are out of range. Second test indicated 1695. Aqua forest testing at 1470.