Hannah Phosphate ULR Reliable??

[BrokenReefer]

I am pretty sure that I would trust water test results from an LFS over my own. Yes, it is another data point, but the blind faith that people have in LFS testing is questionable.

They used a Hannah Phosphate Low Range (H1713) ... at least I'm pretty sure that was the one they used. So that also confirms, for me, that they are accurate.

 

[BeanAnimal]

They used a Hannah Phosphate Low Range (H1713) ... at least I'm pretty sure that was the one they used. So that also confirms, for me, that they are accurate.

I don't find the Hanna Checkers all that reliable, depending on the test. The sample size is tiny and I had plenty of variation between reagent batches. Other's have had far better luck. Honestly, I have not used the ULR In almost a decade more than a handful of time, mostly recently to verify ReefBot results. Maybe things are better than they used to be, but regardless you MUST strictly adhere to a sample procedure and follow it every time.

As mentioned above, ICP is also false trust for PO4 (let alone anything else based on recent resident experiment) - they are using some form of acetic acid manual testing, no different than you do at home and quite possibly on an even smaller sample size due to limited sample

 

[Seansea]

As mentioned above, ICP is also false trust for PO4 (let alone anything else based on recent resident experiment) - they are using some form of acetic acid manual testing, no different than you do at home and quite possibly on an even smaller sample size due to limited sample

I dont find this to be true at all. Every time i send an icp test in i test my water myself with multiple test kits for some elements the day of. And the results come back very similar. I use ati icp and have found them very reliable.

And truth be told i find some of the api test kits the most reliable if you can read the colors right.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I dont find this to be true at all.

Hi

There is no “ICP test” for PO4 - they manually test using the same chemistry that we would use at home and simply add the result to your report. So believe it untrue if that suits you, but rest assured it is true.

Secondly, you can rely on whatever data you are comfortable with, but that does not make the rest of my statement untrue either.

This may be worth a read to you.

HOBBY GRADE TEST KITS CAN OUTPERFORM ICP MEASUREMENTS…REALLY??

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In May of 2022 we (@Dan_P, @taricha and I) posted an article that looked at the quality of the data reported by ICP-OES measurements from several vendors. Our goal was to help bring some clarity to the community to help evaluate and interpret the results of an ICP test...

www.reef2reef.com

Yes, some API reagents are very consistent and accurate, aside from the human error in reading endpoint color.

here

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

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...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[EricR]

I went to the LFS today with some water in tow, 1.39ppm; the Red Sea seems off but it's also likely human error (I don't know if the size of the droplets matter to the efficacy of the test but I did lop off a bigger chunk of the tip than intended).
Now I know where I'm at and how much more work there is to be done.

Unless I mis-read something, I think this suggests that your Hanna ULR is the more accurate of your two testers.
If planning to bring down PO4 anyway, personally I'd just trust your Hanna ULR until you have some reason not to.
If you have no plans to bring down PO4 to below 0.9 ppm (which is higher than most run but not necessarily a problem), then the Hanna ULR checker isn't the right tool for this scenario (obviously).

 

[buruskeee]

Might be trivial, but are you using the cool down timer (holding button for c2) when doing the test? Also what I do after vigorously shaking is roll the vial for a bit to get rid of all the bubbles (was reading 3x higher when I just shook the vial and left the bubbles). I also clean the test vial and the vial with reagent with a cloth to make sure there’s no oils on the surface.

 

[BrokenReefer]

Unless I mis-read something, I think this suggests that your Hanna ULR is the more accurate of your two testers.
If planning to bring down PO4 anyway, personally I'd just trust your Hanna ULR until you have some reason not to.
If you have no plans to bring down PO4 to below 0.9 ppm (which is higher than most run but not necessarily a problem), then the Hanna ULR checker isn't the right tool for this scenario (obviously).

I am presuming that the Red Sea provided an incorrect reading. PO4 is in the process of being reduced, waiting on a new heater (glass one dropped in the shower while drying) and I’ll do another 30% water change. Also got new RBRA GFO for the reactor, slowly bringing it down, I always knew it was elevated.

 

[BeanAnimal]

They used a Hannah Phosphate Low Range (H1713) ... at least I'm pretty sure that was the one they used. So that also confirms, for me, that they are accurate.

It is not so much the test kit being used, it is the test methodology... Not to belittle anybody, but your LFS is not employing lab techs. Most test kits will have WILDLY varying results based on exactly how the test is conducted. (drop size, timing, exactness of water volume, interpretation, etc.).

You almost ALWAYS better off buying two-three different test kits and comparing.

Then once you have one that you trust, you ALWAYS buy the same brand before you run out. Then you ALWAYS do 2-3 side-by-side tests on the same water sample with both kits when it is time to switch over. This way you can verify that the new kit matches the old. If you switch brands, same thing, you want to verify new against old before you run out of old.

 

[TWYOUNG]

Well, I’m sorry but it is true. My source is myself having to deal with dinos three times and having false results (0,9 ppm while ICP test showed 0,03 ppm). And when I decreased silicate levels, Hanna became reliable again.

There are countless comments about it on social media too. I’m far from the only one.

The other Hanna phosphate reader is fine though. It seems to be only with this particular one.

My experience has also been the Hanna LR tester seems to be accurate with silica present. At least more accurate than trying to distinguish some very slight tint variation on another test kit.

 

[Idech]

My experience has also been the Hanna LR tester seems to be accurate with silica present. At least more accurate than trying to distinguish some very slight tint variation on another test kit.

Yes, the LR is said to be accurate. Problem is with ULR.

 

[CoralB]

I should have gotten the high range tester since I’ve been chasing a wicked nitrate/phosphate spike for the past month. All that’s to say I am not sure. The reagent is a really faint blue color, which visually at least, tells me the my PO4 is down.

Is it possible that the tester is dirty? My kids may have gotten their dirty little fingers on it, especially my 1.5 yr old son. The little monster is teething so he’s sheets chewing on his fingers

Yes if the tubes are dirty or scratched it will affect the reading