Help me read my API Cu test

[Crashjack]

I know this is an age-old issue, but to me, my test looks higher than it should be. I've added approx. 7.5 ml Coppersafe to my 10 gal QT (that's 10 gal actual water volume). Per the instructions, I would need 12.5 ml to reach therapeutic levels for 10 gallons. The only anomaly is that at the time I did my water change yesterday (3 gal), I had added about 5.2 ml to date, making the concentration .52 ml/gal. Therefore, I added 1.6 ml to my 3 gal replacement water, which should be just .04 ml over... obviously close enough. The 1.6 ml addition to the replacement water is not included in my 7.5 ml figure.

To me, these pics look to be between 1.0-2.0, when they should read between .50 and 1.0. I've got two fairy wrasses in the QT so I'm very paranoid (more than usual). Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Maritimer]

It does look like you're just about "there" ... but of course, the liquid in the vial appears deeply yellow, while the color card shows a peach-through-orange progression.

~Bruce, trying to see the intensity, rather than the hue

 

[Crashjack]

It does look like you're just about "there" ... but of course, the liquid in the vial appears deeply yellow, while the color card shows a peach-through-orange progression.

~Bruce, trying to see the intensity, rather than the hue

Oddly, the last two colors on the card look more brown/orange to me in real life but in the pictures, they have more of a red/pink hue to them.

 

[bean2986]

Best advice I can give is to measure out some spare water and dose it per the instructions, and check the color. You could also do a half dose to see what that looks like as well. That's what I did when I first started using Coppersafe.

 

[Crashjack]

Best advice I can give is to measure out some spare water and dose it per the instructions, and check the color. You could also do a half dose to see what that looks like as well. That's what I did when I first started using Coppersafe.

Yeah, I guess I'll have to, but doing this way assumes the concentration of the Coppersafe is accurate. For instance, if the test looks like it measures 3.0 by eyesight, and I match that in the QT, if it really is 3.0 and the concentration of Cu in the bottle was wrong, my fish are goners. Also, the instructions don't tell you where the dosage lands in ppm. Therefore, I don't know if 1.25 ml per gallon should yield 1.5 ppm, 2.0 ppm, or something inbetween... or if it matches the inaccurate 1.17 ppm they list on the box.

 

[Smo]

Not all agree but I have found I have to raise the vial 1/2" or so above the card to get a proper reading. Not like a Red Sea test. Alternatively, outside in bright sunlight helps too.

 

[Crashjack]

I ended up making a sample of .6 ml/gal, 1.2 ml/gal, and 1.8 ml/gal. I took several pictures of each test in the same spot with different lighting. I then sent the pictures to my PC. When I do my daily testing, I take pictures of my test in the same spot with the same lighting differences, send to my PC, and then try to analyze how it compares to my original samples. This is a very laborious process and probably not very accurate. In my opinion, the API test for this application is next to worthless. The colors on the card are too similar, the color of the sample doesn't really translate to the colors on the card, and the scale is way too big (you have to identify 1.5-2.0 on a card with 1.0 at one color and 2.0 at a similar color). Using CP is so much easier. If I ever have to use copper again, I'll look into the better test kit

 

[Humblefish]

If I ever have to use copper again, I'll look into the better test kit

It ain't cheap, but so much more accurate and easier to read: https://www.chemetrics.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=392

I bought one for my dad, because he flat out can't read the API anymore.

 

[Crashjack]

It ain't cheap, but so much more accurate and easier to read: https://www.chemetrics.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=392

I bought one for my dad, because he flat out can't read the API anymore.

Yeah, probably as much for the kit as the fish but piece of mind and fish safety are worth it. This go-round, I've already done 2 doses of GC and took about a week to ramp-up copper. I'm on day 3 of full-therapeutic and plan to run full-therapeutic only 10-11 days. I understand that isn't ideal, but I've got a better shot at keeping therapeutic levels without going over for 10-11 days than I have for 30.

 

[Humblefish]

Yeah, probably as much for the kit as the fish but piece of mind and fish safety are worth it. This go-round, I've already done 2 doses of GC and took about a week to ramp-up copper. I'm on day 3 of full-therapeutic and plan to run full-therapeutic only 10-11 days. I understand that isn't ideal, but I've got a better shot at keeping therapeutic levels without going over for 10-11 days than I have for 30.

10-11 days worth of therapeutic copper treatment is fine IF you can transfer the fish to an observation tank (at least 10' away) after that.

 

[Crashjack]

I understand. The fish will go straight to the display. I know the shortfalls, but I don't have a good way to run a 2nd QT, and the one wrasse will have been observed in the QT for a month, while also receiving 2 rounds of GC and the copper, and the other wrasse and two gobies will have been observed in the QT for 6+ weeks with the same medications. The wrasses have no strong competitors for food in the DT, nor are there any other wrasses that might bully. The two gobies will go first into an acclimation box to see how the lawn mower blenny reacts. Assuming all goes well, the gobies will be released 2-3 days later.

 

[Steve1500]

According to the copper safe instructions, you should view the vial from the side. But it seems most people on R2R read the vial from the top. Huge difference between the two methods. Obviously, the top view shows a much stronger ppm than from the side.
What do you all think is the more ACCURATE method?

 

[Steve1500]

According to the copper safe instructions, you should view the vial from the side. But it seems most people on R2R read the vial from the top. Huge difference between the two methods. Obviously, the top view shows a much stronger ppm than from the side.
What do you all think is the more ACCURATE method?

I'm not saying either method is accurate, just which is "more accurate" than the other?

 

[cmcoker]

I'm not saying either method is accurate, just which is "more accurate" than the other?

The API test kit instructions say to read from the top, above the white card. It should be held a bit above the card, not touching the card. I would, and do, follow the API test kit instructions when using Copper safe.

 

[Steve1500]

LOL! I was basing my statement off the wrong instructions! I was thinking of a different set of instructions. Thank you for the correction cmcoker.

Steve