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

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Is there a potential that filtering the sample is removing larger size pollutants that might be important to know?

That's a question that only the user can answer, but no individual molecules are filtered out by a 0.2 micron filter unless they simply stick to the filter. The pores are sized to remove things like whole bacteria and chunks of detritus.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’ve told them the same. Let’s face it. Most reefers only test 5 parameters (Alk, Ca, Mg, P, N. Only a handful of stick-heads will test K, Fe, Cu, Sr, I, etc. When reefers do actually test the other more difficult elements, they typically don’t come up with very accurate numbers.

This is a red herring. The take away was that it doesn’t matter what was tested, but that the ICP results were not as accurate or repeatable as most universally accept they are. It follows the if the 8 tested were not accurate then the 40 not tested follow the same trend.

 

[Lasse]

8 tested were not accurate then the 40 not tested follow the same trend.

Not necessary like that.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Reefahholic]

This is a red herring. The take away was that it doesn’t matter what was tested, but that the ICP results were not as accurate or repeatable as most universally accept they are. It follows the if the 8 tested were not accurate then the 40 not tested follow the same trend.

You should stay away from ICP then.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You should stay away from ICP then.

That is the purpose of this thread, isn't it. To determine if folks should take other approaches or not based on measures of accuracy.

 

[Reefahholic]

That's a question that only the user can answer, but no individual molecules are filtered out by a 0.2 micron filter unless they simply stick to the filter. The pores are sized to remove things like whole bacteria and chunks of detritus.

Exactly.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Not necessary like that.

Sincerely Lasse

When somebody shows me data otherwise, then i will very happily accept it.

The data presented in this thread, and elsewhere indicate otherwise. The vendors results do not agree with themselves sometimes, let alone with other vendors. This can't just blindly be dismissed.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You should stay away from ICP then.

Yes - prior to this thread and after a bit of other research I was ready to start mailing off ICP-EOS tests twice a month to triton... then based on some advice to OCEAMO ICP-MS

Now - not a chance. I am going to save my money. I may send one here or there, but with the understanding that the values are possibly erroneous or a matter of the vendors interpretation, as well as the understanding that they may or may not be measuring the bio-available form and/or the tested sample may not actually be representative of my actual tank water due to latency, decay, chemical or biological reaction, filtering, etc,

 

[Pod_01]

I may send one here or there, but with the understanding that the values are possibly erroneous or a matter of the vendors interpretation, as well as the understanding that they may or may not be measuring the bio-available form and/or the tested sample may not actually be representative of my actual tank water due to latency, decay, chemical or biological reaction, filtering, etc,

Just an opinion, but I think that is wonderful plan. That is what I do, my ICP test frequency is once a month or once every two months or three (depends on my mood).
I still use some of the Hanna eggs and titration tests to thoroughly confuse myself.
But I do dose trace elements, and I feed and I try to make sure the fish are fat and happy and that they produce fertilizer… I think with all that there should be enough trace elements in my tank.

In my humble opinion ICP, Hanna or titration test etc…. are just tools to use or abuse.

These days I look at the corals and decide if some action is required. I am not a coral farmer, nor do I sell corals so the tank has to look good to me and the process has to be fun (I prefer KISS methods).

Unfortunately one needs some experience observing corals to figure out something is off, when I started it was just wild guess and lot of white sticks to look at and going hmmm…. I think that looks dead.

 

[Reefahholic]

Yes - prior to this thread and after a bit of other research I was ready to start mailing off ICP-EOS tests twice a month to triton... then based on some advice to OCEAMO ICP-MS

Now - not a chance. I am going to save my money. I may send one here or there, but with the understanding that the values are possibly erroneous or a matter of the vendors interpretation, as well as the understanding that they may or may not be measuring the bio-available form and/or the tested sample may not actually be representative of my actual tank water due to latency, decay, chemical or biological reaction, filtering, etc,

Nah, you’d be better off not sending any at all. It’s just far too risky! Plus, there is no evidence that trace element dosing is beneficial at all. You should stick to water changes.

 

[Reefahholic]

When somebody shows me data otherwise, then i will very happily accept it.

The data presented in this thread, and elsewhere indicate otherwise. The vendors results do not agree with themselves sometimes, let alone with other vendors. This can't just blindly be dismissed.

Here’s your data. Look at the date in the first pic. Wink Wink.

Tyree Pinky the Bear. Anybody have a bigger colony here?

 

[areefer01]

Nah, you’d be better off not sending any at all. It’s just far too risky! Plus, there is no evidence that trace element dosing is beneficial at all. You should stick to water changes.

But I think that is the kicker. There are additive based solutions that rely on hobby grade kits and not ICP that are just as awesome.

Look at any of Glenn Fong's displays with his DSR method.

 

[Dan_P]

Not necessary like that.

Sincerely Lasse

I agree Lasse, but that still leaves us not knowing what the situation really is. It is pretty much a coin flip at this point, accurate v appriximation. Since we aren’t trying to land a spacecraft on an asteroid using ICP data, and since we still don’t have a firm answer for how important the concentration of each trace element is for growing coral, the accuracy of the hobby ICP trade may not be that critical.

 

[jda]

I have seen tanks that look better than that going back to dial-up BB days. Those who are old enough should make the modem sound right now! I think that the weak-minded who see photos like these and think that they matter at all are not participating on this thread.

 

[Reefahholic]

the accuracy of the hobby ICP trade may not be that critical.

;-)

 

[Reefahholic]

I have seen tanks that look better than that going back to dial-up BB days. Those who are old enough should make the modem sound right now! I think that the weak-minded who see photos like these and think that they matter at all are not participating on this thread.

They don’t like when you post evidence! Jda the difference is that he grew those in 2 years, and most about 1-1.5 yrs.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here’s your data. Look at the date in the first pic. Wink Wink.

Tyree Pinky the Bear. Anybody have a bigger colony here?

and the 100 year old man who smokes a pack a day means what, exactly?

This is getting to be a tiresome and ridiculous advertisement for someone’s baby rather than a discussion of the merits of icp vs kit testing.

 

[jda]

If we are showing photos that don't mean anything here, I have one...

This is a COLONY that I am watching for a local guy who is upgrading tanks. This COLONY was MOVED a few weeks ago. MOVED tanks. He cut it off the rock that it was on, so it lost all of it's base. Any of you worth your salt knows how VERY hard that it is to move a colony and not only have it survive, but thrive. The move broke off most of the tips, which happens. In the few weeks since, the tips have all healed an put on new growth to where you cannot even tell. This colony is in a fuge since I don't have room in a display for this large of piece, so not even the most ideal environment that I can have for it... but it is doing great, I think.

This is in my home. It is not some frag of easy-to-keep corals like montis or A. Austera. This is also not photos of somebody else's tank. However, this photo and my methods are as useless as the others on here, so I guess that I don't know why I even posted this? I guess that I have to wonder if an inch of new growth on a colony after a move could have been three inches if I only knew what my Cadmium or Selenium levels were.

This colony getting moved and thriving/growing in a few weeks is a big-boy-pants reefing event, I think. I guess that I am just lucky...

 

[KStatefan]

This thread started out very good but Jumped the Shark pages ago.

Again I want the thank the people that did this experiment it made me more confident in my testing at home.

 

[Reefahholic]

This is a COLONY that I am watching for a local guy who is upgrading tanks. This COLONY was MOVED a few weeks ago. MOVED tanks. He cut it off the rock that it was on, so it lost all of it's base. Any of you worth your salt knows how VERY hard that it is to move a colony and not only have it survive, but thrive. The move broke off most of the tips, which happens. In the few weeks since, the tips have all healed an put on new growth to where you cannot even tell. This colony is in a fuge since I don't have room in a display for this large of piece, so not even the most ideal environment that I can have for it... but it is doing great, I think.

Very nice. Yes, that can be very difficult because big colonies like that get very cranky.