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

[Dan_P]

I really do appreciate the work that goes into these experiments. I’d say from what I’m seeing comparing some of the ICP labs that the results are fairly accurate.

I cannot speak to Dan or Taricha’s testing abilities. Hehe. I would need to sit down with them and have them both perform 10 Hanna ULR Phosphorus tests with my sample water simultaneously (real-time) and compare their results with mine.

If we only lived closer, I would buy dinner after a hard day of testing!

 

[Dan_P]

Depleted is relative to your dose, but not to natural levels.

IMO, iron has an incredibly large acceptable range, up to at least 0.1 ppm, while the natural seawater surface concentration can be as low as 0.000006 ppm.

Thus, IMO, iron is one of those elements that can be dosed independent of measurement, and measurement may be of little actual benefit, and that is even ignoring the fact that ICP says nothing about the chemical form and hence says little about the bioavailability.

I think your point is extremely important. What is the acceptable concentration range for each element. Without this critical piece of information, we cannot establish whether or not an analytical method meets our needs. Maybe uncertain ICP results are OK if the acceptable range is wide. This notion can even make water changes, feeding and evaluating the coral’s appearance acceptable means to ensuring adequate trace element availability.

By the way how did we have such fantastic coral growth beforef high tech analytical methods were available?

 

[malacoda]

 

[rtparty]

Let’s just post our ICP results and find out who’s closer to target on all values so we can let everybody decide. If you don’t have one then I can pay for one, and we can collect the samples on the same day and send them in. Or I have one now to share if you do.

Going off your logic…If ICP is not accurate, there should be no way my results would be closer. There should be no way my trace metals would be tighter in the “ultra trace” range where we’re targeting between 0.2 - 1 ug/L. You should also have less pollutants if ICP isn’t accurate. How confident are you with what you’re saying?

You know this is all in fun as we’ve both been around a long time. So if I win, you have to join our Group and send ICP-MS monthly for 6 months, and make all the corrections, and give your honest opinions afterwards on color, growth, and stability. If you win, I’ll remove my Metal Haldies and Calcium Reactor from my system. Not! We’ll think of something!

I’ll also extend the same challenge to anybody else who thinks ICP is not accurate. Should be a slam dunk win IF your logic is right….but is it?

I ran Moonshiners for 2.5 years. I was part of the group and spoke with Andre many times. Moonshiners wasn't the cool new thing back then. Most had never heard of it.

I have no intentions of going back down that rabbit hole. Especially since I stopped it almost a year ago and my tank never skipped a beat. Growth, color, and health are all in line for what I want and expect. Growth is actually a pest in my eyes and I am not sure why anyone would actually want crazy fast growth if they aren't a farm.

 

[vetteguy53081]

Very well explained and detailed and was happy to see the accuracy of Hanna. In the article, to me "trusted" is based on accuracy. The type of tests performed which is safe to say were very time consuming were compared with others greatly and confirms my use of ICP - For comparison and ranges and rarely for adjustments. I still like an occasional ICP to see where items such as Manganese, iron, cobalt. iodine and a few others sit.
Appreciation in conducting and sharing this to you all

 

[Dan_P]

The issue I have with the overall conclusions are that that manual testers results are rather variable amongst themselves and this is from pros following strict protocols. Reagent batches raise another set of questions/variables and the average skillset of the average reefer doing the tests adds more uncertainty. So I would think that for the "average" reef keeper, the manual results will be as bad/worse (accuracy and precisions) than the ICP tests.

Yeah, I can see your reasoning. I don’t feel an ICP test is the answer though. We need to put our collection minds together and figure out something better than what is currently available.

My takeaway is that trace element dosing based on any of these methods is kinda of throwing darts in the dark.

@Dan_P
@taricha
@Rick Mathew
Thoughts?

Dosing trace elements is not the end of the story for successful reef keeping. Right now it’s has the characteristics of a fad like human supplements, mostly harmless, expensive, and you probably don’t need them. I will add to your dart throwing analogy by suggesting that the dart board seems to be missing

 

[Mark Gray]

Thanks for the article very helpful

 

[BeanAnimal]

Yeah, I can see your reasoning. I don’t feel an ICP test is the answer though. We need to put our collection minds together and figure out something better than what is currently available.

I do agree with that - and to that end ICP testing is expensive at any reasonable cadence to get enough data for trending - and I am not sure how precise it is even if the same vendor is used monthly. At least with at-home tests you can be consistent in methodology and if you plan well, ensure one batch of reagent matches its replacement by pairing tests during switchover to a new batch.

Dosing trace elements is not the end of the story for successful reef keeping. Right now it’s has the characteristics of a fad like human supplements, mostly harmless, expensive, and you probably don’t need them. I will add to your dart throwing analogy by suggesting that the dart board seems to be missing

I agree with that as well.

Thank (all of you) for the hard work on this though. Some may find it answers their questions, I find it only adds to mine

 

[BeanAnimal]

Especially since I stopped it almost a year ago and my tank never skipped a beat. Growth, color, and health are all in line for what I want and expect.

Sometimes undertaking a meticulous methodology improves ones overall technique, observational skills and general routine. Leaving the complex program behind often exposes that it was a placebo and the newly honed discipline and skills are actually the keys to success. Reefkeeping, dieting, weight lifting, business growth, interpersonal skills, whatever...

Growth is actually a pest in my eyes and I am not sure why anyone would actually want crazy fast growth if they aren't a farm.

Yes - once a system is filled out - who in the world wants to constantly trim coral unless they are farming it.

 

[Reefahholic]

Depleted is relative to your dose, but not to natural levels.

IMO, iron has an incredibly large acceptable range, up to at least 0.1 ppm, while the natural seawater surface concentration can be as low as 0.000006 ppm.

Thus, IMO, iron is one of those elements that can be dosed independent of measurement, and measurement may be of little actual benefit, and that is even ignoring the fact that ICP says nothing about the chemical form and hence says little about the bioavailability.

Correct. I should have specified my target range which is:

My target = 0.8-1.0 ug/L
OCEAMO target = 0.1-3.0 ug/L

 

[Reefahholic]

If we only lived closer, I would buy dinner after a hard day of testing!

That would be nice! I do enjoy testing, but I’m not sure why. I used to hate it. I think I realized that when I’m testing the chemistry things tend to go way smoother. Lol

 

[Reefahholic]

I did hear from Christoph regarding the iron. He had some interesting thoughts that I think will help us understand why this was happening. Honestly I was quite surprised about what he said, because none of it really crossed my mind. I’m not a chemist though. I’ll let him comment on that when he gets some time. He’s a pretty busy guy.

 

[areefer01]

Yeah, I can see your reasoning. I don’t feel an ICP test is the answer though. We need to put our collection minds together and figure out something better than what is currently available.

What is available today that offers similar results to the standard hobbyist? What is the turn around time? Won't go into the accuracy, precision, etc. Just curious what this would be.

Questions come to mind if we even need these sorts of tests? What value do they add? Can they evolve and be cheaper, quicker, more accurate or consistent? Similar questions for products like eDNA and their respected data model and easier to consume results/reports.

Yeah we didn't have this sort of thing back many years ago but we also didn't have ice at one time either. Maybe we complicated the hobby when we shouldn't have. Marketing?

 

[Echale3]

@Dan_P, @taricha, and @Rick Mathew:

I have questions about a number of things that didn't appear to be addressed in my quick read of the initial post. I haven't thoroughly read all the posts on this thread or the linked studies the OP and others performed, so the answers may lie in there somewhere.

If they do, please excuse me for asking a question that's already been answered.

When you sent the samples in for analysis to each lab and to each individual, what containers did you use for each analyte and what sample preservation methods were performed? Normally, sample preservatives (when required) are added to the collection container at or before the time of sample collection.

Did the data rec'd back from the labs contain the data validation documentation for each analyte so that you could verify that the analyses were in control? If not, were any of the analyses flagged for any particular reason such as being out of hold time or a data validation failure? With regard to validation documentation, I'm talking things like Initial and Continuing Calibration analyses for each batch where one of the samples of interest was analyzed, Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate analyses for that batch, Blanks for that batch (Trip, Method, Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks), any Serial Dilutions for that batch, etc?

Was any sample of interest selected to be spiked for any of the MS/MSD analyses?

When the samples were sent to the individuals running the "at home" tests, what sample containers were used and what sample preservation methods were employed for each analyte of interest?

Since you were using NIST standards to spike some samples, I'm curious what the method of measurement for the spike being added was?

Were any/all the third party labs used certified for Drinking Water Analysis?

The reason I ask is that it's my experience that labs currently are more interested in sample throughput and keeping analytical costs competitive against other labs than producing high quality data.

The colorimetric methods used by my Hanna testers are tried and true, and, while not the current analytical method selected for high lab throughput, said method can be both highly accurate and precise when the analyst does his/her job properly and any matrix biases are known and can be accounted for. To my mind, it's no wonder that the labs came back with reduced accuracy, higher SDs, and higher Confidence Intervals when tested across the labs due to their current push for high output volume and low analytical pricing. Admittedly there was something of a dearth of data that prevented good inter and intra comparisons for the labs, but that's a discussion for another day.

 

[Reefahholic]

By the way how did we have such fantastic coral growth beforef high tech analytical methods were available?

Dan, I don’t think anybody is trying to argue that you can’t grow corals without sending ICP or dosing trace elements.

My argument is that a system can grow and function better if you have some of these elements present, and more data to act on.

Why?

I’ve seen reefers with really bad source water or several pollutants in the system. Their growth is either very slow or almost
no consumption at all. When you remove fix the source water and start removing pollution from the system, the corals will begin to grow again or grow faster. If you’re not checking, your zinc level could be 50 ug/L. Why would any smart reefer risk that? I personally would rather not leave the corals vulnerable to pollution, uv damage, thermal stress, or pathogens. For me this is common sense stuff.

The new studies talk about different pathway and processes that many of these elements play a role in. Shouldn’t we consider that this makes a lot of sense, and maybe this is why reefers continue to have STN/RTN events? When some of these elements are becoming depleted or too high, my thoughts are that some processes are slowing down or stopping completely. I think this results in slower growth, decreased color, and weaker stability.

Let’s examine this picture below:

Please let me know your thoughts and what you disagree with about what I said above.

 

[Rick Mathew]

That would be nice! I do enjoy testing, but I’m not sure why. I used to hate it. I think I realized that when I’m testing the chemistry things tend to go way smoother. Lol

I am right there with you...testing is one of my favorite parts of the hobby

 

[Reefahholic]

What is available today that offers similar results to the standard hobbyist? What is the turn around time? Won't go into the accuracy, precision, etc. Just curious what this would be.

These are my thoughts as well. A lot of reefers have poor words about ICP, but they do not offer a better solution or way of reefing that yields more success. It’s always less success for what I see.

Trust me, if somebody is able to grow corals better and faster than what I’m doing…please…teach me they way! I’m not here for slow growth. I’m in it to win it. I’m after big colonies at least 12” across, and when I get to that point I’ll let the grow slow down and relax. Let’s face it…corals grow very slow for the first couple of years. Most of us today are starting with dry rock systems that were not utilized hardly at all 10-20 years ago. Most people were using LR back then. We need all the darn help we can get!

Coral Fragz grows corals probably faster than anybody, and he’s using the same
method I am. How do I know? Because he’s sent his ICP to me and we’ve talked about how he runs his system. So until somebody can beat that guy and teach me their method of doing so…I’ll keep sending ICP’s and correcting the elements. Yes, it can get expensive and it’s not for everybody. I get it, but if you’re going to knock it, please offer a better solution, and show me how to do it.

FYI, most will say something about water changes. Ok, the cost of water changes is insane. The volume and frequency you’ll need to change to keep up with a fast growing system is probably more or equal to buying elements and sending ICP’s and you will still lack the precision needed to hit a good target range.

 

[Rick Mathew]

I am not sure that I disagree with the conclusions, but I a also not sure that I agree... This is not a knock on the project, methods or choices made at all and maybe I am missing something obvious. What has been compiled here is pretty amazing one way or the other, so I am not (at all) finding fault or being critical. It is just the conclusions that I am shaky on.

Let me explain and maybe somebody can steer me in the right direction.

A concrete takeaway is that ICP tests are not great, and that is certainly disappointing but what I assumed to be the case already.

The issue I have with the overall conclusions are that that manual testers results are rather variable amongst themselves and this is from pros following strict protocols. Reagent batches raise another set of questions/variables and the average skillset of the average reefer doing the tests adds more uncertainty. So I would think that for the "average" reef keeper, the manual results will be as bad/worse (accuracy and precisions) than the ICP tests.

My takeaway is that trace element dosing based on any of these methods is kinda of throwing darts in the dark.

@Dan_P
@taricha
@Rick Mathew
Thoughts?

Yes I clearly understand your point...From my perspective we set out to show that it could be possible that "that commonly available Hobby Grade Testing Kits when used correctly and with good laboratory practices, can provide equally accurate and precise results as compared to ICP Testing for selected elements.” fully recognizing not everyone would be as rigorous about the testing as we might be. That being said conducting a test using best lab practices is well within the capabilities of most....It is a choice made be the individual doing the test and in within their control...whereas once you have sent your sample to the ICP vendor it is all behind the curtain and all that we see is the end result...Kinda Like the "Wizard" in The Wizard of OZ

Thanks very much for your input!

 

[Reefahholic]

I am right there with you...testing is one of my favorite parts of the hobby

One day I will get Rick, Dan, Taricha, and Randy over to the dark side. Randy already admitting he would do some trace element testing next time around. If that happens they will be thinking why did we fight this.? The OCEAMO ICP-MS world is nice. They could still perform all their testing to make sure they are staying in safe range’s. It’s a win win. Tank is better…growth is better…no pollutants sneaking up.

 

[Rick Mathew]

One day I will get Rick, Dan, Taricha, and Randy over to the dark side. Randy already admitting he would do some trace element testing next time around. If that happens they will be thinking why did we fight this.? The OCEAMO ICP-MS world is nice. They could still perform all their testing to make sure they are staying in safe range’s. It’s a win win. Tank is better…growth is better…no pollutants sneaking up.

Your not going to say "You are my Father" are you ...Actually I do not at all see it as the Dark Side...I see it as a side the needs "Illumination"...I think Christoph lit the first candle in his post in July...it would be very "Illuminating" if others would follow suit and it would become a feature of each report...Just my take