ICP Analysis Comparison

[agent462]

I was curious in comparing results with different ICP Tests. I had already had some Triton tests so I picked up a pack of ICP-Analysis Tests.

I collected the water samples within seconds of each other after rinsing the containers several times. The water was also collected in the main tank in the same area.

Process:
Triton: You sign up on their site and attach your barcode to your account. They give you two vials which I'm guessing they use to compare results. You apply a sticker barcode to a vial, put it in the box, use the shipping label and off it goes. You get email updates as your package reaches California, get's shipped to Germany and when they receive it in Germany. Once the test is done you get an email and you log into the portal and see the results. You can also graph your values when you have multiple tests.

ICP-analysis: You sign up on their site. They give you a piece of paper to hand write your information on to be taped to their single vial. Once they are done with your results they email them to you. You can also go to their site and enter your email address to view results.

Opinion: Triton is way more polished and the process is smoother.

Shipping:
I packed them up and shipped them out. Triton is still shipping tests to Germany but I'm still impressed with the turn around time. Triton ended up taking 4 more days to get the results. Once they get the California facility up to do tests, it will be perfect.

ICP-analysis is in Colorado so naturally they are much quicker.

Opinion: ICP-analysis is quicker but Triton is very fast about turning your package around since you ship it to California and they ship it to Germany.

Results:
ICP is what we're supposed to trust, more. Test kits at home are fairly accurate with variance of errors. One ICP test was completely and utterly wrong and I knew it the second I looked at it.

Based on my home test kits (Salifert and Red Sea) and common sense ICP-analysis was completely and utterly wrong. Regardless, when I got the results they scared me so much I ran down to do extra testing. When I got the Triton results they backed up my home test kits.

Opinion: I would never trust ICP-analysis. Sadly, I already have a couple more pre-paid tests. I'll do the same thing when I do a Triton and send theirs out. I won't be buying anymore.

Results attached.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I was curious in comparing results with different ICP Tests. I had already had some Triton tests so I picked up a pack of ICP-Analysis Tests.

I collected the water samples within seconds of each other after rinsing the containers several times. The water was also collected in the main tank in the same area.

Process:
Triton: You sign up on their site and attach your barcode to your account. They give you two vials which I'm guessing they use to compare results. You apply a sticker barcode to a vial, put it in the box, use the shipping label and off it goes. You get email updates as your package reaches California, get's shipped to Germany and when they receive it in Germany. Once the test is done you get an email and you log into the portal and see the results. You can also graph your values when you have multiple tests.

ICP-analysis: You sign up on their site. They give you a piece of paper to hand write your information on to be taped to their single vial. Once they are done with your results they email them to you. You can also go to their site and enter your email address to view results.

Opinion: Triton is way more polished and the process is smoother.

Shipping:
I packed them up and shipped them out. Triton is still shipping tests to Germany but I'm still impressed with the turn around time. Triton ended up taking 4 more days to get the results. Once they get the California facility up to do tests, it will be perfect.

ICP-analysis is in Colorado so naturally they are much quicker.

Opinion: ICP-analysis is quicker but Triton is very fast about turning your package around since you ship it to California and they ship it to Germany.

Results:
ICP is what we're supposed to trust, more. Test kits at home are fairly accurate with variance of errors. One ICP test was completely and utterly wrong and I knew it the second I looked at it.

Based on my home test kits (Salifert and Red Sea) and common sense ICP-analysis was completely and utterly wrong. Regardless, when I got the results they scared me so much I ran down to do extra testing. When I got the Triton results they backed up my home test kits.

Opinion: I would never trust ICP-analysis. Sadly, I already have a couple more pre-paid tests. I'll do the same thing when I do a Triton and send theirs out. I won't be buying anymore.

Results attached.

I'm definitely interested in the discussion following this thread. This has been one of my major concerns with ICP testing. If it's supposed to remove user error, why are there reports of issues like this one? @Randy Holmes-Farley might be able to help us with some input?

 

[dbl]

Wow, that difference is disturbing! Following along to see what RHF and others have to say.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just using ICP does not mean the answer is correct.

Here's what I found a few years ago when trying VERY diligently on a single sample to determine calcium correctly before evaluating the Pinpoint calcium meter:

For initial testing I chose to use as the "standard" a sample of artificial seawater that was mixed to an approximate salinity of S=35. I mixed a 44-gallon batch using Instant Ocean artificial salt mix and reverse osmosis/deionized (RO/DI) water to a conductivity of 52.7 mS/cm, and allowed it to settle for three weeks. I then proceeded to measure its calcium concentration by ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, an $80,000 analytical instrument. I was somewhat disappointed with my inability to use this sophisticated technique to get a precise answer. Despite taking five different samples and analyzing them at eight different emission wavelengths using two different calibration methods (five standard additions of known calcium concentrations to each sample, as well as comparison to a fixed 1000 ppm commercial calcium standard), I was unable to get consistent values. Some of the samples were acidified or filtered through submicron filter membranes to determine if solid materials were impacting the result (they were not). Overall, I took more than 200 measurements, each involving three replicate observations of the emission intensity. Nevertheless, the result was not very satisfying, with a substantial variation occurring between the different values. The average of every measurement taken was 336 ppm. With the uncertainty involved, however, I'd conclude that the true value was probably 340 ± 40 ppm. I also measured the same sample once with a Salifert brand test kit and got 330 ppm calcium.

 

[Maacc]

Did you try to contact the company about the error?
I have run a couple tests head to head and gotten results similar to each other.

 

[agent462]

@Randy Holmes-Farley did your testing have a low standard deviation or was it a lot higher? Using calcium as the example ICP-analysis 255, Triton 422 that's a massive difference (167, almost 40% difference). My home test kits were way more inline with Calcium from Triton. The ICP Mag was also very different. I was also watching variance with my Salifert Sr test vs ICP; as expected I was disappointed.

 

[agent462]

Did you try to contact the company about the error?
I have run a couple tests head to head and gotten results similar to each other.

No, I have no real interest in going back and forth with them. I'm sharing my experience and level of trust one should give. I'm more satisfied with Triton's process, I will stick with them.

 

[rkpetersen]

Based on my home test kits (Salifert and Red Sea) and common sense ICP-analysis was completely and utterly wrong. Regardless, when I got the results they scared me so much I ran down to do extra testing. When I got the Triton results they backed up my home test kits.

Opinion: I would never trust ICP-analysis. Sadly, I already have a couple more pre-paid tests. I'll do the same thing when I do a Triton and send theirs out. I won't be buying anymore.

Yup. I've come to much the same conclusion. I posted this last week https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-test-vs-icp.326134/#post-4044262 , but I was trying to be nice about it.

ATI's spectroscopy kit, however, provided results similar to Triton's on one sample sent to both. Significantly, ATI also has you send them a sample of your RODI water, which they also analyze, at no additional charge. IMO, this is a fantastic additional feature and will tip the scales in their favor over Triton if the two company's results remain concordant on future sample submissions.

 

[rkpetersen]

Overall, I took more than 200 measurements, each involving three replicate observations of the emission intensity. Nevertheless, the result was not very satisfying, with a substantial variation occurring between the different values. The average of every measurement taken was 336 ppm. With the uncertainty involved, however, I'd conclude that the true value was probably 340 ± 40 ppm. I also measured the same sample once with a Salifert brand test kit and got 330 ppm calcium.

lol

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Randy Holmes-Farley did your testing have a low standard deviation or was it a lot higher? Using calcium as the example ICP-analysis 255, Triton 422 that's a massive difference (167, almost 40% difference). My home test kits were way more inline with Calcium from Triton. The ICP Mag was also very different. I was also watching variance with my Salifert Sr test vs ICP; as expected I was disappointed.

It was a long time ago, but I think what I did to determine the +/- 40 ppm was 2 standard deviations up and down. Maybe 1. There was a range, certainly, but not as far as you showed.

But Triton said they spent a long time optimizing their method for seawater. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I had not.

 

[agent462]

Yup. I've come to much the same conclusion. I posted this last week https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-test-vs-icp.326134/#post-4044262 , but I was trying to be nice about it.

ATI's spectroscopy kit, however, provided results similar to Triton's on one sample sent to both. Significantly, ATI also has you send them a sample of your RODI water, which they also analyze, at no additional charge. IMO, this is a fantastic additional feature and will tip the scales in their favor over Triton if the two company's results remain concordant on future sample submissions.

Interesting, I'll have to give the ATI one a shot. Any conspiracies they are using the same lab?

 

[rkpetersen]

Interesting, I'll have to give the ATI one a shot. Any conspiracies they are using the same lab?

That is a very interesting question, as the same thing had 0ccurred to me when I received both sets of results on the same day.

 

[YankeeTankee]

Just using ICP does not mean the answer is correct.

Here's what I found a few years ago when trying VERY diligently on a single sample to determine calcium correctly before evaluating the Pinpoint calcium meter:

For initial testing I chose to use as the "standard" a sample of artificial seawater that was mixed to an approximate salinity of S=35. I mixed a 44-gallon batch using Instant Ocean artificial salt mix and reverse osmosis/deionized (RO/DI) water to a conductivity of 52.7 mS/cm, and allowed it to settle for three weeks. I then proceeded to measure its calcium concentration by ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, an $80,000 analytical instrument. I was somewhat disappointed with my inability to use this sophisticated technique to get a precise answer. Despite taking five different samples and analyzing them at eight different emission wavelengths using two different calibration methods (five standard additions of known calcium concentrations to each sample, as well as comparison to a fixed 1000 ppm commercial calcium standard), I was unable to get consistent values. Some of the samples were acidified or filtered through submicron filter membranes to determine if solid materials were impacting the result (they were not). Overall, I took more than 200 measurements, each involving three replicate observations of the emission intensity. Nevertheless, the result was not very satisfying, with a substantial variation occurring between the different values. The average of every measurement taken was 336 ppm. With the uncertainty involved, however, I'd conclude that the true value was probably 340 ± 40 ppm. I also measured the same sample once with a Salifert brand test kit and got 330 ppm calcium.

Thanks Randy! Just to be clear, in layman's terms you're saying that ICP tests are not that accurate in your experience?

I'm seeing so many people who have taken samples on the same day/time and sent them in to different companies and gotten substantially different results.