ICP Machine Differences?

[Ryan - Serious Reefs]

I had an industry peer tell me there are two manufacturers of ICP-OES commonly used in our hobby.

• Agilant has only one ICP-OES and that is pretty bad for salt water.
• Spectro has three machines: The “Blue” (entry level), the “Green” (medium level) and “Acros” (most expensive).

I was curious if anyone here could validate these statements or if any of the companies offering reef ICP testing shared the machines they use.

 

[GSPClown94]

This company seems to have a lot of info on this sort of stuff. Maybe they could help answer any questions you have about this topic.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I had an industry peer tell me there are two manufacturers of ICP-OES commonly used in our hobby.

• Agilant has only one ICP-OES and that is pretty bad for salt water.
• Spectro has three machines: The “Blue” (entry level), the “Green” (medium level) and “Acros” (most expensive).

I was curious if anyone here could validate these statements or if any of the companies offering reef ICP testing shared the machines they use.

Some of the companies do tell what machines they use. I also would not assume that a machine is the full story any more than a baseball bat is the key to being a good hitter. They need to be properly run, maintained, and tested against appropriate standards and such.

The type of icp may be more important than the manufacturer, with ICP-MS having a lower limit of detection for many trace elements. I assume you know this, but other readers may not.

Oceamo indicates they use an Agilent ICP-MS for their ms studies. I'm not sure what else they use, but perhaps @Christoph can expound on the merits of the machines he uses since he bought them. :)

ATI uses an Arcos II ICP-OES and an Agilent ICP-MS.

 

[areefer01]

I had an industry peer tell me there are two manufacturers of ICP-OES commonly used in our hobby.

• Agilant has only one ICP-OES and that is pretty bad for salt water.
• Spectro has three machines: The “Blue” (entry level), the “Green” (medium level) and “Acros” (most expensive).

I was curious if anyone here could validate these statements or if any of the companies offering reef ICP testing shared the machines they use.

Probably have already done so but if not shoot them a message and see if they reply? I'm sure you may already be on first name basis with them. I know FM a couple of times has showed machines with the manufacture and I recall one being the SpectreoGREEN.

Not sure here if the the traditional hobbyist will know the answer to this. You would probably have a better way to get that information.

 

[Ryan - Serious Reefs]

Some of the companies do tell what machines they use. I also would not assume that a machine is the full story any more than a baseball bat is the key to being a good hitter. They need to be properly run, maintained, and tested against appropriate standards and such.

The type of icp may be more important than the manufacturer, with ICP-MS having a lower limit of detection for many trace elements. I assume you know this, but other readers may not.

Oceamo indicates they use an Agilent ICP-MS for their ms studies. I'm not sure what else they use, but perhaps @Christoph can expound on the merits of the machines he uses since he bought them. :)

ATI uses an Arcos II ICP-OES and an Agilent ICP-MS.

I was asking about the machines mainly because they seem like a natural starting point for the conversation, or a potential limiting factor where, regardless of procedure, the technology itself is inferior.

I do have questions about the capabilities of the technology, but I’m absolutely more suspicious of each company’s procedures and attention to detail. I’d wager the worst looks very different from the best.

Thanks for the assistance.

 

[Ryan - Serious Reefs]

Probably have already done so but if not shoot them a message and see if they reply? I'm sure you may already be on first name basis with them. I know FM a couple of times has showed machines with the manufacture and I recall one being the SpectreoGREEN.

Not sure here if the the traditional hobbyist will know the answer to this. You would probably have a better way to get that information.

This is somewhat of a dance. I feel pretty confident that all of them would tell me out of general industry respect. However, if I end up producing content where I have to say their method is grossly inferior, it feels like a jerk move to use their openness and trust against them.

Sometimes it’s just easier to find out whether my question is already public knowledge that I missed along the way.

 

[areefer01]

This is somewhat of a dance. I feel pretty confident that all of them would tell me out of general industry respect. However, if I end up producing content where I have to say their method is grossly inferior, it feels like a jerk move to use their openness and trust against them.

Sometimes it’s just easier to find out whether my question is already public knowledge that I missed along the way.

Ah, I did not consider that. Makes sense.

 

[Reefer Matt]

This is a reason why I don’t regularly use icp tests. If I can’t trust the results, I’m wasting my time and money. These tests were touted as an industry standard, and they may be less useful than a water change and ignorance in my case.

 

[Christoph]

Hello,

Like Randy stated, the machine itself only defines the possible limits — the overall quality of the analysis depends much more on factors such as method development, operator skill, sample handling techniques, and the contamination status of the lab, etc.


To use an analogy: owning a supercar does not make you a race driver. Even ICP-MS, a very capable technique, can perform poorly if certain criteria are not met.


Regarding the original topic, we also operate Agilent instruments on the ICP-OES side. In my opinion, Agilent is a very good vendor that offers excellent instruments and solid service. Every system has its pros and cons, but almost all ICPs are suitable for seawater analysis if things are done correctly. The advantage of some spectro designs is better coverage of vacuum-UV lines, which provides improved sensitivity for halogens such as bromine and chlorine. In our case, this is not relevant, as we measure these using a completely different method (anion chromatography).


All the best,
Christoph

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Thank you very much for the insight, Christoph. :)