ICP results comparison Triton vs ICP-analysis.com

Jmp998

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
478
Reaction score
683
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I switched trace supplement regimens a couple of months ago, and so I decided to test whether I am in the correct ballpark with my dosing. I am not trying to solve any particular issue. I decided that for this first go at ICP testing, I would choose two labs and send parallel samples for comparison. I chose Triton (based on general reputation in the aquarium industry) and ICP-analysis.com (easily available to me and less expensive). For both tests, I rinsed the collection vial with tank water half a dozen times and collected near simultaneously from the main display.

Based on these tests, I am definitely adding too much Iodine. However the reported values vary by nearly 2-fold (Triton: 543 ppb, ICP-analysis.com: 276 ppb). I have no idea which one is correct, but since both show very high Iodine (and I have been dosing quite a bit of Iodine), I think this is a useful result and I will back down on the Iodine supplementation.

Other results show variable agreement. Some are pretty close (e.g. Sodium-11,027 vs 10,945 ppb). Some are off quite a bit in relative value, but the absolute values are very low and non-toxic so the error is not surprising or really concerning (e.g. Aluminum 62 vs 105 ppb). Some results show more variation than I had hoped for but still within a 'safe' range (e.g Magnesium 1429 vs 1337 ppm, Potassium 452 vs 407 ppm, Calcium 533 vs 492). The difference on Phosphorus was pretty high relatively speaking (9.7 vs 21 ppb). My expected values, based on common test kits, were Magnesium 1440 (Red Sea Magnesium Pro), Potassium 420 (Salifert), Calcium 520 (Red Sea Calcium Pro), Phosphorus 10 (Hanna ULR Phosphorus). I already knew my calcium is on the high side and am working on a gradual decrease.

The results were somewhat reassuring, as there is no evidence I have high levels of any toxic metals etc. I had hoped for more precise and consistent results that I could use to 'calibrate' my regular test kits, but that does not seem to be a reasonable expectation based on these results. The Iodine result is actionable, but I am not sure if my elevated Iodine was really hurting anything. Both kits were easy to collect and mail, access to results on the web worked well, no issues with usability. Overall the Triton results were slightly closer to my expectations, but this may just be chance. The ICP-analysis.com kit was less expensive, and they also tested my RODI water which was nice. The RODI results were close to 0 for everything except phosphorus which was surprisingly high (33 ppb). I have not checked phosphorus in my RODI for several months, so I have no idea if this result is reasonable or not.

I will probably repeat the same testing in a few months for another comparison. My interpretation would be that this testing is probably most useful to identify grossly abnormal values, e.g. contamination, rather than for precise tweaking of parameters that are commonly tested with titration kits etc.

Raw results attached for those interested.
 

Attachments

  • Triton.pdf
    159.6 KB · Views: 144
  • ICP-analysis.pdf
    14.5 KB · Views: 120
  • ICP-Analysis RODI.pdf
    13.2 KB · Views: 70

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I switched trace supplement regimens a couple of months ago, and so I decided to test whether I am in the correct ballpark with my dosing. I am not trying to solve any particular issue. I decided that for this first go at ICP testing, I would choose two labs and send parallel samples for comparison. I chose Triton (based on general reputation in the aquarium industry) and ICP-analysis.com (easily available to me and less expensive). For both tests, I rinsed the collection vial with tank water half a dozen times and collected near simultaneously from the main display.

Based on these tests, I am definitely adding too much Iodine. However the reported values vary by nearly 2-fold (Triton: 543 ppb, ICP-analysis.com: 276 ppb). I have no idea which one is correct, but since both show very high Iodine (and I have been dosing quite a bit of Iodine), I think this is a useful result and I will back down on the Iodine supplementation.

Other results show variable agreement. Some are pretty close (e.g. Sodium-11,027 vs 10,945 ppb). Some are off quite a bit in relative value, but the absolute values are very low and non-toxic so the error is not surprising or really concerning (e.g. Aluminum 62 vs 105 ppb). Some results show more variation than I had hoped for but still within a 'safe' range (e.g Magnesium 1429 vs 1337 ppm, Potassium 452 vs 407 ppm, Calcium 533 vs 492). The difference on Phosphorus was pretty high relatively speaking (9.7 vs 21 ppb). My expected values, based on common test kits, were Magnesium 1440 (Red Sea Magnesium Pro), Potassium 420 (Salifert), Calcium 520 (Red Sea Calcium Pro), Phosphorus 10 (Hanna ULR Phosphorus). I already knew my calcium is on the high side and am working on a gradual decrease.

The results were somewhat reassuring, as there is no evidence I have high levels of any toxic metals etc. I had hoped for more precise and consistent results that I could use to 'calibrate' my regular test kits, but that does not seem to be a reasonable expectation based on these results. The Iodine result is actionable, but I am not sure if my elevated Iodine was really hurting anything. Both kits were easy to collect and mail, access to results on the web worked well, no issues with usability. Overall the Triton results were slightly closer to my expectations, but this may just be chance. The ICP-analysis.com kit was less expensive, and they also tested my RODI water which was nice. The RODI results were close to 0 for everything except phosphorus which was surprisingly high (33 ppb). I have not checked phosphorus in my RODI for several months, so I have no idea if this result is reasonable or not.

I will probably repeat the same testing in a few months for another comparison. My interpretation would be that this testing is probably most useful to identify grossly abnormal values, e.g. contamination, rather than for precise tweaking of parameters that are commonly tested with titration kits etc.

Raw results attached for those interested.
@taricha, @Rick Mathew and I are in the middle of exactly the same study. We have collected dozens of ICP tests so far and I believe we are waiting for a bunch more to come in. Here are provisional conclusions.

It seems that ICP results are not very accurate. For elements above 1-10 ppb, the results could have some uses. For elements that can be measured with a Hanna Checker, use the Checker, e,g., PO4 for P. For elements less than 10 ppb, the variability is very large, like 100-200%. These measurement are semi-quantitative at best, maybe not even good enough for guiding dosing decisions.

We may have a report out in a month or two
 
OP
OP
J

Jmp998

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
478
Reaction score
683
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@taricha, @Rick Mathew and I are in the middle of exactly the same study. We have collected dozens of ICP tests so far and I believe we are waiting for a bunch more to come in. Here are provisional conclusions.

It seems that ICP results are not very accurate. For elements above 1-10 ppb, the results could have some uses. For elements that can be measured with a Hanna Checker, use the Checker, e,g., PO4 for P. For elements less than 10 ppb, the variability is very large, like 100-200%. These measurement are semi-quantitative at best, maybe not even good enough for guiding dosing decisions.

We may have a report out in a month or two

It's great that you are working on a more rigorous study, and I look forward to seeing your conclusions. If my limited (essentially anecdotal) data is in any way useful, please feel free to incorporate into your study.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It's great that you are working on a more rigorous study, and I look forward to seeing your conclusions. If my limited (essentially anecdotal) data is in any way useful, please feel free to incorporate into your study.
Thank you, we would love to include your data.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It's great that you are working on a more rigorous study, and I look forward to seeing your conclusions. If my limited (essentially anecdotal) data is in any way useful, please feel free to incorporate into your study.
Here is a quick analysis of your data which is just a picture of what you have already figured out.

The plot is the relative standard deviation of the two vendors’ results. Only the elements both vendors detected are included. The elements in the plot are arranged in order of increasing concentration. I also indicated approximate concentrations in several places.

As you observed already, for major elements like sodium, both vendors’ results are close (small RSD). There are elements you might think the vendors would agree on, like Si and P, but they don’t and there does not seem to be a simple explanation for these large disagreements. @taricha @Rick Mathew and I have discussed this situation quite a bit with no resolution so far.

Thanks again for your data set.

Dan

8126AA2D-7FCD-4349-9D8F-B71B6E4A20DE.jpeg
 

Fishingandreefing

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
3,647
Reaction score
1,812
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I switched trace supplement regimens a couple of months ago, and so I decided to test whether I am in the correct ballpark with my dosing. I am not trying to solve any particular issue. I decided that for this first go at ICP testing, I would choose two labs and send parallel samples for comparison. I chose Triton (based on general reputation in the aquarium industry) and ICP-analysis.com (easily available to me and less expensive). For both tests, I rinsed the collection vial with tank water half a dozen times and collected near simultaneously from the main display.

Based on these tests, I am definitely adding too much Iodine. However the reported values vary by nearly 2-fold (Triton: 543 ppb, ICP-analysis.com: 276 ppb). I have no idea which one is correct, but since both show very high Iodine (and I have been dosing quite a bit of Iodine), I think this is a useful result and I will back down on the Iodine supplementation.

Other results show variable agreement. Some are pretty close (e.g. Sodium-11,027 vs 10,945 ppb). Some are off quite a bit in relative value, but the absolute values are very low and non-toxic so the error is not surprising or really concerning (e.g. Aluminum 62 vs 105 ppb). Some results show more variation than I had hoped for but still within a 'safe' range (e.g Magnesium 1429 vs 1337 ppm, Potassium 452 vs 407 ppm, Calcium 533 vs 492). The difference on Phosphorus was pretty high relatively speaking (9.7 vs 21 ppb). My expected values, based on common test kits, were Magnesium 1440 (Red Sea Magnesium Pro), Potassium 420 (Salifert), Calcium 520 (Red Sea Calcium Pro), Phosphorus 10 (Hanna ULR Phosphorus). I already knew my calcium is on the high side and am working on a gradual decrease.

The results were somewhat reassuring, as there is no evidence I have high levels of any toxic metals etc. I had hoped for more precise and consistent results that I could use to 'calibrate' my regular test kits, but that does not seem to be a reasonable expectation based on these results. The Iodine result is actionable, but I am not sure if my elevated Iodine was really hurting anything. Both kits were easy to collect and mail, access to results on the web worked well, no issues with usability. Overall the Triton results were slightly closer to my expectations, but this may just be chance. The ICP-analysis.com kit was less expensive, and they also tested my RODI water which was nice. The RODI results were close to 0 for everything except phosphorus which was surprisingly high (33 ppb). I have not checked phosphorus in my RODI for several months, so I have no idea if this result is reasonable or not.

I will probably repeat the same testing in a few months for another comparison. My interpretation would be that this testing is probably most useful to identify grossly abnormal values, e.g. contamination, rather than for precise tweaking of parameters that are commonly tested with titration kits etc.

Raw results attached for those interested.
Do you find the icp-analysis.com reliable and will use it again? I am just trying to get something affordable. Thx
 
OP
OP
J

Jmp998

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
478
Reaction score
683
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't think I have enough information to say whether ICP-Analysis.com is significantly more or less accurate or precise than the other vendors. I did not have any problems using their service or viewing the data. When I was looking before, it was the least expensive option I found.
 

Hooz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
1,516
Location
Heath, OH
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am trying the ICP-Analysis now. They had a bad reputation, but have since changed over to Mass Spectrometry which is potentially more accurate than the ICP-OES that everyone else uses. It's accurate enough that they are now including trace element dosing suggestions (which they did NOT do before).

They just received my sample yesterday, so I'm looking forward to seeing what the results are.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,579
Reaction score
62,879
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am trying the ICP-Analysis now. They had a bad reputation, but have since changed over to Mass Spectrometry which is potentially more accurate than the ICP-OES that everyone else uses. It's accurate enough that they are now including trace element dosing suggestions (which they did NOT do before).

They just received my sample yesterday, so I'm looking forward to seeing what the results are.

Is that what they said?

Not everyone else uses just ICP-OES, and ICP-MS has its own issues.
 

Hooz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
1,516
Location
Heath, OH
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Is that what they said?

Not everyone else uses just ICP-OES, and ICP-MS has its own issues.
Yes. They switched it up late last year.

"This is the first Mass Spec test offered to the aquarium industry. We will test over 50 elements down to ppt, parts per trillion. There is not any test more accurate available. This test is up to 1000x more accurate than traditional ICP OES. We use a five point calibration curve and certified standards to guarantee accuracy. Because of this accuracy you will also be told how much to dose your aquarium with popular brands of trace elements, such as Aqua Forest, Red Sea Coral Colors, ATI, and even Trident!"

 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,579
Reaction score
62,879
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
but have since changed over to Mass Spectrometry which is potentially more accurate than the ICP-OES that everyone else uses.

Well, Christoph might beg to differ...


"PS.: we use ICP-MS and ICP-OES both routinely"

@Christoph

 

Hooz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
1,516
Location
Heath, OH
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, Christoph might beg to differ...


"PS.: we use ICP-MS and ICP-OES both routinely"

@Christoph


I might be missing something, but he says in the first link that (with regards to Selenium specifically), OES doesn't reliably detect the low levels as well as MS does.

If you mean his comment that they use both OES and MS frequently, that's fine. It's my understanding that ICP-Analysis does as well (now). I'm not sure how the opinions "differ".

I've used ATI for ICP in the past, I'm just giving ICP-Analysis a go this time around to see how their new testing methodology stacks up.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,579
Reaction score
62,879
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I might be missing something, but he says in the first link that (with regards to Selenium specifically), OES doesn't reliably detect the low levels as well as MS does.

If you mean his comment that they use both OES and MS frequently, that's fine. It's my understanding that ICP-Analysis does as well (now). I'm not sure how the opinions "differ".

I've used ATI for ICP in the past, I'm just giving ICP-Analysis a go this time around to see how their new testing methodology stacks up.

I will just limit my comments here to: I hope their new results are accurate and everyone is happy.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,579
Reaction score
62,879
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@Randy Holmes-Farley which ICP company do you feel has the most accurate results?

I really do not know.

Some companies inspire more confidence that the details are understood (Triton and Oceamo, for example, based on comments that those companies have posted), but that does not necessarily translate to higher accuracy.
 

TheCoralExchange

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
25
Reaction score
8
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am trying the ICP-Analysis now. They had a bad reputation, but have since changed over to Mass Spectrometry which is potentially more accurate than the ICP-OES that everyone else uses. It's accurate enough that they are now including trace element dosing suggestions (which they did NOT do before).

They just received my sample yesterday, so I'm looking forward to seeing what the results are.

Please post your results when you get them in, i'm interested to see what it says.
 

Hooz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
1,516
Location
Heath, OH
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Please post your results when you get them in, i'm interested to see what it says.
TestSW1J00472_Results.jpeg

Aluminum is way high, so I'll need to do something about that. Iodine and Iron were low. They gave me dosing recommendations for the Red Sea Trace Colors (which I use) based on my actual water volume to correct those issues.

Put the water sample in the mail on the 20th, had the results on the 28th.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,579
Reaction score
62,879
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Iron (2 ppb = 2 ug/L) is not low. It's higher than NSW surface levels.

Here's my comment on it when I tested my water via Triton:

Iron (Fe). The natural iron level varies a lot with depth, but surface seawater may have only 0.006 µg/L. The Triton LOD = 0.3 µg/L. I dose iron, and when I dose it I boost iron to roughly 1-2 µg/L, which would be detectable. This sample was taken more than a week after the last iron dosing, and none was detected as it gets depleted in the meanwhile. I’ve not yet seen a Triton test result for a real aquarium sample that had detectable iron, but that doesn’t mean these tanks are necessarily deficient. Iron is also a case where the form is critical, and ICP cannot distinguish form. Binding to organic matter, for example, can alter the bioavailability of iron.
 

Mastering the art of locking and unlocking water pathways: What type of valves do you have on your aquarium plumbing?

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 75 51.7%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 74 51.0%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 37 25.5%
  • None.

    Votes: 32 22.1%
  • Other.

    Votes: 9 6.2%

New Posts

Back
Top