ICP test results vs. Hobby Grade!!!

[Lasse]

Very nice Monti Sir...I also have a rather large green Monti...

May explain the pictures. The picture below show my monty when I had broken away a piece that shaded the coral below it. The upper picture show the coral 10 days later when it had repair itself from my violence :p

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Rick Mathew]

May explain the pictures. The picture below show my monty when I had broken away a piece that shaded the coral below it. The upper picture show the coral 10 days later when it had repair itself from my violence :p

Sincerely Lasse

I know that needing repair because of my violence all too well....



Respectfully

rick

 

[Julian@Triton]

WHY are these results so different?!? Makes me not know who to trust.....

ICP


Mag: 943.99
Calc: 285.8
Phosphorus: .11

Hanna Po4: .07
Salifert Calc: 380
Salifert Mag: 1350

what the heck?!? yea I still need to raise up my levels a lil bit and lower P04 a bit more(working on it) but idk who to trust. ICP came back super low across the board, trace elements included but the phosphurus showed up higher which isthe only accuracy because mine the Hanna checker can be plus/minus .04. But if ICP is indeed accurate then our hobby grade test kits ain’t worth crap!

ICP lab testing is a completely different method of testing and it is not really fair on the home test kits (digital and manual colorimetric assays) to compare them. Home test kits have limitations and interference that are different to those that affect an ICP machine. If they are not out of date and used correctly, home test kits still have value for testing Macro elements like Ca and Mg. They also provide an indication of Phosphate levels (even though they do not measure Total PO4) which is better than no measurement at all.

What Home test kits can't do is measure trace elements and, for this reason, it is not about having to choose between one or the other. Both forms of testing, when conducted correctly, have value in their own way alongside each other.

This is not a war between which is good and which is bad. It is like trying to argue which has more value, an axe or a knife?

You can read more information on the following R2R thread:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/what-an-icp-oes-machine-cannot-test.693037/

 

[Steve Fast]

Agree with @Julian@Triton, though I think what @goodReefer125 is getting at is the particular vendor he used is showing very different results especially for Mg, and in my experience Na is off too. For tests I've sent to Triton and ATI, the results were quite close as described is this post

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-ati-water-test-comparison.331760/post-4149302.

 

[Rick Mathew]

ICP lab testing is a completely different method of testing and it is not really fair on the home test kits (digital and manual colorimetric assays) to compare them. Home test kits have limitations and interference that are different to those that affect an ICP machine. If they are not out of date and used correctly, home test kits still have value for testing Macro elements like Ca and Mg. They also provide an indication of Phosphate levels (even though they do not measure Total PO4) which is better than no measurement at all.

What Home test kits can't do is measure trace elements and, for this reason, it is not about having to choose between one or the other. Both forms of testing, when conducted correctly, have value in their own way alongside each other.

This is not a war between which is good and which is bad. It is like trying to argue which has more value, an axe or a knife?

You can read more information on the following R2R thread:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/what-an-icp-oes-machine-cannot-test.693037/

Julian you are correct...This is not an "OR" question it is an "AND" Question...Like any set of tools one needs a variety for different applications and for different conditions...Like your knife or axe example. For me the issue is not at all about Good or Bad...Right or Wrong...Correct or Incorrect.... It is about understanding the tools we are using and how to decide which tool I can use and trust to make important decisions about actions I might need to take for the health, growth and care of creatures entrusted to me.

This means for me if I observe something that does not make sense as I know the world I want to gain an understanding of why....Am I thinking about the world wrongly? or is there something in what I am observing that is incorrect...This is what Lasse calls a "little does of skepticism"....Some use the phrase "Trust but Verify"

This is what drives my pursuit of understanding the Phosphorous and thus PO4 measurement difference I am seeing from my Hanna Tester and my ICP results....Not which one is correct but why the difference do not follow my understanding of how the results should compare to each other ...ICP should for the most part be higher than my colorimetric results because they measure total "P" whereas the Hanna Checker does not...but in my case (only speaking for me) they are consistently lower and not be just a small amount....in the 50% range...I have used multiple meters...Validated the meters with known solutions....Had other reefers validate my measurements... so I am at least as confident as I can be that the meters are not reading artificially high...(This by the way was my first thought...I have a "bad meter" that is giving me erroneous measurements)...So since it is not my meters there is something going on that I do not understand! ...Thus my quest!! I hope I am not a "Don Quixote" fighting a windmill o_O...but could be...

 

[swiss1939]

WHY are these results so different?!? Makes me not know who to trust.....

ICP


Mag: 943.99
Calc: 285.8
Phosphorus: .11

Hanna Po4: .07
Salifert Calc: 380
Salifert Mag: 1350

what the heck?!? yea I still need to raise up my levels a lil bit and lower P04 a bit more(working on it) but idk who to trust. ICP came back super low across the board, trace elements included but the phosphurus showed up higher which isthe only accuracy because mine the Hanna checker can be plus/minus .04. But if ICP is indeed accurate then our hobby grade test kits ain’t worth crap!

Haven't gotten through any of this thread yet, just starting it, so I'm not sure if anyone else has suggest this already. I assume someone must have.

Take your ICP samples and do your own tests at the same time as those samples. record your own test results, then compare with the ICP when you receive it. Figure out the difference between the two and offset your personal tests using that difference. You are calibrating your personal tests to the ICP tests because they are more accurate. This way you kinda know more accurately where your home tests land, and are basically only using them to see the trends. The offset can help you with dosing. Every time you submit an ICP test, do this. Then your home tests always stay within a small range of fluctuation depending on how often you calibrate your home tests to solution, or your home test to the icp test.

This is what I plan on doing with my first ICP test.

 

[Sallstrom]

Haven't gotten through any of this thread yet, just starting it, so I'm not sure if anyone else has suggest this already. I assume someone must have.

Take your ICP samples and do your own tests at the same time as those samples. record your own test results, then compare with the ICP when you receive it. Figure out the difference between the two and offset your personal tests using that difference. You are calibrating your personal tests to the ICP tests because they are more accurate. This way you kinda know more accurately where your home tests land, and are basically only using them to see the trends. The offset can help you with dosing. Every time you submit an ICP test, do this. Then your home tests always stay within a small range of fluctuation depending on how often you calibrate your home tests to solution, or your home test to the icp test.

This is what I plan on doing with my first ICP test.

This is what I’ve done at work(a public aquarium), since 2015 :)
Not every sample we’ve sent to Triton, because we run many tanks and I have other tasks then testing PO4 at work. But still 100-200 times over the years I would guess.
Since I’m pretty sure the guys at Triton knows more of water testing then me, I trust their results more then mine. So I use them to “calibrate “ the Hanna checker I’m using. One Hanna checker can vary from the other, just like the results vary if I do them or my colleagues do them. So a new Hanna Checker, I can’t compare to the old right away. My colleagues results can’t be compared with mine(unless we do lots of tests and compare and so on :)).
Usually my present Hanna LR is about 0,02 lower then Triton on PO4. The one before were 0,03-0,04 lower than Triton. For example.

 

[User1]

Haven't gotten through any of this thread yet, just starting it, so I'm not sure if anyone else has suggest this already. I assume someone must have.

Take your ICP samples and do your own tests at the same time as those samples. record your own test results, then compare with the ICP when you receive it. Figure out the difference between the two and offset your personal tests using that difference. You are calibrating your personal tests to the ICP tests because they are more accurate. This way you kinda know more accurately where your home tests land, and are basically only using them to see the trends. The offset can help you with dosing. Every time you submit an ICP test, do this. Then your home tests always stay within a small range of fluctuation depending on how often you calibrate your home tests to solution, or your home test to the icp test.

This is what I plan on doing with my first ICP test.

I do every time I send a sample to ATI. I have a Trident and I know it tests every day at high noon / 12:00 PM. So what I do is grab a cup of water from the sump at 11:55 AM. This is just before the noon test. Anyway at this time I can fill the ATI water sample tubes, my Hanna and Nyos test vials, and when everything is done record manual test numbers, log entry to Apex, and then send off the package to the post office. I use nitrile gloves although I don't think it matters one way or another.

In any case I try to do this on a Tuesday since I know ATI's drop has two shipments a week. I can get results usually within 7 days. Once results are in I can look at the Apex and see my manual tests, pull up the Tridents, and then compare to ATI's. Every time I've been within margin of error. Really can't complain.

My only concern with any of the ICP tests today is their processes, procedures, and/or calibration. I am assuming here but pretty sure they do not calibrate the unit after every tests. Not sure if that matters or not but it is really the only thing that bothers me a bit. Having said that I usually send out 2 to 3 samples to ATI a year. And this is only to provide an outside source for overall water quality and keep me honest.

So far they found:
1. Low salinity
2. Low iodine
3. High zinc

Each one was corrected and the next results didn't show the issue. On that note I believe they are consistent since I didn't see the repeat findings. I'll know this again because the RODI water sample had findings which I'm correcting by replacing the filters due to it being time so will be interesting if it repeats or is cleared.

 

[4sylvester]

I just tested my ULR against an analytical standard i created at my lab with a 4-place certified balance and Class A volumtric and ACS grade sodium phosphate. In other words.. this standard is "dead-on". Concentration is 3770 mg PO4/L. I use this solution to bump my PO4 levels in my reefer525.

Now for the disclosure... I am at home right now and don't have all the class A tools so i improvised. Took 1 mL of this solution in a 1mL syringe and diluted this solution to 10mL using a 10mL syringe (9mL added). New concentration is 377 mg PO4/L. Took 1 mL of this solution in clean 1mL syringe and added to 1000 grams of clean saltwater (1-Liter). This is a 1000-fold dilution resulting in a new concentration of 0.377 mg/L PO4. Tested this with my Hanna ULR and got 133 ug/L P which is 0.408 mg/L PO4. Target is 0.377mg/L PO4 so this would mean Hanna is off by 8% in this concentration range. Now.. that doesn't mean it will be off by only 8% in the 0.01 range. I will test in my lab tomorrow using class A tools and report what i find. I will be really impressed if it is off only by 8% at the bottom.

 

[4sylvester]

Take your ICP samples and do your own tests at the same time as those samples. record your own test results, then compare with the ICP when you receive it. Figure out the difference between the two and offset your personal tests using that difference. You are calibrating your personal tests to the ICP tests because they are more accurate. This way you kinda know more accurately where your home tests land, and are basically only using them to see the trends. The offset can help you with dosing. Every time you submit an ICP test, do this. Then your home tests always stay within a small range of fluctuation depending on how often you calibrate your home tests to solution, or your home test to the icp test.

This is what I plan on doing with my first ICP test.

Not disputing this works for you but want to point out this is not a valid comparison. It's comparing apples to oranges. You can't use an ICP total Phosphorus test to calibrate a Phosphate reader. If you want to test the ICP vendor or your Hanna create and analytical standard and run by ICP and Hanna. You'll know how close both are to the target. An ICP calibration does not last indefinitely... it can drift significantly during the course of the day. Your Hanna is likely more "precise" than random ICP testing. Please take note I am referring to "precision".. not "accuracy". Without running a known standard you can't claim either is more accurate.

 

[swiss1939]

Not disputing this works for you but want to point out this is not a valid comparison. It's comparing apples to oranges. You can't use an ICP total Phosphorus test to calibrate a Phosphate reader. If you want to test the ICP vendor or your Hanna create and analytical standard and run by ICP and Hanna. You'll know how close both are to the target. An ICP calibration does not last indefinitely... it can drift significantly during the course of the day. Your Hanna is likely more "precise" than random ICP testing. Please take note I am referring to "precision".. not "accuracy". Without running a known standard you can't claim either is more accurate.

I realize their calibrations do not last indefinitely and did not mean to suggest you could calibrate a home device to an ICP test. I meant that if you feel your chosen ICP test that you use on a semi regular basis is accurate, then just make a mental note of how far off your hanna checker is to it at the same time, then just use that offset to imply your hanna tester results as if they were ICP results. Obviously there is margin for error based on the true calibration of both and how much drift due to time between calibrations done, nor am I claiming this a scientifically accurate way of doing things. But it is an educated guess using the tools you have without spending gobs of money to run ICP tests every month or so. Nor are many hobby aquarists going to perform highly accurate tests such as yours in a lab.

I am also not questioning the accuracy of various vendors ICP test/calibration procedures, I'll leave that to the professionals. I trust both the ICP tests and the home tests enough for my general purposes, maybe the ICP tests slightly more even with calibrations not done between every single test. Sure they are different tests, but both work consistently enough at my level of granularity that one could feasibly assume the implied offset between the two is consistent enough for most hobby uses. Doing this also requires an understanding that you trust it with a grain of salt based on how long its been since you last calibrated your hanna checker and the last time you did an ICP test in conjunction with a hanna test, or whether you calibrated your hanna tester right before doing both ICP and hanna test collection together, or did not calibrate your tester for some time before doing this initial test/comparison.

But I am interested in seeing the results of your more accurate test of the Hanna ULR phosphate tester!

 

[4sylvester]

I realize their calibrations do not last indefinitely and did not mean to suggest you could calibrate a home device to an ICP test. I meant that if you feel your chosen ICP test that you use on a semi regular basis is accurate, then just make a mental note of how far off your hanna checker is to it at the same time, then just use that offset to imply your hanna tester results as if they were ICP results. Obviously there is margin for error based on the true calibration of both and how much drift due to time between calibrations done, nor am I claiming this a scientifically accurate way of doing things. But it is an educated guess using the tools you have without spending gobs of money to run ICP tests every month or so. Nor are many hobby aquarists going to perform highly accurate tests such as yours in a lab.

I am also not questioning the accuracy of various vendors ICP test/calibration procedures, I'll leave that to the professionals. I trust both the ICP tests and the home tests enough for my general purposes, maybe the ICP tests slightly more even with calibrations not done between every single test. Sure they are different tests, but both work consistently enough at my level of granularity that one could feasibly assume the implied offset between the two is consistent enough for most hobby uses.

But I am interested in seeing the results of your more accurate test of the Hanna ULR phosphate tester!

Well put and that is a totally logical approach. Believe me.. I can't stand home test kits. It's hard for me to trust any of them let alone be confident in the "color i choose".. i just hate them. I have ICPs, ICPMSs, and many other tools. 99 times out of 100 i'll take the ICP data over my home test but it sure would be nice to know my home tests are in the ball park :(

 

[Crabby48]

ICP-analysis.com
Sold at my LFS

I don’t trust them. I threw out one of my test kits I had. I would send to triton or somewhere else before worrying about the results.

 

[swiss1939]

Well put and that is a totally logical approach. Believe me.. I can't stand home test kits. It's hard for me to trust any of them let alone be confident in the "color i choose".. i just hate them. I have ICPs, ICPMSs, and many other tools. 99 times out of 100 i'll take the ICP data over my home test but it sure would be nice to know my home tests are in the ball park :(

Oh absolutely. I use the color test kits for most of my tests except salinity and temp, as I don't need most of the hanna ones yet. But the color test kits are more subjective than scientific because it all depends on the individuals vision, specifically your ability to "see" fine changes in hue/saturation of generally not easily distinct colors which is affected by many things including your diet. Add in the inconsistency of lighting you use while doing these readings. Someone might do them at night with tungsten lights which are yellow as all hell! Another person might do them under smart LED color changing bulbs and not realize that their bulbs are set to a more tungsten color and they should probably turn them "pure white" and all the way up intensity when doing readings. I personally do my color test readings on a white window sill during the day so that I get true daylight with a neutral background to remove any color tints that may alter my vision.

I actually tested this in the last day by doing a nitrate test late at night using my smart led bulbs at pure white highest intensity, then the same test 7 hrs later on my window sill in daylight. I realize this also has some level of inaccuracy given its not at the same exact time of day, but was a good example of how day vs night lighting inconsistencies can change how you "see" a color test chart. My night reading showed nitrates at the darkest on the red sea chart of 20ppm. My daylight reading 7 hrs later showed the second highest on the color chart of 10ppm (in process of cycling a new tank), and I know this change in reading was not from the cycle as my nitrates are trending upward, not downward.

 

[Lasse]

Well put and that is a totally logical approach. Believe me.. I can't stand home test kits. It's hard for me to trust any of them let alone be confident in the "color i choose".. i just hate them. I have ICPs, ICPMSs, and many other tools. 99 times out of 100 i'll take the ICP data over my home test but it sure would be nice to know my home tests are in the ball park :(

Oh absolutely. I use the color test kits for most of my tests except salinity and temp, as I don't need most of the hanna ones yet. But the color test kits are more subjective than scientific because it all depends on the individuals vision, specifically your ability to "see" fine changes in hue/saturation of generally not easily distinct colors which is affected by many things including your diet. Add in the inconsistency of lighting you use while doing these readings. Someone might do them at night with tungsten lights which are yellow as all hell! Another person might do them under smart LED color changing bulbs and not realize that their bulbs are set to a more tungsten color and they should probably turn them "pure white" and all the way up intensity when doing readings. I personally do my color test readings on a white window sill during the day so that I get true daylight with a neutral background to remove any color tints that may alter my vision.

I actually tested this in the last day by doing a nitrate test late at night using my smart led bulbs at pure white highest intensity, then the same test 7 hrs later on my window sill in daylight. I realize this also has some level of inaccuracy given its not at the same exact time of day, but was a good example of how day vs night lighting inconsistencies can change how you "see" a color test chart. My night reading showed nitrates at the darkest on the red sea chart of 20ppm. My daylight reading 7 hrs later showed the second highest on the color chart of 10ppm (in process of cycling a new tank), and I know this change in reading was not from the cycle as my nitrates are trending upward, not downward.

Sometimes I just wonder if i do not more safe to use colour hobby test kit compared with hobby kits given you a digital figure? At least my mind work like - OK - colour kit shows 0.08-0.12 and it depends a little on my eyes and light - but around that value. When I read a digital figure - you can´t whitewash the figure for your own mind - it is 0.136 - and that's it. I remember the confusion back in the old days (very old days) - when I had to switch from my beloved YSI oxygen meter that show the result in a scale to one of these new digital oxygen meters. I did not believe in any result before checking with the YSI meter. I know that the process with changing membran, calibrate and other hocus Pocus affect the readings in a way that the digital did not - but anyhow.........

I use my untruthful HI774 as my guideline between the ICP tests but I do like this

just make a mental note of how far off your hanna checker is to it at the same time, then just use that offset to imply your hanna tester results as if they were ICP results

If I get an unexpected HI774 reading - I have a Red Sea Pro phosphate kit to compare with.

The HI series of phosphate/phosphorous checker has been something like industry standard for reefers and their results is many times total impossible to discuss - it must be true - it is a figure with 2 decimals. Yes it is a great (and easy to handle) tool but each checker is an own unit, each diode is its own diode (with is own limitations) and they are not calibrated on a individual level. It means that there is a huge possibility that´s a difference between different checkers.

I just tested my ULR against an analytical standard i created at my lab with a 4-place certified balance and Class A volumtric and ACS grade sodium phosphate. In other words.. this standard is "dead-on". Concentration is 3770 mg PO4/L. I use this solution to bump my PO4 levels in my reefer525.

Now for the disclosure... I am at home right now and don't have all the class A tools so i improvised. Took 1 mL of this solution in a 1mL syringe and diluted this solution to 10mL using a 10mL syringe (9mL added). New concentration is 377 mg PO4/L. Took 1 mL of this solution in clean 1mL syringe and added to 1000 grams of clean saltwater (1-Liter). This is a 1000-fold dilution resulting in a new concentration of 0.377 mg/L PO4. Tested this with my Hanna ULR and got 133 ug/L P which is 0.408 mg/L PO4. Target is 0.377mg/L PO4 so this would mean Hanna is off by 8% in this concentration range. Now.. that doesn't mean it will be off by only 8% in the 0.01 range. I will test in my lab tomorrow using class A tools and report what i find. I will be really impressed if it is off only by 8% at the bottom.

Also - at your lab - test with both new fresh saltwater and with your old saltwater but use the addition method in the second test.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Haven't gotten through any of this thread yet, just starting it, so I'm not sure if anyone else has suggest this already. I assume someone must have.

Take your ICP samples and do your own tests at the same time as those samples. record your own test results, then compare with the ICP when you receive it. Figure out the difference between the two and offset your personal tests using that difference. You are calibrating your personal tests to the ICP tests because they are more accurate. This way you kinda know more accurately where your home tests land, and are basically only using them to see the trends. The offset can help you with dosing. Every time you submit an ICP test, do this. Then your home tests always stay within a small range of fluctuation depending on how often you calibrate your home tests to solution, or your home test to the icp test.

This is what I plan on doing with my first ICP test.

You are making an assumption about ICP accuracy that may not be true.

It is like a claim that a car can go 110 miles per hour. Is that true? is it not true?

 

[swiss1939]

You are making an assumption about ICP accuracy that may not be true.

It is like a claim that a car can go 110 miles per hour. Is that true? is it not true?

Yes i admitted as much when i said that i am not debating the accuracy of icp tests. Reason being, an actually professional human is performing these tests on professional equipment. I am putting trust in the professional lab tech to use good lab habits because they are professional lab technicians. With the knowledge that sometimes mistakes can still be made in that setting.

This is enough for me to consider accurate over the inconsistencies of reading a color chart at home.

And like many other people in thread have said, find the test you feel confident in and enough customers have used and agree is quality first. Then apply this method. And if there is an oddball reading that seems suspect once this is done, i can test myself and make that judgement call to disregard the icp test or try to debug if it's something wrong with my home test.

Clearly the consensus is the icp test the op used is not quality and they should try one that is considered quality.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Yes i admitted as much when i said that i am not debating the accuracy of icp tests. Reason being, an actually professional human is performing these tests on professional equipment. I am putting trust in the professional lab tech to use good lab habits because they are professional lab technicians. With the knowledge that sometimes mistakes can still be made in that setting.

This is enough for me to consider accurate over the inconsistencies of reading a color chart at home.

Fair enough. I'm not that confident in home tests either. lol I prefer DIY when possible.

But I do not have such blanket confidence in ICP services and operators, Some likely do a great job, but after having used ICP personally, having known hundreds of people who work in chemistry labs (of varying capability), and having discussed ICP with members representing several of the hobby-service ICP companies.

 

[swiss1939]

Fair enough. I'm not that confident in home tests either. lol I prefer DIY when possible.
ICP with members representing several of the hobby-service ICP companies.

Apologize for sidetracking the OP thread, but now you've got my interest. I went through your list of articles and did not see any specifically targeted at home DIY tests! I would definitely be interested in reading an article that goes through performing your own DIY tests at home for these things. Simply just to learn about these tests and how they work... with the caveat that my attempts at home most likely would have inconsistencies or inaccuracies.

You've got at least one reader waiting on the edge of his seat!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Apologize for sidetracking the OP thread, but now you've got my interest. I went through your list of articles and did not see any specifically targeted at home DIY tests! I would definitely be interested in reading an article that goes through performing your own DIY tests at home for these things. Simply just to learn about these tests and how they work... with the caveat that my attempts at home most likely would have inconsistencies or inaccuracies.

You've got at least one reader waiting on the edge of his seat!

The easiest is alkalinity. It's a good place to start DIY.

A DIY Alkalinity Test: By Randy Holmes-Farley - REEFEDITION