ICP Test Shows Zero Iodine

[CoryZipperle]

Took our water sample for the ICP test and tested parameters with our Red Sea iodine against the same water. Red Sea says that Iodine is perfect at 0.06ppm and ICP says that Iodine is 13µg/l (which converts to 0.001ppm using http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ug_lppm.php). I'd expect that the ICP is a lot more accurate than our hobby test kit, but it's wild to see that they're that far off. From what Triton's test says, I should be reading almost zero on the Red Sea kit.

This makes me nervous when it comes to adjusting iodine in our aquarium.

What would you do in this instance?

 

[MnFish1]

I would not use an ICP test - instead - compare it to any number of commercially available test kits.

 

[CoryZipperle]

I would not use an ICP test - instead - compare it to any number of commercially available test kits.

Do you prefer hobby-grade test kits over laboratories?

 

[Spare time]

The issue with ICP is that if you don't know the error range, then its very difficult to adjust based on these tests. I would rely more on your red sea or similar if you are concerned with dosing.

 

[Spare time]

Which icp brand is this?

 

[CoryZipperle]

Which icp brand is this?

The test is Triton.

The issue with ICP is that if you don't know the error range, then its very difficult to adjust based on these tests. I would rely more on your red sea or similar if you are concerned with dosing.

Looking at the Red Sea kit that I have for Iodine testing, I don't see a published error range here either. I was able to find a claim on their website, they say 0.01ppm. Looking around on Triton's site, I don't see that they publish their error ranges. I did reach out to them to see what they have to say regarding their error. Still, I have to think that they'd have to have a serious problem with their equipment to be so far off as to read 0.001 while ours reads 0.06. One would hope that they do a better job of maintaining their equipment than to allow for that much of a discrepancy.

 

[Spare time]

The test is Triton.



Looking at the Red Sea kit that I have for Iodine testing, I don't see a published error range here either. I was able to find a claim on their website, they say 0.01ppm. Looking around on Triton's site, I don't see that they publish their error ranges. I did reach out to them to see what they have to say regarding their error. Still, I have to think that they'd have to have a serious problem with their equipment to be so far off as to read 0.001 while ours reads 0.06. One would hope that they do a better job of maintaining their equipment than to allow for that much of a discrepancy.

With test kits, they assume perfect perfomance and robotic color vision from the user, so I often question the error range on commercial test kits. There are a few threads on here about how a lot of ICP companies are a bit secretive with their tests, which is unfornunate. Oceamo seems to be pretty open. I tend to trust API. A lof of people have used triton but I don't recall seeing a thread mentioning the erorr range on these.

 

[CoryZipperle]

With test kits, they assume perfect perfomance and robotic color vision from the user, so I often question the error range on commercial test kits. There are a few threads on here about how a lot of ICP companies are a bit secretive with their tests, which is unfornunate. Oceamo seems to be pretty open. I tend to trust API. A lof of people have used triton but I don't recall seeing a thread mentioning the erorr range on these.

Fair enough.

I'm only getting responses that are critical of the tests themselves, that's not really what I'm looking for. I know that the tests are imperfect, and I know that everyone has a very wide variety of opinions on the qualities of the tests themselves. Perhaps, in the future, I'll ask for opinions on what tests to use for the best results.

My original issue still stands. Two tests with radically different results, what would you do in this situation? Iodine isn't a trivial element in an aquarium so I'm a bit stuck. If it is really 0.001ppm, we can't allow that to remain, but if it's closer to 0.06ppm, then there may not be anything to do.

How would you move forward in your tank with this discrepancy?

 

[Spare time]

Fair enough.

I'm only getting responses that are critical of the tests themselves, that's not really what I'm looking for. I know that the tests are imperfect, and I know that everyone has a very wide variety of opinions on the qualities of the tests themselves. Perhaps, in the future, I'll ask for opinions on what tests to use for the best results.

My original issue still stands. Two tests with radically different results, what would you do in this situation? Iodine isn't a trivial element in an aquarium so I'm a bit stuck. If it is really 0.001ppm, we can't allow that to remain, but if it's closer to 0.06ppm, then there may not be anything to do.

How would you move forward in your tank with this discrepancy?

The criticism of the tests is really the only way to answer this issue as the value could be very low or where the red sea test lists it. I am also not sure what forms of iodine the red sea test kit measures.

Based on this https://reefs.com/magazine/chemistry-and-the-aquarium-iodine-in-marine-aquaria-part-i/
, the usefulness of iodine (and its forms i.e. iodide, iodate, etc.) is questionable. If you keep macroalgae, gorgonians, antipatharians, tunicates, sponges, then maybe keep dosing as you have a test kit. I can't imagine iodine up an extra 0.01 or 0.02ppm is going to cause any issues. Things like shrimp can get it from foods you feed, and those foods will also input iodine into the tank. Xenia may possible use it but it could also just accumulate it. So the question is, should you care about the value in either tests?

@Randy Holmes-Farley wrote

"I would strongly advise people to not try to maintain 0.06 ppm iodine using supplementation and a test kit.

Why you ask? Isn’t that what we do for most other chemicals of interest? Well, if we could easily and accurately determine the concentrations of the different forms of iodine in aquaria, then I would recommend doing just that. However, if you combine the complexities of having multiple iodine species present with the uncertainty of having hobbyists use very complex test kits that may readily yield incorrect or difficult to interpret results, the stage is set for people driving their total iodine to levels far from what they actually intended. I do not know what levels of iodide or iodate become apparently problematic to real aquaria, but the risk of overdosing in this fashion is not insignificant. Both of the ICP studies reported above found some tanks with substantially elevated total iodine levels. I have no way of knowing how those levels got there, but overdosing of a supplement is one likely way."


So what I would do is simply continue with your current regime and not modify it. I would only dose iodine if you keep the corals above, and both the icp and red sea test kits are giving you a very low number. Even in this scenario, I would sparingly dose it, as food can already be bringing it in at the rate the iodine is being consumed.

 

[Reefer_punk]

I would trust ipc lab testing over hobby kits. But that is my personal opinion. You can start dosing a little of iodine and send out another icp in a month or 2. Are you seeing signs of distressed coral (may or not be caused by lack of iodine)

 

[gbroadbridge]

I would trust ipc lab testing over hobby kits. But that is my personal opinion. You can start dosing a little of iodine and send out another icp in a month or 2. Are you seeing signs of distressed coral (may or not be caused by lack of iodine)

Lol, I trust neither.
Food and regular water changes are all you need

 

[Reefer_punk]

Lol, I trust neither.
Food and regular water changes are all you need

I disagree about the waterchanges

 

[gbroadbridge]

I disagree about the waterchanges

You don't believe Salt mix manuafacturers produce products which contain an appropriate amount of required types of Iodine?

It is their core business.

 

[Reefer_punk]

You don't believe Salt mix manuafacturers produce products which contain an appropriate amount of required types of Iodine?

It is their core business.

I believe that they produce an amount that covers the standard. That being said, iodine and manganese are the two trace elements which are added the most. It all depends on your stock.

 

[EugeneVan]

If you have tons of chaeto growing in the refugium with lighting like 10 to 12 hrs a day, you definitely need to dose iron to keep them healthy.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I believe that they produce an amount that covers the standard. That being said, iodine and manganese are the two trace elements which are added the most. It all depends on your stock.

Tried additives - saw no difference that couldn't be attributed to wishful thinking. except maybe for Mn
for my Goniopora. More frequent water changes fixed that without a $50 bottle from Triton.

 

[Reefer_punk]

Tried additives - saw no difference that couldn't be attributed to wishful thinking. except maybe for Mn
for my Goniopora. More frequent water changes fixed that without a $50 bottle from Triton.

Think something might be missed... waterchanges are more expensive than some additives in the long haul.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Think something might be missed... waterchanges are more expensive than some additives in the long haul.

Nope. Two bottles of Triton Mn costs the same as one 50lb bag of Red Sea Salt.
They're both consumables, and a water changes adds all the traces in one go.

 

[Reefer_punk]

Nope. Two bottles of Triton Mn costs the same as one 50lb bag of Red Sea Salt.
They're both consumables, and a water changes adds all the traces in one go.

No waterchanges in almost 5 years and only 1ml iodine per day extra... that is cheaper

 

[undermind]

Lol, I trust neither.
Food and regular water changes are all you need

Nothing wrong with a desire to inform yourself through testing. Will we ever have a test that people will actually trust?

And water changes alone will not maintain minor and trace elements in balance long term. It is not an ionically balanced process.