ICP test vs Hanna Checkers

[MrGisonni]

I just ran an ICP analysis test. Most of the numbers came back within an acceptable range. I was most interested in my trace elements numbers. I use natural seawater for water changes and have been successfully adding trace elements and iodide for the last 6 months to boost levels a bit. I have seen improvements in color and growth. My "indicator coral" is a super red montipora digitata that looks amazing after I dose......Back to the ICP test. My magnesium on the test measured 1269. My Hanna checker 1525. I just used the certified standard calibration kit from Hanna and my checker was slightly on the high side, but well within the standard deviation of +/- 70. I believe my Hanna and not the ICP. Thoughts?

 

[Dan_P]

I just ran an ICP analysis test. Most of the numbers came back within an acceptable range. I was most interested in my trace elements numbers. I use natural seawater for water changes and have been successfully adding trace elements and iodide for the last 6 months to boost levels a bit. I have seen improvements in color and growth. My "indicator coral" is a super red montipora digitata that looks amazing after I dose......Back to the ICP test. My magnesium on the test measured 1269. My Hanna checker 1525. I just used the certified standard calibration kit from Hanna and my checker was slightly on the high side, but well within the standard deviation of +/- 70. I believe my Hanna and not the ICP. Thoughts?

I generally trust the Hanna test results over ICP results.

What vendor did the ICP test?

 

[Heabel7]

“ICP analysis” is the last ICP I did a month ago. They said my mag was 12xx something can’t remember exactly. My salifert test that I have used for years was 1450. I got a new salifert and It tested the same 1450. Im thinking the ICP was off. And can’t believe how high my mag is. I don’t dos it and use IO salt. However IO usually mixes to 1300 sooo maybe 1250 is right. Scratching head…….

 

[MrGisonni]

I generally trust the Hanna test results over ICP results.

What vendor did the ICP test?

ICP Analysis.com

 

[Dan_P]

ICP Analysis.com

This company might have the worse reliability record. I would definitely trust Hanna over their results.

 

[Pod_01]

I think it is silly to expect hobbyists grade test equipment to be equal to or surpass lab grade equipment. I would say ICP is lot more accurate, hobby grade is good for yup it is there and in range “maybe “.
But I am assuming the place you used knows what they are doing, have the correct equipment, training and actual experience with measuring reef tank parameters. If not you will get useless results because they are likely push button operators that will just say the computer gave me these values .
Places I would trust are Triton Lab and Fauna Marin ICP. I am sure there are others but I only trust these two to be reliable and out of these I prefer Fauna Marin. Fauna Marin runs successful coral farm so they have lot of hands on experience.
Also something I observed, ICP results can become distorted if samples are taken after water change, feeding etc…

 

[MrGisonni]

This company might have the worse reliability record. I would definitely trust Hanna over their results.

Thanks

 

[MrGisonni]

I think it is silly to expect hobbyists grade test equipment to be equal to or surpass lab grade equipment. I would say ICP is lot more accurate, hobby grade is good for yup it is there and in range “maybe “.
But I am assuming the place you used knows what they are doing, have the correct equipment, training and actual experience with measuring reef tank parameters. If not you will get useless results because they are likely push button operators that will just say the computer gave me these values .
Places I would trust are Triton Lab and Fauna Marin ICP. I am sure there are others but I only trust these two to be reliable and out of these I prefer Fauna Marin. Fauna Marin runs successful coral farm so they have lot of hands on experience.
Also something I observed, ICP results can become distorted if samples are taken after water change, feeding etc…

I will probably try another company. Right now my reef is stable, growing and performing at where I would expect it considering my maintenance schedule, lighting and nutrient levels.

 

[MrGisonni]

I think the Hanna Checkers are a bit above hobbyist grade. But they are only as good as the user like most tools. If they are themselves tested with a standard and the user is performing the tests correctly, I believe the results are very accurate. I do use a scientific pipette to measure my amounts

 

[Pod_01]

I think the Hanna Checkers are a bit above hobbyist grade. But they are only as good as the user like most tools. If they are themselves tested with a standard and the user is performing the tests correctly, I believe the results are very accurate. I do use a scientific pipette to measure my amounts

Just to clarify, I do use Hanna eggs for Alk, NO3 and PO4 and I am amazed what it does for the price. But at the same time I suspect the actual cost of the device (mainly egg parts) is maybe $5-$10 at the high end. That makes it hobby grade, maybe good quality hobby grade. I am quite sure good ICP machines the parts themselves are not in the $5-$10 dollar range.

Regardless if the tank looks good and corals are looking good, best action is to sit on your hands. In the meantime maybe find alternative ICP company.

Good luck.

 

[Dan_P]

I think it is silly to expect hobbyists grade test equipment to be equal to or surpass lab grade equipment. I would say ICP is lot more accurate, hobby grade is good for yup it is there and in range “maybe “.
But I am assuming the place you used knows what they are doing, have the correct equipment, training and actual experience with measuring reef tank parameters. If not you will get useless results because they are likely push button operators that will just say the computer gave me these values .
Places I would trust are Triton Lab and Fauna Marin ICP. I am sure there are others but I only trust these two to be reliable and out of these I prefer Fauna Marin. Fauna Marin runs successful coral farm so they have lot of hands on experience.
Also something I observed, ICP results can become distorted if samples are taken after water change, feeding etc…

How would one compare two analytical methods when one has known accuracy and precision (Hanna) and one doesn’t (All ICP vendors)?

 

[Rick Mathew]

I think it is silly to expect hobbyists grade test equipment to be equal to or surpass lab grade equipment. I would say ICP is lot more accurate, hobby grade is good for yup it is there and in range “maybe “.
But I am assuming the place you used knows what they are doing, have the correct equipment, training and actual experience with measuring reef tank parameters. If not you will get useless results because they are likely push button operators that will just say the computer gave me these values .
Places I would trust are Triton Lab and Fauna Marin ICP. I am sure there are others but I only trust these two to be reliable and out of these I prefer Fauna Marin. Fauna Marin runs successful coral farm so they have lot of hands on experience.
Also something I observed, ICP results can become distorted if samples are taken after water change, feeding etc…

Here is a link to some data to ponder with regard to the question of Hobby Grade vs ICP

How do you ensure accurate WC testing?

Hey all, Curious to see how others test their systems to ensure accurate results for example by running multiple series, standards, brands etc. Currently I use the AF kits for Ca & Mag, and Hanna Checkers for Alk & PO4. Recently I've been trying to fine tune my testing methods to ensure the...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Pod_01]

How would one compare two analytical methods when one has known accuracy and precision (Hanna) and one doesn’t (All ICP vendors)?

I did not once talk about method. I only said comparing hobby grade equipment results to laboratory grade equipment is silly. I still stand by my statement.

If we want to discuss method maybe one could start by explaining why all the so called “accurate titration methods” provides such large variation when measuring Mg? I honestly gave up measuring Mg with titration method because when I used 3 different kits I got 3 different results. My conclusion, yup Mg is there, actual value maybe take an average…. Bottom line from my experience all Mg test lack accuracy or precision. Is ICP bette, who knows but from my experience the results appears consistent. Maybe consistently wrong!!!

Just my opinion, happy reefing.

 

[areefer01]

I think it is silly to expect hobbyists grade test equipment to be equal to or surpass lab grade equipment. I would say ICP is lot more accurate, hobby grade is good for yup it is there and in range “maybe “.

You are assuming that the ICP has quality controls in place to make tests repeatable and no contamination between water samples. Also as @Dan_P noted not all ICP vendors are created equal.

Wonder how we managed reef tanks many years ago prior to ICP and eDNA testing...

 

[gbroadbridge]

I just ran an ICP analysis test. Most of the numbers came back within an acceptable range. I was most interested in my trace elements numbers. I use natural seawater for water changes and have been successfully adding trace elements and iodide for the last 6 months to boost levels a bit. I have seen improvements in color and growth. My "indicator coral" is a super red montipora digitata that looks amazing after I dose......Back to the ICP test. My magnesium on the test measured 1269. My Hanna checker 1525. I just used the certified standard calibration kit from Hanna and my checker was slightly on the high side, but well within the standard deviation of +/- 70. I believe my Hanna and not the ICP. Thoughts?

I'd trust the ICP results over a hobby grade Hanna checker driven by hobbyists with somewhat dodgy lab procedures.

Keep in mind the Hanna checker check solutions are just bottles of colored water that simply check the optics/electronics - they are not a calibration standard.

Also bear in mind also that some tests, e.g. Phosphate could change during transit to the laboratory due to biological action. I tend to put my egg in the Hanna basket for Phosphate levels.

 

[Rick Mathew]

I did not once talk about method. I only said comparing hobby grade equipment results to laboratory grade equipment is silly. I still stand by my statement.

If we want to discuss method maybe one could start by explaining why all the so called “accurate titration methods” provides such large variation when measuring Mg? I honestly gave up measuring Mg with titration method because when I used 3 different kits I got 3 different results. My conclusion, yup Mg is there, actual value maybe take an average…. Bottom line from my experience all Mg test lack accuracy or precision. Is ICP bette, who knows but from my experience the results appears consistent. Maybe consistently wrong!!!

Just my opinion, happy reefing.

You raise a very interesting point about magnesium...It does not appear to be as easy to measure as one might think...even the ICP vendors seem to only be able to get "moderate" precision based on the desired control range (see this study https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/how-we-use-icp-oes-results-of-unknown-accuracy-and-precision.862/ ) In a current study on testing at first glance it looks as if the accuracy might not be any better....Yet to be finalized...

Rick

 

[Dan_P]

Wonder how we managed reef tanks many years ago prior to ICP and eDNA testing...

I think these two methodologies are not transformative but they are very interesting. ICP seems to be much closer to being useful than eDNA testing.

 

[MrGisonni]

They are calibration standards

 

[Pod_01]

You are assuming that the ICP has quality controls in place to make tests repeatable and no contamination between water samples. Also as @Dan_P noted not all ICP vendors are created equal.

Wonder how we managed reef tanks many years ago prior to ICP and eDNA testing...

You nicely summed up all of my replies in this discussion regarding ICP. I only recommend Triton Lab or Fauna Marin ICP and out of those two I use Fauna Marin ICP. They have real live coral farm as a proof that they know how to properly use the technology and they know how to care for corrals.

As for what was done in the past? Well difficult to keep SPS we’re a dream. Many other corals died over time and many reefers figured out what not to do.
So reefers like me today hopefully don’t make the same mistakes!!! ICP as it stands today is proven tool that in my case helped a lot and I am sure helped lot of other people. Also I prefer not to kill the poor animals so why would I experiment to see what doesn’t work?
I am all for experimenting but not at the expense of corals so why repeat mistakes of the past?
Anyways I am bit confused with the constant comments that imply that in the past reef keepers knew more and somehow we regressed to a dumber state!!!

I believe the long time reefers know a lot because they learned from their mistakes. They might not require ICP because from experience they know what elements are missing and they know what corals are telling them but I need another 10-15 years to get there. ICP is a nice crutch to get me there so I am looking at nice corals vs. white skeletons.
Just a different perspective.

Anyways what a lively discussion.
Happy reefing to all.

 

[gbroadbridge]

They are calibration standards

They are not.

They simply indicate what the checker should read when it optically sees that color.

The liquid in the cuvette is simply water with a dye added.

It does not take into account variations in reagents, procedures or chemical differences in the water under analysis