ICP Tests - 2 labs comparative analysis

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That is 61, at ppb everything else if make believe.

Probably 60 +/- 50 ppb. lol

 

[areefer01]

I think the long and short of it is this.

If a hobbyist is interesting in ICP testing they first should ask why. Then they should ask what they plan to do with the results. And before either of those questions are asked they should take some time to read some of the articles outside this forum that have already done research dating back to 2016. I understand the chatter here and elsewhere over the past couple of months but a few well known and respected hobbyist have already done the leg work on these tests and provided some invaluable insight. Some new ICP players have come on board since then but the issues are still more or less the same.

 

[Dan_P]

Hello everyone,

I would like to share my recent experience with the ICP tests and discuss them with the Reefing community to hear your opinions. First, let me explain my long-standing approach, which I am generally very satisfied with. I don’t do home tests except for the no3 and po4. I rely on the ICP tests for several reasons, including errors that can occur with measurements, mixing, storage, and validity issues with testing reagents... etc. That's why I find it more convenient to send a sample to the lab that will thoroughly examine it and provide me with precise results and recommendations that are easy to follow.

Recently, I started feeling that the results from the lab were not logical, so I decided to send three water samples to three different labs for a comparative analysis. I selected labs with a good reputation in the reefing community, including the lab I've been dealing with for years. Indeed, I took three samples at the same time and from the same spot the same way I usually follow. I then shipped the samples to the respective labs. Unfortunately, due to my mistake in providing the address to one of the labs, one of the samples was lost. This led to testing two samples in different labs.

The results came out unexpectedly, and it's not possible to definitively say that either of the labs made an error. The results showed similarities in some elements and significant variations in others. This has made me reconsider the regularity of sending samples for testing. I incur financial costs for the precise results, but the unpredictable outcomes have made me question the continued periodic submission of samples for ICP tests.

I am attaching the results from both labs along with a summary file I created for comparison.

Feel free to comment and share your opinions.

ICP results do not come with any indication of precision and accuracy. You are discovering the consequences of such a service.

@Rick Mathew has just posted a comparison of hobby kit and ICP results. To your point, the ICP results from multiple vendors are not the same. This is an old issue never addressed by the vendors.

 

[areefer01]

@Rick Mathew has just posted a comparison of hobby kit and ICP results. To your point, the ICP results from multiple vendors are not the same. This is an old issue never addressed by the vendors.

To be realistic does it need to be addressed by the vendors? Machines may be the same but we know practices may not be. There are no standards or governing body or inspections for such enforcement. I'd wager if there was we would be paying more than $45 bucks...

Not saying there shouldn't be but we both know this was being questioned as far back as 2016 - at least as far as I remember. Maybe earlier.

Btw not arguing with you or even disagreeing. Just when I read the addressed by vendors part this came to mind.

Edit: @Ali-F here is the link that @Dan_P was talking about. First page is the meat - the rest we sort of get off topic. As Dan said, and I believe also participated in, a good discussion.

HOBBY GRADE TEST KITS CAN OUTPERFORM ICP MEASUREMENTS…REALLY??

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In May of 2022 we (@Dan_P, @taricha and I) posted an article that looked at the quality of the data reported by ICP-OES measurements from several vendors. Our goal was to help bring some clarity to the community to help evaluate and interpret the results of an ICP test...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Dan_P]

Btw not arguing with you or even disagreeing. Just when I read the addressed by vendors part this came to mind.

Here is my ranting reasoning.

This issue needs to be addressed by vendors just like car manufacturers need to come clean about the expected miles per gallon. I feel that customers should not be required to determine whether a vendor is selling snake oil or something legitimate, though it is not an uncommon situation.

Since we are using the analysis to keep glorified gold fish bowls healthy, not land a human on Mars, I think we would all be satisfied with just an estimate of the accuracy and precision and how that estimate was determined.That would not be a big financial burden for any vendor nor a reason to raise the analysis price.

 

[areefer01]

Here is my ranting reasoning.

This issue needs to be addressed by vendors just like car manufacturers need to come clean about the expected miles per gallon. I feel that customers should not be required to determine whether a vendor is selling snake oil or something legitimate, though it is not an uncommon situation.

Since we are using the analysis to keep glorified gold fish bowls healthy, not land a human on Mars, I think we would all be satisfied with just an estimate of the accuracy and precision and how that estimate was determined.That would not be a big financial burden for any vendor nor a reason to raise the analysis price.

Oh no argument from me nor am I trying to poke the bear. I'm just pointing out captain obvious by saying that there are no standards in this hobby be it ICP testing or bottles of chemical euphoria we add to the display. We probably agree there.

BTW "I" don't think you are ranting. Hope you also understand I'm not poking or arguing :D

 

[Dan_P]

Oh no argument from me nor am I trying to poke the bear. I'm just pointing out captain obvious by saying that there are no standards in this hobby be it ICP testing or bottles of chemical euphoria we add to the display. We probably agree there.

BTW "I" don't think you are ranting. Hope you also understand I'm not poking or arguing :D

HaHa, poking a bear. I did not feel poked and I thought the observation of “no standards in the hobby” a good point to make

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just my usual added rant: element concentrations are far from the whole story, regardless of how accurate they are.

If I told you N was 1 ppm, would that be useful? The conclusion is very different if it is ammonia or nitrate or TNT or EDTA or whole bacteria or vibrant algaecide. Most reefers naturally accept this as a serious limitation.

So who had made the case that such differences do not matter for other elements? And how did they do it?

 

[MnFish1]

Based on the two tests above, what would you have them replenish and why? Which one of those tests is accurate or reliable enough to go off of? Which is right and which is wrong? Or are both wrong?

Unfortunately, the tests above do not show anything which can be used to decide the accuracy or reliability. the first issue (that I see) - is that the Triton 'set point' might be wrong. Maybe the other company has a different 'set-point'. To answer your question - IF for example the 'set point' was xxx and both tests showed a result under that result - I would consider a third test to decide whether to dose or not.

The problem with all of these experiments is that there is really no 'gold standard' against which to measure the others. It doesn't help that the companies do not always explain from what they are getting their 'normal ranges' or 'recommendations (ie.. set points)'

And as someone else said - the way the graphs are presented is misleading by not starting out the y axis at 0.

 

[Roberto Denadai]

ICP is useless in my opinion and not reliable at all

People think the coral reef is just one.

Trace concentration is different around the world, the water in Australia is not the same as Red Sea.

It's really funny to see people trying to fix some trace when they have no idea if that's good or bad :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:

 

[jason2459]

Consistency, different from stability, is key IMO more then anything else and your eyes are the best test kit we have.