Introducing the Oceamo Organo-MS Analysis

[EnterName]

Hi,

this is easy to explain:

Dibutyl maleate appears in the non-targeted screening section of the report. These are “surprise findings” in your sample, and we do not have calibrations for these compounds. For that reason, we cannot provide concentration data — only the detector response (i.e., the signal counts). This allows comparisons between tanks or between samples, but only on a relative, not absolute, basis.

This will change in the future, as we are collaborating with a Germany-based startup that uses a machine-learning algorithm to estimate concentrations from non-targeted screening data. These values will not be as precise as those in the targeted section, but they will still be very useful for evaluating whether a level might be problematic.

Regarding palytoxin, no commercially available (or affordable) standard with a defined concentration exists. We have calibrated for palytoxin, but there remains some uncertainty about the exact concentration of the reference material. For that reason, we decided to report results in units rather than µg/L. In your case, the response is only slightly above background.

all the best, Christoph

Thank you for answering! This explains everything I wanted to know :)

I will definitely buy again as soon as another analysis makes sense. Keep up the great and innovative work!

 

[Christoph]

Thank you for answering! This explains everything I wanted to know :)

I will definitely buy again as soon as another analysis makes sense. Keep up the great and innovative work!

Thank you!

 

[EnterName]

@Christoph are there any plans to include Histidine in the Organo-MS analysis in the future?

According to this source, Histidine cannot be synthesized by many corals or their zooxanthellae, which would make it an essential supplement if it is actually used by corals. (Apparently the Robusta clade of corals retained the ability to biosynthesize Histidin, but others did not)

Admittedly, it seems to be rarely found in coral skeletons according to Allison et al. (2024), but that doesn't mean it isn't used in coral tissue or for other purposes. In the supplementary file created in the linked study, you can see that they found on average 0.2% (Allison et al. 2024) to 2% (Kellock et al., 2020) of the amino acids in coral skeletons were Histidine.

For Stylophora pistillata dissolved free amino acids made up 24% of the corals daily nitrogen consumption and Histidine seemed to be one with the fastest uptake rate according to Renaud Grover et al. It probably isn't the most essential amino acid, but it still might be interesting and something that actually needs to be provided in some way through the water column as it cannot be biosynthesized by many corals.

 

[EnterName]

Just for all those interested. Christoph answered in a different thread:

"Histidine, due to its chemical nature is difficult for us to measure in the current test setup. This is why it is not part of the Organo-MS test yet. Im confident that we will manage in the mid future to also measure histidine. There is also mroe analytes we are aiming to add: A next step will be biogenic amines such as putrescine, cadaverine, tyramine & Co - im personally very interested if there is a correlation between tank issues and the levels of these compounds. But this is also work in progress."

 

[Christoph]

@Christoph are there any plans to include Histidine in the Organo-MS analysis in the future?

Hello,

due to a recent upgrade to our Organo-MS protocol we do now also measure Histidine. There is plenty of other analytes added as well including Biogenic amines (Cadaverine, Putrescine) and Dimethylsulfopropionate (DMSP).

Butthats only a fraction of the upgrade. More details soon :)
Best regards, Christoph

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Hello,

due to a recent upgrade to our Organo-MS protocol we do now also measure Histidine. There is plenty of other analytes added as well including Biogenic amines (Cadaverine, Putrescine) and Dimethylsulfopropionate (DMSP).

Butthats only a fraction of the upgrade. More details soon :)
Best regards, Christoph

Looking forward to it!

FWIW, I've always thought those names (Putrescine and Cadaverine) were among the more appropriate and interesting of chemical names, which rarely impart anything about the chemical's properties.

For those who do not know, they smell like a rotting dead body. lol

I used them a fair amount at one point in my career because with two amines connected by a linker, they are convenient for attaching one chemical to another via those amines.

https://www.acs.org/molecule-of-the-week/archive/p/putrescine.html

 

[Christoph]

For those who do not know, they smell like a rotting dead body. lol

I used them a fair amount at one point in my career because with two amines connected by a linker, they are convenient for attaching one chemical to another via those amines.

Thanks! We are hoping that these biogenic amines can act as a biomarker for decay/rot processes in a tank. Its too early to know if that is justified.

Have you also been doing preparative work, Randy? i have also used these small bifunctional linkers a lot back in my OrgSyn days, often combination with NHS chemistry and/or CuAAC/SPAAC click chemistry.

All the best!
Christoph

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Thanks! We are hoping that these biogenic amines can act as a biomarker for decay/rot processes in a tank. Its too early to know if that is justified.

Have you also been doing preparative work, Randy? i have also used these small bifunctional linkers a lot back in my OrgSyn days, often combination with NHS chemistry and/or CuAAC/SPAAC click chemistry.

All the best!
Christoph

Yes, mine was similar. :)

I've done a ton of polymer synthesis, and some monomer synthesis for many years, though not in the last 15 years.

But the putrescine and cadaverine work was mostly in graduate school. My thesis was titled:

Surface-Modified Polyethylene Film: The Relationship between Surface Chemistry and Physical Properties

https://www.proquest.com/openview/a...308af/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
The basic approach was to oxidize the polyethylene film surface in chromic acid, which puts a super thin layer of ketones and carboxylic acids on the surface. Then using standard organic synthesis methods, I converted those into a wide range of other functional groups and monitored many different physical properties (such as wetting or adhesion).

Diamines like cadaverine were useful for adding amines to the surface, with one end reacting with the surface carboxylic acids to form amides and the other amine end free to study its effects (say, wetting vs pH) or to attach other things to (such as fluorophores). :)

 

[stenopus]

The hype around MS is overrated. Everything you can achieve in a reef tank can be done using ICP-OES. I have 4–5 tanks, and all of them are thriving. I’ve also sent water samples for comparison several times, and both labs returned almost identical results.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

MS hype is worth nothing, everything you can do in a reef tank with ICP OES. I have 4-5 tanks and all of them thriving. Also I have send several times water tests for compare and they both come with almoust the same results.

One can certainly keep a fine tank without any type of ICP, or with ICP-OES, but it is clearly not true that ICP-MS is "worth nothing" relative to ICP-OES.

Just look at your reports and see how many important trace elements with "none detected" is considered normal.

Obviously, all of those could be lower than optimal and you would not know it.

 

[BeanAnimal]

MS hype is worth nothing, everything you can do in a reef tank with ICP OES. I have 4-5 tanks and all of them thriving. Also I have send several times water tests for compare and they both come with almoust the same results.

There are clear differences in detection levels.
There are clear differences in vendor baseline profiles.
There are clear differences in calibration overt time.
What is "almost the same"?
How have you determined that your tank is thriving as a result of ICP-ANY

I am not proposing OES or MS is "better" or that ICP is valuable or not. But they are different.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Drat

Beat from the draw again.

 

[stenopus]

One can certainly keep a fine tank without any type of ICP, or with ICP-OES, but it is clearly not true that ICP-MS is "worth nothing" relative to ICP-OES.

Just look at your reports and see how many important trace elements with "none detected" is considered normal.

Obviously, all of those could be lower than optimal and you would not know it.

yeah parts per trillion is the margin that i am not looking for and to be honest, you maybe continue to believe in it, that is your free choice. For me and my sps - lps tanks i dont see any difference at all.

 

[BeanAnimal]

yeah parts per trillion is the margin that i am not looking for and to be honest, you maybe continue to believe in it, that is your free choice. For me and my sps - lps tanks i dont see any difference at all.

You’re certain the extra sensitivity of MS doesn’t matter, yet at the same time you haven't defined what actually does matter... while still arguing that OES matters enough to rely on. That’s a puzzling position.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

yeah parts per trillion is the margin that i am not looking for and to be honest, you maybe continue to believe in it, that is your free choice. For me and my sps - lps tanks i dont see any difference at all.

Are you saying you use icp-OES to decide how much of the naturally very low trace elements to dose, or that you do not use icp-OES for that purpose at all?

I don’t regularly dose based on icp of any sort, but using icp-OES for that purpose will be an extra challenge relative to using icp- ms.

 

[stenopus]

You’re certain the extra sensitivity of MS doesn’t matter, yet at the same time you haven't defined what actually does matter... while still arguing that OES matters enough to rely on. That’s a puzzling position.

What i have said is very simple to understand and it is that you don't need to pay for very expensive MS tests when you have the same level of success with OES.

 

[stenopus]

Are you saying you use icp-OES to decide how much of the naturally very low trace elements to dose, or that you do not use icp-OES for that purpose at all?

I don’t regularly dose based on icp of any sort, but using icp-OES for that purpose will be an extra challenge relative to using icp- ms.

I have used both ICP versions and compare them for some time.. and I found out that there is a hype about MS. There is no sense to have that type of sensitivity at all. Is there anyone who can show me for example milepora care with icp oes vs icp ms..?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I have used both ICP versions and compare them for some time.. and I found out that there is a hype about MS. There is no sense to have that type of sensitivity at all. Is there anyone who can show me for example milepora care with icp oes vs icp ms..?

So to get back to my question, you use icp-OES to dose trace elements to a specific target? How did you set that target? Do you need icp-OES at all?

Some folks have set their targets below the level that icp-OES can detect.

I don’t know whose targets are better, and I don’t dose based on any targets at all.

I’m not actually saying you need either one, but if I were to use one, I’d use one that could detect natural levels.

 

[stenopus]

So to get back to my question, you use icp-OES to dose trace elements to a specific target? How did you set that target? Do you need icp-OES at all?

Of course I need, since i have several tanks, I see almoust immediate response from the system when I correct levers. Like K, I, Br, B, Sr.. etc.. The target is almoust the same from all companies that are doing this type of business. For me the most important thing except ICP testing is to spent time with a tank and watch it closely. I am sending ICP every month.

Some folks have set their targets below the level that icp-OES can detect.

I don't think that they are detrimental like hype over rubidium..

I don’t know whose targets are better, and I don’t dose based on any targets at all.

I’m not actually saying you need either one, but if I were to use one, I’d use one that could detect natural levels.

I am not sure what do you mean? how do you measure K for example?? or Sr? Levels are that one that found in the ocean, right?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

NONE of the elements you mention need icp-ms because all are way above the detection limits of both.most are not even considered trace elements.

Elements that may benefit from icp-ms are the low level trace elements such as nickel.

I do not dose potassium as it does not deplete in my tank.

I use All For Reef for some of the low level trace elements and dose it based on alkalinity. When I did have an icp-ms done, all were fine except two that were apparently low in my salt mix. I doses those independently and now always dose to my new salt water too.