Is Trident NP actually working for anyone?

[Valadon]

I have been testing with the Hanna every morning at the same time the Trident NP does its test. Looking at the chart, I can see a correlation, sort of. The NP always reads between .02 and .04, and the Hanna reads between .08 and .21 for the same time period. If you squint, you can see a bit of correlation :face-with-tears-of-joy:.

So if the NP reads:
.04 then I am probably at .2+
.03 then I am .2-.1
.02 then I am .1 or below.

I guess it could be useful. If I am .04 on the NP, then I should probably take some action, and if I am .01, then I might need to take action. But it would be nice if it gave me real numbers instead of what basically amounts to low, med, and high.

It is possible that my Hanna checker is not working, but I trust it more than I trust the NP; it shows more variation, which you would expect to see in a nano tank, and I try to be very precise and carful with my Hanna testing procedure.

The interesting thing is that the NP actually read close to the Hanna for the first two days, then dropped down to the .03 range and has stuck there ever since. No amount of tinkering with it seems to do anything.

 

[bubbgee]

So far it works for me. I stopped using my Hanna since I dont have confidence with user error. I just keep it within a range I am comfortable with (0.05 to .15) and start the GFO reactor when it's over .10

 

[Formulator]

I have been testing with the Hanna every morning at the same time the Trident NP does its test. Looking at the chart, I can see a correlation, sort of. The NP always reads between .02 and .04, and the Hanna reads between .08 and .21 for the same time period. If you squint, you can see a bit of correlation :face-with-tears-of-joy:.

So if the NP reads:
.04 then I am probably at .2+
.03 then I am .2-.1
.02 then I am .1 or below.

I guess it could be useful. If I am .04 on the NP, then I should probably take some action, and if I am .01, then I might need to take action. But it would be nice if it gave me real numbers instead of what basically amounts to low, med, and high.

It is possible that my Hanna checker is not working, but I trust it more than I trust the NP; it shows more variation, which you would expect to see in a nano tank, and I try to be very precise and carful with my Hanna testing procedure.

The interesting thing is that the NP actually read close to the Hanna for the first two days, then dropped down to the .03 range and has stuck there ever since. No amount of tinkering with it seems to do anything.

Thank you for the incredibly helpful information! I see what you meant by random number generator now :face-with-tears-of-joy: . How frustrating that it actually worked for a few days. That would make me insane knowing the equipment is capable and just not performing!

Oh, and welcome to the forums! Just noticed you were new around here. You’re in the right place. The knowledge of some of the folks on here is incredible. I’ve been in the hobby almost 10 years and still learn something new almost every time I poke my head into a new thread.

 

[Formulator]

So far it works for me. I stopped using my Hanna since I dont have confidence with user error. I just keep it within a range I am comfortable with (0.05 to .15) and start the GFO reactor when it's over .10

That’s kind of what I’m going for… Though without another method you trust, there’s no way to know if you are actually running your tank in that comfort range of 0.05-0.15.

 

[Valadon]

Thank you for the incredibly helpful information! I see what you meant by random number generator now :face-with-tears-of-joy: . How frustrating that it actually worked for a few days. That would make me insane knowing the equipment is capable and just not performing!

Oh, and welcome to the forums! Just noticed you were new around here. You’re in the right place. The knowledge of some of the folks on here is incredible. I’ve been in the hobby almost 10 years and still learn something new almost every time I poke my head into a new thread.

Thank you! I have been lurking here for years but finally decided to chime in! Thanks for having me!

 

[bubbgee]

That’s kind of what I’m going for… Though without another method you trust, there’s no way to know if you are actually running your tank in that comfort range of 0.05-0.15.

Oh I did use Hanna initially and I still keep them as backup. So far I am happy with the numbers I find on the Trident NP.

 

[areefer01]

My question is if anyone’s tank shows signs of improvement from using this, or is it just a toy? I test PO4 and NO3 once a week.

Interesting question. It gives you a number. The hobbyist would need to know what to do with it. Some panic over a number, others do not, some look at the trend. To answer the question one would have to know what the hobbyist wants the numbers for.

A toy though, no. It is tech and optional. Not required by any means as you know.

To the OP's question though it is hard to say if it is, or it is not working. There are a few threads here, some long, with nothing but complains. Someone would have to sort through the posts, sort on members names, unique, and then tally who has working vs those who it is not. Honestly difficult to answer because not everyone posts when something is right regardless of what it is. So we won't have installation base with users saying good or bad.

What we know:

• It has been out now for a while
• In more hobbyist hands
• Neptune has provided some firmware updates
• Some hobbyist haven't noticed improvement
• Some hobbyist it is working well
• Schedule is set to 1 test per day
• Hobbyist picks the time of day to test
• Reagents are 2 month only kits as of today (similar when the original Trident was launched)
• Reagent lasts 2 months

My story or user experience is that it is working well. Reagents last close to advertised duration. First box ran 57 schedule tests, 5 manual tests, 2 calibrations, bringing the total to 64 tests. I let it run until it threw an out of reagent error.

It can detect change. 20 gallon water change, GFO replacement, GFO exhaustion, carbon dosing (TM Elimi-NP, ESV Transition Elements PLUS), and dosing of LC. I've done all of these and the NP picks up the results. I have also added Nitrates and again it notices those.

When I started testing the NP my phosphate was 2.2 ppm (yes, 2.2 ppm) and the NP gave me the Bad PO4 range error. That is what it was supposed to do. I then started to slowly lower phosphates over a couple days and then it started to report measurements. I continued to run a series of tests to lower phosphates using LC, GFO, and light carbon dosing which it detected as I noted above. Nitrates have not been that exciting compared to phosphates but range between 9 and 43 ppm.

Few notes:

• I am a NSI member, so have been testing the NP for a while now
• I bought/paid for the unit
• My display is very high nutrient as I feed hourly dry pellet and 1 to 2 x frozen a day
• My phosphate started at 2.2 ppm and has been as low as .16 ppm during testing
• It detects change based on my action as I mentioned earlier

My experience will vary a bit because I've been testing prior to product launch. This means I've had different Apex OS and/or firmware versions. I test, update logs, and note what I did. Other than that the NP just does its thing. I like it, it works, and that is about it.

Some recent data from the 7th of Nov.

Phosphate over time graph - just for fun:

 

[Rshahnyc]

I have been testing with the Hanna every morning at the same time the Trident NP does its test. Looking at the chart, I can see a correlation, sort of. The NP always reads between .02 and .04, and the Hanna reads between .08 and .21 for the same time period. If you squint, you can see a bit of correlation :face-with-tears-of-joy:.

So if the NP reads:
.04 then I am probably at .2+
.03 then I am .2-.1
.02 then I am .1 or below.

I guess it could be useful. If I am .04 on the NP, then I should probably take some action, and if I am .01, then I might need to take action. But it would be nice if it gave me real numbers instead of what basically amounts to low, med, and high.

It is possible that my Hanna checker is not working, but I trust it more than I trust the NP; it shows more variation, which you would expect to see in a nano tank, and I try to be very precise and carful with my Hanna testing procedure.

The interesting thing is that the NP actually read close to the Hanna for the first two days, then dropped down to the .03 range and has stuck there ever since. No amount of tinkering with it seems to do anything.

Thats EXACTLY how mine works.

I've noticed that the discrepencies tend to get wider if I don't run the test for 24H. I feel like this has to be a known issue and there must be a known correction.

 

[RelaxingWithTheReef]

The interesting thing is that the NP actually read close to the Hanna for the first two days, then dropped down to the .03 range and has stuck there ever since. No amount of tinkering with it seems to do anything.

My unit was doing the same thing. I traced the problem to the black sample water tubing that apparently developed an internal biofilm that rapidly absorbed phosphate as the tank water made its way to the tester. It takes a couple days for the film to develop.

In my opinion Neptune used good components in their tester. Stepper motor on the pump, quality RGB photo emitter / detector, etc., and the chemistry seems to work fine. Been using 3 of them for months (with an experimental modification to provide fresh tank water), and all of them are accurate and stable.

Your tester box is most likely functioning properly. It’s simply correctly measuring the reduced phosphate level after the absorption in the tubing.

It’s interesting that apparently not all tanks develop the troublesome biofilm. The NP tester seems to work perfectly fine for many users.

 

[Formulator]

My unit was doing the same thing. I traced the problem to the black sample water tubing that apparently developed an internal biofilm that rapidly absorbed phosphate as the tank water made its way to the tester. It takes a couple days for the film to develop.

In my opinion Neptune used good components in their tester. Stepper motor on the pump, quality RGB photo emitter / detector, etc., and the chemistry seems to work fine. Been using 3 of them for months (with an experimental modification to provide fresh tank water), and all of them are accurate and stable.

Your tester box is most likely functioning properly. It’s simply correctly measuring the reduced phosphate level after the absorption in the tubing.

It’s interesting that apparently not all tanks develop the troublesome biofilm. The NP tester seems to work perfectly fine for many users.

Interesting! Do you have any experimental data or observations to support your conclusion regarding phosphate adsorption to the tubing/biofilm? Because if you are right I feel like this should be a public service announcement stickied at the top of the chemistry and/or equipment forums, along with details of the workaround you figured out. @Randy Holmes-Farley ?

 

[Formulator]

Interesting question. It gives you a number. The hobbyist would need to know what to do with it. Some panic over a number, others do not, some look at the trend. To answer the question one would have to know what the hobbyist wants the numbers for.

A toy though, no. It is tech and optional. Not required by any means as you know.

To the OP's question though it is hard to say if it is, or it is not working. There are a few threads here, some long, with nothing but complains. Someone would have to sort through the posts, sort on members names, unique, and then tally who has working vs those who it is not. Honestly difficult to answer because not everyone posts when something is right regardless of what it is. So we won't have installation base with users saying good or bad.

What we know:

• It has been out now for a while
• In more hobbyist hands
• Neptune has provided some firmware updates
• Some hobbyist haven't noticed improvement
• Some hobbyist it is working well
• Schedule is set to 1 test per day
• Hobbyist picks the time of day to test
• Reagents are 2 month only kits as of today (similar when the original Trident was launched)
• Reagent lasts 2 months

My story or user experience is that it is working well. Reagents last close to advertised duration. First box ran 57 schedule tests, 5 manual tests, 2 calibrations, bringing the total to 64 tests. I let it run until it threw an out of reagent error.

It can detect change. 20 gallon water change, GFO replacement, GFO exhaustion, carbon dosing (TM Elimi-NP, ESV Transition Elements PLUS), and dosing of LC. I've done all of these and the NP picks up the results. I have also added Nitrates and again it notices those.

When I started testing the NP my phosphate was 2.2 ppm (yes, 2.2 ppm) and the NP gave me the Bad PO4 range error. That is what it was supposed to do. I then started to slowly lower phosphates over a couple days and then it started to report measurements. I continued to run a series of tests to lower phosphates using LC, GFO, and light carbon dosing which it detected as I noted above. Nitrates have not been that exciting compared to phosphates but range between 9 and 43 ppm.

Few notes:

• I am a NSI member, so have been testing the NP for a while now
• I bought/paid for the unit
• My display is very high nutrient as I feed hourly dry pellet and 1 to 2 x frozen a day
• My phosphate started at 2.2 ppm and has been as low as .16 ppm during testing
• It detects change based on my action as I mentioned earlier

My experience will vary a bit because I've been testing prior to product launch. This means I've had different Apex OS and/or firmware versions. I test, update logs, and note what I did. Other than that the NP just does its thing. I like it, it works, and that is about it.

Some recent data from the 7th of Nov.

Phosphate over time graph - just for fun:

This is amazing! Thank you! Though I’m not sure if it makes my decision any easier. Without knowing whether the root cause of issues for some people is related to user setup error or just the luck of the draw, it seems like a crap shoot whether I will get a return on my investment or not…

 

[RelaxingWithTheReef]

Interesting! Do you have any experimental data or observations to support your conclusion regarding phosphate adsorption to the tubing/biofilm? Because if you are right I feel like this should be a public service announcement stickied at the top of the chemistry and/or equipment forums, along with details of the workaround you figured out. @Randy Holmes-Farley ?

With my tester I was able to determine the low phosphate reading being reported by the tester was the result of the test sample liquid in the cuvette not darkening correctly during the phosphate test phase.

By very careful observation, I was pretty sure the valves and mixing of sample water and reagents was correct, and the sample was definitely being stirred properly in the cuvette.

The reagents were verified as good when I moved them to a second tester that was not installed on a tank, and the phosphate results were correct.

At this point I was really stumped as to why the color change was not occurring. It’s all physics, so it dawned on me that the only reasonable explanation is there was a lack of phosphate in the sample water.

To verify this thinking I drew 1 mL every 5 minutes from the sample line where it connects to the tester until I had 10 mL sample. When I tested the sample, the 0.050 ppm tank water tested around 0.010 ppm phosphate! BINGO

I replaced the black sample tubing with new tubing from the second unit, and the phosphate reading was restored.

My goal at this point was to experiment and provide a fresh sample of tank water right at the pinch valve to achieve the most accurate reading possible. This experiment appears to be working.

I thought it was important to share my findings with the reefing community, and offer a possible explanation for what some people are experiencing. But unfortunately I do not consider this a “solution”, and cannot share exactly what I did because Neptune has specifically instructed users to not modify the sample or waste tubing. I am also not satisfied with this experiment due to some risk, including the possibility of a leak.

At this point Neptune really needs to address the low phosphate issue.

 

[Valadon]

My replacement unit arrived today. I installed it with the same reagents I used on the old unit and did a test. It tested very close to the Hanna readings I took this morning. They sent a box of new reagents, but I wanted to see if I could isolate the problem to the unit or reagents before I opened them.

@RelaxingWithTheReef I almost didn't swap out the sample line when I swapped the unit, but decided to do it at the last min. Tomorrow, if I get a chance, I will put the old sample line back on and see if I get the reduced phosphate reading that I was getting before. This will further test your theory about the biofilm on the sample line.

For what it's worth, the tech at Neptune told me that it tests correctly for the first few days because it is using old calibration code left over from before the firmware update you perform when you install the unit. He said the calibration data hard-coded in by the engineers takes a few days to cycle through. I find this hard to believe, but I guess it's possible.

I will report back tomorrow with the findings from the "old" sample line. It will be interesting to see if there is a drastic difference between the two lines, with back to back tests. I feel like neptune should be paying us at this point :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing:

 

[Valadon]

As I thought about it more this morning, swapping the sample line probably won't be a great test. The "old" sample line was flushed out with RO and then dried out, so the biofilm (if it was there) is probably greatly diminished.

I will say that the replacement unit is testing spot on this morning. PO4 0.11 on both Hanna and Trident. NO3 9.9 on trident and 10.2 on Hanna.
My original trident NP also tested well for the first two days; I will report back in a few days after I see if the PO4 starts drifting toward zero again.

 

[RelaxingWithTheReef]

It’s interesting to note that the tester is only active for about 1 ½ hours per day. During this time tank water is flowing through the sample tubing, and oxygen is available to the biofilm. During the balance of 22 ½ hours I would think it’s possible that oxygen in the tubing becomes depleted.

If this is the case, then I wonder if this sets favorable conditions for the growth of “Phosphate Accumulating Organisms?”

“Phosphate accumulating organisms, PAO - Polyphosphate accumulating organisms (PAO) are the basis of biological phosphate elimination. If these microorganisms do not have oxygen available, they can release the phosphates stored in their cells. It releases energy that cells need to survive. Later, when the PAO microorganisms return to an aerobic area, they re-absorb dissolved phosphate and also store additional phosphates in their cells.”

https://www.essde.com/en/glossary/phosphate-accumulating-organisms-pao-2549

This appears to be a hot topic as these organisms are capable of removing phosphate on an industrial scale. Example - Wastewater Treatment

I am way out of my lane here so @Randy Holmes-Farley or biofilm experts – Any thoughts?

 

[reef_ranch]

With my tester I was able to determine the low phosphate reading being reported by the tester was the result of the test sample liquid in the cuvette not darkening correctly during the phosphate test phase.

By very careful observation, I was pretty sure the valves and mixing of sample water and reagents was correct, and the sample was definitely being stirred properly in the cuvette.

The reagents were verified as good when I moved them to a second tester that was not installed on a tank, and the phosphate results were correct.

At this point I was really stumped as to why the color change was not occurring. It’s all physics, so it dawned on me that the only reasonable explanation is there was a lack of phosphate in the sample water.

To verify this thinking I drew 1 mL every 5 minutes from the sample line where it connects to the tester until I had 10 mL sample. When I tested the sample, the 0.050 ppm tank water tested around 0.010 ppm phosphate! BINGO

I replaced the black sample tubing with new tubing from the second unit, and the phosphate reading was restored.

My goal at this point was to experiment and provide a fresh sample of tank water right at the pinch valve to achieve the most accurate reading possible. This experiment appears to be working.

I thought it was important to share my findings with the reefing community, and offer a possible explanation for what some people are experiencing. But unfortunately I do not consider this a “solution”, and cannot share exactly what I did because Neptune has specifically instructed users to not modify the sample or waste tubing. I am also not satisfied with this experiment due to some risk, including the possibility of a leak.

At this point Neptune really needs to address the low phosphate issue.

After reading your report I decided to take a look at my Trident. It has worked fine for me over the past 5 months or so. I'm on my third set of reagents and after determining early on that it was testing accurately relative to the Hanna I simply began to rely on the trends it was reporting, not taking any action because none was needed. Yesterday I decided to check it against Hanna and low and behold, it was reporting PO4 significantly lower than Hanna and NO3 right on the mark. The Hanna tester had PO4 at .18 and the Triton had it at .07. This to me is a significant difference although nothing that would prevent me form continuing to use the Trident to track trends.

In order to test the theory that there may be some bacteria in the intake tube that is consuming PO4 I removed the tube and injected 3 ml of Alcohol through it. The tube holds approximately 1ml of liquid, so it was flushed pretty well. I then thoroughly rinsed it with tank water, reinstalled and primed it. I left it to run on its normal testing schedule which is once per day at 6:00am

Today the Trident tested NO3 at 14, the Hanna at 16.4. Continuing to be spot on. The PO4 test was the surprise. Today the Trident reported .13 up .06 from yesterday. The Hanna reported .14.

This leads me to conclude that there may be something to your theory. I will watch my Trident PO4 results and when it begins to dip without any changes to the system I'll clean the intake tube with alcohol and see if these results repeat.

Oh, and count me as one of the Trident owners who is getting consistent and apparently correct results for both NO3 and PO4.

 

[Formulator]

After reading your report I decided to take a look at my Trident. It has worked fine for me over the past 5 months or so. I'm on my third set of reagents and after determining early on that it was testing accurately relative to the Hanna I simply began to rely on the trends it was reporting, not taking any action because none was needed. Yesterday I decided to check it against Hanna and low and behold, it was reporting PO4 significantly lower than Hanna and NO3 right on the mark. The Hanna tester had PO4 at .18 and the Triton had it at .07. This to me is a significant difference although nothing that would prevent me form continuing to use the Trident to track trends.

In order to test the theory that there may be some bacteria in the intake tube that is consuming PO4 I removed the tube and injected 3 ml of Alcohol through it. The tube holds approximately 1ml of liquid, so it was flushed pretty well. I then thoroughly rinsed it with tank water, reinstalled and primed it. I left it to run on its normal testing schedule which is once per day at 6:00am

Today the Trident tested NO3 at 14, the Hanna at 16.4. Continuing to be spot on. The PO4 test was the surprise. Today the Trident reported .13 up .06 from yesterday. The Hanna reported .14.

This leads me to conclude that there may be something to your theory. I will watch my Trident PO4 results and when it begins to dip without any changes to the system I'll clean the intake tube with alcohol and see if these results repeat.

Oh, and count me as one of the Trident owners who is getting consistent and apparently correct results for both NO3 and PO4.

This is fantastic data! I’m convinced we are onto something now. So the next reasonable step to me is to get a sample of the biofilm and send it off for PCR genetic analysis. With a species ID perhaps we could propose conditions that would inhibit its growth in the tubing.

 

[Valadon]

My replacement unit tested spot on for Po4 compared to Hanna for exactly two days. Just like the original unit. Then on the third day it dropped way down.

If it was a biofilm I would expect it to slowly drift as the film builds up. What I am seeing is a stark shift 2 days after install (and firmware update).

I will try cleaning my sample line and seeing if it makes a difference. But a stark sudden change after 2 days on 2 different units feels like a software bug to me.

 

[Valadon]

Hmm, well, I am surprised. I flushed the sample line with some alcohol, rinsed it with RO, and primed the line. I ran another test, and the reading was exactly the same as my Hanna again.

Before the cleaning it read 0.04
After cleaning it read 0.16
Hanna read 0.15

At this point, I have to think it is the sample line, and if it is biofilm, it grows fast, at least in my tank.

Cleaning the line every two days is a lot more work than using a Hanna tester. I don't know what the fix would be for this.

 

[reef_ranch]

My replacement unit tested spot on for Po4 compared to Hanna for exactly two days. Just like the original unit. Then on the third day it dropped way down.

If it was a biofilm I would expect it to slowly drift as the film builds up. What I am seeing is a stark shift 2 days after install (and firmware update).

I will try cleaning my sample line and seeing if it makes a difference. But a stark sudden change after 2 days on 2 different units feels like a software bug to me.

My Trident result dropped back down to .07 in today's test. Hanna tested at .18.

This leads me to believe yesterday's higher Trident test result had nothing to do with cleaning the intake tube, more likely a purge issue.

I recall there being a software issue early on that caused the Trident to report PO4 results 0.1 low and this was solved by a rest. I'll try that today and see whether tomorrow's result will be 0.1 higher.