not alot of replies to many members' requests for icp test decoding, did we waste our money on icp?

[Rick Mathew]

I´m among the few that really read the links and charts

incerely Lasse

By the way you forgot the "S" in Sincerely ....I am one who reads the posts....for the most part anyway

rick

 

[Larry L]

I have had 2 tests done ... Icp ... the first showed me bromide and arsenic in the red. The second test a few weeks later both where even higher. Now to me that’s just scary stuff

Does the test company tell you why they colored the box red? According to Triton's ICP recommendations, they would actually flag 36 ppm of Bromine as too low, not too high, since they recommend a setpoint of 62 ppm.

 

[Lota Reefer]

In addition to buying a current picture of your water, I believe we are also accessing trends of many thousands of reefs. By accumulating the data, icp companies have access to what trends in most tanks. This is a pretty easy access to what amounts to hundreds of years of experience that is a pretty good bit of advice really for $50 or so. In addition as these databases build I would certainly hope researchers and product engineers access this info to bring effective advances to both the hobby and potentially the wild environment too. I see that data as being in its infancy and appreciate the benefit of everyone adding their piece of puzzle while receiving a valuable insight into their own reef.

 

[User1]

It is very interesting and disturbing that an easy to quantify ion like magnesium would vary so much.

Folks really need to realize that this is closer to rocket science than plug and play.

I tried very hard to get calcium to be quantified properly by ICP using an $80,000 machine a number of years ago. It was super frustrating. This was my conclusion at the time:

"For initial testing I chose to use as the "standard" a sample of artificial seawater that was mixed to an approximate salinity of S=35. I mixed a 44-gallon batch using Instant Ocean artificial salt mix and reverse osmosis/deionized (RO/DI) water to a conductivity of 52.7 mS/cm, and allowed it to settle for three weeks. I then proceeded to measure its calcium concentration by ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, an $80,000 analytical instrument. I was somewhat disappointed with my inability to use this sophisticated technique to get a precise answer. Despite taking five different samples and analyzing them at eight different emission wavelengths using two different calibration methods (five standard additions of known calcium concentrations to each sample, as well as comparison to a fixed 1000 ppm commercial calcium standard), I was unable to get consistent values. Some of the samples were acidified or filtered through submicron filter membranes to determine if solid materials were impacting the result (they were not). Overall, I took more than 200 measurements, each involving three replicate observations of the emission intensity. Nevertheless, the result was not very satisfying, with a substantial variation occurring between the different values. The average of every measurement taken was 336 ppm. With the uncertainty involved, however, I'd conclude that the true value was probably 340 ± 40 ppm. I also measured the same sample once with a Salifert brand test kit and got 330 ppm calcium. "

Thank you for sharing and it is interesting. One of the things that bother me about ICP testing in general is the amount of testing done per day and the standard or process by which they follow before and after every test. How long does the machine stay calibrated, does it matter, is once a day ok or after every test. What about the reference solution(s). I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant of such tests and their procedures but assume they are doing several if not more a day.

Not bashing any of them and as I posted I prefer, and use, ATI a couple times a year as a reference or outside check point. Outside of that I just wonder. Similar to the new testing that is starting to take ground with the tank dna.

 

[Robert Scott]

Have maintained a successful SPS dominant mixed reef for over 6yrs. Have been doing ICP monthly for the past two yrs. Perform 20% water changes weekly. Initially I found and reacted to specific issues such as high Iron which I treated with PolyFilters and validated correction with the ICP test. I have found it validates and gives me a "peace of mind". I use it now primarily for monitoring and dosing Potassium, Strontium, and Iodine. I am also using it to monitor/validate phosphate levels as I currently use aggressive GFO measures. Once per month may be overkill but I feel the frequent data points gives me the confidence to implement corrective actions which are then validated by the "next" ICP test. Probably overkill, but with a large system I will continue to rely on ICP as part of my process.

 

[Lasse]

I do not deny that´s there a lot of uncertainties with ICP testing and that things can go wrong - but to be honest - is the best available tool today - but it is not for sure the holy graal of reefkeeping - it must be combined with common sense and observations of your animals. Because I´m rather convinced of the need for many trace elements I want to dose them. The backside of trace elements are for many of them - they are essential in low amounts but deadly in higher concentrations. To dose in blindo - dangerous. And as long as there is no liquid commercial salts to buy (at least if you not a very rich) you can´t never be sure that your WC bring in the right amount of them. Yes - quality salt, premier salt - I know - but explain for me how anyone in this world will succeed to mix evenly 1 gram of some trace elements in one metric ton of dry salt?

The ICP testing allow us to create a water there we can have enough of trace elements - but of cause - as with all other things in life - it can go wrong - but we are at least on step higher on the stair to the perfect reef.

How long does the machine stay calibrated, does it matter, is once a day ok or after every test. What about the reference solution(s). I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant of such tests and their procedures but assume they are doing several if not more a day.

If I remember right - Triton has state somewhere that the recalibrate at least after every 5 - 6 sample - but I´m not sure on this - let us ask @Julian@Triton

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ChicagoReef]

With ICP I would ask what kind of tank do you have. I have a mixed reef with SPS. I rarely do water changes (not recommended for most). I switched to the Aquaforest method from the Triton method awhile ago. I rarely have any algae and my corals are vibrant and growing very fast. I run ICP once a month and it has been a lifesaver in a few cases. In one, I had a bad test kit and was dosing to much mg. I use ICP along with observation and testing at home to make sure my water is in the best shape to support growth. Patience was the best key to success for me. I don’t chase numbers and understand slow is the best way to adjust. My aquarium loves stability. The hardest part for me was the correct nitraphos daily dose. I control portions of foods, so now easy for me to keep the low levels of Nitrates and Phosphates. If you like do a lot of water changes, and don’t keep SPS, it is probably overkill to do ICP. I am just sharing I am a fan and use it as just another tool to help me in the hobby. I have used bth Triton and FaunaMarin (Aquaforest). Triton gives a lot more details and keeps a history. Now that I know how to adjust, Faunamarin is much cheaper.

 

[Julian@Triton]

Thanks for the bump @Lasse.

i state this no to poke at anyone. Im searching this group to aid me in understanding my results and just seems to me, based on the lack of responses to many others members threads about icp results decoding, that this deep dive into these many elements, has alot of us stumped, or (no response = not sure), which is completely ok. I know, i know jack crap about molybdenum. HAHAHAHAHA.

should we stop preforming these kinda tests?, they do us no good if the research pool is very very very very very low (imo) heck, i can not even find info about some of these elements on the web/ outside this group.

Thanks also @david campbell for starting this thread. This is a great question that needs to be asked more often.

I am going to throw an Alley-oop to @Ehsan@triton for this as he is the one that started research to answer this question over a decade ago when he first developed ICP testing for the reef aquarium hobby.

 

[Anchor]

I only have one thing ( maybe 2 ) to say and it likely is off topic...

I find that @Randy Holmes-Farley and others of similar ilk, are great for this hobby. Lending a critical piece of information or opinion in a pinch.

What I dont like is their penchant for putting us chemist wanna be's in our place as we try to pretend we know something.

As to ICP type testing. It is a tool! Not an end all solution. It is a tool that needs to be learned, to be effective. To learn to use a tool requires research and use.

IF you dont use it and the results researched, then it is not something in our toolboxes and cannot be learned from.

I have Reef2Reef in my toolbox and learn something daily... and it doesn't matter who has taught me.

 

[Rick Mathew]

I only have one thing ( maybe 2 ) to say and it likely is off topic...

I find that @Randy Holmes-Farley and others of similar ilk, are great for this hobby. Lending a critical piece of information or opinion in a pinch.

What I dont like is their penchant for putting us chemist wanna be's in our place as we try to pretend we know something.

As to ICP type testing. It is a tool! Not an end all solution. It is a tool that needs to be learned, to be effective. To learn to use a tool requires research and use.

IF you dont use it and the results researched, then it is not something in our toolboxes and cannot be learned from.

I have Reef2Reef in my toolbox and learn something daily... and it doesn't matter who has taught me.

Great Point!

You are so right about ICP being a tool and like any tool it must be explored and used to be valuable....A tool left in the tool box is not a tool at all but just takes up space.... Through this use and exploration we can define and discover it's strengths and weaknesses and in the process help the vendors improve the tool...R2R is a great tool to use to accomplish this through our sharing of thoughts , ideas and discoveries...

rick

 

[Lasse]

Does the test company tell you why they colored the box red? According to Triton's ICP recommendations, they would actually flag 36 ppm of Bromine as too low, not too high, since they recommend a setpoint of 62 ppm.

They use the red flag (in the PDF) as indication when it is too low or too high. At the Website - it is a dynamic bar instead. As everyone using their service know

​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Ehsan@triton]

i state this no to poke at anyone. Im searching this group to aid me in understanding my results and just seems to me, based on the lack of responses to many others members threads about icp results decoding, that this deep dive into these many elements, has alot of us stumped, or (no response = not sure), which is completely ok. I know, i know jack crap about molybdenum. HAHAHAHAHA.

should we stop preforming these kinda tests?, they do us no good if the research pool is very very very very very low (imo) heck, i can not even find info about some of these elements on the web/ outside this group.

Thanks for asking this important question.
You are correct.
There is almost nothing that can be found on the internet or in literature regarding the trace element levels specifically related to reef aquarium water.

This is exactly the reason why, as a young aquarist in my early 20’s, I started TRITON Applied Reef Bioscience and more importantly, searched for methods of testing and applying these findings to my own aquarium.
The findings of TRITON’s extensive research are available, as @Lasse points out in his last post, for customers of our testing service.
TRITON ICP-OES lab testing not only provides set points for these trace elements for you to aim for but also high and low warnings to let you know when you are reaching dangerous levels.
TRITON adds to this, probably the most valuable information available relevant to our hobby, researched environmental reasons for why these levels may be elevated or deficient (eg. hand creams, contaminated salt mix, wall paint, corrosion, etc.).
This knowledge is shared with our users every time they conduct a test with the information tailored specifically to their aquarium.

So where did all of this information come from over the last 12 years?
The simple answer to this is hard work, research and testing.

To explain this in more detail:
We are a company of marine aquarists.
We ran our own large reef aquarium in the lab allowing us to test different elements along with their retention time after dosing


.


We are the only aquarium chemical company to have conducted regular expeditions since 2014 to test seawater on coral reefs around the world and compare their water composition with a range of aquariums with extreme water parameters. I will post more information about some of our expeditions in a following post.

This type of research was a lot more difficult than many people may realise or give credit.
To fully understand and isolate each trace element, there was more to do than just measuring them in hundreds of thousands of aquariums around the world.
To be able to compare and evaluate data, and actually learn from it, we realised that a standard was needed.
In traditional reef husbandry the myriad of different filtration systems and components add too many variables.
This led to the birth of the TRITON Method which remains the only system developed to facilitate ongoing research into reef husbandry.
Unlike other supplementation programs, that focus only on the demands of the corals in the aquarium,TRITON supports the entire habitat.
The standardised filtration system is a key component of the habitat and both consumes and releases elements.
If this is not taken into account the supplementation of trace elements is not rationalised.
This is probably the biggest mistake in traditional reef keeping.

Modern reef keeping is not about measuring “known" parameters with “new" machines.
It is about testing new parameters that are more relevant to our aquariums.
When you are dealing with totally new parameters almost everyone, regardless of their experience, become chemical wannabe’s so this is not something that we should look down on.
It just means that we are all learning about this together.

 

[Julian@Triton]

Thanks for asking this important question.
You are correct.
There is almost nothing that can be found on the internet or in literature regarding the trace element levels specifically related to reef aquarium water.

This is exactly the reason why, as a young aquarist in my early 20’s, I started TRITON Applied Reef Bioscience and more importantly, searched for methods of testing and applying these findings to my own aquarium.
The findings of TRITON’s extensive research are available, as @Lasse points out in his last post, for customers of our testing service.
TRITON ICP-OES lab testing not only provides set points for these trace elements for you to aim for but also high and low warnings to let you know when you are reaching dangerous levels.
TRITON adds to this, probably the most valuable information available relevant to our hobby, researched environmental reasons for why these levels may be elevated or deficient (eg. hand creams, contaminated salt mix, wall paint, corrosion, etc.).
This knowledge is shared with our users every time they conduct a test with the information tailored specifically to their aquarium.

So where did all of this information come from over the last 12 years?
The simple answer to this is hard work, research and testing.

To explain this in more detail:
We are a company of marine aquarists.
We ran our own large reef aquarium in the lab allowing us to test different elements along with their retention time after dosing


.


We are the only aquarium chemical company to have conducted regular expeditions since 2014 to test seawater on coral reefs around the world and compare their water composition with a range of aquariums with extreme water parameters. I will post more information about some of our expeditions in a following post.

This type of research was a lot more difficult than many people may realise or give credit.
To fully understand and isolate each trace element, there was more to do than just measuring them in hundreds of thousands of aquariums around the world.
To be able to compare and evaluate data, and actually learn from it, we realised that a standard was needed.
In traditional reef husbandry the myriad of different filtration systems and components add too many variables.
This led to the birth of the TRITON Method which remains the only system developed to facilitate ongoing research into reef husbandry.
Unlike other supplementation programs, that focus only on the demands of the corals in the aquarium,TRITON supports the entire habitat.
The standardised filtration system is a key component of the habitat and both consumes and releases elements.
If this is not taken into account the supplementation of trace elements is not rationalised.
This is probably the biggest mistake in traditional reef keeping.

Modern reef keeping is not about measuring “known" parameters with “new" machines.
It is about testing new parameters that are more relevant to our aquariums.
When you are dealing with totally new parameters almost everyone, regardless of their experience, become chemical wannabe’s so this is not something that we should look down on.
It just means that we are all learning about this together.

Slam dunk @Ehsan@triton.

Sorry guys "The Last Dance" is still in my head

 

[SMSREEF]

Thank you to everyone participating in this thread and to @david campbell for starting it. It is so very informative!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks for the comments, Ehsan.

I would add this comment:

This type of research was a lot more difficult than many people may realise or give credit.
To fully understand and isolate each trace element, there was more to do than just measuring them in hundreds of thousands of aquariums around the world.

I certainly realize the difficulty, but I also realize that the bioavailability (and potential toxicity) of many trace elements depends strongly on the chemical forms present, both oxidation state and what fraction are bound to what of the multitude of possible organics. ICP cannot give this information.

Folks shouldn't be misled into thinking that 1 ppb copper in an aquarium is the same as 1 ppb copper in a different aquarium or 1 ppb copper in the ocean.

Thus, I think the "fully understand" part of that sentence is a lofty, and still not attained, goal.

 

[brandon429]

I have never clicked ’watch’ on a thread until this moment. Given measurement variance for the reasons stated above, it’s fascinating to find the reason or attribute to make those pro tanks tend to look so sharp using the low/no water change/ doser-heavy methods, based on exacting measures for nutrients

 

[2Sunny]

This is from Randy's post on page 4:

"It is very interesting and disturbing that an easy to quantify ion like magnesium would vary so much.

Folks really need to realize that this is closer to rocket science than plug and play.

I tried very hard to get calcium to be quantified properly by ICP using an $80,000 machine a number of years ago. It was super frustrating. This was my conclusion at the time:

. . .
, I took more than 200 measurements, . . ., the result was not very satisfying, with a substantial variation occurring between the different values. The average of every measurement taken was 336 ppm. With the uncertainty involved, however, I'd conclude that the true value was probably 340 ± 40 ppm.

I also measured the same sample once with a Salifert brand test kit and got 330 ppm calcium. "



Does this not strike at the heart of this discussion? In Rick's chart the 7/22 reading of Mg varied by more than 10%. Randy performed an experiment with this technology and struggled to reach an accuracy greater than a home titration. How can we know if Triton or ATI or whomever is producing accurate and precise information or at a minimum information that is more accurate and precise than a high quality home test? Now, I can see that if a home aquarist is seeing a problem and uses ICP to find out their water has high levels of a toxic metal and that gets them to remove a rusty magnet on a frag rack (true story that actually happened to Keith B. aka ReeBum) then I see a value. Unfortunately for the average hobbyist this is like picking a good investment advisor. Clearly not all ICP testing is equal so until we have a better understanding of the ACCURACY AND PRECISION of each and every test result we can not be certain of anything.

I appreciate the devotion and fervor of individual inventors like Eshan, and I applaud his research as I believe his work has reinforced for all the benefits of a having a refugium, and the importance of using quality seawater, BUT I was doing that 20 years ago and never needed an ICP test to "check" my parameters. Your reef says it all loud and clear. In addition, B-Ionic and/or a calcium reactor have been providing "trace" elements for decades. I feel I reached a "Zenith" in reef keeping with my reef from 2011. Back then I never dosed anything other than B-Ionic nor did I regularly use chemical filtration. I did not need high tech testing of trace elements to perfect my corals nor did any of the famous reefers of the day. I checked pH, Ca, dKH, and salinity and absolutely nothing else, and I had tools that I would consider more accurate than necessary to maintain those items in perfect balance and the same holds true today. I like everyone else tried the "fads" like zeovit, NoPOx, ULNs, etc, but in the end I always fell back on the basics, and if my corals turned brown or algae grew anew I upped my maintenance and changed a little more water.

So . . .

To the point - color me skeptical - I appreciate the subtlety of improved water quality and fewer water changes, but I simply do not see it has adding immensely to the pleasure of this hobby, and I fear the "youngsters" today are becoming overly obsessed with items that are simply not important for most. Now I absolutely believe one should do as one pleases, and I fully appreciate that each of us derives pleasure from our hobby in different ways. Some of us love planning and building, others love growing and selling frags, others love the "science" of our tanks, and some folks may enjoy logging water parameters in great detail, and I would never want to say they shouldn't do so if that is what they enjoy, BUT I think it is important to maintain a perspective on what is NECESSARY versus what is TECHNIQUE.

Bottom Line: I believe in the age old adage Keep It Simple Sillyguy and, here is my current favorite example of a reefer that perfectly exemplifies this theory plus, of course, a picture of my KISS reef of 2011 ;Happy

 

[Lasse]

The quote above

Folks really need to realize that this is closer to rocket science than plug and play.

is not only valid for ICP testing - it is very valid even in testing with hobby tests in saltwater at these very low concentrations we are interested of. I can't understand people that have the knowledge to criticize companies that offer ICP tests just let "quality hobby tests" just past by with no comments at all. I will suggest that all of you rising the result from Hanna P and PO4 checkers up to the skies to do a very simple experiment. Take the same sample and fill 4 tubes with 10 ml of the same test water. Make one as a zero. Clean them very well. Put the zero sample into the tester - push forward to C2. change to sample 1 - press short (fast reading without 3 minutes colour development) tube 1 should read 0. Restart with the zero sample - press to C2 and analyse tube 2 - it should read 0. Do the same with tube 3. If any of the tubes do not show 0 redo it an clean the tubes much more.

This is lesion 1 - the importance of cleaning.

Step 2

Prepare the reagents for the 3 tubes. Put in the reagents in the three sample tubes. Slowly mix in two minutes. (all three in the same hand) After two minutes - take the zero sample - put into the meter and calibrate to C2. Change the zero tube to tube 1. Press long time - 3 minutes will appear on the checker. After 3 minutes - read tube 1 and note it, Change to zero sample - calibrate and at C2 - change tube to tube 2 - short pres direct reading of tube 2. Zero sample again and repeat for tube 3. Write down the figures for all three tubes and compare

Lesion 2 - The need to handle all samples the right way.

Step 3

Now analyse each of the 3 tubes 10 times - take zero sample - calibrate - change to tube1 - short press - direct reading - calibrate with zero sample - change to tube2 and direct reading - do the same for tube 3. Repeat this until you have 10 readings for each tube. Compare - take average of each tube - compare

Lesion 3 - learn what *** value is and what ±5 ppb ±0.02 or ±0,04 ppm really means

I promise - every one that do this test will never ever rely on a single measurement with a Hanna, You will see results that will take away all meaning with analyse of concentrations around 0,05 ppm PO4 without doing a serie of measurements with at least one zero and one sample tube.

It is important to do it on a unknown concentration.

I often see comparisons with standards when different methods and measurements are compared with each other. standard is good but to talk about standards without consider the actual composition of the saltwater to be tested is IMO not doable. Different testing methods have different disturbing ions and in different concentrations. A test that shows the right value in one aquarium may not show the right (or same) in another aquarium with a different composition of ions. The only way to do a good comparison is to use a complete saltwater with unknown concentrations and use the spike method. Analyse the unknown sample. Spike with a known amount of the actual testing compound. calculate how much it should rise the sample and analyse again.

An aquarium that have been in operation for a prolonged time always have its own fingerprints of compounds and ions and without knowing them - we can´t say if the actual test is the right or not. Only with the spike method we can determine the accuracy of used test in this aquarium with all its unknown ions.

ICP testings have its limitations and its important that people know this. Its also important to know that it only shows the concentrations of elements - not compounds. Some elements is toxic in certain compounds, some elements - like most heavy metals (including elementary copper ions) are toxic. Some are toxic at certain pH (like Al - elementary Al ions - toxic in pH below 6.5 and forming other toxic compound att pH above 8.5) Its also differences between different labs depending on different calibration matrix and techniques. I´m not so interested if my calcium level is 440 or 430 in absolute values - I´m interested to know what it show with my chosen lab when my aquarium works well. ICP test is not the answer 42 - but it is a great tool and it depends on - as usually - that you know what the question is

But to argue down the use of ICP tests without talking about the elephant in the room - hobby tests of different quality - is not a honest discussion. Today - ICP test from different labs specialized on saltwater analyse of elements is the best tool we can get - but it is not a tool for daily measurements, but a tool for fine tuning and as check points.

The development for automatic test stations like reefbot, trident and other product relying on the same test methods may give more exact daily measurements but they are based on the same methods. Ion director will be another automatic testing tool but based on total other principles. All of these will be great tools in the daily work but - IMO - use of these methods does not exclude ICP testing because it is a total different method and can work as a checking tool for the daily measurements - a second opinion with other words.

I - a very well known early adopter (in spite of my age ) have not jump on the automatic testing bandwagon at all and will not do it either. I will take my manual tests and use the ICP as a controllstation on the way.



Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

Is anyone from Triton going to respond to Randy’s post regarding context of the tank environment vs stated measures

make sure not to leave that unaddressed, I bought tickets only for that response. I’d like to hear from the salesmen regarding the chemistry offered above. Is your test contextually more useful or better or immune to confounding compared to other tests?

 

[tripdad]

I think the "value" in advanced testing is not a plug and play recipe for success. I think, at this stage in our knowledge, it is a tool. One that can help you see if you are standing in the batters box swinging the bat or out in left field, flailing away at flies. After many years of "learning" in this hobby I have learned how little I know. Reef tanks are/can be incredibly dynamic systems. Rapidly changing, remarkably stable, very complex and very simple all at the same time. Someone like David Saxby breaks it down to "your keeping the water, the rest will follow". Others, like Lasse, like to know intimate details about their chemistry. I can learn from them all. The value for me in any testing is the long term patterns and then comparing them to animal health at those times. The exact values for everything, if there actually are any, will take some years to define but the "general" limits for success can be found by each of us. What works for me is different than you most likely because our little pools of biology differ. There are many tanks that fall way outside "accepted" parameters( anyone hear of Rich Ross?) yet they flourish. As Randy stated before, not knowing "exactly" what each measurement is showing, what form, what ion, free or bound etc., keeps these from being absolute knowledge. However, they can be relative knowledge as in when I had these readings I had this kind of result. So for me, I'm looking at the changes, the variations, what's different form before. For me that's worth a fair price as it saves me time and gets me "in the ballpark" of what's actually wrong, or right, faster. Just my .02 from an old fart.