Oceamo Icp VS Triton

[AlbertT]

Hello Everyone,
I have sent ICP to Oceamo and triton same exact time to see if there is a difference in between two ICP companies and I got my results back and I want to get everyone's opion of what you think and which company to trust
I am attaching both test and side to side break down though chatgpt as well
Please voice your opinion of what you think
TRITON’s macro-element results are shown on page 2, including Ca 453, Mg 1374, K 414, fluoride 1.16 and iodine 40. Office Tank - September 10, 2026 (B-0DW5eZ).pdf Oceamo reports Ca 420, Mg 1353, K 393, fluoride 1.07 and iodine 31.

MSR234022.pdf

The biggest issue: copper​

This is by far the most interesting disagreement.

TRITON: 7.00 µg/L copper — and TRITON flags it because its setpoint is 0.

Office Tank - September 10, 2026 (B-0DW5eZ).pdf

Oceamo ICP-MS: 0.19 µg/L copper, with its stated ideal range of 0.2–2 µg/L.

MSR234022.pdf

That’s roughly a 37× difference.

If these samples represent essentially the same tank water, I would not make a major intervention for copper based only on the TRITON 7 µg/L result without confirmation. The ICP-MS result is dramatically lower.

There is another interesting clue: Oceamo also tested your RO water and reported copper not found, while RO zinc was 81.5 µg/L.

MSR234022.pdf

Several ultra-trace metals show the same pattern​

TRITON reads:

Zn 6.0, Mn 1.0, Fe 1.0 µg/L

Oceamo reads:

Zn 0.14, Mn 0.08, Fe 0.15 µg/L

So this isn’t just copper. TRITON is reporting substantially higher concentrations for several very-low-concentration metals.

That makes the difference between ICP-OES and ICP-MS particularly relevant here.

Nutrients​

TRITON measured phosphorus at 44 µg/L, corresponding to 0.135 mg/L PO₄.

Office Tank - September 10, 2026 (B-0DW5eZ).pdf

Oceamo’s separate photometric phosphate measurement was 0.11 mg/L. It also measured nitrate at 19.37 mg/L and nitrite at 0.11 mg/L.

MSR234022.pdf

So phosphate is actually reasonably consistent:

TRITON: 0.135 ppm PO₄
Oceamo: 0.110 ppm PO₄

That’s only about 0.025 ppm apart.

One important explanation: salinity​

TRITON says 35.151 PSU, whereas Oceamo says 33.8 PSU.

That ~4% salinity difference explains part of why TRITON’s Ca, Mg, K, Na and chloride tend to be higher.

For example, if Oceamo’s calcium of 420 were normalized from 33.8 to 35.15 PSU:

420 × 35.151 ÷ 33.8 ≈ 437 mg/L

That’s much closer to TRITON’s 453.

But salinity cannot explain copper being 0.19 vs 7, zinc 0.14 vs 6, or manganese 0.08 vs 1.

What I would trust from each test​

For your reef tank, I would give Oceamo ICP-MS substantially more weight for ultra-trace elements, especially when you’re deciding whether to dose things like manganese, vanadium, selenium, chromium, cobalt, etc.

For the major elements, both tests are useful, but we should first normalize them to the same salinity before judging whether they really disagree.

The reassuring part is that several parameters line up surprisingly well: fluoride 1.07 vs 1.16, lithium 207 vs 201, barium 13.42 vs 16, magnesium 1353 vs 1374, and phosphate 0.110 vs 0.135.

The biggest discrepancies worth investigating are copper, zinc, manganese, iron, silicon, iodine, molybdenum and aluminum.

Also, Oceamo detects several elements that TRITON either doesn’t report here or cannot characterize at the same trace level, including rubidium (297.9 µg/L), uranium, thallium, thorium, cerium, ruthenium, neodymium and hafnium.

For your tank specifically, I would use the Oceamo/MS result as the primary guide for trace-element dosing and use TRITON as a useful second data point.

If you want, I can go one step further and make you a complete dosing/action table for your 795-L (~210-gallon) tankshowing each element → which test I trust → low/ideal/high → whether I would dose it → which elements I would NOT dose yet.

 

[ReeferTCG]

First thing I would think is MS vs OES is a completely different world. Ive used both and trust MS over OES… but MS is much more expensive.

 

[areefer01]

So much AI in posts these days...

 

[AlbertT]

So much AI in posts these days...

Unfortunately I have used Chatgbt to compare to each other I figured its easier than doing it manually.

 

[AlbertT]

First thing I would think is MS vs OES is a completely different world. Ive used both and trust MS over OES… but MS is much more expensive.

you are absolutely correct but I checked my salinity and Oceamo was more accurate

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I don’t see how the salinity difference particularly explains anything because how can the salinity be different for two samples collected at the same time. Unless there is some other difference in collection.

I cannot know which is more accurate, and maybe one of them is even giving the data for a different sample by mistake , but I have confidence in Oceamo knowing the principle of the company and things he has said to us about his procedures.

 

[BuffaloLake]

I keep my salinity at 34-35 ppt. I use a refractometer, and I calibrate with 35 ppt “BRS Refracto juice”. I calibrate both before and after testing my water. I do understand that a refractometer is not as accurate as a good hydrometer. I have been using Triton ICP every month (MYTE program). ICP always reports my salinity over 35ppt. My last ICP reported 35.88 ppt, but my refractometer was showing closer to 34ppt

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I do not have confidence in the BRS fluid (or any hobby brand fluid) to make the distinction you are indicating. Separate from any issues here, I’d make a diy:

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/reef-aquarium-salinity-diy-calibration-standards.956/

 

[AlbertT]

I keep my salinity at 34-35 ppt. I use a refractometer, and I calibrate with 35 ppt “BRS Refracto juice”. I calibrate both before and after testing my water. I do understand that a refractometer is not as accurate as a good hydrometer. I have been using Triton ICP every month (MYTE program). ICP always reports my salinity over 35ppt. My last ICP reported 35.88 ppt, but my refractometer was showing closer to 34ppt

How do you like MYTE, I have been doing Reefmoonshiner program, thinking about switching over MYTE program that is the reason I did both test together to see accuracy. Reefmoonshiner takes so long to dose and in my opinion takes all the fun out of the reef keeping. Even though my corals look amazing. I would love to hear your option on MYTE.

 

[BuffaloLake]

I keep my salinity at 34-35 ppt. I use a refractometer, and I calibrate with 35 ppt “BRS Refracto juice”. I calibrate both before and after testing my water. I do understand that a refractometer is not as accurate as a good hydrometer. I have been using Triton ICP every month (MYTE program). ICP always reports my salinity over 35ppt. My last ICP reported 35.88 ppt, but my refractometer was showing closer to 34ppt

How do you like MYTE, I have been doing Reefmoonshiner program, thinking about switching over MYTE program that is the reason I did both test together to see accuracy. Reefmoonshiner takes so long to dose and in my opinion takes all the fun out of the reef keeping. Even though my corals look amazing. I would love to hear your option on MYTE.

I like it a lot. We have a well, and burn through a ton of anion in our RODI. To change out 10% weekly on a 310 gallon, between salt and replacement RODI supplies I was spending $120 plus a month. MYTE costs less, and I get an ICP. Every month I get two 1-liter custom mix bottles to dose. Bottles cover all of the “safe” elements, but you have the option of adding things like Cobalt and Nickel. I have noticed some nice coral growth since I started. I have been trying to automate and stabilize as much as possible, so I can enjoy the tank more. Running the full Triton with the MYTE allows that. I don’t have to change 33 gallons of water per week, I don’t have to change filter socks or roller mats, I don’t need 30 different element bottles. I just get a happy tank.

 

[JonasRoman]

This exemplifies some of my messages when I talk to reefers:
Level of detection is 1000 higher for MS than OES. MS is in area of ppt and OES in ppb. So for all microelements below 1 ppb(reported from oceamo MS machine) I would trust the MS machine more.

Some other diff like iodine (silicone I think aswell) is known for cross interaction in OES method as the sample is complex. There both companies can be inaccurate.

For major elements we see the normal inaccuracy (2%) that actually is not better than a very very good performed manual titration test (like mg, ca).

Po4 says exactly that I often repeat: po4 just measured by icp is impossible, you get total P. Then calculate po4 meaning it always get some false high. Exactly like your results. The photometric one is closer to the truth.

Other differences is impossible to know who is most accurate as you have no reference and inaccuracy is approx 2% for most elements(sometimesup to 5%).

Jonas

 

[AlbertT]

I don’t see how the salinity difference particularly explains anything because how can the salinity be different for two samples collected at the same time. Unless there is some other difference in collection.

I cannot know which is more accurate, and maybe one of them is even giving the data for a different sample by mistake , but I have confidence in Oceamo knowing the principle of the company and things he has said to us about his procedures.

Thank you, I tested the salinity manually and Oceamo was more accurate

 

[AlbertT]

This exemplifies some of my messages when I talk to reefers:
Level of detection is 1000 higher for MS than OES. MS is in area of ppt and OES in ppb. So for all microelements below 1 ppb(reported from oceamo MS machine) I would trust the MS machine more.

Some other diff like iodine (silicone I think aswell) is known for cross interaction in OES method as the sample is complex. There both companies can be inaccurate.

For major elements we see the normal inaccuracy (2%) that actually is not better than a very very good performed manual titration test (like mg, ca).

Po4 says exactly that I often repeat: po4 just measured by icp is impossible, you get total P. Then calculate po4 meaning it always get some false high. Exactly like your results. The photometric one is closer to the truth.

Other differences is impossible to know who is most accurate as you have no reference and inaccuracy is approx 2% for most elements(sometimesup to 5%).

Jonas

Thank you for all the helpful input I appreciate your time

 

[AlbertT]

I like it a lot. We have a well, and burn through a ton of anion in our RODI. To change out 10% weekly on a 310 gallon, between salt and replacement RODI supplies I was spending $120 plus a month. MYTE costs less, and I get an ICP. Every month I get two 1-liter custom mix bottles to dose. Bottles cover all of the “safe” elements, but you have the option of adding things like Cobalt and Nickel. I have noticed some nice coral growth since I started. I have been trying to automate and stabilize as much as possible, so I can enjoy the tank more. Running the full Triton with the MYTE allows that. I don’t have to change 33 gallons of water per week, I don’t have to change filter socks or roller mats, I don’t need 30 different element bottles. I just get a happy tank.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience, I have been doing Reefmoonshiner program its great but its get so expensive and it takes so much time to dose everything. I am going to try MYTE and see how it works. Their office that conducts ICP test is around 10 miles away form my office.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

There are a number of parts of the moonshine program that I do not believe are useful, if the expense comes from the large number of additives.

 

[AlbertT]

There are a number of parts of the moonshine program that I do not believe are useful, if the expense comes from the large number of additives.

Thank you, where can I find more information about parts that are not useful

 

[BuffaloLake]

I like it a lot. We have a well, and burn through a ton of anion in our RODI. To change out 10% weekly on a 310 gallon, between salt and replacement RODI supplies I was spending $120 plus a month. MYTE costs less, and I get an ICP. Every month I get two 1-liter custom mix bottles to dose. Bottles cover all of the “safe” elements, but you have the option of adding things like Cobalt and Nickel. I have noticed some nice coral growth since I started. I have been trying to automate and stabilize as much as possible, so I can enjoy the tank more. Running the full Triton with the MYTE allows that. I don’t have to change 33 gallons of water per week, I don’t have to change filter socks or roller mats, I don’t need 30 different element bottles. I just get a happy tank.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience, I have been doing Reefmoonshiner program its great but its get so expensive and it takes so much time to dose everything. I am going to try MYTE and see how it works. Their office that conducts ICP test is around 10 miles away form my office.

I liked the idea of reef moonshiners, but with the size of my system I need to reduce my maintenance and testing tasks as much as possible. We have one LFS who quarantines every thing before it goes into the store and grows all his coral. He also stocks aquacultured fish as the priority over ocean caught, even keeps his tanks at 35 ppt so you don’t kill the fish trying to acclimate it. He was the one who recommended the Triton method, as all of his tanks run it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Thank you, where can I find more information about parts that are not useful

Here:

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/randys-elements-to-dose.952/

 

[Dan_P]

Hello Everyone,
I have sent ICP to Oceamo and triton same exact time to see if there is a difference in between two ICP companies and I got my results back and I want to get everyone's opion of what you think and which company to trust
I am attaching both test and side to side break down though chatgpt as well
Please voice your opinion of what you think
TRITON’s macro-element results are shown on page 2, including Ca 453, Mg 1374, K 414, fluoride 1.16 and iodine 40. Office Tank - September 10, 2026 (B-0DW5eZ).pdf Oceamo reports Ca 420, Mg 1353, K 393, fluoride 1.07 and iodine 31.

MSR234022.pdf

The biggest issue: copper​

This is by far the most interesting disagreement.

TRITON: 7.00 µg/L copper — and TRITON flags it because its setpoint is 0.

Office Tank - September 10, 2026 (B-0DW5eZ).pdf

Oceamo ICP-MS: 0.19 µg/L copper, with its stated ideal range of 0.2–2 µg/L.

MSR234022.pdf

That’s roughly a 37× difference.

If these samples represent essentially the same tank water, I would not make a major intervention for copper based only on the TRITON 7 µg/L result without confirmation. The ICP-MS result is dramatically lower.

There is another interesting clue: Oceamo also tested your RO water and reported copper not found, while RO zinc was 81.5 µg/L.

MSR234022.pdf

Several ultra-trace metals show the same pattern​

TRITON reads:

Zn 6.0, Mn 1.0, Fe 1.0 µg/L

Oceamo reads:

Zn 0.14, Mn 0.08, Fe 0.15 µg/L

So this isn’t just copper. TRITON is reporting substantially higher concentrations for several very-low-concentration metals.

That makes the difference between ICP-OES and ICP-MS particularly relevant here.

Nutrients​

TRITON measured phosphorus at 44 µg/L, corresponding to 0.135 mg/L PO₄.

Office Tank - September 10, 2026 (B-0DW5eZ).pdf

Oceamo’s separate photometric phosphate measurement was 0.11 mg/L. It also measured nitrate at 19.37 mg/L and nitrite at 0.11 mg/L.

MSR234022.pdf

So phosphate is actually reasonably consistent:

TRITON: 0.135 ppm PO₄
Oceamo: 0.110 ppm PO₄

That’s only about 0.025 ppm apart.

One important explanation: salinity​

TRITON says 35.151 PSU, whereas Oceamo says 33.8 PSU.

That ~4% salinity difference explains part of why TRITON’s Ca, Mg, K, Na and chloride tend to be higher.

For example, if Oceamo’s calcium of 420 were normalized from 33.8 to 35.15 PSU:

420 × 35.151 ÷ 33.8 ≈ 437 mg/L

That’s much closer to TRITON’s 453.

But salinity cannot explain copper being 0.19 vs 7, zinc 0.14 vs 6, or manganese 0.08 vs 1.

What I would trust from each test​

For your reef tank, I would give Oceamo ICP-MS substantially more weight for ultra-trace elements, especially when you’re deciding whether to dose things like manganese, vanadium, selenium, chromium, cobalt, etc.

For the major elements, both tests are useful, but we should first normalize them to the same salinity before judging whether they really disagree.

The reassuring part is that several parameters line up surprisingly well: fluoride 1.07 vs 1.16, lithium 207 vs 201, barium 13.42 vs 16, magnesium 1353 vs 1374, and phosphate 0.110 vs 0.135.

The biggest discrepancies worth investigating are copper, zinc, manganese, iron, silicon, iodine, molybdenum and aluminum.

Also, Oceamo detects several elements that TRITON either doesn’t report here or cannot characterize at the same trace level, including rubidium (297.9 µg/L), uranium, thallium, thorium, cerium, ruthenium, neodymium and hafnium.

For your tank specifically, I would use the Oceamo/MS result as the primary guide for trace-element dosing and use TRITON as a useful second data point.

If you want, I can go one step further and make you a complete dosing/action table for your 795-L (~210-gallon) tankshowing each element → which test I trust → low/ideal/high → whether I would dose it → which elements I would NOT dose yet.

I have been busy and just got around to analyzing the two ICP results. A group of us did this on a larger scale several years ago, now forgotten. Anyway, the story remains the same, OES tends to become quite variable below 10 ppb and results deviate from MS. In the plot below, the X-axis is micromolar. The relative difference data (Y-axis) is Triton minus Oceamo divided by the average of the two for elements in common. If we were comparing just OES results, the variability would still be apparent starting about 10 ppb or 10 micromolar. The take home message is you need to spend more money for accuracy below 10 ppb. If you are not particularly interested in all the trace elements, save your money and use OES detection.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Thanks for that analysis, Dan! :)