Poll: Which ICP-OES testing is better
@lambchops you say that the ATI report is lacking in what to do compared with Triton yet looking at the Triton report they don't tell you to do anything and certain results like calcium are given as spot on spec yet when you look at the ATI report it's actually high as ATI set points are based on your salinity which is low, Triton does not mention that anywhere.
To me if they can't measure the basics and set points change due to that basic measurement then the test is meaningless.
The other thing I don't like with Triton why not just put the name of the element that they are measuring it's over 40 years since I was at school and I don't remember what all them letters stand for so I need a crib sheet at least the others name what they are measuring so at a glance you can see what is what.
tastyfish
Well-Known Member
Triton base their entire methodology around NSW levels (with a few exceptions, due to ICP LoD - Iron, Iodine etc). That's 35ppt. Therefore, there is no logic in providing different set-points for different salinity as they are using NSW as the reference.
If element symbols are really a problem, then you do know that you can just hover your mouse pointer over them to get the full element name, right?
Regarding corrective actions, Triton certainly give you full information on what to do to get back to the set-point levels, with measurements and schedules based on their knowledge of the maximum recommended dose in any one period.
It's difficult for any ICP provider to know exactly what the source of contamination is. Triton certainly give you suggestions and my experience has mainly been with users of other tests coming to Triton's support forums to get advice. 3rd parties seem to be copying this advice from them, rather than vise versa
Yes I understand that Triton give you information about how to rectify problems yet on the one Lambchops has shown there is no rectifications on the report nor is there any in the post so it rather hard for a yo e to judge which gives the better list of rectification.Triton base their entire methodology around NSW levels (with a few exceptions, due to ICP LoD - Iron, Iodine etc). That's 35ppt. Therefore, there is no logic in providing different set-points for different salinity as they are using NSW as the reference.
If element symbols are really a problem, then you do know that you can just hover your mouse pointer over them to get the full element name, right?
Regarding corrective actions, Triton certainly give you full information on what to do to get back to the set-point levels, with measurements and schedules based on their knowledge of the maximum recommended dose in any one period.
It's difficult for any ICP provider to know exactly what the source of contamination is. Triton certainly give you suggestions and my experience has mainly been with users of other tests coming to Triton's support forums to get advice. 3rd parties seem to be copying this advice from them, rather than vise versa
Having never done a Triton ICP I didn't realise that hoovering over the element gives its full name, I was only going on what I can see. Thank you for that information its like ATI ICP when you look into your results you can see a graph of each element plotted of all your ICP's so at a glance you can see any trends etc.
tastyfish
Well-Known Member
There is a tab for detections, another for dosing and another for actions. When you share the report, it shares only the first tab, presumably to protect their IP and recommendations from other 3rd parties. You can see trends on the Triton reports, there's a function on their website to compare multiple reports.
tastyfish
Well-Known Member
No experience, I'm afraid. Germany appears to be the epicentre of aquarium ICP-OES testing. There is one US based ICP testing service listed above, but I noted Randy's poor opinion of them. Not sure where MarinLab send theirs?
lambchops
Active Member
Yea there are a couple more tabs on Triton that gives you a ton of info, not all of it valuable.
I do like how ATI tests for Nitrates though.
tastyfish
Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on what you class as valuable. If you want them to tell you exactly where a contaminant has come from in your tank, then I'm afraid that's not something that anyone can do. They can only give you some clues of what you could check.
Personally, I can't see any value in a nitrate test as I can do these very easily and accurately enough with a home test kit, but I may be missing something.
lambchops
Active Member
I don't expect them to tell me where the contamination is. They both told me the exact same thing, check for corrosion. I just like how Triton tells me a little bit more on what to dose if I so choose to dose individual elements.
I just like that there is a snapshot of what my nitrate is at. More of a bonus for me.
brett7768
New Member
Let’s resurrect this thread and see if there are any fresh opinions. A week ago I sent out tests to ATI and the US based company. I just got my results from the US company and I’m not super impressed. Hopefully the ATI results are more informative.
Twosixpax
Community Member
I've used Triton for a year (my first year with reef tanks - a 200G and a 20G cube, the former initially running the full Triton method) and had a good experience, although it quickly became apparent there was a lot of upselling going on as I ended up buying most of the Triton additives to address their recommendations (my decision, I realize). I couldn't find the usual deal on a Triton 3-pack last month so, feeling a little ripped-off, bought the ATI instead.
Just one data point but the ATI took much longer to return than the Triton usually does. The ATI user interface is not as clean as the Triton, which I think is exceptional (other than it seems to constantly forget what type of tank I have - mixed reef. I run a design group, so may be a little more sensitive to the UX than most). I really liked that ATI test Nitrates so I can compare my Hanna results taken the same day I sent the samples, and if Triton added that it would be an easy decision for me. I have a friend who's been servicing reef tanks for 30+ years who, when I mention ICP tests, raises an eyebrow, but I enjoy getting the data, comparing histories, and the dosing I do manually gives me a reason to get up from my desk and interact with the tanks
I have no idea as to the accuracy of either, other than that the issues and dosing recommendations from the two ATI tests were very similar to the Triton trends, and that the RO/DI test found only Aluminum in my sample, which I know to be true from other testing.
Just one data point but the ATI took much longer to return than the Triton usually does. The ATI user interface is not as clean as the Triton, which I think is exceptional (other than it seems to constantly forget what type of tank I have - mixed reef. I run a design group, so may be a little more sensitive to the UX than most). I really liked that ATI test Nitrates so I can compare my Hanna results taken the same day I sent the samples, and if Triton added that it would be an easy decision for me. I have a friend who's been servicing reef tanks for 30+ years who, when I mention ICP tests, raises an eyebrow, but I enjoy getting the data, comparing histories, and the dosing I do manually gives me a reason to get up from my desk and interact with the tanks
I have no idea as to the accuracy of either, other than that the issues and dosing recommendations from the two ATI tests were very similar to the Triton trends, and that the RO/DI test found only Aluminum in my sample, which I know to be true from other testing.
Similar threads
