PSA: Ditch your API test kit
- Thread starter CryptoNautical
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Dburr1014
7500 Club Member
My take on API;
1) They can be accurate if you the test the same everytime. Repeat the same steps in the same fashion every single time. Looking for trends not exact.
2) they can be inaccurate because of the color shade we are looking for. The copper test you have to look down the tube... That is more color accurate than a side view.
3) rushing is just looking to be more inaccurate. Stop rushing, see #1. ^
API is more for trends, if you want to be exact in a number then look elsewhere.
1) They can be accurate if you the test the same everytime. Repeat the same steps in the same fashion every single time. Looking for trends not exact.
2) they can be inaccurate because of the color shade we are looking for. The copper test you have to look down the tube... That is more color accurate than a side view.
3) rushing is just looking to be more inaccurate. Stop rushing, see #1. ^
API is more for trends, if you want to be exact in a number then look elsewhere.
Miami Reef
10K Club Member
Isn’t 0.04ppm ammonia basically 0? They both look 0 to me.Well, not always.
Left: distilled water, presumed ammonia-free
Right: 0.04 mg/L NH3-N
Looks indistinguishable to me.
0.25ppm is where API starts differentiating.
Malcontent
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,121
- Reaction score
- 1,091
Right, it (and some other low range testing I performed) imply that the minimum detection level of the API ammonia test is around 0.05 mg/L not 0.25 at least for my particular test kit.
Unitylover
Valuable Member
like comparing a news helicopter to an Apache attack helicopter
Unitylover
Valuable Member
yes, is there a way to make the caps actually seal well? so it will be accurate, as the main problem is the leakage
Unitylover
Valuable Member
hannah:
API:
Alenya
Active Member
I've never worried about the caps. Once the reagents are in the only thing that leakage causes is a little less fluid in the tube. Having said that, the less you press on the cap the less it leaks, I've noticed.
Well, speaking to the precision and consistancy of hobbyest test kits in general one problem I've seen is reagents stored improperly. Storing them near heat sources like pumps, ballasts or drivers or lights will age them prematurely. One practice I started a long time ago is always comparing a new reagent to older reagents when purchased as well as keeping multiple test kits and occasionally comparing them. I'll argue consistancy is more important than accuracy for the aquarist test kits I've seen. As researchers may be using a less precise test scale like meq/L vs dkH or PPM or our inability to test for oxygen and pH gradients in biofilms or surface mucus layers* or our inability to test for organic forms of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus it seems to me arguing which test kit is "better" is largely moot.
As far as which test kitis best, when someone asks me I'll tell them what my prefferences are but they should try and compare different ones to see which they find easiest to use. If they find a test kit confusing or frustrating to use they may be less likely to use it and potentially miss something. Obviously some will find digital readouts preferable to colormetric tests.
Responding directly to yoyr post I have Hanna Alkalunity and Phosphate #713. I find Elos and Nyos phosphate test kits easier to use so my Hanna just sits collecting dust. When I got my Hanna alkalinity I compared it to a friends tester and was rather dismayed, using both reagents in both testers with the same sample of water and the same cruet the 4 results all were different varied by .9 dkH. But as researchers use the meq/L scale in most of the papers I've read either the API or the Hanna are fine, even with the varable results I got with the Hanna.
*Being able to test these would be especially helpful as excess labile Dissolved Organic Carbon, aka "carbin dosing" can cause a shift to hetrrotrophic bacteria which will in turn draw down oxygen levels and literally suffocate corals.
Are we talking about the API ammonia kit? If so, see this thread with a poll by @MnFish1 :
www.reef2reef.com
The poll shows that there 4x as many people who think the kit shows false positive then people who have actually used the kit and had a problem.
Post #4 sums up my thoughts on the API ammonia kit.
"The kit has one issue, and that issue is that zero can look like 0.25 ppm to some of our eyes.
It drives me bonkers when someone posts a 1ppm reading with this kit and people say it's a false positive because this kit gives high readings.
The kit works fine. I can test freshly made saltwater, and it reads zero. I can test my cycled tanks, and it reads zero. I can calculate how many mLs it will take to cycle my quarantine tank, and the reading will be close after I add the ammonia. People who say this kit doesn't work either haven't used it, don't know what they are talking about, or both."
Poll on water testing (for ammonia only)
There is widespread commentary out there that certain (API) test kits for ammonia are notoriously inaccurate. 1. I thought it would be interesting to see how common this thought is, in general - and compared to other tests. 2. At the start I will list several testing errors that I have seen...
www.reef2reef.com
The poll shows that there 4x as many people who think the kit shows false positive then people who have actually used the kit and had a problem.
Post #4 sums up my thoughts on the API ammonia kit.
"The kit has one issue, and that issue is that zero can look like 0.25 ppm to some of our eyes.
It drives me bonkers when someone posts a 1ppm reading with this kit and people say it's a false positive because this kit gives high readings.
The kit works fine. I can test freshly made saltwater, and it reads zero. I can test my cycled tanks, and it reads zero. I can calculate how many mLs it will take to cycle my quarantine tank, and the reading will be close after I add the ammonia. People who say this kit doesn't work either haven't used it, don't know what they are talking about, or both."
Lbrdsoxfan
5000 Club Member
That front wheel drive caddy is defying logic as well!
psh, this Hyundai Accent can barely power slide… what a piece of crap…
Dburr1014
7500 Club Member
I get what you're saying, but you just contradicted yourself. If people can't see the right reading and other people are saying it's high, well then the reading is not right. For any test kit to be correct it needs to be able to be seen clearly.Are we talking about the API ammonia kit? If so, see this thread with a poll by @MnFish1 :
Poll on water testing (for ammonia only)
There is widespread commentary out there that certain (API) test kits for ammonia are notoriously inaccurate. 1. I thought it would be interesting to see how common this thought is, in general - and compared to other tests. 2. At the start I will list several testing errors that I have seen...
The poll shows that there 4x as many people who think the kit shows false positive then people who have actually used the kit and had a problem.
Post #4 sums up my thoughts on the API ammonia kit.
"The kit has one issue, and that issue is that zero can look like 0.25 ppm to some of our eyes.
It drives me bonkers when someone posts a 1ppm reading with this kit and people say it's a false positive because this kit gives high readings.
The kit works fine. I can test freshly made saltwater, and it reads zero. I can test my cycled tanks, and it reads zero. I can calculate how many mLs it will take to cycle my quarantine tank, and the reading will be close after I add the ammonia. People who say this kit doesn't work either haven't used it, don't know what they are talking about, or both."
Can you point out where I contradicted myself?
I wonder if my cousin That he is a Marine biologist....use API Test kits.......the answer is a Big NO.
He told me he use Hanna but hey if your Tank looks great why question it right keep using what you can afford and feel comfortable
Attachments
Similar threads
