PSA: Ditch your API test kit
- Thread starter CryptoNautical
- Start date
- Tagged users None
melonheadorion
Well-Known Member
we already have. within the last hour, ive already told the issue i ran into with nitrite showing wrong on one api kit or another api kit. phosphate can only read as low as 0 or .25, so those are useless unless you want to read high phosphate readings, which the only reason to test phosphate would be for reefing, and most people wouldnt want .25.
nitrate is probably ok to use, but thats the only one i would personally use, and maybe ph. everything else like calcium or alk, i would prefer at the very least, a titrate kit, which api doesnt have.
for fish only, and for beginners, its fine. but at least be honest with yourself to recognize that the readings can be verifiable as wrong, as i have already shown today. if you dont want to take my first hand test and experience, thats fine, but at least acknowledge that these test kits can have serious number fluctuation that wont match other kits.
Unfortunately by trying to manipulate your “experiment” in your previous post you’ve ruined any credibility you had, sorry
melonheadorion
Well-Known Member
what have i manipulated. i literally showed pictures of what it actually is. if you dont want to accept proof, thats on you, but thats just being blind or ignoring truth. i showed, with pictures, proof of it. sorry that youre so into api that it clouds actual evidence.
to show a color match, it would show a completely different color if i left it in the bottle as was, because you have to read from top down. it would show a reading of .5 if i did that, but since its not good enough for you...here. since you have to read this type of kit, top down, you can see that the other colors bleed into the jar on camera. but hey, you will probably want to say that this is proof indicating that red sea kits are inaccurate
Last edited:
Sean Clark
7500 Club Member
I found this question interesting. I always used my finger because the caps leak. I looked at the instructions and sure enough it says: "Do not hold your finger over the open end of the tube, as this may affect the test results".
So I just did a little experiment with two test performed at the exact same time, with the same water sample, and exact same method except for one I used the cap and for the other I used my finger.
I don't know if it is just my eyes playing tricks on me or not, but I do see a slight difference between the two. The one on the right appears to be more green to me then the one on the left.
The caped one is obviously the one which I used the cap. The open one, I only used my finger.
Malcontent
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,117
- Reaction score
- 1,090
Looks more like 0.2 than zero to me. Perhaps I’m color blind.what have i manipulated. i literally showed pictures of what it actually is. if you dont want to accept proof, thats on you, but thats just being blind or ignoring truth. i showed, with pictures, proof of it. sorry that youre so into api that it clouds actual evidence.
to show a color match, it would show a completely different color if i left it in the bottle as was, because you have to read from top down. it would show a reading of .5 if i did that, but since its not good enough for you...here. since you have to read this type of kit, top down, you can see that the other colors bleed into the jar on camera. but hey, you will probably want to say that this is proof indicating that red sea kits are inaccurate
melonheadorion
Well-Known Member
thats exactly why i didnt show that. because with the naked eye, its not that color. with the naked eye, the color reflects 0. im not trying to skew results, but i have to get a camera to match what my eye sees. the api test, when a picture is taken, matches what my eye sees. when i take a picture top down using the RS vials, it looks darker than what it really is. putting it in the api vial represents what i see, with my naked eye, top down when i use the red sea vials.
the poiint of the pictures to begin with wasnt to reference a number really, because you would have to make assumptions that a printed card withj color is accurate to begin with. what i wanted to show mostly was a significant change in color itself. it can be argued, and was already in previous pages, that color references cant be guaranteed anyway. but, you can see that there is a significant shift in color to be darker (more than you would get by default) that would lean it more toward a higher number than 0 anyway, whereas the red sea kit does not have that significant change, which would indicate its a more accurate number.
in addition to that, api doenst mention that you have to convert it from total ammonia, whereas other kits do, so it leaves you with an incorrect number to start
gbroadbridge
2500 Club Member
I just wish folks would learn how to spell Hanna. It's not a girls name. 
My API Ammonia test always shows Ammonia. But the two other tests Red sea and Salifert say im good. But the Nitrate test is close.
I agree that's not a useful range. My opinion is that the ULR hanna checkers are the only kits that measure phosphate in a useful range.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Have you used API's calcium and alk kits? They both are titrations.
HawkeyeDJ
Active Member
Your assumption is that one test has to correct and the other completely wrong. That's a big fail. It could be that the truth lies somewhere in between.
I personally use Hanna for phosphate. However, I do not make the mistake of assuming that the pretty little digital number that comes out at the end is gospel. In fact, I once tested the same sample about 10 minutes apart and got different values with the Hanna. One read 0.02 and the second read 0.09. I make it a point of following the procedures to a T. Wipe the fingerprints, disperse the microbubbles, align the cuvette the same, etc. Unless phosphate can increase that fast, the results are simply not exact or precise. It is "ball park" at best.
It's the same thing with our hobbyist level thermometers. I have no less than seven thermometers (digital, analog, floating, probes, etc.) and no two ever read exactly the same. In fact, I can see a spread of up to 4-5F degrees between all of them. I could spend upwards of $100 for a lab quality thermometer, but I am willing to know I am "in the ball park" with my hobby thermometers.
I can take any API test and change the "results" simply by where I place the tube in relation to the color chart. If I place it directly against the card the color will be darker simply because of light refraction. The tube casts a shadow on the white card. Place the tube a centimeter away from the card and the shadow goes away and the color is lighter.
One weakness of the API tests we haven't discussed is color blindness. Many people, particularly men, suffer from undiagnosed color blindness to one degree or another. This can lead to misinterpreting the results and taking inappropriate corrective actions.
To compensate for this, I use a tool found in an app called Aquarium Note. It uses three points (the sample, the lower color, and the higher color) and determines where the sample falls between the two.
melonheadorion
Well-Known Member
Yes, I have but the difference between api and actual titration kits is significant. Actual titration kits measure significantly different than api. Api is similar to the standard red sea test kit for alk and or calcium. Red sea then has their actual titration kit that measures to a more accurate number via syring that is measure .01 to1.0 withevery decimal in between. The dropper kits aren't as accurate
melonheadorion
Well-Known Member
All true,but if you have 3 tests, or more, and a larger majority show one outcome and a majority show another, most people would deduct that the o e with more of the same outcome would be the safer number to assume
tharbin
2500 Club Member
This is just plain incorrect. The API titration tests are "actual' titration tests. Any test that adds a titrant to a solution and measures the amount of titrant used to achieve the expected end-point is an 'actual' titration test. You are talking about precision not reliability or accuracy. No hobby test kit is really accurate. If you use proper technique a dropper can be just as accurate as a syringe. Don't confuse marketing with fact. The Hanna tester gives you a number based on reading the color just like any other colorimetric tester and the packets of dry reagent is no more likely to be accurately added than is a dropper. No one is saying that all of the API tests are the best or even appropriate for a modern reef tank but they are very good and reliable tests that do not deserve the bad rap they get on this forum. You need to know their limits just like you need to know the limits of any testing methodology. A test is only as good as the tester. You can spill a little reagent dust or miss the syringe fill point just as easily as you can press a little too hard and get an oversized drop. If you want to spend $0.50 to get a number that matches the number you can get from a $0.16 test that is your prerogative but don't assume that just because they did not spend as much as you did their results are any less germane.
melonheadorion
Well-Known Member
Well, then you have to explain a vast difference you get between the different outcome you will get with the two versions of the red sea alkalinity test. If one is just as accurate as the other, then both should come to the same result. I can confirm that they dont
On he other hand, I'm glad that you agree that there is a degree of incorrect value that api gives. You acknowledge wha my point was, probably without realizing it
melonheadorion
Well-Known Member
to show the difference, although some just dont like to see proof, im posting a video of a test i just did. this test compares 3 kits. they are all the alkalinity test, since its simple, and i can show the difference in readings with the different types of titration. one is the API, one is the red sea standard reef kit, and then there is the red sea pro kit. between them, there is a noticeable difference between how they deliver the solution. the other is the levels in which it can give you a result. the api gives only whole numbers 1-12. the standard red sea reef kit at least splits them up to give results in .5, and then there is the red sea pro kit which goes from 5.3 to 14.0. betwen them, it jumps .3 dkh. IE- 5.3, 5.6, 5.9...
the drips in which are delivered, are considerably different. the api kit also uses a smaller water sample with the largest of the drops. the red sea uses a drop that is about half the size, but is still very standard drops. the pro kit uses a syringe that is measured. the api kit uses 5ml, wheras the other two use 10ml.
the end result is enough of a difference to matter to anyone that would need to measure alkalinity. i would agree that nothing is going to be 100% accurate unless you compared it to lab results, and as long as numbers are consistent, the level in which it is, shouldnt matter so much, unless you are on the low or high end of the alkalinity range that you need to be in. the point of this is just to show the fundamental difference in the readings. myself, i would trust the more measured, and controlled kit myself. any experienced reefer here, likely doesnt use a api kit for a reason. the same as why you may use a hanna kit to test for phosphate. if you trust an api kit, or any kit for that matter, why wouldnt you just use that test kit, instead of spending money on the hanna tester? or, even split it down further. why not just buy an api kit and save a ton more money, over buying a different brand? people dont buy these other kits because they are more expensive. they generally use the other testers because they trust them more. if you disagree, i urge you to throw away whatever testers you have, and exclusively use api. im sure you wouldnt though, but you get the idea as to why i would even mention that. i bought a nyos phosphate test kit for a reason. i had the api test kit. the range in which is goes is 0-.25, which just isnt a good test to go off of if you need something more specific, whereas the nyos kit at least breaks it down from 0-.025, .050....why would i continue using a kit that gives me no benefit because it isnt accurate/precise enough.
i wont disagree that it gets you close. that isnt the argument here. the argument is whether or not it is accurate. the accuracy is the reason why i dont use it as a tester for most things. i will at times use it for nitrate, but i would still use my red sea kit over an API kit. so, we can argue accuracy, of course. unless we have a lab test it, any one of them could be the accurate one. but, there is an overall issue that you run in to with API. it doesnt get any more precise than using whole numbers. in the example of alk, its 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...and chances are, you wont have a way to narrow it down further. its going to get you a ballpark number, but just off of its own scale, you can see it has no further accuracy than that.
this difference is generally going to be seen between ammonia (at least for me), nitrate (nitrate is so minor for me that i still use api if i dont want to do 3 different steps), alkalinity, phosphate, and maybe calcium. i havent checked the difference in calcium outcomes, but i would suspect that there is a difference with that as well.
on a side note, i originally started with an api kit with a fowlr tank. it obviously works good enough for that, but thats just "good enough" i originally made the change for 2 reasons. one was because my ammonia always read .25, and sometimes .5, so i bought the RS kit to confirm it, and found that the RS kit showed something different. i also ran into issues where the test wouldnt come back with any color. for example, the nitrate test. wouldnt change color for whatever reason. would have to repeat the test just to get a color. that alone gave me enough doubt in the api kit that i decided i needed something that was going to work, every time. since the api kit didnt work every time, i had to question whether the ammonia and nitrate tests were accurate at all, more specifically the ammonia. if it were a day that it read 0, i would question as to whether or not it was doing what the nitrate test did, multiple times. as you can see, i am not simply bashing api for the sake of bashing it. i am showing proof, and telling/showing my experience with the API kit, which helps explain why i dont think its a good kit to use. like it or not, thats my stance, and the reason why it is as it is.
the drips in which are delivered, are considerably different. the api kit also uses a smaller water sample with the largest of the drops. the red sea uses a drop that is about half the size, but is still very standard drops. the pro kit uses a syringe that is measured. the api kit uses 5ml, wheras the other two use 10ml.
the end result is enough of a difference to matter to anyone that would need to measure alkalinity. i would agree that nothing is going to be 100% accurate unless you compared it to lab results, and as long as numbers are consistent, the level in which it is, shouldnt matter so much, unless you are on the low or high end of the alkalinity range that you need to be in. the point of this is just to show the fundamental difference in the readings. myself, i would trust the more measured, and controlled kit myself. any experienced reefer here, likely doesnt use a api kit for a reason. the same as why you may use a hanna kit to test for phosphate. if you trust an api kit, or any kit for that matter, why wouldnt you just use that test kit, instead of spending money on the hanna tester? or, even split it down further. why not just buy an api kit and save a ton more money, over buying a different brand? people dont buy these other kits because they are more expensive. they generally use the other testers because they trust them more. if you disagree, i urge you to throw away whatever testers you have, and exclusively use api. im sure you wouldnt though, but you get the idea as to why i would even mention that. i bought a nyos phosphate test kit for a reason. i had the api test kit. the range in which is goes is 0-.25, which just isnt a good test to go off of if you need something more specific, whereas the nyos kit at least breaks it down from 0-.025, .050....why would i continue using a kit that gives me no benefit because it isnt accurate/precise enough.
i wont disagree that it gets you close. that isnt the argument here. the argument is whether or not it is accurate. the accuracy is the reason why i dont use it as a tester for most things. i will at times use it for nitrate, but i would still use my red sea kit over an API kit. so, we can argue accuracy, of course. unless we have a lab test it, any one of them could be the accurate one. but, there is an overall issue that you run in to with API. it doesnt get any more precise than using whole numbers. in the example of alk, its 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...and chances are, you wont have a way to narrow it down further. its going to get you a ballpark number, but just off of its own scale, you can see it has no further accuracy than that.
this difference is generally going to be seen between ammonia (at least for me), nitrate (nitrate is so minor for me that i still use api if i dont want to do 3 different steps), alkalinity, phosphate, and maybe calcium. i havent checked the difference in calcium outcomes, but i would suspect that there is a difference with that as well.
on a side note, i originally started with an api kit with a fowlr tank. it obviously works good enough for that, but thats just "good enough" i originally made the change for 2 reasons. one was because my ammonia always read .25, and sometimes .5, so i bought the RS kit to confirm it, and found that the RS kit showed something different. i also ran into issues where the test wouldnt come back with any color. for example, the nitrate test. wouldnt change color for whatever reason. would have to repeat the test just to get a color. that alone gave me enough doubt in the api kit that i decided i needed something that was going to work, every time. since the api kit didnt work every time, i had to question whether the ammonia and nitrate tests were accurate at all, more specifically the ammonia. if it were a day that it read 0, i would question as to whether or not it was doing what the nitrate test did, multiple times. as you can see, i am not simply bashing api for the sake of bashing it. i am showing proof, and telling/showing my experience with the API kit, which helps explain why i dont think its a good kit to use. like it or not, thats my stance, and the reason why it is as it is.
Last edited:
Obsessed with fish
Well-Known Member
You are correct, I have never used api on a sw aquarium but do use them on my fw aquariums, salifert is defiently a much better option.
Nice vid. However I’m pretty sure the dropper bottle for the API should by vertical, not at a 45deg angle like in the vid. I do agree that dropper tests are probably less reliable due to errors such as drop size not just user error though.
Similar threads
