craigbingman
Community Member
No one has at any point suggested that it would be appropriate for a typical hobbyist to acidify samples prior to shipping them to Triton.
Reefs dot com article on triton testing
- Thread starter hart24601
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No one has at any point suggested that it would be appropriate for a typical hobbyist to acidify samples prior to shipping them to Triton.
GainesvilleReef
Active Member
Craig, this was a response to the question posted immediately before mine. Sorry I did not respond with a quote and it confused you.
craigbingman
Community Member
Well, regardless of who said it, I understand why Triton isn't wild about general aquarists acidifying their samples. I still don't understand why they won't accept acidified reference materials.
More discussion?
Electrobes
Valuable Member
I'm hoping this discussion hasn't died.. I'd like to see the conclusion/explanation. 
craigbingman
Community Member
I'm hoping this discussion hasn't died.. I'd like to see the conclusion/explanation.
Yeah, me too. I'm still checking the thread daily.
craigbingman
Community Member
I don't have unrestricted access to an ICP instrument. I have access on a very reasonable fee-for-service basis to a couple of machines here.
That is a rather dim view of the scientific literature.
That is a discussion that I'm happy to have. As you know, to evaluate whether or not it is fit for a particular purpose, we need to know more about the uncertainties in the method as practiced at Triton. That is really the primary motivation behind the article. Based on the limited information we have from that article, I would say that the method is fit for some purposes but perhaps not for others.
You can't really expect proprietary methods to be included in a scientific publication, or admissible to court.
I think this is where you would explain your methodology.
I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But when extraordinary claims are being made, and accurate recovery of trace metals in a saltwater matrix after unknown losses on shipping and with a sample that isn't stabilized with nitric acid is an EXTRAORDINARY claim, then we tend to start looking at publications, and if publications aren't available, we start examining credentials. Since we are there, your credentials are a little murky to me. It is fairly easy to find mine (B.A., Biochemistry, University of Kansas; Ph.D., Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin--Madison; postdoc, Biophysics, Columbia University.) This is a fairly good pedigree. UWM is presently ranked #2 as a training institution in my field, it was solidly top 5 when I was a graduate student. I was by some objective measure the top student in my class. I have subsequently distinguished myself in publications (bingman ca)and - PubMed - NCBI solved protein structures (RCSB Protein Data Bank - RCSB PDB). While I'm not a chemical oceanographer, I have substantial training in related fields, and when one is as far out on the pointy end of the normal distribution as I am, one just absorbs fields of knowledge as needed or desired. I am a co-author of an article with Marlin Atkinson on the chemical analysis of several brands of seawater that became part of the primary literature. In the aquarium field I have published scores of articles and had a foundational role in the reef movement in the USA in the mid- to late-1990s, a period of time where we really worked out how to become successful in maintaining captive reef mesocosms.
So tell us a little bit about your background, please. Just because of the rather extraordinary claims and the closed, unpublished methodology.
I would think that the customers of TRITON would feel a lot more confident if you guys didn't "blow a gasket" whenever a slightly critical article appears. It was mainly good news from my perspective, and I would predict that some years down the road, you are going to look back and see that the article was one of the better things that has happened to you. For example, I probably wouldn't be spending my time in this discussion were it not for the article.
It makes some sense to collect all of the accuracy/precision discussion in one place, go through it objectively and then examine use cases to evaluate the fit-for-purpose angle.
Those are important questions. My impression is that of the stabilizing acids that can be used for ICP samples, nitric acid is probably the best player for a wide range of elements. Some other stabilizers may be superior for a few elements, but overall nitric acid is a reasonable choice. You have made a number of statements of how nitric acid skews the results, but I haven't seen any data behind those statements so far. The literature seems to indicate fairly small effects, you claim larger ones.
How particles are handled in your analysis should have a major role in the trace element analysis. Because I don't know how you handle them, I can't really say more.
I think you will need to clarify this one for me, as I am not sure if you are discussing the possibility of end-users sending standards, or something else.
andy01748
New Member
Reference 4 in the article links to a Triton produced document that publishes their accuracies and limits of detection.
http://www.triton-lab.de/fileadmin/user_upload/triton-lab/TRITON_LOD.pdf
This document includes the statement "We only use certified standards by certified standard producers."
I think in the context of the discussion about the use of acid preservation and possible effects of the acidified matrix for the reference sample, it would be meaningful to get clarification on how Triton's certified calibration standards are stabilized. I don't know why the "certified standard producer" or make up of the "certified standard" would be considered proprietary information.
http://www.triton-lab.de/fileadmin/user_upload/triton-lab/TRITON_LOD.pdf
This document includes the statement "We only use certified standards by certified standard producers."
I think in the context of the discussion about the use of acid preservation and possible effects of the acidified matrix for the reference sample, it would be meaningful to get clarification on how Triton's certified calibration standards are stabilized. I don't know why the "certified standard producer" or make up of the "certified standard" would be considered proprietary information.
craigbingman
Community Member
Since I'm in the middle of large changes in my personal life that are not conducive to aquarium stability, I'm not actively maintaining a reef system at this point. Prior to that I had a 29 gallon cube and a few smaller tanks. I test the usual stuff, nutrients when needed, alkalinity most frequently, calcium sometimes, and magnesium occasionally. I maintained the system with either a commercial 2-part supplement or various test supplements that I created from individual chemicals.
craigbingman
Community Member
Sorry I missed part of your question. I use titration tests for alkalinity, calcium and magnesium and colorimetric tests with a spectrophotometer for nutrients. The titration tests are modified Hach chemistry, because their default testing instructions work poorly in a seawater/saltwater matrix. The colorimetric tests are exactly by the numbers Hach chemistry as they are all validated in saltwater matrix and work quite well out of the box.
shornik
Well-Known Member
OK, I've read the article - which I think was exactly on-point regarding "skeptical reef keeping". I've read the sparks, thank thankfully didn't become flames, and I've read the many questions by the chemists who know way more than I will ever know. But other than questions I still don't seem to recall reading any answers from Triton, a promise of answers but so far none. So this is what I understand, the testing that Triton does is not done by any other company using the ICP-OES technique because nobody else can do it, at least for the $ that Triton charges. I don't know how anyone can feel comfortable about this. But than I kept reading in some of Triton's responses that the ICP-OES machine is so "new" it can do this, am I mistaken about this argument and if I'm not do the newer machines make this testing more likely? Early in this discussion Eshan posted a series of questions that he said he would address but I haven't seen them addressed by him, or again maybe I've missed something, but if not is Eshan going to post the answers to the questions he posed on this thread?
Finally I also understand from everything that the Triton method, despite the fact that is seems to be a "black box" is at least providing us with fairly reasonable information that can be useful for our hobby - so I guess that is a good thing.
Thanks R2R and everyone else for helping move this hobby forward, the little critters we purchase hoping to watch grow into bigger critters, whose life is in our hands are better as a result of your efforts.
Finally I also understand from everything that the Triton method, despite the fact that is seems to be a "black box" is at least providing us with fairly reasonable information that can be useful for our hobby - so I guess that is a good thing.
Thanks R2R and everyone else for helping move this hobby forward, the little critters we purchase hoping to watch grow into bigger critters, whose life is in our hands are better as a result of your efforts.
andy01748
New Member
Newer ICP-OES instruments (commonly called ICP-AES in the States) do perform better than older ones. The instrumentation has continually improved for high throughput usage over the last several decades, although my experience is that high productivity commercial labs now tend to go with ICP-MS instruments when buying new instruments. ICP-MS tends to have better overall sensitivity than ICP-AES, although ICP-AESs are still considered highly productive workhorse instruments. However for routine analyses, even with the increased productivity seen with newer ICPs, I have not seen prices from certified commercial laboratories drop to the levels charged by Triton.
craigbingman
Community Member
I think that ICP-MS is a bit rough with high salt samples.
andy01748
New Member
Saltwater is rough on any type of ICP. It's pretty common for commercial abs to use both AES and MS when analyzing for a full suite of metals. The abundant cations are reported using AES because of the higher dynamic range and no concern for sensitivity, while the trace metals are reported using MS due to the better sensitivity.
Similar threads
-
- Poll
