The unofficial "Triton Method For Dummies" - a great read!

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The 32 elements that they test for on the ICP are also tested on NSW samples, I don't understand why you think they don't? Yes maybe the make up of the water in the reefs off Australia may be different to the waters of Florida but to take a mean figure from the many 1000's of samples they have collected over the years has got to be a good enough place to start. I mean not many reefers keep one specific biotope, many corals from all over the world living in the same water conditions. The set points as far as I am aware have come from the research that they did and are doing, if they decide that to replicate certain water conditions in enclosed tank is not favourable or easily achievable then who knows they change the number a bit? ..

I am surprised that you think that the set points might actually be real NSW results. You think that all 13 trace metals might just coincidentally have come out to 0.1 ppb?

There's just no possible way. The set points are even below the stated Triton detect limits for some elements, like Mercury, for example: the Triton Limit of detection for mercury is claimed to be about 0.7 ppb, and the set point is 0.1 ppb, and the NSW value is about 0.001 ppb. How could they possibly measure that and report it?

So the set point necessarily is something else.

 

[Tim@Triton]

On my first ICP test my iodine levels we're fine if a little low, second too, then I added some more frags and a few choice LPS like Pink Goniapora, Tracyaphilia amongst others, the following test showed the iodine levels start to drop rapidly. So I started to dose it separately, to me, the LPS started to look better and growth rates sped up.

The Elementz Base solutions contain iodine, however the inhabitants in my tank were using it up faster than it was going in so that's why I supplemented it.

Could of course be coincidence, and maybe I will knock it back off and see what happens....

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Dilution is works quite simply in that if you were to use their "Pure" (I'll leave that for Triton to argue) then yes you are diluting everything but you are dosing back only what you do want in the water, there is no Tin Cobalt Copper etc in the Elementz Base.

Again I'm just a hobbyist who uses the method and it works for me, no sales pitch as I don't get paid by them! Unfortunately lol!!

OK, I won't keep beating a dead horse here, but it is simply not ever correct to say there is NO tin, cobalt or copper in an inorganic chemical sample of any type. The question is how much, and presumably, not enough to be important in some context.

So it is important to know the basis of the claim that it is not there.

As an example, for many years Seachem has claimed that no aluminum was released from phosguard, even after I showed experimentally with the same method Triton uses that it was there. They fought me tooth and nail on public boards. They still claim it.

How do they justify it? By using a method with a higher limit of detection that was unable to see the aluminum that I said was there based on the better test I used.

Now, fortunately, many people are seeing the aluminum in their own Triton tests.

it is all a matter of looking closely enough.

 

[Tim@Triton]

I am surprised that you think that the set points might actually be real NSW results. You think that all 13 trace metals might just coincidentally have come out to 0.1 ppb?

There's just no possible way. The set points are even below the stated Triton detect limits for some elements, like Mercury, for example: the Triton Limit of detection for mercury is claimed to be about 0.7 ppb, and the set point is 0.1 ppb, and the NSW value is about 0.001 ppb. How could they possibly measure that and report it?

So the set point necessarily is something else.

It's the same as saying "Trace" as with most other products, trace isn't a unit of measurement. In my eyes saying that in our tank water we should have 0.1ppb of any particular element is the same as saying we should have none. Before the ICP test not including specialist equipment not readily available to the hobbyist how accurately could you measure Tin, or Quicksilver, or Mercury etc, you couldn't, so now being able to test to even 0.7ppb is pretty **** impressive to me.

So if they say NSW has a mean Mercury level of 0.001ppb +- 0.7ppb, so if you can get your tank water to 0.1ppb +- 0.7ppb is that not the same thing with the ranges were talking about?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It's the same as saying "Trace" as with most other products, trace isn't a unit of measurement. In my eyes saying that in our tank water we should have 0.1ppb of any particular element is the same as saying we should have none. Before the ICP test not including specialist equipment not readily available to the hobbyist how accurately could you measure Tin, or Quicksilver, or Mercury etc, you couldn't, so now being able to test to even 0.7ppb is pretty **** impressive to me.

So if they say NSW has a mean Mercury level of 0.001ppb +- 0.7ppb, so if you can get your tank water to 0.1ppb +- 0.7ppb is that not the same thing with the ranges were talking about?

The set points may be a perfectly practical solution to the fact that we do not know what levels are optimal for trace elements in reef aquaria, and with the fact that the Triton method cannot detect NSW levels of some of them anyway.

So I'm not saying there is a problem with the set points chosen.

I'm saying it is definitely not an average of NSW measurements, as you contended, and is not even a number that Triton can measure in some cases.

 

[Tim@Triton]

To “develop” a complete reef ecosystem you must know what is happening with your water, and
adjust your water to as near “Natural Sea Water” (NSW) as possible.
To “maintain” a complete reef ecosystem you must do just that, maintain, by ensuring that your
water stays at as near NSW as possible.

It wasn't stated that your water would mirror NSW, just that the aim is to get it as near to it as possible

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It wasn't stated that your water would mirror NSW, just that the aim is to get it as near to it as possible

I asked what the set points were based on. I still do not know. They are not simply NSW test results, however.

I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful to others, just as I am.

 

[Tim@Triton]

I asked what the set points were based on. I still do not know. They are not simply NSW test results, however.

I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful to others, just as I am.

I think we are after the same point here.

However I think that you are looking a bit too deeply into it.

With the technology available to them I don't think that they are wrong to claim that they are basing their datum on NSW.

If you or I went down to the reef and collected a sample of water, brought it home and tested it with our hobby kits and wrote down what figures you got. Now we tested our aquarium water with those same kits and got the same results, would it not be right in saying that as far as our technique allows us to test our water is the same as NSW?

I know I would.

Now in my mind that is all Triton is doing, to a lot more accuracy then I can certainly achieve.

Maybe they should say Trace instead of <0.1ppb but i guarantee that people would say that they want a figure. Or even better say <0.7ppb or whatever the testing deviation is?

Tim

 

[Ehsan@triton]

Hallo Randy, Hey Tim.

Don´t worry just to clearify, the setpoints of the Elements that we want to be <LOD are listed as 0.1.
This is because if we put 0 in there, the diviation algorithm, in the background of the web will have an error and mess it up.
So the setpoint 0,1 is = 0 for our ICP-OES testing Method.
As we are not able to detect NSW levels of all parameters like CO,Cr,Fe.....

If you would like to know the NSW levels have a look here.
What is Seawater? by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com

or Pilson

All the best Ehsan:smile:

 

[Ehsan@triton]

Also we are changing the interface at the moment,
so out of Randys improvment suggestionabout the LOD, we found a way to put them into the interface already ( still need to write them int the backend ).
And I amsure i will find a way to put a 0 insted 0.1 also.

All the best Ehsan

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think we are after the same point here.

However I think that you are looking a bit too deeply into it.

With the technology available to them I don't think that they are wrong to claim that they are basing their datum on NSW.

If you or I went down to the reef and collected a sample of water, brought it home and tested it with our hobby kits and wrote down what figures you got. Now we tested our aquarium water with those same kits and got the same results, would it not be right in saying that as far as our technique allows us to test our water is the same as NSW?

I know I would.

Now in my mind that is all Triton is doing, to a lot more accuracy then I can certainly achieve.

Maybe they should say Trace instead of <0.1ppb but i guarantee that people would say that they want a figure. Or even better say <0.7ppb or whatever the testing deviation is?

Tim

Thinking too deeply?

That is how you expose bogus products and claims, of which there are MANY in the hobby, even by the biggest names.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the measurements, but the way some the measurements are reported is not correct, and we do not know what the set points even mean.

Take Keith's results (which are the same as everyone's I've seen with respect to mercury)

https://www.reef2reef.com/forums/triton-us/179428-my-triton-results.html

Triton reports 0.00 ug/L for mercury. They give a set point of 0.1 ug/L.

But, of course, they cannot test that low, with the actual lowest value they could detect of 0.7 ppb (at least as I have seen them report)

The data sheet should read "none detected" or <0.7 ppb, not 0.00 ppb. That is technically and scientifically incorrect. So as one improvement, I agree with you that they MUST report it as <0.7 ppb, not 0.00 ppb.

So Keith gets a green light. Why? What if he had 0.5 ppb? Triton would still say none detected, yet it is above the set point.

So how was that set point determined? Why even have it if it is meaningless?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Also we are changing the interface at the moment,
so out of Randys improvment suggestionabout the LOD, we found a way to put them into the interface already ( still need to write them int the backend ).
And I amsure i will find a way to put a 0 insted 0.1 also.

All the best Ehsan

Excellent. Thank you.

 

[reggaedrummin]

Thanks for the guide and better understanding provided from all herein!

 

[Jackcarp]

Tagging along

 

[Tim@Triton]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqhz75rl3jfq52g/The-official TRITON-METHOD-beginners-guide.pdf?dl=0

Updated "official" BEGINNERS guide :smile:

 

[Triton US]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqhz75rl3jfq52g/The-official TRITON-METHOD-beginners-guide.pdf?dl=0

Updated "official" BEGINNERS guide :smile:

Thanks, Tim!

-Scott and Joe

 

[cdness]

I find these lengthy conversations about chemistry and our battle to achieve the "best" environment for our inhabitants. I am not a Triton user solely because I have a method and it works well for me. However they have some interesting points along the way. I however have based my methods off the expert articles put out by Randy himself.

Keep up the discussion! This is entertaining and I am learning along the way.

If I was to try Triton, I would wait until the proprietary "Elementz" product has a little more transparency. It worries me when there is not a detailed label of ingredients or at least levels...

 

[SoloSuperman]

Following

 

[Kris Belgium]

also a triton user, from the start of my second aquarium.
Always usefull to read the guide.

Thanks !!

 

[Fishinwall]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqhz75rl3jfq52g/The-official TRITON-METHOD-beginners-guide.pdf?dl=0

Updated "official" BEGINNERS guide :smile:

I'm not having ant luck downloading this guide via my iPad. Is it anywhere else?