Stop using toothpaste to polish your glass.
-
Welcome back Guest!MARSH is a private reefing group. Comments and suggestions are encouraged, but please keep them positive and constructive. Negative threads, posts, or attacks will be removed from view and reviewed by the staff. Continually disruptive, argumentative, or flagrant rule breakers may be suspended or banned.
ICP Test Kit Results (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Cody
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Users who are viewing this thread
OP
OP
Cody
Vice President
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Content Moderator
Board Member
Supporting Member
Alright, the results are in. Keep in mind, I only used two tests for each brand of kit, so the data set I'm using is horribly small. It would take a lot of money to get a more robust set of data, which I'd prefer not to spend. For these tests I was looking to check their precision and accuracy (precision is the ability to hit the same spot on the dart board, accuracy is the ability to hit the bullseye).
The main take-aways are that both were able to reproduce the same results from the same water supply within a .52-6.38% average. This means their precision, or ability to reliably hit the same spot, were both good, on the whole, in my opinion. Of course, there are some outliers, but for the main elements that we track and are concerned with, they both performed well. As far as accuracy, what I did was find the average for all four tests on an element by element level. Then, I calculated the average difference from the four set value average. There were some large percentage swings from the averages, but if you look at the values, they seem to form a pretty tight trend. For instance, the ICP Analysis test showed .411ppb and .498ppb for Chromium, which has roughly a 20% variation from number to number. 20% seems like a big difference, but when you look at the actual numbers, they're pretty close. Percentages swing higher with smaller values. Also, the main elements like calcium, magnesium, etc. were pretty spot on with roughly a 2-4% variation from the averages. In my opinion, when looking at all four results side by side, it seems that both kits are good to use.
I'll attach the spreadsheet so everyone can look for themselves.
The main take-aways are that both were able to reproduce the same results from the same water supply within a .52-6.38% average. This means their precision, or ability to reliably hit the same spot, were both good, on the whole, in my opinion. Of course, there are some outliers, but for the main elements that we track and are concerned with, they both performed well. As far as accuracy, what I did was find the average for all four tests on an element by element level. Then, I calculated the average difference from the four set value average. There were some large percentage swings from the averages, but if you look at the values, they seem to form a pretty tight trend. For instance, the ICP Analysis test showed .411ppb and .498ppb for Chromium, which has roughly a 20% variation from number to number. 20% seems like a big difference, but when you look at the actual numbers, they're pretty close. Percentages swing higher with smaller values. Also, the main elements like calcium, magnesium, etc. were pretty spot on with roughly a 2-4% variation from the averages. In my opinion, when looking at all four results side by side, it seems that both kits are good to use.
I'll attach the spreadsheet so everyone can look for themselves.
Link the triton test bro.
You’re high calcium and lithium levels are coming form the IORC.
I finally made the switch. Barium is a lot of times also elevated.
I finally made the switch. Barium is a lot of times also elevated.
OP
OP
Cody
Vice President
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Content Moderator
Board Member
Supporting Member
It’s in the spreadsheet that I attached.
And yes, I know that’s why mine are high, although are consistently that high. I’m considering turning the carx down to barely on and using two part to boost all for a while. That would allow the calcium to drop and then kick back on the carx when they get to a level I like.
I switched to Red Sea blue bucket. Haven’t been able to see how it’s doing yet because I haven’t done a water change. When I do I’ll let you know.
gregg
President
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Board Member
Supporting Member
Build Thread Contributor
just for clarity because this thread is getting off track...
For these tests He was looking to check the precision and accuracy (precision is the ability to hit the same spot on the dart board, accuracy is the ability to hit the bullseye) between the 2 companies.
For these tests He was looking to check the precision and accuracy (precision is the ability to hit the same spot on the dart board, accuracy is the ability to hit the bullseye) between the 2 companies.
Are you kidding me. Lol
Ok. Will be my last response on this thread. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
How about this. If I can get someone to donate an ICP analysis test kit to me I will send off all 3 ati Triton and ICP. Hell if I can get 2 icp analysis I will pull 2 samples for each right after another and send the same sample a week apart just so we can see precision. I will note that the Alk, Phos and nitrate should differ after a week for sure because of die off in the water and changes in ph
And we will do it with a fresh batch of Aquavitro salinity to compare to their bucket/lab results if i can pull the info for the batches that I have
So what action do you take for Iodine? One company says you're good, maybe even a little high, but you don't need to dose. The other company shows you being low and you should dose. I ran into the exact same issue when I did single test comparisons of both ICP Analysis and Triton as well. So which one is the more accurate? And how do you decide if your Iodine is really low or not?
OP
OP
Cody
Vice President
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Content Moderator
Board Member
Supporting Member
That's the million dollar question, isn't it? That's why I'd like to start spending more money to do more tests at once. @Reefahholic posting Andre's single test results and pointing out the variations as proof that one is wrong, but not the other, no different than your single test of each, just doesn't tell a story. It's statistically as valid as saying "this one is better cause I said so". I think spending some decent money on tests will help us get enough data points from all the ICP test kits to start seeing a better picture. The down side is that requires a decent amount of money haha
Man! You and I are on the same page. When you started your experiment got me thinking about this again and I came to the same conclusion. Need more tests! So I ordered every ICP test that I could find. The ones I didn't have came in today in fact! There are 6 different tests that I could find. I plan to also duplicate the ICP Analysis ICP-OES and Triton tests like you did. Merely because I already had multiple of those...and they are readily available and affordable through the club. We'll see what happens! And thanks for the inspiration!
OP
OP
Cody
Vice President
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Content Moderator
Board Member
Supporting Member
If your goal is to get some feedback from the quality of the test kits then hold what you've got. We can coordinate this to make it a much larger project so as to get more meaningful data sets. I'm down to throw a couple hundred bucks at it myself, but I want to make sure that if others are getting in on it then the efforts are coordinated.Man! You and I are on the same page. When you started your experiment got me thinking about this again and I came to the same conclusion. Need more tests! So I ordered every ICP test that I could find. The ones I didn't have came in today in fact! There are 6 different tests that I could find. I plan to also duplicate the ICP Analysis ICP-OES and Triton tests like you did. Merely because I already had multiple of those...and they are readily available and affordable through the club. We'll see what happens! And thanks for the inspiration!
Seems like something to approach the test makers with... Let them know MARSH is conducting an experiment and see if they will contribute some tests.
This is interesting. How would this work exactly? Maybe I'm not catching what you're thinking. To me, a more meaningful data set would mean the same water is tested at the same time with more tests. Really, the goal for me for all of these test kits is to help troubleshoot the water chemistry in my tank...and to turn the results into a fun data exercise at the same time. That's the engineer in me. More data is certainly better for sure! However, I can't imagine very many folks would be willing to pay for tests for my tank and not their own. Or did you mean for folks to have their own tanks tested? If that's the case then timing shouldn't really be a factor, right? Very curious as to what you're thinking.
After further pondering this a bit, one way to get more data with low cost is for folks to test my water with their own home test kits. Granted this would only be for Alk, Calcium, Magnesium, phosphate, and nitrates though.
All that said, if you did mean the same water but not necessarily my tank, I'd be willing to buy a few tests for the cause. I spent just shy of $200 for these 8 tests. That's a little high for me for a global cause but I'd be willing to throw in a few at least.
Last edited:
I was going to do this also. So my plan was to pick a day and draw 2 samples for each test kit. Run mag ca and alk on salifert and Red Sea Phos on Hannah and a Nitrate on Salifert. Then send in the 1st set of test kits. A week later send in the second set of test kits with the same water sample and then see how all the results line up with full expectation that Phos Nitrate and Alk values will be thrown out
Ok, I can’t resist. I must respond.
For the last 3-4 year’s we’ve been looking at hundreds if not thousands of ICP tests yearly. Not just from one company, but all of them!
Cody, did you think this was the first time that we’ve seen crazy inaccuracies from ICP Analysis.? This has been an ongoing for awhile. Those results are one of MANY that are completely flawed. Yes…nuke your reef and loose thousands of dollars flawed.
Cody is my friend (regardless of what he says behind closed doors
), and I love to pick and pull his chain, and we text back and forth occasionally, but I think sometimes he forgets that comparing ICP’s has already been going on for the last several years. Maybe this is new here at Marsh. This is not a new thing elsewhere, and there’s nothing we haven’t already learned or don’t already know about all of these companies.Our 2.6K Moonshine members post analysis after analysis weekly. Newbies come in and at first they want to use “Triton” our “ICP Analysis” (which aren’t recommended for multiple reasons). Some members will disregard the advice initially, and later learn why they’re not recommended.
However, we do always see the data from other analysis which is always very beneficial and further solidifies our decision with ATI. Not only do Shiner’s compare all the ICP’s, but also the European’s, our friends in the UK with OCEAMO, Triton, and the list gets bigger. Most of our members are also OCEAMO members. So we do see all the ICP’s there as well.
So…comparing ICP’s is not a new thing, but for Cody it is currently.
For those of us that have been relying on ICP data to dial in our elements over the last several years we all know which test’s or more accurate than the others. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we’re 3-4 steps ahead. What drives me to these longer responses is when people flat out fail to listen to solid advice, but that is the world we live in today! This is why I see no point in continuing the conversation. I try to warn some of my fellow Marshians, but there are those who’d rather learn hard way. They would rather waste their money and nuke their reefs trying to find out something that we already know. Later on they’ll understand that the advice was solid. I think @webster1234 experienced exactly what I’m saying already which is how this thread and topic came about in the first place. Only because there’s been money invested in ICP analysis they want to make it work and I get that, but sometimes you gotta know when to hold ‘em and when to fold em. In this case it’s a fold.
Lastly, one cannot just send 2-3 tests off and then come to a grand conclusion from those short-term results. Let’s say 1,000 Marsh members sent out ICP’s from every company today. We would still be unable to draw a satisfactory conclusion and gain a true understanding of the accuracy and consistency from these different companies and tests. The results need to be considered over a longterm period. It takes looking at hundreds of analysis over several months and even years to really “weed-out” and separate the quality from the second-rate.
BTW, none of these labs are certified. However, the ISO certification may not necessarily lead to a better analysis anyway. The certification will drive up cost quite significantly (from mostly personnel) which would get passed on to the customers. In one respect I’m glad a lot of these labs have decided against the certifications, because ICP testing is expensive enough as it is. I feel like the data quality is still high enough for our needs IF you pick the right companies (reef hobbyist) and unfortunately ICP Analysis is not one of them. None of them are perfect, but some are far better than others to say the least. Business savvy (well marketing)
sharks are only in it for the money. That’s it.
