Stop using toothpaste to polish your glass.I still prefer ATI. The fluoride test is invaluable imho I know it’s not icp but them running that extra test for me sets them far apart
Stop using toothpaste to polish your glass.I still prefer ATI. The fluoride test is invaluable imho I know it’s not icp but them running that extra test for me sets them far apart
Add these to what they don’t test list:I still prefer ATI. The fluoride test is invaluable imho I know it’s not icp but them running that extra test for me sets them far apart
Link the triton test bro.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.
It’s in the spreadsheet that I attached.Link the triton test bro.
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.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.
Are you kidding me. Loljust 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.
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 haveHow 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
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?I'll attach the spreadsheet so everyone can look for themselves.
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 hahaSo 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?
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!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
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.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.
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.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.
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 outThis 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.
Ok, I can’t resist. I must respond.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