Alternatives to Triton Additives

sonnus · Apr 25, 2016

As the Triton ICP-OES is becoming more popular many of us are paying closer attention to the trace elements present in our aquariums. I realize that many of the trace elements that are tested for aren't probably necessary for coral/fish health but I still would like my water to be close to NSW. My recent Triton test showed a few deficiencies that I've listed below. Triton offers many of these additives but they are hard to find at LFSs so I figured it was worth looking into how well the other manufacturer's additives would work to bring these levels up to NSW.

Here are some of the deficiencies on my Triton test:
Element---------- Analysis-------- Setpoint-------- Deviation
Potassium (K)---- 386.1 mg/L------ 400 mg/L-------- -13.9 mg/L
Strontium (Sr)--- 3.72 mg/L------- 8.00 mg/L------- -4.28 mg/L
Molybdenum (Mo)-- 11.03 µg/L------ 12.00 µg/L------ -0.97 µg/L
Vanadium (V)----- 0.00 µg/L------- 1.20 µg/L------- -1.20 µg/L
Zinc(Zn)--------- 0.49 µg/L------- 4.00 µg/L------- -3.51 µg/L
Manganese(Mn)---- 0.00 µg/L------- 2.00 µg/L------- -2.00 µg/L
Iodine (I)------- 0.00 µg/L------- 60.0 µg/L------- -60.0 µg/L

Unfortunately most manufacturers don't list their concentrations so it's difficult to know what you're dosing but Brightwell, Kent, Continuum and Seachem do list concentrations for many of their products.

Here's what I decided to dose:
Kent Strontium & Molybdenum - Total dose 1.5mL/gal (spread over 5 days)
Potassium - 0.21 mg/L (-13.69 mg/L deviation after dose)
Strontium - 4.17 mg/L (-0.11 mg/L deviation after dose)
Molybdenum - 0.54 µg/L (-0.43 µg/L deviation after dose)
Seachem Reef Trace - Total dose 0.08mL/gal (spread over 2 days)
Molybdenum - 0.06 µg/L (-0.37 µg/L deviation after dose)
Vanandium - 0.005 µg/L (-1.1995 µg/L deviation after dose)
Zinc - 3.57 µg/L (0.06 µg/L deviation after dose)
Manganese - 1.80 µg/L (-0.02 µg/L deviation after dose)
Seachem Reef Fusion 1 - Total dose 2.8mL/gal (spread over 5 days)
Strontium - 0.08 mg/L (-0.03 mg/L deviation after dose)
Molybdenum - 0.37 µg/L (-0.00 µg/L deviation after dose)
Manganese - 0.08 µg/L (0.06 µg/L deviation after dose)
Calcium - 17.17 mg/L (the extra calcium was no big deal)
Brightwell Potassion - Total dose 0.65mL/gal (spread over 2 days)
Potassium - 13.74 mg/L (0.05 mg/L deviation after dose)

Expected results after doses:
Element---------- Estimate ? ----- Setpoint-------- Deviation ?
Potassium (K)---- 400.05 mg/L----- 400 mg/L-------- +0.05 mg/L
Strontium (Sr)--- 7.97 mg/L------- 8.00 mg/L------- -0.03 mg/L
Molybdenum (Mo)-- 12.00 µg/L------ 12.00 µg/L------- 0.00 µg/L
Vanadium (V)----- 0.005 µg/L------ 1.20 µg/L------- -1.995 µg/L
Zinc(Zn)--------- 4.06 µg/L------- 4.00 µg/L------- +0.06 µg/L
Manganese(Mn)---- 2.06 µg/L------- 2.00 µg/L------- +0.06 µg/L
Iodine (I)------- 0.00 µg/L------- 60.0 µg/L------- -60.0 µg/L

So after adding only 4 different products I'm hoping to get most of the parameters close to Triton's setpoints. I still haven't decided what to do with the iodine but I'm not going to dose it for now. It was a lot of work figuring the appropriate doses but I have everything in a spreadsheet so figuring future doses will be much easier. Maybe if there's a long-term trend I'll just be able to dose certain additives regularly with a dosing pump. Also, there is a cost savings in using these additives compared to Triton's but that was not the main reason for me doing this. I'll send out for a new Triton test once I'm done dosing to see where the trace elements ended up.

Randy Holmes-Farley · Apr 25, 2016

Just a couple of concerns (below), but in general, this sounds good. Let us know what you find chemically, as well as whether the tank appears any different.

Triton, unfortunately, lists 0 as a result simply when they cannot detect the element, regardless of how it relates to NSW levels. So sometimes you may have nearly as much as, or even more than the NSW levels and still have Triton say 0. Iron, for example. In your case, the zeros for vanadium, manganese, and iodine are not truly 0, and so you may possibly raise the levels above NSW levels. Probably not enough to be a problem, however.

Also, Triton setpoints are not always natural levels in seawater. Molybdenum, for example. NSW levels are about 10.6 ug/L (according to my Chemical Oceanography book by Millero). Triton has a "setpoint" of 12 ug/mL, and you had 11 ug/L, which is more than NSW levels but less than their setpoint. So IMO, no molybdenum dosing is needed.

sonnus · Apr 25, 2016

Thank you for the input. Very good point about NSW concentrations compared to and Triton's.

So when dosing the elements that "measure" zero on Triton I guess we should only be adding from their minimum detected levels and then test to see where we end up? Triton lists the LOD for manganese at around 0.38 µg/L (max), so maybe I should have added 1.62 µg/L (2.00-0.38) instead of 2.00 µg/L? I wonder if Triton already factored this into the recommended dosage if you use their product?

Randy Holmes-Farley · Apr 25, 2016

I do not know what Triton uses for calculations, but in some cases the effects may be significant (that is, the LOD is close to or above the NSW level (e.g., vanadium for close to and iron for above), and in some it may be not important (where the LOD is well below the natural level).

Big E · Apr 26, 2016

With the limited information on accuracy they don't seem to do very well on zinc(175% + error) and manganese(400%+ error) as examples.

http://packedhead.net/2015/triton-lab-icp-oes-testing-of-a-certified-artificial-saltwater-standard/

Can you use assume their consistency ratings, which seem okay and use that as a baseline? In other words subtract the error and use that number?

Randy Holmes-Farley · Apr 26, 2016

I would not assume that the errors shown in that article directly translate to the same error every time in a seawater sample, but it is certainly worth keeping in mind with exactly trying to hit NSW levels.

Big E · Apr 26, 2016

The main reason I ask is most fresh mixed saltwater brands that have been tested for Mn have been in that 40-50 ug/l range which would equate to 10 ug/l which would seem as an okay area.

The zinc one it bothersome also as you mentioned about LOD...............in sonnus's case, not sure I would dose that. There isn't a lot of data on when some of these metals become detrimental.

I've been doing a lot of digging lately because there has been some hyping about dosing zinc and manganese lately & I think people need to do some serious research before they start up a dosing regime.

It may be better just to dose a mixed trace bottle with some water changes and this way keep any levels from reaching toxic areas but still add some of what is being supposedly depleted at a fast rate.

I also have problems with some of the set points as they are based on the developers tank. I have no clue what type of tank he has or it's success. I'm also very skeptical about them recommending algae refugiums as algae is likely to deplete most of the elements that show low levels.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but my recommendation to the OP is to do more research or let someone else be the guinea pig. If the tank is doing well I'd be inclined to ignore the low readings. If you want to reduce your water change regime, I'd do some more research before jumping in.

I also think one may be able to raise zinc by just adding some of the right fish foods. I'm still looking into this though.