Explanation by Triton of N-DOC testing

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

But I was really acknowledging that no such known ratio existed, but was wondering if there was perhaps a known range for each value of, p, n, and C.

There are NSW ranges for these. That doesn't make them desirable or optimal, or even acceptable, depending on what the constituents are.

 

[Miller535]

I think there acceptable and unacceptable (and mostly independent) desirable ranges for N (as nitrate) and P (as phosphate). Reefer experience would suggest that 2-10 ppm nitrate and 0.02 to 0.1 ppm for phosphate are good ranges. Are things outside that range good too? Yes, at least in certain circumstances.

To say there is a "desirable" range for C without knowing what the C consists of is nuts. You wouldn't survive on a diet that had any values for C/N/P without knowing what the specific chemicals are, and I cannot see how a reef is different. Is the C as acetate just as desirable to a reef as the C in caulerpicin toxin or a cyanotoxin or palytoxin ? Unlikely.

I get what you are saying. But as you pointed out earlier in this thread, there are many other forms of nitrogen othen ten just Nitrate, and same for phosphate with phosphorus. Do you think those have a "normal" or "typical" value as well?

 

[Miller535]

Really I am just mulling over if it is worthwhile doing their N-Doc test, and if there is anything to glean from it. But am interested in their claims, as I am having a cyano problem, without have elevated NO3 or PO4 (typically 4ppm N03, and about .03ppm PO4). Wondering if N-DOC can point anything of value out to me

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I get what you are saying. But as you pointed out earlier in this thread, there are many other forms of nitrogen othen ten just Nitrate, and same for phosphate with phosphorus. Do you think those have a "normal" or "typical" value as well?

I don’t think that by icp, these others rise to the level of nitrate and phosphate. But if they do, it certainly complicates interpretations.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Really I am just mulling over if it is worthwhile doing their N-Doc test, and if there is anything to glean from it. But am interested in their claims, as I am having a cyano problem, without have elevated NO3 or PO4 (typically 4ppm N03, and about .03ppm PO4). Wondering if N-DOC can point anything of value out to me

maybe. Cyano can consume some types of organics.

 

[Dan_P]

I thought that was what Triton was trying to determine. No?

I don’t know what their plan is.

 

[Mortie31]

I don’t know what their plan is.

I don’t think Triton know what their plan is.... they seem to be trying to fit a test, to sudo science, and interpret results based on very limited, unrobust data... in other words Marketing lol

 

[Miller535]

I may be wrong, but I never considered ANY of the triton data in the Triton method as the only good or acceptable values. But what they had determined to be values that worked WITHIN their method.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I may be wrong, but I never considered ANY of the triton data in the Triton method as the only good or acceptable values. But what they had determined to be values that worked WITHIN their method.

If you are referring to inorganic elements, that is certainly useful, although not perfect because it ignores chemical form and bioavailability/toxicity differences of different forms.

But for organics, without knowing what they are or where the come from, it seems to be a very blunt instrument.

 

[Miller535]

If you are referring to inorganic elements, that is certainly useful, although not perfect because it ignores chemical form and bioavailability/toxicity differences of different forms.

But for organics, without knowing what they are or where the come from, it seems to be a very blunt instrument.

What you are saying makes sense. But while Triton offers testing, are their recommended values not for the FULL triton method. No water changes, only using their salts, dosing their products. Hypothetically would they not have an idea in that situation of what organic and inorganic elements were in the tank? Especially if you ran a ICP and N-DOC? I will likely never do the Triton method myself, but I thought that was what those recommended values are for.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

What you are saying makes sense. But while Triton offers testing, are their recommended values not for the FULL triton method. No water changes, only using their salts, dosing their products. Hypothetically would they not have an idea in that situation of what organic and inorganic elements were in the tank? Especially if you ran a ICP and N-DOC? I will likely never do the Triton method myself, but I thought that was what those recommended values are for.

No.

Example: Tin comes from other sources, ICP does not indicate the form present, and the form has a huge impact on toxicity.

I don't think their method includes any organics. They are all from foods and organism secretions/excretions/degradation.

 

[MnFish1]

If a person looks at any 'method' - beyond the products offered - is the 'method' a lot different that what many other reefers use - except for the need for 'testing' - every 3 months - and if there is a 'high level' - the recommendation for water changes. If a person just did water changes - would they have the same results - IDK. But - Im suspicious.