Explanation by Triton of N-DOC testing

[Scrubber_steve]

@Tim@Triton - any inputs?

LOL Lasse; I'm sure Tim will soon be here to answer all the questions asked,,, as soon as he's finished responding to the questions raised in
Algae release "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."

Don't hold your breath

 

[Dkeller_nc]

On the surface this makes sense. However, what if the supplement they recommend is harmful (for some reason) - what if it causes problems? You're right - its certainly not cancer chemotherapy - but if the logic we're going to use here is 'these poor companies can't afford to have proof that their products work' - I think that might be a mistake. Showing some evidence that this ratio 'helps' would not cost millions of dollars.

I read the article again - I still don't see any evidence that they have even done anything but collect data - to me it would be nice if they had described what they did (i.e. on what basis did they choose these numbers). At this point - I don't see where they described the correlation (they might have) between the numbers and a successful reef tank. Its an interesting discussion.

Aren't there really a couple issues? 1. Does keeping a tank at Ratio XYZ really mean it will do better than Ratio ABC? 2. Do the products that are being sold keep the tank at Ratio XYZ? ETC. What I see in this hobby, is that people want to believe in a 'magic system'. What I have realized that every tank is different than another - and these 'magic systems' that work for 1 tank may very well harm another.

Yep, I agree. On the aspect of failure to do controlled studies, my attitude is that I understand why they don't do it, though that doesn't give them a free pass. Otherwise, you get assertions that garlic supplements cure ich.

 

[Lasse]

Organic carbon to inorganic carbon to nitrogen to phosphorous ratio is a repackaged Redfield Ratio. Here’s why. The TRITON Ratio Ci:Co:N: P is 11,150:1250:147:1. Let’s start by dropping inorganic carbon, Ci, leaving C:N: P 1250:147:1. Divide the amount of each element by 10 and the C:N: P ratio becomes 125:14.7:0.1.

Excuse me - this is the same as saying - Oh you earn $ 15 an hour - do not be sad - you will manage well - I earn nearly the same - 150 $ and it works out well for me.


As I said when ICP was introduced and got a lot of critics - show me a better tool for me to use if I want to analyse more things than the big five if I believe that there are more important factors for my reef than these five parameters. The ICP test have been one of the most useful tools for me in order to maintain and understand my aquaria when I run it without WC.


However – there is a lot of other, important things going on in a reef aquarium – things that could not be solved with throwing in a lot of chemicals (even if many persons think so). We not only establish a coral, algae and animal ecosystem in our aquaria – we create a microbiological ecosystem too. It has been shown many times that the DOC concentration in water have a high biological influence on microbiological ecosystems (supressing growth of autotrophic bacteria (read nitrification bacteria) and promoting growth of heterotrophic bacteria).


I could neither see any claim that these guidelines are because cyanobacteria or not – but in the new report page you can if - you want to choose between 4 options – My aquaria is good, problems with cyanobacteria, problems with stony corals, I have an ULNs system.


At my latest (and for the moment only N-DOC test) I got the following advises when I choose My aquaria is good. My bold

We have detected a lack of inorganic carbon which indicates a low Carbonate Hardness (KH)

If you are using TRITON Core7 please increase your dosage by 10%

Please note the dosage information in the Dose tab.

We have detected an increased level of organic carbon.
This can have the following disadvantages for your aquarium.

- May increase the chances of Cyanobacteria
- Can cause bacterial blooms (lack of oxygen)
- Can promote diseases

If you use BioBase:

1. Halve the existing dosage

If you use vodka, acetic acid or other carbon sources:

1. Reduce the dosage
2. Consider alternate carbon source
3. Try to better adjust your dose to avoid adverse effects.

Please contact us for further support on [email protected]

We have found an elevated level of Nitrogen.

This can have the following disadvantages for your aquarium:

- May increase the chances of Cyanobacteria
- May favour nuisance algae growth
- Can lead to darkening of coral colours

If you use the TRITON method:

1. Increase the photoperiod over the algae refugium (do not exceed 14 hours illumination), check performance of algae light (we recommend T5 lighting)
2. If you are not yet using TRITON BioBase and your TOC is in the lower range, you can start with the dosage

If you use a different system:

Consider revising your chosen filtration method.

Please contact us for further support on [email protected]

Please note the words may, can and if. If I take another of the options – I get other advises. This is not the answer 42 – this is a tool. (for those of the wrong generation – please Google “answer 42” )


Another example – Tritons guideline for Si levels is 0.1 mg/l and you get a red sign if you exceed that number. Do this means that you are in big trouble – no – not at all. The large use of ICP tests have given a huge database there people have compare there values with the health of their system and could report back to the reefing community both that higher values is no danger and also identify probably cause´s. In my case – I read 20 ppm after 1 year of increasing values – with no problems with my living stock. However – when the Si levels result in Si precipitation on the windows – it was time to take away the probable agent for the high values. I took away my siporax from the anaerobic parts of my RRDSB (ReversedRemoteDeepSandBed) and did a 70 % WC for 2 weeks.


Now I have run without WC for another year – my values are now around 0.3 ppm. With help of the ICP test I could both state that the high values (in my aquaria) was of no biological importance. Identify the probable agent (and circumstances), further indicate that it was my Siporax that cause the problem with more ICP tests.


I will use the N-DOC test the same way and it will also give me an idea if my normal alkalinity tests give me at least a good estimation of the interesting CO2/HCO3/CO3 part of the alkalinity.


There is a discussion going on among scientists that study real reef ecosystems that an algae dominated system will lower the DOC concentrations instead of the expected rise from the sugar release from the algae. This because the sugar release promotes a bacterial loop that do not exist (at least not so large) in a coral dominated ecosystem. We that use macroalgae in our system (more or less the Triton way) may have a good understanding of this after some years N-DOC testing.


And please – give me another option in order to understand what’s going on in my aquaria according to microbiological issues if this is as bad as you say.


I do not either understand the reactions that they trick you into buying something bad with promote an article why this is a good way of using a special tool. I suppose that everyone here can read and think by themselves if this is a tool that they can use or not. IMO it is a much better way than 90 % of the products on the aquarium market are promoted.


TRITON have done, in one or another way, a calculation with help of their database of a ratio that they believe in – far enough for me. Now I have a figure – true or not – that I can compare my own experiences with. In a couple of years – we know if this ratio´s (in aquaria) is near the truth or not – and this with help of the tests they or other companies will do on N-DOC and ICP tests.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

Excuse me - this is the same as saying - Oh you earn $ 15 an hour - do not be sad - you will manage well - I earn nearly the same - 150 $ and it works out well for me.

OOOPS! Something must have gotten lost in the translation. I thought engineers understood ratios

 

[Dan_P]

I do not either understand the reactions that they trick you into buying something bad with promote an article why this is a good way of using a special tool. I suppose that everyone here can read and think by themselves if this is a tool that they can use or not. IMO it is a much better way than 90 % of the products on the aquarium market are promoted.Lasse

I will be using the N-DOC services for some specific uses, so, thank you TRITON for the relatively inexpensive DOC measurement. I hope TRITON success. Now, about the reaction to the “trickery”.

The technical paper folks are reacting to seems to be more sales pitch and speculation than technical. If we try to prosecute TRITON for fraud, we would lose because of the weasel words like “may”, “could”, etc. In reality, the technical document is a sales pitch with seemingly dubious and unsubstantiated claims about ratios which will encourage you to buy more things to put in your aquarium to reach these dubious ratios. It is what every successful business tries to do: make you want what they have to sell. Yes, people can read and think, but in reality most find it easier to believe. And this document’s primary purpose is to make folks believers.

 

[Lasse]

Yes I think I understand ratios very well - the ratio for Reidfield is 1 atom of P to 16 atoms of N to 106 atoms of C (1:16:105). This is 1:16 (P/N ratio) or 1:105 (P/C ratio) or 16:105 (N/C ratio .

The TRITON ratio (in your calculation - each real figure divide with 10) is 0.1 atom of P to 14.7 atoms of N to 125 atoms of C (0.1:14.7:125) This is the same as P/N of 0.1:14.7 - P/C of 0.1:125 and N/C of 14.7:125. The ratio between N and C is nearly the same but in your caculation of TRITON ratio between P and N is a tenfold higher than Reidfeld ratio - the same for P to C. Correct me if I´m wrong - my math is since the 60 :ties - it has maybe changed?

Maybe I have a very bad understanding of the English language too - but if I read a chapter like this (my bold)

Dual sample N-DOC / ICP tests were conducted on seawater samples:

a. submitted from our global TRITON user base.

b. supplied by several Public Aquaria.

c. supplied by project partners Cairns Marine and Horniman Museum.

My understanding will be that they have explicit use samples from person that they have contacted and therefore had a good point of view of what’s going on in the aquariums where the samples was taken from. Correct me if I´m wrong in this understanding. The words submitted from our global TRITON user base is critical for my understanding – they not state global TRITON sample base.


But maybe it is easy like that – I do not understand ratios and I have a bad understanding of English too

Sincerely Lasse

 

[taricha]

So this is a new measurement tool. It will measure things we could not reasonably measure before in the hobby.
Like anything - there are bad / pointless ways to use any new measurement tool. I think we should work on figuring out ways it can be used that makes sense. Maybe there are many, maybe there are few.
Here's one: organisms in our tanks have variable preferences in forms of N. Green Algaes / macros consume smaller simpler N molecules much better - Inorganic is much preferred over Organic Ns. Contrast that to corals (and dinoflagellates) that are actually very well equipped to take in amino acids and other larger organic Ns compared to small simple Inorganic ones.
Another thing these tools can be used for is chasing down problems of the type "everyone else can grow (whatever), and I can't. What is weird and off about my system?"

 

[Dan_P]

Yes I think I understand ratios very well - the ratio for Reidfield is 1 atom of P to 16 atoms of N to 106 atoms of C (1:16:105). This is 1:16 (P/N ratio) or 1:105 (P/C ratio) or 16:105 (N/C ratio .

The TRITON ratio (in your calculation - each real figure divide with 10) is 0.1 atom of P to 14.7 atoms of N to 125 atoms of C (0.1:14.7:125) This is the same as P/N of 0.1:14.7 - P/C of 0.1:125 and N/C of 14.7:125. The ratio between N and C is nearly the same but in your caculation of TRITON ratio between P and N is a tenfold higher than Reidfeld ratio - the same for P to C. Correct me if I´m wrong - my math is since the 60 :ties - it has maybe changed?

Maybe I have a very bad understanding of the English language too - but if I read a chapter like this (my bold)



My understanding will be that they have explicit use samples from person that they have contacted and therefore had a good point of view of what’s going on in the aquariums where the samples was taken from. Correct me if I´m wrong in this understanding. The words submitted from our global TRITON user base is critical for my understanding – they not state global TRITON sample base.


But maybe it is easy like that – I do not understand ratios and I have a bad understanding of English too

Sincerely Lasse

I now understand your “$15 vs $150 wage” comment. My misunderstanding.

As for what samples they used (see below, “TRITON writes”) I understood the methodology to be that they analyzed many, many samples, from their global user base, Public Aquaria, and Cairns Marine and Horniman Museum. This article is not clearly written, nor is enough information available to judge their claims, even for someone who thinks. I have to assume the “global TRITON user base” was included in the testing. Why else brag about 23,000 users but to emphasize you ran many, many tests to develop the ratios. And why not be clear about what criteria was used to select data from the “good aquaria” to develop the ratios?

As I said earlier, if they shared this data, you would likely see a large scatter of the element concentrations, indicating a poor correlation between a “good” aquarium and the elemental ratios. We already know from Ken Feldman’s two article on TOC in Advanced Aquarist, that levels can vary quite a bit but we don’t what is a good or bad level. One reason is that DOC or TOC do not distinguish which chemicals are in the water. Two different mixtures can give the same amount of total carbon, but one could be toxic. I found it funny that Feldman suggests that it could be informative to measure TOC in systems with sick coral, not healthy ones.

TRITON writes:

Dual sample N-DOC / ICP tests were conducted on seawater samples:
a. submitted from our global TRITON user base.
b. supplied by several Public Aquaria.
c. supplied by project partners Cairns Marine and
Horniman Museum.

At the time of writing the database of analyses draws on 23000 users and >200 000 tests carried out by TRITON Lab representing the largest analytical data set on the behaviour of seawater in closed reef systems ever assembled.

 

[SaracensRugby]

I enjoy the debates on the technical side of where the data came from, and the authenticity of where and why Triton did it, it’s a good time. Certainly these questions will push Triton to not only provide answers to the market, but potentially look at things they may not have upon launch.
My only related thought is being newer in this hobby (3 years), Triton seems to be honest in their attempt to push the knowledge that we as individuals have as to what is going on in our reefs. As @Lasse said, its the best information we have access to today, and it will continue to evolve as we better understand how to re-create nature/ocean in a box. You can agree/disagree on which products of theirs to buy and the necessity, but surely the data they can provide to us as individuals is second to none (I have used ATI ICP tests as a side note; Triton should focus more on their inventory). Surely everyone here who works for an organization can see when a new something ie product, service, etc. is launched it is difficult to anticipate every single thing before said launch. I wonder how long and how many people it took to create the explanation provided on these tests....marketing, legal, scientific, sales, all weighing in. I bet the answers to these questions come out soon enough.

 

[maxwell]

Any advise on this test result,i knew KH was low as the calx media needed replacement.
https://www.triton-lab.de/en/showroom/aquarium/auswertung-a/n-doc/3506/

 

[MnFish1]

Any advise on this test result,i knew KH was low as the calx media needed replacement.
https://www.triton-lab.de/en/showroom/aquarium/auswertung-a/n-doc/3506/

Do the instructions give you any recommendations of what to do with the results? Is your tank having any problem? If not I wouldn't do anything - except raise your alk a little?

 

[maxwell]

Hi , the tank is stable and I knew the KH was low as im waiting on new media its now back to btwn 7.3 -7.5 . I was looking for what it means as its all new to me.thanks

 

[haoweit5134]

Sent my sample for N-DOC test before I saw this discussion.
Mine has cyanobacteria problem, so hopefully I can learn if mine result was off the Triton ratio.

No matter how useful this tool is, I really appreciate Triton to offer us this new tool.
This kind of new products is what keeps this community moving forward.

Based on the above discussion, I believe we all agreed that RR ratio is not the ideal ratio for our tank water.
Curious if there's only a universal optimum ratio? Or maybe there's several local optimum ratio?
For example... Getting cyanobacteria issues at a range of ratios and SPS growth issue at a separate range of ratios, but good at any other ratio.
Also is it required to keep our CNP ratios near constant? If it is, even if the Triton ratio is not the best ratio for our tanks, it can still be used as a monitoring tool.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If Triton or anyone else wants to claim that certain ratios are more desirable than others, I think it is their obligation to explain the basis of that claim.

I personally am not convinced such ratios have so much meaning that I’d act based on them.

 

[MnFish1]

No matter how useful this tool is, I really appreciate Triton to offer us this new tool.
This kind of new products is what keeps this community moving forward.

This seems to be an odd statement - No matter how useful this tool is.... If its not useful - Triton should not offer it??? Shouldn't they be doing the testing first - and proving how useful it is first - before 'allowing its use'. This is also what keeps this community spending unnecessary money (I have no clue whether this test is good or bad - but the logic here escapes me - perhaps @haoweit5134 can explain)

If Triton or anyone else wants to claim that certain ratios are more desirable than others, I think it is their obligation to explain why.

I think this sums it up. to me this is a solution in search of a problem

 

[Miller535]

If Triton or anyone else wants to claim that certain ratios are more desirable than others, I think it is their obligation to explain the basis of that claim.

I personally am not convinced such ratios have so much meaning that I’d act based on them.

I realize this is an old thread, but I am still interested. Randy, if you do not believe that there is not an ideal ratio, do you think there is an ideal range of c/p/n? Individually I mean.

 

[Dan_P]

I realize this is an old thread, but I am still interested. Randy, if you do not believe that there is not an ideal ratio, do you think there is an ideal range of c/p/n? Individually I mean.

Ideal ratio of C:N in the water? Or particulates?

Ideal ratio for coral health?

If there were an ideal ratio, how would you provide it without testing your system on a regular basis for the C:N ratio?

By the way, where did you hear that such a thing as an ideal ratio existed? I think someone just made that up.

 

[Miller535]

Ideal ratio of C:N in the water? Or particulates?

Ideal ratio for coral health?

If there were an ideal ratio, how would you provide it without testing your system on a regular basis for the C:N ratio?

By the way, where did you hear that such a thing as an ideal ratio existed? I think someone just made that up.

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

 

[Miller535]

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.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I realize this is an old thread, but I am still interested. Randy, if you do not believe that there is not an ideal ratio, do you think there is an ideal range of c/p/n? Individually I mean.

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.