Hannah checkers - how much do you trust/like them?

[Rick Mathew]

I have had very good results with the Hanna Checkers. I use the Alk, Phosphorous and Calcium. On occasion I have used the Nitrite checker. I found the key is good lab practices and I can get repeatable and accurate results when compared to outside testing services

Just a note on the Hanna Calcium Checker. I have had very good success with this checker and have been using it for over 2 years. I made three changes that brought my Gage repeatability and reproducibility to less than 10% of the target range (100...350-450)

1) Purchased .3mL syringe...very accurate...You can find these from multiple suppliers

2) Use Hanna Deionized water (HI70436) and not my RODI water which has a small amount of calcium in it and is variable from batch to batch.

With the dilution ratio being so high and the water sample amount being so small these two changes took my R&R (repeatability and reproducibility) from between 30-40% (not good! almost random results) to less than 10% a very acceptable range for this test. My results have been validated by external testing sources so I feel confident in the measurement.

3) After the test is complete I rinse the vial and cap with the Hanna deionized water then fill the vial to the top with this water and store it this way until next use. Then on the next use I empty the vial do a quick rinse with the deionized water and proceed with the test.

IMO with good laboratory practices these checkers are great tools and do not rely on color change interpretation to make the measurement which in itself is a variable

 

[joro]

I have had very good results with the Hanna Checkers. I use the Alk, Phosphorous and Calcium. On occasion I have used the Nitrite checker. I found the key is good lab practices and I can get repeatable and accurate results when compared to outside testing services

Just a note on the Hanna Calcium Checker. I have had very good success with this checker and have been using it for over 2 years. I made three changes that brought my Gage repeatability and reproducibility to less than 10% of the target range (100...350-450)

1) Purchased .3mL syringe...very accurate...You can find these from multiple suppliers

2) Use Hanna Deionized water (HI70436) and not my RODI water which has a small amount of calcium in it and is variable from batch to batch.

With the dilution ratio being so high and the water sample amount being so small these two changes took my R&R (repeatability and reproducibility) from between 30-40% (not good! almost random results) to less than 10% a very acceptable range for this test. My results have been validated by external testing sources so I feel confident in the measurement.

3) After the test is complete I rinse the vial and cap with the Hanna deionized water then fill the vial to the top with this water and store it this way until next use. Then on the next use I empty the vial do a quick rinse with the deionized water and proceed with the test.

IMO with good laboratory practices these checkers are great tools and do not rely on color change interpretation to make the measurement which in itself is a variable

This is some good info and I guess I never really considered that my RODI water could have some calcium in it or skew the results in a meaningful way. One other tip for the Ca checker is I never felt confident with the sample being exact each time given the small amount. Hanna released (and i think it's bundled in with the new Ca checkers) a graduated pipette that gets the exact same amount each time which is nice. It's a little sporty to buy separately but I have seen more consistency in the tests since I started using it.

 

[mcarroll]

This is some good info and I guess I never really considered that my RODI water could have some calcium in it or skew the results in a meaningful way.

Hanna has to say this because they sell to everyone – people with functional RODI filters who maintain their units AND people who never change their filters and have "RODI water". If you have 0 TDS RODI water it should be fine....I never used distilled and (once I practiced) had no problem matching my test results to Salifert.

Distilled water is less of a question mark in terms of quality variability. Since almost nobody makes their own distilled that means it's less likely to be screwed up – it's all "professionally made".

 

[statru]

I was turned onto these by someone on this board: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009CZEQ36/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
they fit right into the cuvette and it so much easier not to spill the reagent.

I ordered the tiny plastic ones 6/$2.37 + free s/h. I think the powder might not stick to the plastic as quick as it might to the stainless steel.

 

[erk]

I use both Alk and Calcium Hanna checkers. The Alk checker is great. Super quick and dummy proof. But I had some issues with the Calcium checker when I first got it. The crappy pipette they pack with the kit just doesn't give consistent results. I was getting readings all over the place. I eventually bought a $75 lab grade 100uL pipette and that solved my issues. Very consistent results. Don't have to fiddle with how fast or slow you release the plunger. I checked the readings against my Red Sea kits.

 

[Larry L]

After adding the reagent and shaking for a bit hold the buttom down and it will start a 3:00 countdown. Plenty of time to finish shaking and get it into place.

That's not the correct procedure for the phosphorus checker (the ULR one, anyway). The three-minute timer isn't supposed to start until after you have shaken the sample for two minutes and put it back in the checker. As long as you open and prep the reagent packet before doing anything else, you'll have plenty of time to add the reagent and shake after C2 is displayed.

 

[Holy_makerel]

That's not the correct procedure for the phosphorus checker (the ULR one, anyway). The three-minute timer isn't supposed to start until after you have shaken the sample for two minutes and put it back in the checker. As long as you open and prep the reagent packet before doing anything else, you'll have plenty of time to add the reagent and shake after C2 is displayed.

I'd be curious to see side by side results attempting to use the whole 3 minutes given and starting the countdown a min early

I think the results would be very similar. As long as all the reagent is disolved the timing is pretty irrelevant.

Thats my theory anyway.

Happy reefing!

 

[5280Reefer]

I use the Hanna Alk, ULR Phos and the Cal checker and love them all!! The Cal checker comes with a new syringe that does exactly .1ml every time never fails, have done about 15 test Salifert CA and Hanna they always are in the same ball park about 10ppm. I also do the triangle thing with the packets and prepare them before i even start the checker. Imo Hanna is an amazing tool that we have in this hobby.

 

[SashimiTurtle]

I have the HI722 Alk dKH, HI758 Calcium and the HI713 Low Range Phosphate checkers. I'll tell you to forget the Calcium, the process for testing is way too complicated and I always get results that are crazy off. We're talking 100+ ppm off. It's a horrible test procedure. The phosphate checker isn't accurate enough to test phosphates at the levels we try and keep out tanks. I think the ULR phosphorus checker is better at detecting these levels. So, both of those are junk... wasted money. The Alk checker is priceless tho. I wouldn't give it up for a frag of Walt Disney... ok maybe I would, then buy another Hanna Alk checker. The procedure is simple, and I get dead on accurate results every single time.

 

[Larry L]

I wouldn't give it up for a frag of Walt Disney... ok maybe I would, then buy another Hanna Alk checker.

LOL

 

[zachxlutz]

I have the HI722 Alk dKH, HI758 Calcium and the HI713 Low Range Phosphate checkers. I'll tell you to forget the Calcium, the process for testing is way too complicated and I always get results that are crazy off. We're talking 100+ ppm off. It's a horrible test procedure. The phosphate checker isn't accurate enough to test phosphates at the levels we try and keep out tanks. I think the ULR phosphorus checker is better at detecting these levels. So, both of those are junk... wasted money. The Alk checker is priceless tho. I wouldn't give it up for a frag of Walt Disney... ok maybe I would, then buy another Hanna Alk checker. The procedure is simple, and I get dead on accurate results every single time.

What do you find the issue to be with the ULR Phosphorus checker? I use it frequently, as I'm battling a low nutrient situation, and the results are repeatable and testing process is dead simple. It takes 3 minutes!

 

[madweazl]

What do you find the issue to be with the ULR Phosphorus checker? I use it frequently, as I'm battling a low nutrient situation, and the results are repeatable and testing process is dead simple. It takes 3 minutes!

My issue is that it has read 3x the levels of my Triton results the two times I've sent samples and the results vary wildly sample to sample. Likely a combination of me and the test. I used to target .03 on the Hanna but got 0 on my Triton results. .150 on the Hanna was .049 from Triton so now I target .1-.150 on the Hanna and call it good. Like others, I find the Alkalinity checker to be simple to use and using a syringe and filling the cuvette with 10ml of water has been very close to the Salifert results. The line on the cuvette isn't very close to 10ml from my syringes. Arent cuvettes suppose to be parallelograms...

 

[SashimiTurtle]

I do not have the ULR Phosphorus... I have the Low Range Phosphate. It can't read anything below a certain point where algae completely covers your aquarium. Watch this and go to 8:30 for all the results.

 

[mcarroll]

The phosphate checker isn't accurate enough to test phosphates at the levels we try and keep out tanks. I think the ULR phosphorus checker is better at detecting these levels.

Hm....the ppb checker is overkill. If you're keeping a tank in that range, you better REALLY know what you're doing as "regular folk" get into trouble with it all the time.

My issue is that it has read 3x the levels of my Triton results the two times I've sent samples and the results vary wildly sample to sample. Likely a combination of me and the test. I used to target .03 on the Hanna but got 0 on my Triton results.

I would not spend any time or worry on comparing results from two different reputable test kits....both are probably correct, plus it's not the point. Comparing your own readings from the same test kit is the idea. IMO, it's completely reasonable to expect to need a conversion factor when comparing results between majorly different test methods.

It can't read anything below a certain point where algae completely covers your aquarium.

Do you have a thread open on that issue that you can link here or PM to me? I would stop pounding on your tank's PO4 and try a different course – there are lots of algae that LOVE low nutrient environments and you don't want ANY of them blooming in your tank. PM me even if there's no thread link and I'll try to help!

 

[Larry L]

Hm....the ppb checker is overkill. If you're keeping a tank in that range, you better REALLY know what you're doing as "regular folk" get into trouble with it all the time.

I don't think it's overkill. I am not trying to keep an ultra-low nutrient system, but I use the URL checker for the reasons spelled out in that video - it's more accurate in the range I am trying to keep my tank at (0.03 to 0.05-ish).

 

[mcarroll]

but I use the URL checker for the reasons spelled out in that video

I took a look, tell me if I'm mistaken...

At about 4:11 he says (paraphrasing) that it's a tiny difference and not big enough to make a difference to most reefers and not worth breaking out a calculator to use the lower-range phosphorous meter.

At around 6:00 he says that if you're questing for ultra low nutrients (< 0.03 ppm according to them) the phosphorus tester "might be worth it".

At about 9:50, after their testing, he reiterates pretty much the same.

Matching your goals with their results seems to indicate that either would be fine for you and the phosphate meter would even be slightly less bother.

You would simply use it with the accuracy level in mind when you approach zero, like with any test kit. No problem!

 

[Larry L]

Matching your goals with their results seems to indicate that either would be fine for you

Agree.

and the phosphate meter would even be slightly less bother.

Since I use Apex Fusion to log test results it's no extra bother, because it automatically does the phosphorus to phosphate conversion math.

 

[poorish idol]

I have always used salifert...i thnk they are easy enough...i was gona mess with ha na but when I learned how complicated they are as well..i didn't bother..why mess with something. that ain't broken

 

[madweazl]

I would not spend any time or worry on comparing results from two different reputable test kits....both are probably correct, plus it's not the point. Comparing your own readings from the same test kit is the idea. IMO, it's completely reasonable to expect to need a conversion factor when comparing results between majorly different test methods.

Is it reasonable to expect such a delta between tests? Regardless of how the results are derived, one would think they should be close to one another. I would agree that consistent (test to test with whatever is used day to day) is likely more important that absolute accuracy but these results varied rather wildly. Doesn't instill much confidence as a consumer.

 

[mcarroll]

Is it reasonable to expect such a delta between tests? Regardless of how the results are derived, one would think they should be close to one another. I would agree that consistent (test to test with whatever is used day to day) is likely more important that absolute accuracy but these results varied rather wildly. Doesn't instill much confidence as a consumer.

I thought @Randy Holmes-Farley had commented on this issue before but I can't find it now.