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

[revhtree Verified Admin]

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 a great response and info! Thank you!

Personally I have just been using the ALK Checker and it has been flawless. I compare it to another trusted test kit on occasion.

 

[zachxlutz]

Why not get a calcium reactor and test while you are dialing it in, then set it and forget it?

Consumption of calcium and alkalinity are not always stable within our tanks. Certain events will lead to slower or faster uptake of the elements and will result in your alkalinity and calcium rising or falling. Thus, we check often to make sure we're supplying our tanks with a consistent and stable parameters.

 

[David S]

I use the 2 vial method as well.
In order to insure getting as much reagent as possible, I pour it on to a folded piece of paper (firm) and then pour it in the vial, at the fold.
However, I have found it be maddeningly inconsistent (ultra Phosphorus and Phosphate checker).
What I mean is it will show statisically different readings when you perform back to back tests. Invariably the additional test is due to questionable readings that are almost always on the high side.
To be honest, I have found the Red Sea Test to be more consistent and therefore more reliable.
And, oh yes, a couple of years ago when I sent a sample of my water in to Triton for testing, the PO4 results were MUCH lower than the same sample I tested with the Hanna Checker*.

*The Triton results were also lower than the Red Sea test kit but were much closer in value

 

[rosshamsandwich]

I use the 2 vial method as well.
In order to insure getting as much reagent as possible, I pour it on to a folded piece of paper (firm) and then pour it in the vial, at the fold.
However, I have found it be maddeningly inconsistent (ultra Phosphorus and Phosphate checker).
What I mean is it will show statisically different readings when you perform back to back tests. Invariably the additional test is due to questionable readings that are almost always on the high side.
To be honest, I have found the Red Sea Test to be more consistent and therefore more reliable.
And, oh yes, a couple of years ago when I sent a sample of my water in to Triton for testing, the PO4 results were MUCH lower than the same sample I tested with the Hanna Checker*.

*The Triton results were also lower than the Red Sea test kit but were much closer in value

^This

Thank you for articulating what I was not able to. I am experiencing the EXACT same situation using the Phosphate checker that you are. Thank you for sharing your experience, because I have been made to think I was taking crazy pills or stupid pills. I am now in the middle of exchanging emails with a Hanna representative and after explaining my situation, the line that stuck out to me was this Hanna representative telling me that what I'm experiencing is "user error."

If anyone else is having issues with their Phosphate Checker, please do speak up about it. Especially since Hanna's stance is they are infallible and that we don't know what we are doing. After spending $70 dollars on the Hanna Checker and the replacement reagent powder packs (since they only provide you with 5 packets initially), you would expect a better customer service experience. I've wasted countless powder packets trying to figure this thing out, watched all the Youtube videos (yes I know how to cut along the dotted line and push the corners together to ensure all the powder gets into the vial), and followed all the instructions.

So far, I contacted Hanna months ago through their website, been ignored. Finally got a response from Hanna when posting on R2R (Thank you, R2R), and been told that it's my fault that I'm not getting accurate results. I'm beyond furious right now. I wish I could have my money back.

 

[jimmyzhou]

I use Hanna all cal and pho. But always better have one set extra test kit on hand to double check

 

[Flatlandreefer]

Didn't read the whole thread but alkalinity is awesome! Anything with reagents I'm not a fan of, the packets are a pita! Also timer on phos make me rush because it shuts off in 3 min so I never use it because it is so frustrating!

 

[rocknut]

I use the Alkalinity and Phosphorus and think they are great. I have the calibration vials (think that's what they are called) that are supposed to always read a 100ppm to make sure the checker is working, and it has never been off more than 1ppm either way. Also double checked my readings periodically with the Salifert kit, and it always matches up.

 

[Niterunner77]

This thread has been really informative about the checkers. I have gained a lot of insight on procedures also. This is great to know considering I just ordered the Reef Professional Kit from Hanna. This was the same kit that was mentioned on the Marine Depot MACNA YouTube video. Can't wait to get it to become a mad scientist.

 

[David S]

I started with Hanna's Phosphate checker a few years ago.
Due to the wide variability of results I contacted Hanna and they suggested using the ULR Phosphorus for finer range.
I switched to the ULR with the same inconsistent results.
It would be nice if there was a way to calibrate the checker.
Actually BRS does sell a calibration fluid. But if the results indicate that your checker needs calibrating, you can't do it.
You need to send it to Hanna.
It's throwing bad money after bad.
What it comes down to is testing for Phosphate is rather difficult and you can't expect much at their price point

 

[mcarroll]

@David S and @DEATH BY SNU SNU it seems like you are generalizing your problems even onto folks who aren't experiencing them. Many folks have experienced the same issues you describe but they eventually figured out what they were doing wrong in their testing process.

Using multiple vials is going to introduce inaccuracy.

If you can't even do a By The Book single-cuvette test at all, there's no reason to expect that results from a verboten two-vial test will be better. Doesn't make sense, right?

You probably don't have a defective device (tho it's possible) so you probably need to do the same thing those folks did – I did it with a lot of practice and watching YouTube videos. That means a lot of inconsistent results and cursing until I figured it out...

• Yes fingerprints matter.
• Yes little hard water spots and lint matter.
• Yes particulates in the water sample matter.
• Yes, getting "only" 99% of the powder from the packet is OK.
• Yes the vials are not identical.
• Yes it even helps to point the vials the same direction in the Checker test-after-test.

That wasn't it, either! The point is that it took quite a bit of practice to discover all those factors AND to know how to get all of them in-line – and each one can have a big impact. To me (NOT a trained lab rat) it's still a painstaking process and I have to be very methodical when performing these tests. Being rushed at all while I'm doing it is practically a deal-breaker.

Certainly make sure you don't have a defect, but mostly check your routines again – check all the links Hanna has posted and watch all their related YouTube vids too, if you haven't already. There are many fine points, so you could still be missing one or two.

If you have a buddy, make them do a test and make them follow the printed directions – no hacks or shortcuts – see if they get the same results. Ideally give them your Checker and let them run the tests when you aren't even around so it's independent. You can be pretty sure of the defect status after this, one way or the other – your buddy's results will either concur or they won't. You won't get good results with a broken tester.

 

[rosshamsandwich]

@David S and @DEATH BY SNU SNU it seems like you are generalizing your problems even onto folks who aren't experiencing them. Many folks have experienced the same issues you describe but they eventually figured out what they were doing wrong in their testing process.

Using multiple vials is going to introduce inaccuracy.

If you can't even do a By The Book single-cuvette test at all, there's no reason to expect that results from a verboten two-vial test will be better. Doesn't make sense, right?

You probably don't have a defective device (tho it's possible) so you probably need to do the same thing those folks did – I did it with a lot of practice and watching YouTube videos. That means a lot of inconsistent results and cursing until I figured it out...

• Yes fingerprints matter.
• Yes little hard water spots and lint matter.
• Yes particulates in the water sample matter.
• Yes, getting "only" 99% of the powder from the packet is OK.
• Yes the vials are not identical.
• Yes it even helps to point the vials the same direction in the Checker test-after-test.

That wasn't it, either! The point is that it took quite a bit of practice to discover all those factors AND to know how to get all of them in-line – and each one can have a big impact. To me (NOT a trained lab rat) it's still a painstaking process and I have to be very methodical when performing these tests. Being rushed at all while I'm doing it is practically a deal-breaker.

Certainly make sure you don't have a defect, but mostly check your routines again – check all the links Hanna has posted and watch all their related YouTube vids too, if you haven't already. There are many fine points, so you could still be missing one or two.

If you have a buddy, make them do a test and make them follow the printed directions – no hacks or shortcuts – see if they get the same results. Ideally give them your Checker and let them run the tests when you aren't even around so it's independent. You can be pretty sure of the defect status after this, one way or the other – your buddy's results will either concur or they won't. You won't get good results with a broken tester.

I have tried the single cuvette test, and wasted 10+ packets and got 10 different readings each time. If others are happy with the random readings, that's on them.

 

[rosshamsandwich]

"
DIES RIGHT AFTER WARRANTY BY SD REEFER ON 4/6/2016

SD REEFER wouldn't recommend this product to a friend
Problems with the light sensor the minute the 6 month warranty was up. Randomly worked and then completely dead. Tech support offered up $95/hour service or they said I'm welcome to order a another from them. Don't think so. The results I was able to get when it worked were extremely varied and I couldn't stand trying to get all the powder out of those tiny packets. Need to rethink design on those. Not pleased unfortunately."

 

[rosshamsandwich]

"
POINTLESS BY COVERTTADPOLE ON 1/20/2016

COVERTTADPOLE wouldn't recommend this product to a friend
Save your money. I get more accurate results using API phosphate test and its significantly less money. Measures ppm just like API however the Hanna checker shows 0.00 and API shows 0 to 0.25 ppm. Even contacted Hanna to see if it was broke and their first response was to buy the HI736. So they seem to be aware that it's junk. Also, once you open the box it's yours. Bulk reef supply does not except returns on opened items. A little hard to consider buying a second piece of equipment when the first one doesn't work as it should. Also bought the HI758 calcium checker that works flawless. Watch the YouTube video as the instructions are not clear."

 

[rosshamsandwich]

For all those who are happy with their Phosphate checkers, I recommend taking 3 tests back to back using your single cuvette technique and tell me if you are getting same reading or similar readings. I'm waiting.

 

[mcarroll]

I have tried the single cuvette test, and wasted 10+ packets and got 10 different readings each time. If others are happy with the random readings, that's on them.

I certainly don't think anything in this hobby is "for everyone". Quite the contrary. PM me if you'd like some alternate testing ideas.

And this is supposed to be fun – even the bother and experimentation! Reefing is not automatic. Spending money never makes you an expert. Although I sure wish it could!!!! Just sell the Checker if you don't like it....don't get sour over it. Reef on!

 

[rosshamsandwich]

I certainly don't think anything in this hobby is "for everyone". Quite the contrary. PM me if you'd like some alternate testing ideas.

And this is supposed to be fun – even the bother and experimentation! Reefing is not automatic. Spending money never makes you an expert. Although I sure wish it could!!!! Just sell the Checker if you don't like it....don't get sour over it. Reef on!

I'm absolutely sour over Hanna, because of their customer service and because of how they've treated me when I attempted to contact them. If you don't believe me, call them with a pretend issue and see how you get treated. I included those reviews to show how Hanna treats their customers other than myself. If you have an issue, they offer 95 dollar/hour technician service to help you and pretty much call you everything except an idiot. If that doesn't work, they tell you to buy more of their products. No refunds, no exchanges, no taking any kind of responsibility for their products. Why make a Phosphate checker and market it for saltwater when they know very well that for reefing, the Phosphorus checker is the more accurate version? How would you like it if you bought a Chevy Camaro and from day 1, it had nothing but problems, you take it to the dealership, and they say, You should have bought the Chevy Cruze instead. That's essentially what Hanna is telling its customers. "You bought the wrong product, buy this Hanna product instead." I plain flat out told them I'm unhappy with the product and they do NOTHING to try to make it right by telling me I'm wrong. Lovely. I'm happy with the reliability of the Alkalinity checker, but after I'm done with the reagent, I'm selling that as well and going to look at Red Sea Test Kits. From my experience, at least they take care of their customers and don't treat them like morons.

Anyone wanna buy my Phosphate Checker, please pm me!

 

[David S]

@David S and @DEATH BY SNU SNU it seems like you are generalizing your problems even onto folks who aren't experiencing them. Many folks have experienced the same issues you describe but they eventually figured out what they were doing wrong in their testing process.

Using multiple vials is going to introduce inaccuracy.

If you can't even do a By The Book single-cuvette test at all, there's no reason to expect that results from a verboten two-vial test will be better. Doesn't make sense, right?

You probably don't have a defective device (tho it's possible) so you probably need to do the same thing those folks did – I did it with a lot of practice and watching YouTube videos. That means a lot of inconsistent results and cursing until I figured it out...

• Yes fingerprints matter.
• Yes little hard water spots and lint matter.
• Yes particulates in the water sample matter.
• Yes, getting "only" 99% of the powder from th packetestsOK.
• Yes the vials are not identical.
• Yes it even helps to point the vials the same direction in the Checker test-after-test.

That wasn't it, either! The point is that it took quite a bit of practice to discover all those factors AND to know how to get all of them in-line – and each one can have a big impact. To me (NOT a trained lab rat) it's still a painstaking process and I have to be very methodical when performing these tests. Being rushed at all while I'm doing it is practically a deal-breaker.

Certainly make sure you don't have a defect, but mostly check your routines again – check all the links Hanna has posted and watch all their related YouTube vids too, if you haven't already. There are many fine points, so you could still be missing one or two.

If you have a buddy, make them do a test and make them follow the printed directions – no hacks or shortcuts – see if they get the same results. Ideally give them your Checker and let them run the tests when you aren't even around so it's independent. You can be pretty sure of the defect status after this, one way or the other – your buddy's results will either concur or they won't. You won't get good results with a broken tester.

I don't think you read my comments with an open mind. Aside from assuming I perform the tests inaccurately when you don't even know me is simply insulting.
I couldn't be more objective than sending my sample for 3rd party testing.
Results
Triton - .009 PPM
Red Sea - .04 PPM
Hanna ULR (two tests) .10 and .15 PPM
BTW those tests were done when I was still using the recommended one vial method.
And just for the record there were NO fingerprints on the vial

 

[mcarroll]

@David S letting someone else use your Hanna to see if they get the same problem as you is not the same. And the point you may have missed was that you, I and mr death are all in good company....lots of folks have been through what you're going through.

Where did you buy your P Checker, BTW?

 

[Sharvey103]

I trust them and have both alkalinity checkers as well as calcium, iron, and ULR P. I still verify occasionally with Salifert and get good agreement.

 

[Hanna Instruments]

@Bulk Reef Supply did a great video comparing our HI713 LR Phosphate Checker, HI736 ULR Phosphorus Checker and a much more expensive Hach DR900. At low range orthophosphate concentrations of 0.02ppm our HI736 ULR Phosphorus Checker actually preformed better than the DR900 from their results.