Hobby test kit vs ICP testing

[saltyhog]

Don't know if this has been done but I thought it would be a good idea. I always do a full panel of tests when I send a Triton test kit off. Everyone share their comparisons on this thread. Disclaimer....this is not scientific and not designed to recommend certain test kits.

Here's mine. Kit name, kit result, Triton result

Hanna ULR checker.......0.04.........0.028

Salifert Calcium..............425...........422

Salifert Magnesium.........1440.........1532

Actually pretty pleased with the test kits. The Mg results have been pretty consistent the other times I've compared Salifert with Triton, usually the Salifert is around 100 points low.

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

Richard Ross et al. actually did a test where they sent a verified seawater sample into Triton to see how well Triton could measure something with known values. Triton did pretty well overall, but there are a few elements that were a bit off.

 

[saltyhog]

Richard Ross et al. actually did a test where they sent a verified seawater sample into Triton to see how well Triton could measure something with known values. Triton did pretty well overall, but there are a few elements that were a bit off.

That's great! Patrick, do you remember what parameters were off? Was it the foundational ones we test for with hobby kits or others?

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

That's great! Patrick, do you remember what parameters were off? Was it the foundational ones we test for with hobby kits or others?

It's mostly the trace elements that were off. The stuff we can measure came out really close to the reference sample.

There's a table about 2/3 the way down the article that shows what was in the sample, the Triton result, and the deviation. I don't want to reproduce the image here without the author's permission, especially because Richard, one of the authors, frequents the forums as @Thales

The stuff that was off is mostly the ug/L stuff, the trace elements in other words. Cd (cadmium) was pretty bad, which read 513% (5x) higher than the actual value. Mn (manganese) read similarly high, at 397% (4x) the sample value. As (arsenic) read low by 97%, so almost half the actual value. Fe (iron) read almost double the actual value. A few others, like Zn (zinc), Pb (lead), I (iodine), and Cu (copper) were between 30 and 170% off.

Many elements, however, were very close to the values of the reference sample. Al, B, Ba, Br, Ca, K, Li, Mg, Na, S, and Sr were all within 5% or so of the reference, which is pretty remarkable.

 

[Thales]

Rep

There's a table about 2/3 the way down the article that shows what was in the sample, the Triton result, and the deviation. I don't want to reproduce the image here without the author's permission, especially because Richard, one of the authors, frequents the forums as @Thales

Reproduce away!

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

Reproduce away!

Thanks Richard

I'd still encourage everyone to read the article in its entirety. It's a really great read and contains a lot of background information on the topic of ICP testing for reef aquaria. Having said that, here are the results of the Triton tests on a verified seawater standard: