ICP report from ICP-Analysis

[jason2459]

Well, this thread has certainly gone all over the place.

My interactions with Aquaforest have been a positive one. I can say that.

 

[jason2459]

Keep on mind one is tested in Poland, and the ICP-Analysis is made in USA with a ICP machine made and calibrated in USA
It will always be different, and also they have other products that are very consistent on quality.

This makes zero sense to me.

ICP-OES is only as good as the method used to prepare, perform, and analyze the tests. We don't know anything about how those three fundamental pieces are performed at ICP-Analysis.com

And it's still going to be terrible at accurately analyzing the trace elements no mater where it's being tested from or by whomever.

 

[HolisticBear]

And it's still going to be terrible at accurately analyzing the trace elements no mater where it's being tested from or by whomever.

Shame there couldn't be a confidence interval on the individual elements. They may not have the data to do this, but some indicator would be helpful. Simply breaking the elements into different buckets of accuracy.

Eventually, maybe we can have a R2R sticky on interpreting ICP reports: accuracy, salinity estimations, common things not to freak out about (Li). A basic community FAQ of all Randy's and others insight?

This makes zero sense to me.

ICP-OES is only as good as the method used to prepare, perform, and analyze the tests. We don't know anything about how those three fundamental pieces are performed at ICP-Analysis.com

And it's still going to be terrible at accurately analyzing the trace elements no mater where it's being tested from or by whomever.

 

[Ricardo@Coralvue]

That was the answer from Aquaforest to end users and store owners, when they where ask why the parameters listed on the salt did not match, you can also see the same problems in other countries.
The ICP-Analysis is located in Colorado, and service by the manufacture that it happen to be on the same city, so if you really gonna doubt them and believe what is told from a foreign product that ha several questions on the accuracy of their salt?
ICP-Analysis a help line number and they will answer any question, is in USA.
ICP-Analysis, may not have a pretty looking as other companies that do similar service, but is the first one in USA, for a fraction of the cost to our community in a fraction of the turn around time. And the most important that are not pushing you any products, just and information service
Most salts have variations, not only the one we mention, I have used in the pass and I deal with it, like we do everyday on this hobby

This makes zero sense to me.

ICP-OES is only as good as the method used to prepare, perform, and analyze the tests. We don't know anything about how those three fundamental pieces are performed at ICP-Analysis.com

And it's still going to be terrible at accurately analyzing the trace elements no mater where it's being tested from or by whomever.

 

[HolisticBear]

That was the answer from Aquaforest to end users and store owners, when they where ask why the parameters listed on the salt did not match, you can also see the same problems in other countries

Match is a vague word. Are we talking 1-5% variation or are we talking about 20%? In my case, the difference is slightly more than 20%. People react differently to 5% variation than 20% variation. If salt does vary 20% from batch to batch, then you might as well put a range on the QC report. Saying Ca can be between 369 and 451 is a little different than saying it's 410. At some point, if the delta range is large enough, then the tests are almost meaningless.

** > 20% difference accounting for a 1ppt salinity difference. Around 18% difference for a 2ppt difference
*** My Ca is 20% higher account for 1ppt, but if values can be equally higher and lower and 20% higher is considered acceptable, then the real range for Ca might be 328-492 for salt listed at 410. Anyways, point is if ICP variation between countries explains 20% higher values, then you've basically discounted the quality of ICP tests to well below that of Salifert hobby test kits.

 

[GoVols]

Match is a vague word. Are we talking 1-5% variation or are we talking about 20%? In my case, the difference is slightly more than 20%. People react differently to 5% variation than 20% variation. If salt does vary 20% from batch to batch, then you might as well put a range on the QC report. Saying Ca can be between 369 and 451 is a little different than saying it's 410. At some point, if the delta range is large enough, then the tests are almost meaningless.

** > 20% difference accounting for a 1ppt salinity difference. Around 18% difference for a 2ppt difference
*** My Ca is 20% higher account for 1ppt, but if values can be equally higher and lower and 20% higher is considered acceptable, then the real range for Ca might be 328-492 for salt listed at 410. Anyways, point is if ICP variation between countries explains 20% higher values, then you've basically discounted the quality of ICP tests to well below that of Salifert hobby test kits.

+1
And you don't need any machine when the AF #'s are so far off from their QC sheets.

This is a AF Poland issue and they need to "man up" like they did on the RC thread.

lol, They don't mind driving the world crazy to what is their issue, not the users.

I'll say this one more time:
I was telling Deep Water and Salty Supply this way back in 2015 until I stopped using it in June of 2016.

 

[Anirban]

I think this is a good time for me to try explaining or figuring out issues over this matter a little logically.

I had a doubt that when a company make something in bulk or batches generally its a large amount. Like here in this case we can see 1000kg batch sizes. So, on an average like @MrMichael batch (batch no. 000402) with 25kg per box there will be 40 boxes of bad salts. I was trying to figure out if some of the people who are reporting bad salt mixes if they have the same batch of salt mix or not. I asked very few people who complained in the AF forum here. I found out of 4 people I asked 1 never saw any QC report, 1 dont remember it, waiting for another buddys response, one of them @jhatfield reported that he has the same batch of salt and he was also facing the same issues with high Mg and Ca.
Interestingly both the boxes are from BRS and bought Feb and March this year. The issue is all these salt boxes come in bulk and then distributed to different sellers. So, if they have 4-5 batches of bad salt it will be total 200 boxes which are out there. In that case it will take quite a bit of time for all of them to come in user circulation. The only thing we as an end user can do is report back the batch number to a place so that someone else already knows if he has a bad salt batch or not.
If AF already corrected their mistake which I believe they did then still it will take time till we don't listen more complain as those bad boxes are already mixed in the huge proportion of other good boxes.

 

[GoVols]

I think this is a good time for me to try explaining or figuring out issues over this matter a little logically.

I had a doubt that when a company make something in bulk or batches generally its a large amount. Like here in this case we can see 1000kg batch sizes. So, on an average like @MrMichael batch (batch no. 000402) with 25kg per box there will be 40 boxes of bad salts. I was trying to figure out if some of the people who are reporting bad salt mixes if they have the same batch of salt mix or not. I asked very few people who complained in the AF forum here. I found out of 4 people I asked 1 never saw any QC report, 1 dont remember it, waiting for another buddys response, one of them @jhatfield reported that he has the same batch of salt and he was also facing the same issues with high Mg and Ca.
Interestingly both the boxes are from BRS and bought Feb and March this year. The issue is all these salt boxes come in bulk and then distributed to different sellers. So, if they have 4-5 batches of bad salt it will be total 200 boxes which are out there. In that case it will take quite a bit of time for all of them to come in user circulation. The only thing we as an end user can do is report back the batch number to a place so that someone else already knows if he has a bad salt batch or not.
If AF already corrected their mistake which I believe they did then still it will take time till we don't listen more complain as those bad boxes are already mixed in the huge proportion of other good boxes.

Then explain the RC thread away...

And my reviews on DF&S and Amazon back in June of 2016.

 

[GoVols]

Then explain the RC thread away...

And my reviews on DF&S and Amazon back in June of 2016.

And explain this away... From May of 2016.

I mix 3 5- gallon jugs for my weekly water changes. So I finish up AF bucket # 5 on jug one. Open AF bucket #6 for jugs 2 and 3.

All 3 reading 1.025 sg. Jug 1 is still spot on to the QC sheet. Jugs 2 and 3 are sitting at like 6 dkh and 350 cal. I crossed checked against 3 test brands and drove 30 miles to my lfs and they hit the same SG and big 3.

 

[Anirban]

Then explain the RC thread away...

And my reviews on DF&S and Amazon back in June of 2016.

The explanation is simple....at least this particular batch was produced in July last year. Like any other production batches yours , Rakie and other few batches were bad. Suppose if I assume the batch numbers denote the number of batches they prepared then out of 432 batches 5-10 batches were bad at maximum. Then the percentage is very low.
Now the point you are arguing I am completely agree with is why the QC sheet is there if it does not match with the original product in the box. That point AF should take care in future. But thats not a solution for the problem. There are possibly 10-15 salt brands and I dont think all of them produce perfect batches of salt every time. We dont blame them because they dont come with QC report. SO these guys are try to be honest so just because somebody messed up few times we can not say they are taking care of stuffs. I will try to figure out what happened to Rakies claim back there. If there is any more issue then I will try to figure that out.

 

[Anirban]

The explanation is simple....at least this particular batch was produced in July last year. Like any other production batches yours , Rakie and other few batches were bad. Actually except Rakies and may be couple of yours they are not bad they dont match with QC report that all. Suppose if I assume the batch numbers denote the number of batches they prepared then out of 432 batches 5-10 batches were bad at maximum. Then the percentage is very low.
Now the point you are arguing I am completely agree with is why the QC sheet is there if it does not match with the original product in the box. That point AF should take care in future. But thats not a solution for the problem. There are possibly 10-15 salt brands and I dont think all of them produce perfect batches of salt every time. We dont blame them because they dont come with QC report. SO these guys are try to be honest so just because somebody messed up few times we can not say they are taking care of stuffs. I will try to figure out what happened to Rakies claim back there. If there is any more issue then I will try to figure that out.

 

[GoVols]

The explanation is simple....at least this particular batch was produced in July last year. Like any other production batches yours , Rakie and other few batches were bad. Suppose if I assume the batch numbers denote the number of batches they prepared then out of 432 batches 5-10 batches were bad at maximum. Then the percentage is very low.
Now the point you are arguing I am completely agree with is why the QC sheet is there if it does not match with the original product in the box. That point AF should take care in future. But thats not a solution for the problem. There are possibly 10-15 salt brands and I dont think all of them produce perfect batches of salt every time. We dont blame them because they dont come with QC report. SO these guys are try to be honest so just because somebody messed up few times we can not say they are taking care of stuffs. I will try to figure out what happened to Rakies claim back there. If there is any more issue then I will try to figure that out.

I had it happen to me twice in a 9 month span. I wasn't part of Rakie's batch. My last bucket was bought in May of 2016 and a I was reporting issues to Salty and Deep water back in 2015. @MrMichael QC sheet is 11/17/16 --- Rakies was 7/7/2016.

So are you saying AF has fixed their on going issue since 11/17?

I blame AF for putting in QC sheets that don't match.
I use IO and it does vary but they don't put in QC sheets.

AF can fix it or drop the QC sheets. It is totally mis-leading to a consumer.

 

[Anirban]

I had it happen to me twice in a 9 month span. I wasn't part of Rakie's batch. My last bucket was bought in May of 2016 and a I was reporting issues to Salty and Deep water back in 2015. @MrMichael QC sheet is 11/17/16 --- Rakies was 7/7/2016.

So are you saying AF has fixed their on going issue since 11/17?

I would say they did not fixed it because they were always good with QC in majority of cases but there are exceptions and you people are there by chance. Possibly it could have happened to any of us and may happen in future if we get any of those bad batches out there in market. But by reporting all the bad batch number in this forum we can help each other.

 

[GoVols]

I would say they did not fixed it because they were always good with QC in majority of cases but there are exceptions and you people are there by chance. Possibly it could have happened to any of us and may happen in future if we get any of those bad batches out there in market. But by reporting all the bad batch number in this forum we can help each other.

I'm not going to argue with you.

You not trying to help us, you here to trying to defend AF Poland on this very long track record that speaks for itself.

Regards, GoVols

 

[Anirban]

I'm not going to argue with you.

You not trying to help us, you here to trying to defend AF Poland on this very long track record that speaks for itself.

Regards, GoVols

Ok lets get this straight...
Who are you helping exactly.....no one right.
You have issues I understand but this is not helping anyone. We need a solution for all these people and others who in future may get affected by these salt mixes already in the market. Like MrMichael or Jason are doing possibly by analysing the issues as deep as they can. I am also trying to reach as many people as I can or know to figure out the batch numbers which are actually bad so that people know they have a bad batch. I exactly dont understand what you want. If AF Poland comes here and say this will not happen again or we will not put a QC sheet in the box anymore does that really solve the problem. No never. It will possibly help in future but not currently. The only way to solve the current situation is to figure out what are the bad boxes so people who are using it dont get confused by seeing those QC sheet.

By the way to let everyone know Rakie was batch: 000394 Manufacturing date: 07/07/2016 and Mr Michael was Batch: 00402 Manufacturing date: 11/07/2016. So, 4 days gap as AF is a european company and dates are in that format.

 

[HolisticBear]

By the way to let everyone know Rakie was batch: 000394 Manufacturing date: 07/07/2016 and Mr Michael was Batch: 00402 Manufacturing date: 11/07/2016. So, 4 days gap as AF is a european company and dates are in that format.

I wondered that exact point on European dates. I figured it would be in European format, however since BRS only started stocking AF product in February(?) a November manufacturer date seemed more logical than July. A July date would make sense since that's almost eight months ago and coincides with other reports.

 

[GoVols]

I wondered that exact point on European dates. I figured it would be in European format, however since BRS only started stocking AF product in February(?) a November manufacturer date seemed more logical than July. A July date would make sense since that's almost eight months ago and coincides with other reports.

Your batch # is 000402 - BRS
Rakie's # is 000394 - Amazon (Rakie - Choose not to review it on Amazon)

Two different batches and two different dealers.

 

[Anirban]

I wondered that exact point on European dates. I figured it would be in European format, however since BRS only started stocking AF product in February(?) a November manufacturer date seemed more logical than July. A July date would make sense since that's almost eight months ago and coincides with other reports.

Sorry but AF dated them in european style...as for proof look at this one...its mine. Received a week back. Take a look at the date and batch number. I hope now you understand how long it takes to flush anything bad out once they are in retail chain...

 

[HolisticBear]

Two different batches and two different dealers.

It doesn't strike me as unreasonable. I have no idea the quantities they deal with, but let's say things went side-ways for some period in July. It takes time for information to filter back and get fixed. By then, inventory is scattered in the channel. Recalls are complicated, it's not like a smartphone exploding in an airplane. Realistically, the percentage of users that truly care is also a smaller percentage. Most users reports are also of questionable quality.

The only unfortunate aspect to me is that the known bad lots simply aren't known. Listed on the website with an email address. Generally to call something 'fixed' you identified the root cause (bad manufacturing, bad batch of ingredients, etc.), however manufacturing is complicated as well as politics to disclose issues.

This is still conjecture, but I'm leaning towards 3 points

• API-Analysis report looks correct so far, not bad for $25
• Complaints about params not matching between ICP labs should be talking about minor differences
• There is likely some "bad" salt from last summer floating thru the channel. Whether it's 40 boxes or X, no idea.

 

[GoVols]

It doesn't strike me as unreasonable. I have no idea the quantities they deal with, but let's say things went side-ways for some period in July. It takes time for information to filter back and get fixed. By then, inventory is scattered in the channel. Recalls are complicated, it's not like a smartphone exploding in an airplane. Realistically, the percentage of users that truly care is also a smaller percentage. Most users reports are also of questionable quality.

The only unfortunate aspect to me is that the known bad lots simply aren't known. Listed on the website with an email address. Generally to call something 'fixed' you identified the root cause (bad manufacturing, bad batch of ingredients, etc.), however manufacturing is complicated as well as politics to disclose issues.

This is still conjecture, but I'm leaning towards 3 points

• API-Analysis report looks correct so far, not bad for $25
• Complaints about params not matching between ICP labs should be talking about minor differences
• There is likely some "bad" salt from last summer floating thru the channel. Whether it's 40 boxes or X, no idea.

I have no clue either but I was dealing with it back in 2015 until June of 2016 and on that thread Rakies (lfs) was getting the Sea Salt in Reef Salt buckets, just like me.
The thread was started on 10/2016.
AF had plenty of time to decide, to let the bad summer batches reach BRS.