Thanks everyone for the discussion so far.
Both here and other venues we have been assured that the idea of legal action is currently a non-worry. For this we are thankful.
We are concerned about some of the motivations that Ehsan has been attributing to the article and its authors, as they are not accurate. We have do not have anything against Triton, we do not have something against Ehsan’s family, we are not planning on setting up a competing business, and we no reason to try to skew the results in any particular way (all of these accusations have been said by Ehsan in various places). Both of the authors have careers that they aren’t planning on giving up, and neither of the authors have any interest or anything to gain by doing something that could tarnish their own reputations. There is no intent to ‘gotcha’ anyone, to fool anyone, to use percentages in confusing or misleading manner, to manipulate data, and we don’t feel the article is disparaging to Triton. Perhaps there is the issue with Ehsan’s English combined with his trying to protect his company that helped him post things he may not have meant - we are going to hope that this is the case.
The point of the article was to discuss the issues of ICP-OES and saltwater, explore some of the questions about how Triton is addressing those issues, and to present data from the certified reference material we sent to Triton to give a snapshot of the precision and accuracy of the testing. As we said in the article: fast, inexpensive, accurate and precise testing of saltwater would be fantastic for many reasons. We were pleasantly surprised at how well Triton Lab actually tested out in regards to the certified reference material. We are also quite surprised at some of the negative reactions to the article.
For instance, reference after reference, as well as expert after expert, indicates that 2% nitric acid will have negligible effects on the testing results in both radial and axial ICP-OES. The acidification of samples is simply not an issue for any other ICP-OES analyst besides Triton. Triton has not provided any evidence as to why it is a problem for their testing, they just say it is a problem. This is unconvincing. The results we published seem in reality not bad for Triton, so I am unsure why the push is there to discredit them.
Discussion about potential problems with the reference material itself are confusing as HPS makes these reference materials to be used exactly the way it was used in the article. Why should we trust that company supplying the reference material more than Triton Lab (at least at this point)? Because many labs around the world use HPS for a great many things, HPS always under intense scrutiny, and HPS offer’s a certified reference material. Triton is currently a private lab with no external oversight or corroboration. Again, the results published in the article seem not bad for Trition, so I am unsure why the push is there to discredit those results or the HPS reference material.
It has also been said that the certified reference material in 2% nitric acid is not seawater, and that Triton Lab only tests seawater. This makes little sense to us, as it seems no hobbyist is sending Triton Lab actual seawater, but artificial salt water that may contain any manner of unknown constituents that could impact testing in any number of unknown ways. In the sense that all hobbyist samples are ‘sea water’, so is the reference material we sent to Triton, the only difference is that the reference material has been stabilized with 2% nitric acid (which has been shown to have negligible effects on this type of testing). Again, the test results seem not bad for Triton, so the push to discredit the results seems strange. Furthermore, Triton representatives themselves contacted HPS to inquire as to any issues with running a 2% nitric acid matrix despite non-acidic calibration standards; the HPS personnel corroborated the statements we made in our article.
Some of the discussion about the realities and practicalities of the acidification of samples also seem without support; such acidification is not difficult, nor dangerous. It has been said in several places that a 2% nitric acid solution of 100l has 2l of acid in it - as if this is a thing to be scared of. However, the two percent nitric acid refers to the weight percent, not volume percent. The density of 2% nitric acid at 25°C is 1.00778 kg/L. Two percent of this, by weight, is 0.0201556 kg, and is the mass of pure nitric acid in one liter of solution. Multiply this mass of pure nitric acid by 100, and you get 2.01556 kg total, the mass of pure nitric acid in 100 liters of 2% nitric acid. Pure nitric acid has density of 1.504 kg per liter. Thus, dividing 2.01556 by 1.504 informs you that a 100 L aquarium of 2% nitric acid in fact contains 1.34 L of actual nitric acid. These types of calculations, and comprehension of the difference between weight percent and volume percent, are a critical component of the most basic understanding of analytical chemistry and are crucial when reporting testing results – which makes us nervous about other shortcuts that may be used in Triton Lab calculations or methodology. It doesn’t seem Ehsan has formal chemistry training, so perhaps the need for such attention has not been sufficiently instilled in him, but they are very important – there is a big difference between 1.34 and 2. Almost more important, saying there is “2 liters” of acid sounds really scary - but that “2 liters” is mixed with 98 liters of other stuff, and it isn’t going to jump out of solution and give you acid burns. As Craig Bingman pointed out, the personal protection equipment that is standard for handling a solution of 2% nitric acid is exactly the same as for saltwater or seawater.
We are also worried about the discussion of personal protective equipment in the Triton Lab. Ehsan writes “... and for sure lab coat, protective eyewear and gloves and all kinds of needed signs and declaretions.... ( safity is very important, and german government is very strict in that point ).
Just to let you know all Pics on the webpage are original pictures of our facilities, not "faked buyed ones" . and even the hands on them are my hands” However the photos linked to support how much safety is important show lab work being performed without a lab coat or gloves (eyes are not shown in the pictures), which leaves us with a feeling of confusion - does Triton lab use PPE or not? They didn’t use any PPE while doing testing at MACNA. PPE are important for any lab work for both the safety of the lab technician as well as to ensure the integrity of the samples.
Since the article appeared in the Skeptical Reefkeeping series, we feel that it is important to bring up the idea of Trust and the ‘proof is in the pudding’ ideas that have come up in discussions of the article. Trust is a difficult one for everyone. Anyone selling you anything says ‘trust me’, and given how many times people have been misled by such trust we need to be careful. There is a list of products for reefkeeping as long as my leg that have told us to trust them, however, upon closer scrutiny, it turns out that that trust was unwarranted. It isn’t that we are saying that Ehsan is not trustable, rather that other evidence to support his claims would make him more trustable. The idea that the proof is in the pudding - how wonderful the Triton aquarium looks – has nothing to do with the article about Triton Lab testing. There are a million ways to run a reef tank and a lot of them work and create amazing results. The article looks at the testing methods, precision and accuracy of the test results and specifically says nothing about how those values should be used or the Triton aquarium methodology because we simply do not know if something like elevated lithium is problematic in tank water or in a commercial salt mix.
Another idea that has come up several times in several places is that people should go to Triton Lab in Germany so they can see for themselves what is being done. This seems confusing and unnecessary for customers to spend time and money to travel to become comfortable with testing methodology when that information could easily be supplied in writing.
We think a real discussion might be helpful and needs to start with Ehsan answering some of the questions he posed in his list in a straightforward manner, with some support besides ‘trust me’. Or, he could say ‘the data in the article shows pretty much what we have been saying all along, and gives people a independent way to understand the test results they get from Triton’.
Finally, we hope that Ehsan takes all of this in the neutral spirit intended – to continue discussion and share and develop knowledge and understanding.
Rich and Chris
