Saltmix Parameters bring on the test results

[Myka]

Thanks for all the info!!!

 

[jason2459]

Corrected Aquavitro Salinity from the I group down.

 

[jason2459]

Why do aqua forest and triton read much lower salinity than you did?

That is a great question. Some of it comes down to accuracy of testing, theres and mine, and some of it is variations of the major, minor, and trace elements combined all working together at a certain refraction index.

Keep in mind the salinity listed for Triton and AquaForest are estimates based on the results of the Macro Element group calculated together with an assumption on temp, alkalinity, and amount of fluoride which contributes very little.


So, between being an estimate and testing variance there is bound to be some difference. And you'll notice some are lower and some are higher. My experience is the calculated salinity is lower. Aquaforest was much lower in some cases.

After seeing results of the exact same sample and in talking with ENC labs I wouldn't put a lot of weight towards the ICP-OES results. They are a good indicator and good for trends. But ICP-OES has a difficult time with seawater especially if not pain stakingly done right. We don't know what their testing methods are.

I was very careful myself in calibrating, at least checking for calibration, before each use with a 35ppt PSU standard based on a formula by Randy Holmes-Farley.

http://reef2reef.com/threads/does-your-calibration-solution-need-calibrated.250133/

The Corrected Aquavitro Salinity screen shot is a perfect example. I read salinity exactly 35ppt with that sample. The exact same sample tested by Triton calculated out to 33.05ppt and by AquaForest calculated to 35.06ppt.

 

[clownsrcool]

Ok,

I don't know anything really about how these tests are performed and what kind of things you should/shouldn't take as absolute accuracy. I thought this might be showing how inaccurate our hobby grade refractometers are

 

[jason2459]

Ok,

I don't know anything really about how these tests are performed and what kind of things you should/shouldn't take as absolute accuracy. I thought this might be showing how inaccurate our hobby grade refractometers are

I trust my vitalsine aka veegee refractometer more then any other testing device or kit I've used.

 

[kodo28]

I'm lost on so many screenshots
There is any possibilty to put a link to an Excel file for the last test sent to AF ?

Cheers!

 

[jason2459]

The AF results are there with the Triton results updated on the first page.

 

[The Rook]

No, not necessarily. Aquaforest was still extremely low in S and it's most definitely not testing error. Both their Reef and Sea branded salts were low. Only salts I would not use at this point besides those with organics would be the Aquaforest Reef and Sea salts due to that.

There are many other oddities but I have a much better understanding now between getting all these back, my testing, and talking with Carl from ENC Labs. When I have a chance I will recap this.

But overall I feel the list is showing a good average of what one can expect to see in a salt brand and useful to compare.

What is "S", sulfer? Is that critical for a reef?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

What is "S", sulfer? Is that critical for a reef?

Sulfate (SO4--) is the third most abundant ion in seawater by weight (fourth by number). Since it never varies in the ocean, there's no much data on the biological effects of replacing it with chloride (the most abundant ion). In general, there's no sensible reason to not have it close to natural levels.

 

[kodo28]

The AF results are there with the Triton results updated on the first page.

thanks

I really don't understand Aquaforest when they say that their Reef Salt contain no Bromides but when looking to their ICP results against the Probiotic version they are way most the same as the Probiotic version.
By chance did you test for No3 on Reef Salt, I am asking this because last bucket that I received was reading 0.25 ppm with RedSea Pro test.
Same RODI water was showing 0.00ppm on same test kit, I sent an email to AF and I got following answer from them...
"We tested our salt and there is no Nitrate there.
Fresh saltmix showing NO3 level because 70% of air contains nitrate - this names "free nitrates” - not organic like NO3 in tank.
You can do same simple test:
Add salt from kitchen NaCL to RO water and test NO3 - Kitchen salt also has 0.00 nitrate level
NO3 stabilize after some time - you can test our salt after for example 2 days.
This is the same situation like pH level in fresh saltmix - it should be stabilize.
For sure - our salt does not rise NO3 level in tank" ...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

"We tested our salt and there is no Nitrate there.
Fresh saltmix showing NO3 level because 70% of air contains nitrate - this names "free nitrates” - not organic like NO3 in tank.

Are you kidding me? They wrote that???

That's unbelievable.

 

[kodo28]

Are you kidding me? They wrote that???

That's unbelievable.

...It is what I thought too

 

[jason2459]

What is "S", sulfer? Is that critical for a reef?

Considering its a major ion I would assume it's of some importance and should be at least close to natural saltwater levels.

 

[jason2459]

All of their mixes showed Br. My bucket of Reef Salt just said low Br but their Sea Salt bucket said No BR which was false.

I didn't test for ammonia or nitrate but I will assume there may or may not be some in all saltmixes just like phosphates which was tested and shows up in the ICP results. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[jason2459]

Copy pasting what I feel are relevant posts into this thread. Hope you don't mind Randy as one of the quotes is yours.

Thanks!

I too found variations between Triton and Aquaforest.
http://reef2reef.com/threads/saltmix-parameters-bring-on-the-test-results.233233/


It's not surprising though and I wouldn't be as concerned about those differences but understand we don't know what methods they use to perform the ICP-OES analysis so its hard to trust either of them for anywhere near 100% Accuracy. But both can be useful to give an indication of certain parameters and trends.

Semantics. Method is a very broad word and can apply to the methodology of how they perform the tests, calibration as you point out, and maintenance.

I believe its more then just calibration as that could be one thing. Seawater is also very complex and if the testing is done for all elements at once will not be nearly as accurate as testing for individual elements at a time. And even then ICP-OES isn't perfect for seawater. It also changes time and costs to get results depending on how the tests are performed.

According to another source ICP-OES is OK for the major ions in seawater but worse for the minor and terrible for the trace. ICP-MS would be better and even it has a hard time with the trace elements. And AA may be even better.

ICP-OES (or AES) can be complicated to interpret.

I have run it myself on my own (well, my company's) machine. There is not always just a single answer from a single run of a single sample. I was doing it with much more careful oversight of the actual data than I'm sure any analysis company does, and this was my comment in one case:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-04/rhf/index.php

from it:

"For initial testing I chose to use as the "standard" a sample of artificial seawater that was mixed to an approximate salinity of S=35. I mixed a 44-gallon batch using Instant Ocean artificial salt mix and reverse osmosis/deionized (RO/DI) water to a conductivity of 52.7 mS/cm, and allowed it to settle for three weeks. I then proceeded to measure its calcium concentration by ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, an $80,000 analytical instrument. I was somewhat disappointed with my inability to use this sophisticated technique to get a precise answer. Despite taking five different samples and analyzing them at eight different emission wavelengths using two different calibration methods (five standard additions of known calcium concentrations to each sample, as well as comparison to a fixed 1000 ppm commercial calcium standard), I was unable to get consistent values. Some of the samples were acidified or filtered through submicron filter membranes to determine if solid materials were impacting the result (they were not). Overall, I took more than 200 measurements, each involving three replicate observations of the emission intensity. Nevertheless, the result was not very satisfying, with a substantial variation occurring between the different values. The average of every measurement taken was 336 ppm. With the uncertainty involved, however, I'd conclude that the true value was probably 340 ± 40 ppm. I also measured the same sample once with a Salifert brand test kit and got 330 ppm calcium."

From my communication with Triton they test the sample 7 times.

Also, they do not acid wash the vials they send to have samples collected. They claim they don't as acid washing the vials will cause interference with some readings like Iodine.

According to a 3rd party source acid washing is important to remove potential contamination and properly done and rinsed will not interfer with test results.

My guess is they don't to keep costs lower.

 

[kodo28]

All of their mixes showed Br. My bucket of Reef Salt just said low Br but their Sea Salt bucket said No BR which was false.

Yeap! question that I posted on AF thread , because English user guides tell us that Reef Salt do not contain Br but if you look at the French version they tell us that there is Br at low quantity. Being a ozone user I wanted to have a clear statement about possible Br on Reef Salt.

I didn't test for ammonia or nitrate but I will assume there may or may not be some in all saltmixes just like phosphates which was tested and shows up in the ICP results. I wouldn't worry about it.

From the screenshots on 1st page, I do not see any Po4 for AF salts and tests performed @home were also showing 0.00 but was not the same story about the No3 results that's why I was curious if by chance you tested the No3.
Tests done on my side showed 0.25ppm ( bad batch , bad bucket ?? ) with the Reef Salt against 0.00ppm with same RODI water and 0.00ppm with another salt brand.
When I look at the AF specifications for the Reef Salt I can read Nitrates and Phosphate Free...

Something to worry about, if you do example week water changes like they recommend.
With time if you are below 0.25ppm on your tank water, due mastery asymptote your water will then push for the same No3 salt value.

 

[Myka]

From the screenshots on 1st page, I do not see any Po4 for AF salts and tests performed @home were also showing 0.00 but was not the same story about the No3 results that's why I was curious if by chance you tested the No3.
Tests done on my side showed 0.25ppm ( bad batch , bad bucket ?? ) with the Reef Salt against 0.00ppm with same RODI water and 0.00ppm with another salt brand.
When I look at the AF specifications for the Reef Salt I can read Nitrates and Phosphate Free...

NO3 at 0.25 ppm is negligible. That amount of NO3 isn't going to make or break any reef tank - it's not even going to make a noticeable difference. I'm not sure why anyone would aim to be less than than 0.25 ppm NO3 anyway. Why are you concerned about this?

 

[kodo28]

NO3 at 0.25 ppm is negligible. That amount of NO3 isn't going to make or break any reef tank - it's not even going to make a noticeable difference. I'm not sure why anyone would aim to be less than than 0.25 ppm NO3 anyway. Why are you concerned about this?

0.25 ppm of No3 wont affect any tank and I know a lot of people who fight everyday to get 0.25ppm in there tank.
The point here is concerning the announcement of AF Reef Salt ( Bromide free which at the end is not true, salt contain Br. Then, salt is free of No3 & Po4 which again seems not to be totally true (at least in some buckets )
Even if 0.25ppm wont brake any tank, it is nice to know which source of No3 you have in the tank and if salt is not one of them then better.

 

[jason2459]

FWIW, many salts claim no nitrates or phosphate. Not just AquaForest.

I've found many to have both and assume all could to some degree. I really don't find it an issue if they do or don't.

AquaForest claiming 0 Br in their Sea Salt to be Ozone safe is a more important claim to focus on.

 

[kodo28]

FWIW, many salts claim no nitrates or phosphate. Not just AquaForest.
I've found many to have both and assume all could to some degree. I really don't find it an issue if they do or don't.
AquaForest claiming 0 Br in their Sea Salt to be Ozone safe is a more important claim to focus on.

I think , it is a claiming problem from AF user guide for the Bromides...If you look at the buckets they show "Low Bromides, Ozone safe" same in the French user guide , but then if you read the English user guide then it says "No Bromides" which is not the case actually.
I am a ozone user and this was my first question to AF team.