Thoughts on methods of eliminating water changes ?

[jason2459]

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. ICP testing is not perfect. It may not even be the best testing available. My point is it is better then hobby test kits and dramatically better IMO then just adding supplements without some idea of what is happening within the tank. ...

This is what I disagree with. I don't believe getting an ICP-OES test done as better then just using hobby test kits. In fact ICP-OES can be very misleading and can cause an overdose of something that's not needed at worse or at best dosing of something not needed. It gives some interesting information and I'm not saying don't do it but be aware it's most useful for tracking over time and could still be erroneous.

What I question is the dogma that you need to change for example 10% a week. Why? The key to success in my experience has been stability. I try and avoid making changes without a reason. Yes.. a water change is included.

FWIW, I don't believe 10% weekly is necessary.

Why can't performing water changes provide stability. As with most everything else I do I do so automatedly and spread out over what I believe to be optimal timings and hope to provide stability. Like my limewater addition is separate from my ATO and dosed consistently constantly. My water changes are done automatically through out the day.

But, I also don't believe that is necessary either.

For example if I were to see a build up of a toxic metal the first thing I would do is look for the source and then complete a series of water changes.

How do you see a build up of toxic metals? How do you know the source? How do you know it's removed? ICP-OES as stated above isn't reliable for many of those trace elements that could build up to toxic levels. And their source can be many things like the food you feed, the nori clipped to the side, some new pvc pipe, some metal rusting and dripping into the tank, etc. Many times it's very hard to narrow down a source especially a single source.

Can regular water changes help reduce a build up or help maintain trace elements.. yes. But is it the best strategy to shock the system weekly with that change or would it be better to attempt to fashion a system that maintains correct levels and only requires a water change when something upsets that balance. That is what I am questioning in my thinking.

Why do you believe it is shocking the system? Even at 10%? I personally would avoid it on my main display tank where my anemones I'm afraid could be touchy. But in my mantis tank of 20g with soft corals I perform 3-4 gallons weekly to every couple weeks as I don't worry if I miss a week. No other filtration is done on that tank.

Questioning things is always a good thing.

 

[Scarybo]

@jason2459 I find it hard to believe a hobbyist sitting at his kitchen table testing for strontium levels using a hobby kit is more accurate then ICP testing. Most of us (me included) are not trained in proper testing protocols and the human factor can greatly affect the results. I agree that ICP testing can have errors, but it can indicate trends over time. No one should react rashly just because an ICP test shows a problem. It does provide knowledge to dig further.


The system you are using is ideal, but most people dont have that setup. Most pull out water weekly and add fresh. Is this a dramatic shock to the system in most cases..no, but if your goal is stability, this isnt it IMO.


How many times have tanks had issue because of a casing cracked on a powerhead, or tanks have seen an increase in aluminum from a block they used to increase filtration. ICP has the ability to give us an idea of something going on with our tank when the inhabitants show stress. I find this a better approach then just adding stuff blindly in hopes that it cures the problem. Just doing water changes without finding the source can cause greater damage over time.



How many people test new water. Not just alk and PH but comprehensive testing. Most people do not and that is understandable but it can affect your system. Any time you add new water it is different then the existing. That has the potential to be shocking to the inhabitants. I understand the benefits and how it can help the tank in most cases but I think we should think before we act in all cases.

 

[Jstn]

This is what I disagree with. I don't believe getting an ICP-OES test done as better then just using hobby test kits. In fact ICP-OES can be very misleading and can cause an overdose of something that's not needed at worse or at best dosing of something not needed. It gives some interesting information and I'm not saying don't do it but be aware it's most useful for tracking over time and could still be erroneous.

.

ICP is a very reliable method and like every method has its detection limitations; to compare it to hobby based test kits is a joke; do you have experience with ICP ? You are entitled to your beliefs but ICP has a higher accuracy than test kits.

 

[Jstn]

http://www.nanoscience.co.jp/surface_analysis/pdf/icp-oes-ms-detection-limit-guidance-BR023.pdf

 

[jason2459]

ICP is a very reliable method and like every method has its detection limitations; to compare it to hobby based test kits is a joke; do you have experience with ICP ? You are entitled to your beliefs but ICP has a higher accuracy than test kits.

Don't get me wrong. ICP analysis can be very well done. However, we don't know the methods performed by those providing ICP-OES testing to us.

And yes, I have some experience with getting ICP among several other methods of testing done. I have found it no more accurate or reliable then what I have done with many other test kits.

 

[Jstn]

Don't get me wrong. ICP analysis can be very well done. However, we don't know the methods performed by those providing ICP-OES testing to us.

And yes, I have some experience with getting ICP among several other methods of testing done. I have found it no more accurate or reliable then what I have done with many other test kits.

Looking at results and understanding the theory are two different things, have you run the instrument, what other methods have you run? Have you run the same sample a few times to get standard deviation? How did you ensure your sample were not contained when you prepared them?

 

[jason2459]

@jason2459 I find it hard to believe a hobbyist sitting at his kitchen table testing for strontium levels using a hobby kit is more accurate then ICP testing. Most of us (me included) are not trained in proper testing protocols and the human factor can greatly affect the results. I agree that ICP testing can have errors, but it can indicate trends over time. No one should react rashly just because an ICP test shows a problem. It does provide knowledge to dig further.


The system you are using is ideal, but most people dont have that setup. Most pull out water weekly and add fresh. Is this a dramatic shock to the system in most cases..no, but if your goal is stability, this isnt it IMO.


How many times have tanks had issue because of a casing cracked on a powerhead, or tanks have seen an increase in aluminum from a block they used to increase filtration. ICP has the ability to give us an idea of something going on with our tank when the inhabitants show stress. I find this a better approach then just adding stuff blindly in hopes that it cures the problem. Just doing water changes without finding the source can cause greater damage over time.



How many people test new water. Not just alk and PH but comprehensive testing. Most people do not and that is understandable but it can affect your system. Any time you add new water it is different then the existing. That has the potential to be shocking to the inhabitants. I understand the benefits and how it can help the tank in most cases but I think we should think before we act in all cases.

I have found precisely that.

If some toxic event is happening the wait to get an ICP-OES test back may be to late. And may not show anything wrong.

As you also pointed out a single ICP-OES test that we have available to send in for is not good for individual indicators. A trend is more useful and for trying to use this as a method to mitigate toxic substances doesn't seem very stable to me.

 

[Kayvon]

I saw a video by dans reef on YouTube that sent in 3 samples to 3 different ICP testing facilities. His results were more different than I'm comfortable with to say the least.

 

[jason2459]

Looking at results and understanding the theory are two different things, have you run the instrument, what other methods have you run? Have you run the same sample a few times to get standard deviation? How did you ensure your sample were not contained when you prepared them?

I have not, I have had several other methods ran, yes, filtration and sterilization methods but I can't attest for what happens after I have sent a sample in. Which poses a problem for everyone. And why I have found a simple titration test kit just as good.

Did you know your sample vials sent to you by Triton are not Sterilized?

Edit: actually I misspoke here as they go through some kind of sterilization process unknown but not acid washed.

 

[jason2459]

I saw a video by dans reef on YouTube that sent in 3 samples to 3 different ICP testing facilities. His results were more different than I'm comfortable with to say the least.

I have done much more then that as well just recently and have yet to publish the data.

Here's some past runs

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/b...os-elos-salifert-api-hanna-triton-awt.234660/

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...ts-api-salifert-elos-redsea-hanna-etc.222909/

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/hobbyist-vs-triton-testing.221320/

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/p...s-pro-salifert-hanna-checkers-seachem.222628/

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/nitrate-test-kit-shoot-out-nyos-salifert-redsea-api.221323/


Rich Ross and Randy have looked at Triton's ICP-OES as well.
http://packedhead.net/2015/triton-lab-icp-oes-testing-of-a-certified-artificial-saltwater-standard/

http://www.reefedition.com/my-triton-testing-results-by-randy-holmes-farley/

 

[Jstn]

I have not, I have had several other methods ran, yes, filtration and sterilization methods but I can't attest for what happens after I have sent a sample in. Which poses a problem for everyone. And why I have found a simple titration test kit just as good.

Did you know your sample vials sent to you by Triton are not Sterilized?

Sterilized lol, I am worried about residual metals on the container not bacteria. Furthermore usually in my experience with ICP test for lab related issues, the sample is digested with strong acid before running so organics decompose. Not sure if this is the way triton does but my analytical support lab follows this practice.

 

[jason2459]

Sterilized lol, I am worried about residual metals on the container not bacteria. Furthermore usually in my experience with ICP test for lab related issues, the sample is digested with strong acid before running so organics decompose. Not sure if this is the way triton does but my analytical support lab follows this practice.

Sterilization process should remove any kind of residue not just for Bacteria. And does bacteria not contain any elements that would show up on an ICP-OES?

Again, ICP-OES can be performed and provide results with more then satisfactory results for many elements if done properly. I don't deny that.

I would also like to add that's not related to seawater samples which are quite difficult for ICP-OES. And should add Acid washed with the sterilization process.

 

[jason2459]

Also, some good feedback from another seawater testing lab

"
Even the expert marine chemists struggle with measuring many of the elements in seawater. Nevertheless, I would like to participate some day.
ICPOES is not the best technique for high TDS samples. ICPMS is better but now finding AA to be superior for many elements. Voltammetry is extremely sensitive for some elements but time-consuming."

"
almost all of the traces have detection limits too high for seawater. See attached file with reference values for NSW. As I have written previously, ICPOES is OK for some of the majors and minors but not the traces. Even if they're above detection limits, you lose accuracy and precision near them.
-Running sulfur for sulfate is not recommended. Sulfate should be run by IC or even turbidimetrically.
-Many labs report detection limits of what their instrument can measure (IDL-Instrument Detection Limit) but almost all ICP analyses of seawater are diluted (at least 10X). This brings actual sample detection limits up by that factor (known as Sample Detection Limit). I would ask what dilution samples are actually measured at and what are those Sample Detection Limits.
ICP in general, has a lot of interferences (optical for OES and mass for MS) especially in complex matrices like seawater and salt. We are in the midst of evaluating a new ICPMS. After submitting samples to about five of the major manufacturers, results vary considerably. Even the instrument application experts struggle with the seawater and salt matrix.
One ICP run for all those elements attracts a lot of attention. Its relatively fast and easy (especially if its a simultaneous run instead of a sequential analysis). The better seawater labs use a variety of techniques that require more time and effort."


and another

"
Even ICPMS struggles to reach the levels of most of the trace elements in NSW. ICPOES can handle many of the major and minor components (if done carefully) but certainly not the traces. Just one example, antimony in NSW averages 0.2 ppb. ICPMS might be able to achieve that with minimal dilution but certainly not ICPOES. If you're getting numbers above detection limits on the traces, I'm quite sure they are falsely elevated. Much of the data out there is simply incorrect."

On acid washing and sterilization
"
then any of the trace and ultra trace elements are not worth measuring. As you probably know, the experts endure a lot of effort into just the sampling step of obtaining natural seawater from our oceans for trace element research and analysis.
Sterilization would be appropriate for microbiological testing but certainly not for the chemistry. Proper acid cleaning is followed by repeated rinsing with purified water (we do this routinely). It will not interfere with iodine determination."

 

[Jstn]

Sterilization process should remove any kind of residue not just for Bacteria. And does bacteria not contain any elements that would show up on an ICP-OES?

Again, ICP-OES can be performed and provide results with more then satisfactory results for many elements if done properly. I don't deny that.

Edit: I would also like to add that's not related to seawater samples which are quite difficult for ICP-OES.

Generally speaking sterilization (autoclaving) uses high heats and pressure to kill bacteria, they use water to rinse. Water contains elements unless you get to 18.2 MΩ·cm at 25 °C water which is very pricy via a millipore instrument.

 

[jason2459]

Generally speaking sterilization (autoclaving) uses high heats and pressure to kill bacteria, they use water to rinse. Water contains elements unless you get to 18.2 MΩ·cm at 25 °C water which is very pricy via a millipore instrument.

And edited above with the use of acid washing

 

[Jstn]

Acid washing isn't sterilization, its chemistry glass cleaning techniques, I think you are confusing the two terms.

 

[jason2459]

Acid washing isn't sterilization, its chemistry glass cleaning techniques, I think you are confusing the two terms.

Yes, correct and edited my post above a few moments ago to clarify sterilization with acid washing. Triton does some form of sterilization but does not acid wash their vials. Their reasoning to me was that the acid washing will interfere with the ICP-OES test, particularly with I, where as another couple sources that deal with seawater testing say the acid washing is vital or at least important.

 

[Scarybo]

I have found precisely that.

If some toxic event is happening the wait to get an ICP-OES test back may be to late. And may not show anything wrong.

As you also pointed out a single ICP-OES test that we have available to send in for is not good for individual indicators. A trend is more useful and for trying to use this as a method to mitigate toxic substances doesn't seem very stable to me.

Are you referring to hobby kits for trace elements. I have found it very hard to find tests for trace elements. I also have never heard of the recommendation to use hobby kits instead of ICP for trace element testing.

If some toxic event is happening, most aquarist dont know what is happening in their water without testing. How would I know a powerhead impeller is rusting? If i dont find it by a chance inspection, I am at a loss as to why my tank is declining. If it gets to the point of crashing my tank, any testing is probably too late. ICP can give me a warning light before it gets to that point.

How or what testing are you using on your tank? I have found ICP to be an improvement over what was done in the past. What are you comparing it too.

 

[jason2459]

Are you referring to hobby kits for trace elements. I have found it very hard to find tests for trace elements. I also have never heard of the recommendation to use hobby kits instead of ICP for trace element testing.

If some toxic event is happening, most aquarist dont know what is happening in their water without testing. How would I know a powerhead impeller is rusting? If i dont find it by a chance inspection, I am at a loss as to why my tank is declining. If it gets to the point of crashing my tank, any testing is probably too late. ICP can give me a warning light before it gets to that point.

How or what testing are you using on your tank? I have found ICP to be an improvement over what was done in the past. What are you comparing it too.

No, just referring to the standard kH, Ca, Mg, Nitrate, Phosphate, pH, salinity, etc. ICP-OES is the best thing we have to us right now at an affordable price for trace elements AFAIK but I also believe it to be only useful for long term analysis and not reliable enough to take action on with a single or even a couple results.

I personally, oddly enough, don't test all to often if at all minus just using my eyes on the tank unless I'm doing one of those comparison threads or experimenting with something. I have done everything in those threads I linked to above in comparing test kits out of pure curiosity and hope to help others. Same thing with the saltmix parameter thread in my signature. I have never had plans or ever will have plans to use anything other then basic IO in the long run.

So, basically I have no bone in this fight so to say or reason to be biased for or against any of them. I just want the truth and knowledge.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Will this mean that if anyone (as me) using the three part system - NaHCO3, CaCl and the normal salt premix (sometimes named NaCl free salt, sometimes named mineral salt but in reality - it is a premix containing all that a good sea salt need minuses the pure NaCl) – does not need any or lesser WC ?

Yes, it means you'd "need" less.