Trident reagent A empty notification...almost 100mL left in bottle

[ajhudson15]

no, It's been stated that pouring the rest of the reagent bottle into the next will contaminate it.

I guess I don't see how it contaminates it. its the same liquid used for the same thing. of course they don't want you to try and use it because they you wouldn't have to buy a new bottle as quick. I understand that the air cuts down on the shelf life but I don't think 1/3 of a bottle would make a big difference. especially if you were testing more than the minimum.

 

[infinityends]

I guess I don't see how it contaminates it. its the same liquid used for the same thing. of course they don't want you to try and use it because they you wouldn't have to buy a new bottle as quick. I understand that the air cuts down on the shelf life but I don't think 1/3 of a bottle would make a big difference. especially if you were testing more than the minimum.

The open reagent has been exposed to air which will over time cause the chemical properties to change. Probably not a problem the first few times you do it in reality. But if you keep dumping old into new. Eventually you are putting small amounts of very old reagent into the new bottle.

 

[infinityends]

Because I don’t see anyone just spelling out why this is happening beyond speculation of avoiding air bubbles.

Long story short. The trident and therefore apex have no idea what is actually left in the reagent bottle. There are no sensors to monitor this.

The trident knows how much reagent it has run through the pump and gives a reagent empty notice at a preset value in order to ensure the pump doesn’t run dry. From these reports as well as my experience. Neptune could very likely reduce the setting by a further 40-50ml and still have a pretty safe buffer amount of reagent to avoid issues.

I haven’t checked myself but some of the posts here were complaining of using only 2/3 of a 300ml bottle. Has anyone measured the contents of a new bottle. It’s possible the bottles have more reagent than advertised to allow for this extra safety buffer.

 

[Caravanshaka]

Because I don’t see anyone just spelling out why this is happening beyond speculation of avoiding air bubbles.

Long story short. The trident and therefore apex have no idea what is actually left in the reagent bottle. There are no sensors to monitor this.

The trident knows how much reagent it has run through the pump and gives a reagent empty notice at a preset value in order to ensure the pump doesn’t run dry. From these reports as well as my experience. Neptune could very likely reduce the setting by a further 40-50ml and still have a pretty safe buffer amount of reagent to avoid issues.

I haven’t checked myself but some of the posts here were complaining of using only 2/3 of a 300ml bottle. Has anyone measured the contents of a new bottle. It’s possible the bottles have more reagent than advertised to allow for this extra safety buffer.

I filled the empty reagent bottle with water until it overflowed then measured the volume to be 300ml. It actually doesn’t state anywhere how much liquid is in each bottle, I’m just going by the maximum amount that can fit.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

The trident knows how much reagent it has run through the pump and gives a reagent empty notice at a preset value in order to ensure the pump doesn’t run dry.

Based on earlier descriptions o thought this was the case (Trident/Apex is keeping track of how much has been pulled through the pump). However if that was the case I would expect people to be getting a lot closer to the end of the bottle. Based on what people are reporting, it seems that more likely the replacement message is simply occurring after a set number of tests, which could leave a varying amount of reagent in the bottle since a different amount is required depending on what your alkalinity is.

 

[TTNuge]

I understand being curious about this but honestly I find this whole discussion a bit laughable. You aren't buying a specific quantity of reagent, you are buying reagent for a specific number of tests. Overfilling the bottles to ensure that your customers get those specific number of tests is good customer service while trying to package as little as possible in the bottles and risking the customer running out would be bad business. You are spending $xx per month for it to test, it doesn't matter if the reagent comes in gallon bottles or ml bottles as long as it does the required number of tests and the cost is the same.

And this is nothing against the OP. What started as a question and a curiosity has devolved into much more than that. For people to say that they are forcing you to buy reagents early to make more money is absurd as long as you got the XX number of tests they promised out of it up front. They've been very clear about it and it's quite simple....... The Trident cost $xxx dollars. The reagents cost $XX dollars. You get XXX number of tests out of the reagents you bought. If there is reagent left over it doesn't change either one of those 3 facts and it should be a non-issue.

 

[Thales]

so I got the reagent A empty notification today, and went ahead and replaced it. Followed the task directions, but realized after that the bottle felt a bit heavy, so I decided to see how much was left in it. There was still 92mL of reagent left in the bottle. This seems WAY too early to have an empty bottle notification....and a complete waste of quite a bit of reagent. How much should be left in the bottle under normal circumstances?

@Caravanshaka - what level was your alk during this time?

 

[Gareth elliott]

I do not have an apex, but is there a setting for when the alarm aounds? On my profilux under dosing i can set when to alarm(default setting was 100ml) There also maybe a setting for how much regent that the system started with? Again i dont have an apex so just some shots in the dark since sounds like a programming issue.

 

[Brett S]

I guess I don't see how it contaminates it. its the same liquid used for the same thing. of course they don't want you to try and use it because they you wouldn't have to buy a new bottle as quick. I understand that the air cuts down on the shelf life but I don't think 1/3 of a bottle would make a big difference. especially if you were testing more than the minimum.

As you mentioned, once it’s exposed to air the reagent starts to go bad pretty quickly, so if you add some reagent that’s near the end of it’s life to a bottle of new reagent then it’s going to affect the results that you get with the combination as the old reagent that was mixed in ages even further.

Doing it once may not be too bad, especially if you test frequently like you said, but if you do it 4 or 5 times you’ll still have some quantity of the original reagent from the first bottle in your fifth bottle of new reagent and no matter how frequently you test and that will definitely be bad and starting to affect your results.

Terrence did say that if you really really are set on using up the remaining amount of reagent the way to do it is to leave the bottle in, but tell the trident that you changed the reagent. That way it will continue pulling from the original bottle and you aren’t mixing bottles. The only potential issue is that the trident won’t know when it really runs out, so if it tries to run a test with no reagent you could get bad numbers or an error.

 

[Caravanshaka]

I understand being curious about this but honestly I find this whole discussion a bit laughable. You aren't buying a specific quantity of reagent, you are buying reagent for a specific number of tests. Overfilling the bottles to ensure that your customers get those specific number of tests is good customer service while trying to package as little as possible in the bottles and risking the customer running out would be bad business. You are spending $xx per month for it to test, it doesn't matter if the reagent comes in gallon bottles or ml bottles as long as it does the required number of tests and the cost is the same.

And this is nothing against the OP. What started as a question and a curiosity has devolved into much more than that. For people to say that they are forcing you to buy reagents early to make more money is absurd as long as you got the XX number of tests they promised out of it up front. They've been very clear about it and it's quite simple....... The Trident cost $xxx dollars. The reagents cost $XX dollars. You get XXX number of tests out of the reagents you bought. If there is reagent left over it doesn't change either one of those 3 facts and it should be a non-issue.

It's just wasteful. Would you throw out a bottle of hanna reagents that was 1/3 full as soon as you hit the # of tests they said you would get out of it? If you *could* get 40 tests out of something you bought that was labelled 25 tests, you would do it 10 times out of 10.

While I may get the # stated, I feel like there is a coding problem in the Trident if it is intended to leave 1/3 of a bottle of reagent. With the internal design, there wouldn't be risk of pulling bubbles until the 5-10% remaining mark. If I got 120 tests out of 200ml of reagent, another 70 ml would get me roughly another 40 tests.

@Caravanshaka - what level was your alk during this time?

7.8, slowly climbing to the 8 that it is at now.

 

[Brett S]

It's just wasteful. Would you throw out a bottle of hanna reagents that was 1/3 full as soon as you hit the # of tests they said you would get out of it? If you *could* get 40 tests out of something you bought that was labelled 25 tests, you would do it 10 times out of 10.

For what it’s worth, everyone who uses the Hanna alkalinity test kit makes that decision every time they get close to the end of a bottle whether they know it or not. The refills are labeled 25 tests, but the bottle contains 30ml of reagent and you only use 1ml per test. Theoretically there should be 5ml left in the old bottle when you switch to a new bottle.

 

[TTNuge]

It's just wasteful. Would you throw out a bottle of hanna reagents that was 1/3 full as soon as you hit the # of tests they said you would get out of it? If you *could* get 40 tests out of something you bought that was labelled 25 tests, you would do it 10 times out of 10.

While I may get the # stated, I feel like there is a coding problem in the Trident if it is intended to leave 1/3 of a bottle of reagent. With the internal design, there wouldn't be risk of pulling bubbles until the 5-10% remaining mark. If I got 120 tests out of 200ml of reagent, another 70 ml would get me roughly another 40 tests.


7.8, slowly climbing to the 8 that it is at now.

Coding problem? Are you getting inaccurate results? Are you getting fewer than the stated number of tests?

If the answer to both is no then they are providing more reagent than necessary as a safety measure and certainly not a coding issue.

 

[Caravanshaka]

For what it’s worth, everyone who uses the Hanna alkalinity test kit makes that decision every time they get close to the end of a bottle whether they know it or not. The refills are labeled 25 tests, but the bottle contains 30ml of reagent and you only use 1ml per test. Theoretically there should be 5ml left in the old bottle when you switch to a new bottle.

exactly the point I am making...you don't stop at 25, you go until you cant get enough reagent for a test.

Coding problem? Are you getting inaccurate results? Are you getting fewer than the stated number of tests?

If the answer to both is no then they are providing more reagent than necessary as a safety measure and certainly not a coding issue.

Yes, a coding problem. The results have been good. I did actually get less tests than I should have on the first bottle, but not by much. The issue with the code is efficiency. It appears as though the Trident was coded to run a number of tests on a bottle of reagent at which point it throws an error and stops recording tests. With widely ranging alkalinity levels of users, it would be more efficient to code the number of mL used per test instead. If they are afraid of using that number then they are afraid their pump calibration is off by a material amount which could lead to air-bubbles...but if that is the case I am more concerned about their faith in the pumps putting out close to the mL they should.

I think it is also telling that they have not answered this question either here, or on the official Trident FAQ thread.

 

[Brett S]

Yes, a coding problem.

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think a coding problem is the right term. A coding problem would indicate a mistake or a bug, but I don’t think that’s the case here. I think more likely it was a conscious decision that was made and it was correctly coded to match that decision.

Now, why that decision was made I don’t know... that’s a whole different question.

 

[Water Dog]

Now I’m curious as to what the implications are for Trident controlled dosing through the DOS system if a “reagent empty” warning triggers, forcing a stoppage of testing.

 

[Caravanshaka]

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think a coding problem is the right term. A coding problem would indicate a mistake or a bug, but I don’t think that’s the case here. I think more likely it was a conscious decision that was made and it was correctly coded to match that decision.

Now, why that decision was made I don’t know... that’s a whole different question.

Fair Point. I code for a living, so inefficiencies in my code are problems to me, hence the reason I call them coding problems.

 

[Caravanshaka]

I’m curious as to what the implications are for Trident controlled dosing through the DOS system if a “reagent empty” warning triggers, forcing a stoppage of testing.

If I recall, it will revert back to your standard value and not make any adjustments until the testing resumes after the reagent is replaced.

 

[Water Dog]

If I recall, it will revert back to your standard value and not make any adjustments until the testing resumes after the reagent is replaced.

That’s good to know and very reassuring. Thanks!

 

[Brett S]

Now I’m curious as to what the implications are for Trident controlled dosing through the DOS system if a “reagent empty” warning triggers, forcing a stoppage of testing.

The way the trident controlled dosing works is by setting a standard dosing amount, which would basically be the amount you are dosing now to try to keep your levels stable. Then you tell it what your target value is and give it a range that it can operate in. You can also tell it how much it can adjust your standard dose by.

So, for example, you want to keep your alkalinity at 8.0 and you tell the automated dosing that it can operate from 7.5 to 8.5 and adjust your standard dosing by no more than 40%.

If it has a bad test that’s outside that range or if it can’t test because it’s empty then it would just go back to the standard dosing amount until the issue is resolved.

 

[Thales]

7.8, slowly climbing to the 8 that it is at now.

@Caravanshaka
I think there is your answer. Lower alk uses less reagent than higher, so for the same number of tests, your system used less reagent than a system running higher alk. Since the apex determines number of tests remaining by math not by measuring, and since there is overfill in each bottle of reagents to handle differences in amount needed for different systems, and since there is overfill by design to deal with issues around changing reagents (bother system and user issues), it totally makes sense to me that you had the extra reagent you did.
Is it a waste? Maybe- but run your system at 12 dkh and it won’t seems like a waste at all.