Trident Support Curiosity

[Brett S]

100 off is unacceptable.

100 off is unacceptable, but I think there is still a question of exactly what is inaccurate here. It’s possible that the trident is wrong and it’s possible that the other test kit is wrong. It’s also possible that they are both wrong and the actual value is somewhere in the middle.

The unknown is what’s so difficult here. Hobby grade test kits aren’t known for their accuracy and as one person stated above, trying to get everything to match is just going to drive you mad.

At the end of the day stability matters more than a specific number. As long as whatever test you choose to use provides consistent and reliable results you’ll be successful with your tank.

 

[Jon M.]

100 off is unacceptable, but I think there is still a question of exactly what is inaccurate here. It’s possible that the trident is wrong and it’s possible that the other test kit is wrong. It’s also possible that they are both wrong and the actual value is somewhere in the middle.

The unknown is what’s so difficult here. Hobby grade test kits aren’t known for their accuracy and as one person stated above, trying to get everything to match is just going to drive you mad.

At the end of the day stability matters more than a specific number. As long as whatever test you choose to use provides consistent and reliable results you’ll be successful with your tank.

I think one caveat here is stability is key within certain ranges. A tank would be stable with 6 dkh, 300 calc and 1100 magnesium but probably not successful or the best it could be. Luckily most tests aren’t so wildly off so we usually get close enough and live in that small range of error.

 

[Brett S]

I think one caveat here is stability is key within certain ranges. A tank would be stable with 6 dkh, 300 calc and 1100 magnesium but probably not successful or the best it could be. Luckily most tests aren’t so wildly off so we usually get close enough and live in that small range of error.

That’s definitely true... there are limits and I think that’s one reason why it’s good to operate in the middle of the ideal range. That way if your test kit is off one way or another then you’ll still be in that good range.

 

[smartwater101]

100 off is unacceptable, but I think there is still a question of exactly what is inaccurate here. It’s possible that the trident is wrong and it’s possible that the other test kit is wrong. It’s also possible that they are both wrong and the actual value is somewhere in the middle.

The unknown is what’s so difficult here. Hobby grade test kits aren’t known for their accuracy and as one person stated above, trying to get everything to match is just going to drive you mad.

At the end of the day stability matters more than a specific number. As long as whatever test you choose to use provides consistent and reliable results you’ll be successful with your tank.

Just to confirm: you were using two different brands of test kits and ICP? And those 3 were all relatively close to each other? If so, its definitely not the test kits.

Unless I misunderstood something?

 

[ca1ore]

How do you calibrate test kits? Sorry forgot to mention he said it over the phone after this email. “The Trident is precise first accurate second.” When I asked if I did an ICP test and calc turned out to be 420 what I should do; I was told then I would just have to calibrate it to that number.

What I was suggesting was to use a bit of the calibration solution you get with the trident in the Hanna to see what you get. I suppose one must assume that the figure listed for the calibration solution is correct, but if the Hanna reports something different than the stated value, there’s at least some reason to doubt it. I did this with alkalinity because trident was reporting 8.3 versus my Hanna at 9.2. Calibration solution was reported at 9.4 by the Hanna when it’s supposed to be 8.4.

 

[ca1ore]

I guess my tank is proof you can run calc in the 320’s!!

Yup, and I’d imagine there are other folks running those kinds of levels and don’t realize it. It’s why precision IS actually more important than absolute accuracy ... as long as one is within an acceptable range. For CA, perhaps that range is broader than we all thought.

 

[Brett S]

What I was suggesting was to use a bit of the calibration solution you get with the trident in the Hanna to see what you get. I suppose one must assume that the figure listed for the calibration solution is correct, but if the Hanna reports something different than the stated value, there’s at least some reason to doubt it. I did this with alkalinity because trident was reporting 8.3 versus my Hanna at 9.2. Calibration solution was reported at 9.4 by the Hanna when it’s supposed to be 8.4.

That’s an interesting thought and an interesting result. I know you need to be careful about how you use certain calibration solutions as they can be tailored for a specific testing method. For example you can’t necessarily use a calibration solution designed for a salinity probe to calibrate a hydrometer. Or use calibration solution designed for a hydrometer to calibrate a refractometer even though all three devices measure salinity.

That said, I believe that the trident and the Hanna meters use the same testing method, so I believe that your experiment is valid.

Unfortunately I calibrated my trident the other day and I threw out the remaining calibration solution, but I might try this in a few months when I calibrate it again.

 

[User1]

LOL Ha! You'd have to pull an ICP test out to verify really. Although Neptune have tried to suggest ICP is suspect compared to the Trident previously also...

I've stirred up enough for the day but there is actually a really good article with regards to ICP and the results. While I have used ATI's ICP tests on 3 occasions and found the results useful I will be honest I only used it to verify my Nitrates, Phosphates, and Salinity. And after reading the article by some very respected hobbyists with one working at a public aquarium local to me knowing what he does for a living it did give me pause. Maybe awareness is a better word.

Glad this is all working out though. One thing we are starting to see is some great use cases based on the results, more questions about accuracy and/or precision, etc. Big data and data is starting to get a lot more beautiful.

 

[ca1ore]

That’s an interesting thought and an interesting result. I know you need to be careful about how you use certain calibration solutions as they can be tailored for a specific testing method. For example you can’t necessarily use a calibration solution designed for a salinity probe to calibrate a hydrometer. Or use calibration solution designed for a hydrometer to calibrate a refractometer even though all three devices measure salinity.

That said, I believe that the trident and the Hanna meters use the same testing method, so I believe that your experiment is valid.

Unfortunately I calibrated my trident the other day and I threw out the remaining calibration solution, but I might try this in a few months when I calibrate it again.

.... one caveat is that though not expired, my Hanna alk reagent is old. I have seen some comments thinking that the older the reagent to worse the accuracy.

 

[Jon M.]

.... one caveat is that though not expired, my Hanna alk reagent is old. I have seen some comments thinking that the older the reagent to worse the accuracy.

Logic tracks. My readings were lower with older but not expired reagent.

 

[Kyl]

The first gen hanna calcium checker had issues depending on the user, the newer one that includes the mechanical pipette is near fool proof.

 

[Fiesty]

I suppose it would have been more accurate if ca1ore said “That’s not what you said they told you” rather than “that’s not what they said”[/QUOTE]


Ya'all need to quit arguing about 3 ways. Calling or not, everytime i read it in your posts my mind drifts elsewhere. Sorry ............

 

[Rick Mathew]

As someone has already posted...all of this test comparison can make one go "mad"..."Which one is the correct value?"....3 test methods ---3 different results!!...In order to resolve this dilemma a valid, certified Standard is require...A proper "target" Without that, comparing test measurements using different methods...different kits...(including ICP) is an exercise in frustration (as evidenced by this post!) If accuracy is defined as getting the "correct" answer then the correct answer needs to be known. This is where a certified Standard comes in...Test the certified standard using each of the test methods. The results will provide a "relative accuracy" for the test method...If you really want to get fancy repeat the test multiple times and you can get an idea of the precision of the test procedure...I have referenced to this article several times in other posts from "Skeptical Reefkeeping" it is a good example of what I am saying....A "Certified Standard" used to gage the accuracy of a test...They also provide insight as to the precision(Relative Standard Deviation SD) of the test method. This analysis can be done on most any kind of test kit or method and it provides valuable information as to how much trust to put in any given test method...If you want to know the accuracy of a test you have to have a valid target...IMO

Here is a link to the article http://packedhead.net/2015/triton-lab-icp-oes-testing-of-a-certified-artificial-saltwater-standard/

 

[tastyfish]

I've stirred up enough for the day but there is actually a really good article with regards to ICP and the results. While I have used ATI's ICP tests on 3 occasions and found the results useful I will be honest I only used it to verify my Nitrates, Phosphates, and Salinity. And after reading the article by some very respected hobbyists with one working at a public aquarium local to me knowing what he does for a living it did give me pause. Maybe awareness is a better word.

Glad this is all working out though. One thing we are starting to see is some great use cases based on the results, more questions about accuracy and/or precision, etc. Big data and data is starting to get a lot more beautiful.

LOL, I saw.... BTW, ICP-OES cannot detect Nitrates and Phosphates (it can detect Phosphorus and a calculation performed to get a PO4 figure). So ATI will likely be using chemical test kits for these. The value is therefore limited IMHO. I use ICP to identify trace elements, where test kits are difficult or not available and also confirm the readings on home chemical test kits.