Test kits (con't from the Aquavito thread)

[Tj51]

I don't want to offend the powers in being, so I started this thread and hope that it is ok to start with a quote from another person in the other post

@hooterhead wrote:

No offense, but when I searched your product list I did see that you sell API test kits, but you advocate not using cheap test kits? Do you suggest that API is an accurate kit, more so then Red Sea Pro which in a test showed comparable to Elos? And I certainly have seen some expensive test kits for sure, but the price of the RSP I personally don't consider a "cheap test kit." And I certainly agree that the optimal window for a great coral is much smaller than the acceptable range that is generally used, but if you want to use the "25" as an error point, and your calcium, which from what most say should be 450 or so, if it's 425 or 475 it will have an effect on the growth/color of a coral? That's interesting as I've seen beautiful tanks where the owner keeps their level at or near 500 and I've seen equally beautiful tanks at 400. As far as the hydrometer (and again, I know that most LFS do sell them) a variance of .02 or more in a salinity is crucial. When Mr. Bimmerz suggested over and over to all newbies (yep that's me) that they throw away their hydrometers, I went running out and bought a refractometer and what was showing as 1.025 on my hydrometer was infact closer to 1.022, (but then again, I've not visited a fish store that didn't sell hydrometers...) That is a serious difference, much more so than a slight difference in a calcium or alk. reading. I see a review by someone in the hobby I trust and he says he'd use a particular test kit, then I'm game.

 

[vrba]

I really like the API tests for calcium and alk. They are easy to do, have always been consistent for me. Show same results as Red Sea Pro, just not as granular on the alk. For a while, I thought that I was getting good results with the Red Sea Pro mag test, but now always get 1600 like everyone else reports. Started using Elos mag test again which seems to be more accurate, though I have no real reference or proof. My vote for the money is API for Alk, calc, and Elos for mag. But then again, I test almost every day before work. I need to make sure that I am using inexpensive tests... I think as long as they are consistent, I am good. So far, my SPS seem to agree.

 

[matt_longview]

I'm in the "i want to know the exact number" crowd. I stopped counting how much I've spent in coral and consider $55 for a hannah checker cheap insurance. This is coming from an sps dominant system owner though. Prior to putting in all of the sps efforts (constant testing, dosing, phosphate reduction ect) I had very slow growth. Now my growth is much better. Assuming I have 30 pieces of sps in my tank at $10 an inch each... average of 4 fingers on each.. let's say I get an extra inch of growth per finger this year because I'm accurate. That's $1200 in coral growth because of increased accuracy. My numbers were always "within range" but my growth was slow. Now they're exact and stable and growth has increased significantly.

Two pennies!

 

[Ashlar]

I wouldn't rely on the hanna alk checker. Dana Riddle did a review on it, and compared it to a lab grade checker and found it to be quite a bit off at higher ranges.

See http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/8/review

 

[Tj51]

@matt_longview wrote:

so you attribute this growth to the fact that your test kit reflects, say a calcium reading of 450. If you had used an inferior test kit and the actual calcium was 425 then you wouldn't have had your success? Of course I'm not suggesting that reefers go with an inaccurate test kit, but if a $40 RSP tests at 440 and the "expensive" test kits show an actual reading of 450 then he who has the $40 test kit won't get the results....hey I will not criticize someone for having perfect parameters, actually if an accurate to the "T" test kit and an exact reading is needed to get the results that you've gotten, I'm on board for sure. I mean we spend tons on lighting, sumps, etc, if my off 10 - 25 ppm test kit keeps me from getting the results I want, a few extra dollars for a $75 test kit opposed to my $40 test kit seems a wise investment. I'm interested to hear what kit you use, what your actual readings are as I'd love to have a tank that grows sps like yours. Spill the secrets!

 

[bimmerzs]

@Ashlar wrote:

He actually recommended it's use with reservations in that article, my hanna alk checker is pretty much in-line with salifert and API alk test. His biggest thing is the lack of a correction factor to "match" the $50 hanna checker with the $3500 spectrometer. My personal testing find's it good enough for my use and more repeatable than the tritation method of other test kit's. I do believe we should keep this in perspective, if we compare everything used in this hobby against lab grade equipment then we will be sorely disappointed. This is not to say it doesn't matter but as mentioned, my personal testing on my tank find's it yield's reliable result's in comparison with the usual test kit's that I use. As always YMMV. [smilie=smile.gif]

Cheers,

 

[Ashlar]

Another thing to consider is not absolute reliability but variance / repeatability / consistency. I think that in the long run, stability is more important than actual levels, given the true result is within the normal range. I'd rather have a kit that was always -25 points off than a kit that is +/- 0-25 points.

Re the hanna checker, mine is about 1.5-2 dkh different than my API test kit or salifert kit. And it's not consistent, either. I can do two tests back to back, and get a 30ppm difference.

 

[bimmerzs]

@Ashlar wrote:

I only had issues with the powder they first came with, not with the liquid. Some were reporting similar issues and there were some concern with liquid or testing vial contamination causing the problem. My results are consistent as long as I zero between measurements. YMMV

Cheers,

 

[DaveJ]

Well we have not updated out test kit party data... but the bottom line is that all kits will be off to a degree. No in home kit is accurate to more than 25ppm and you don't need it that accurate. You don't want it 50 or 100ppm off, but 25 is as accurate as we need for our systems.

If you want 100% accuracy youll need to send it to a professional lab..... even the hobby labs were off a bit during our test due to the way they test... the tests were accurate but they didnt test everything they needed to test on magnesium and calcium so their reported values were lower than it actually should have been.. the difference between ions tested etc...

The biggest variation is going to be user induced anyway... unless your measuring temp, with lab grade measuring tubes, micro scales etc.. there will always be a variation in how you conduct the test.

 

[Ashlar]

Who knows, maybe my unit isn't up to snuff. I'm using the liquid reagent, btw.

I have some muriatic acid on hand, maybe I'll give the cuvettes an acid wash and an RO/DI rinse to see if that makes them a bit more consistent.

 

[ritter6788]

My Hanna alk checker gets consistent readings over and over. It reads about 1 dkh lower than API but I get close to the same numbers every test.

 

[Guest]

I like the Hanna phos checker. I use api and red sea pro test kits for ca and alk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[matt_longview]

I don't attribute my increased growth directly to a calcium of 440 exactly instead of 415... but rather several habits. The primary two habits are directly related to test kits.

1. Reduced Phosphates. I never knew what my phosphates were the first year that I was in the hobby. It wasn't until I picked up the hannah phosphate checker that I knew I had .06 phosphates. Once I knew that, I took steps to lower it and can continually monitor it. .02 phosphates cannot be tested and trusted without a quality low range test kit.

2. Minimal parameter swings. Previously my parameters would swing around water changes. Alk at 6 prior to a water change, 9 after, bumped to 10 the next day, down to 7 over the next week. All numbers given in one point increments. I upgraded to a test that gave .2 increments. I began dosing daily but didn't test often. The hannah alk checker test is in .056 increments (is very accurate, tests within 2ppm) and takes me two minutes total to check... so I check it very often. You just can't beat that.

 

[Tj51]

@matt_longview wrote:

well i get some swings but try to keep them minimized and not sure about my phosphates but never really wanted to spend a lot for a good test kit, but as said above, don't want to cheap out either. I'll look into the hannah phos. test kit