PDA

View Full Version : Reference solution


jlinzmaier
08/10/2008, 08:11 PM
Has anyone used this test kit reference solution by Fauna Marine? (http://www.aquariumobsessed.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AO&Product_Code=FM-MR100&Category_Code=)

I'm sure this solution is subject to inaccuracy. discrepencies, bad batches, etc... just as all of the test kits are, but I'm wondering if anyone has checked out this reference solution to validate it's accuracy. Unfortunately there's no info detailing if the solution is an EDTA or NIST validated solution.

I'd like to get some but if I can't be sure that the numbers on this solution are exactly what they say they are then it's kind of pointless to test my kits against it.

Jeremy

Amphiprion
08/10/2008, 08:17 PM
One reason I prefer Elos test kits is that they are already NIST validated.

jlinzmaier
08/10/2008, 08:22 PM
Yes I agree that ELOS does have that above all other kits, but that doesn't mean their regeants are any less prone to becoming inacurate over time due to exposure or contamination. I'd like a solution to be able to test my kit against 6 months after it's been opened.

Anyway back to the original question, has anyone used the Fauna Marine mutireference solution and/or tested it's accuracy??

Jeremy

bertoni
08/10/2008, 09:54 PM
If that calibration solution is made accurately, it might be a very good choice. I don't have any data on it, though.

I don't think the Elos kits are truly NIST certified, but that might have changed.

jlinzmaier
08/11/2008, 09:58 AM
I posted questions on the fauna marine forum to see if they can clarify and/or back up the reliability of the solution.

Jeremy

Boomer
08/11/2008, 01:25 PM
Jon

No, they are not NIST, I talked to them about it long ago. A kit NIST validated would cost three arms and a leg. Th word NIST should not be thrown around like that with out a full explanation as to its meaning.

Jeremy

That is true what you have stated. Even if they had someone make up ref solutions does not mean there are correct. We have seen this with pH ref solutions that are way off. Only solutions that are certified are on and NIST are on 100% of the time. And a NIST ref solution is like $$$.

elosusa
08/11/2008, 02:09 PM
Boomer our reagents are NIST validated, we did talk about this and we back it up with a saltwater lab that you might know of to be sure;)

elosusa
08/11/2008, 02:20 PM
Here is the thread that covered this from a long time ago. Since then we have obviously made the kits more precise and we added the US saltwater lab validation, after the NIST validation of the reagents in Italy, of the actual testing results and Boomer helped a lot in this process. Hope that helps clarify.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1122486&perpage=25&highlight=NIST&pagenumber=3

MCsaxmaster
08/11/2008, 02:24 PM
What do you mean when you say "NIST validated"? What specifically did NIST measure and report to you?

I don't mean to sound accusatory, but I know what we pay for NIST recalibrations on instruments and such. Just to put into perspective, one of my labmates is doing temperature work on coral larvae. She needed a very accurate thermometer to work with. A mercury thermometer accurate to +/- 0.05 C that was not NIST calibrated was something like $400. An NIST calibrated thermometer of the same type was something like $2500.

I mean, I can't imagine how a company could afford to sell nutrient test kits and such with NIST prepared solutions and not charge buku dollars ;)

elosusa
08/11/2008, 02:49 PM
No I know how you meant by this and this is a perfectly reasonable question, as I too have been skeptical of these types of claims. From past conversations trying to keep the prices as low as possible I would often hear how expensive this process is to have our reagent batches NIST validated using NIST samples. So to be clear this is validating that a given batch of elos reagents match the NIST sample we purchase, not each reagent is coming from NIST which would be impossibly expensive as you have mentioned.

Boomer
08/11/2008, 03:32 PM
I know what you mean Jessie but was hoping you would show up and wanted you to explain it as we talked about ;) I know where Chris is coming from and his reasoning is the same as mine from along ago, the way the term NIST is used can be misleading.

Many manufactures do this. For example, they are selling Hydrometers and they make a batch of them and then check a against a NIST hydrometer. That hydrometer is not $ 600 but $100. They do not call these NIST validated. Then they make another batch and check that batch against the $100 hydrometer, these are $20. And it is your choice to choose which one you want to buy, the $100 one or the $20. But to really use that term with meaning, it can not be a given batch but has to be every batch, with actual bottles you are going to sell to be randomly checked, as there can be cross contamination. Any time you use the term NIST or ACS it mean it comes whit a piece of paper. I have a NIST validated thermometer, with a piece of paper, signed by a lab tech. and a table of temps the thermometer read, compared to a NIST reading thermometer and it cost me $40.

See you at MACNA :D

Billybeau1
08/11/2008, 03:37 PM
So................... to answer Jeremy's first question, no I haven't tried the particular brand you are posting.

I do not much care for reference solutions for any hobby grade test kit.

I find, if you really want to test the accuracy of your kit, purchase a few brands of the same kit and test them against each other.

Reference solutions are for the birds IMO. :)

elosusa
08/11/2008, 03:55 PM
Thanks for clarifying and let me be more specific. By,"given batch", I meant the batch that we are currently producing. All Elos batches of reagents are NIST validated. Here is the paper that comes with the lots that come into the US:

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/113960NISTpaper.jpg
The example you described, is very misleading and I am glad you gave me the chance to explain what we do. I will see you at MACNA.

MCsaxmaster
08/11/2008, 04:23 PM
Ok, let me check my understanding here, because I'm feeling a bit dense at the moment ;)

ELOS obtains NIST certified reference material (= standard solutions) for given parameters (e.g., NO3-, PO4---, etc.). The reference materials are run as unknowns with each batch of reagents and calculated values compared to certified values, so as to ensure accuracy (i.e., reagents are within specs if calculated values of standards are within an acceptable range of error of the certified value).

Am I understanding correctly?

Chris

elosusa
08/11/2008, 04:38 PM
I honestly don't remember and I would have to re-visit my conversation with the lab to feel confident being more specific. What I said before in the thread I linked was after I spoke to the lab and this is the best I can do for now:
"The NIST validation that is in question and the fact that they are not available in seawater is what was not clear. We validate the reagents with a NIST standard through a NIST certified laboratory. As it was explained to me there are standard methods that are used to make these reagents and NIST samples are used to make sure our reagents are the same as these NIST samples. They gave me an example of a Mg test and said something to do with edta (chelants) and how there is a known value in the reagent and this is what is NIST validated. As stated before we have chosen what we believe is the best compromise in terms of the intended use and the available published methods and then we validate the reagents are accurate within our kit before they are shipped. Boomer can hopefully come on and explain it better, or perhaps you can make it more clear. I hope that clears up at least some of the questions and please let me know if you have any other questions about this as this process has certainly helped me out, as well."

Boomer
08/11/2008, 04:54 PM
Way to much Density going on in these posts Chris and we need to do recalibrate :lol:

I'm not sure how they are doing it but I will assume it is on these lines

A NIST std of 2.34 ppm NO3-N.

They take a batch of their reagent for testing. The 2.34 ref is the sample solution being tested, where it should read 2.34 ppm using their batch reagent from the NO3 test kit. If it reads 2.5 something is wrong and that batch is thrown out.

or the way you mentioned.

I also had/have Jesse send their kits to a certified seawater testing lab for verification. And it is not cheap :lol:

elosusa
08/11/2008, 04:58 PM
I keep trying to have them send you the bill but that hasn't worked out, yet................;)

Boomer
08/11/2008, 05:02 PM
As it was explained to me there are standard methods that are used to make these reagents and NIST samples are used to make sure our reagents are the same as these NIST samples.

I'm not sure how they are doing it Jes or if that is what they mean. Knowing what is in a NIST std and then making a batch the same way is not NIST validated . You reagents would have to be tested chemically, after they are made, to see if the components of your batch and the NIST are the same. I think this is what Chris is getting at.

lamarine23
08/11/2008, 06:39 PM
So who are you guys working for? Jesse has come on here explained what the NIST validation is, even posting a copy of one of the validations what exactly do you want? Maybe he should fly all you guys to the lab and see for yourself right because you have the final say so on what is and is not NIST validated? What are your creditentials and don't just state them I want proof degrees, certifcations,...etc

I would think that by him being on these forums and willing to answer all these questions to the best of his abilities and his track record on these forums would be enough but obviously not.

For the record to those questioning the validation have any of you ever used these kits? If not what do you use and why?

For the record I am an Elos Retailer, was a long time Salifert user and when I opened my shop salifert was having all kinds of problems, which made me look else where and I have been more than happy to have made the switch to Elos.

Billybeau1
08/11/2008, 07:37 PM
lamarine, I think you missed the point.

The is nothing wrong with Elos test kits. They are as accurate as any hobby grade kit available from my testing.

Jesse and Boomer go a few rounds from time to time. Healthy for the hobby IMO and good reading for the Reef Central folks.

Jesse's job is to sell product. Boomers job is to ensure the truth be told about the products we use in our hobby. Nothing wrong with either.

FWIW, Boomer is retired and I am a locomotive electrician. I'm not sure what Chris does but I doubt he works for anyone selling salt water aquarium products. He is, however, quite knowledgeable in saltwater chemistry. He shares the same passion for the truth that Boomer and I do.

I think Jesse is doing a fine job with his product. You should be happy to have his products on your shelf.

As far as the NIST discussions, let Jesse and Boomer have their fun and don't take it personal. I'm sure Jesse doesn't. ;)

lamarine23
08/11/2008, 07:57 PM
Good words Billybeau! I'll leave it alone. No personal offense taken.

jlinzmaier
08/11/2008, 08:24 PM
I would think that by him being on these forums and willing to answer all these questions to the best of his abilities and his track record on these forums would be enough but obviously not.

Ease up Lamarine23

Sounds like you took more offense to all of this than anyone else. I started this thread hoping to get confirmation of the accuracy of a multireference control solution. The accuracy of reference solutions and test kits is and will always be questioned. IMO that is what needs to be done to keep manufacturers in check when it comes to quality control. There are way too many test kit manufacturers selling crappy test kits that don't read anywhere near the true value. I think Jesse speaking up for his product and his testing is what he needs to do to be competitive in the market. If we don't question the validation of Jesse's claims what would keep him from selling crappy products like other manufacturers.

For the record to those questioning the validation have any of you ever used these kits? If not what do you use and why?

For the record, I've used nearly every test kit on the market. I've come across bad manufacturers, bad batches, and bad business. I continually stive to find accurate test kits to keep my water parameters at optimal levels. If people like Boomer didn't look into the truth behind manufactures claims of accuracy we simply wouldn't get quality products. Manufacturers would simply say whatever they want and we have no other choice but to belive it.

I do like ELOS kits, however I cannot speak for their accuracy any better than I can speak for any other test kit brand. As I said before I'm looking for an accurate reference solution to test these kits against. If ELOS reads my tanks alk to be 7.0dkh and Salifert reads it at 10.0 dkh who do I believe?? The only way to find the truth is to test the kit against a known control. Simply taking the word of a manufacturer just isn't acceptable. If your willing to always take a manufacturers word for the truth then I've got some test kits I want to sell you (trust me their accurate)!!

I think it says a lot about ELOS if Jesse is willing to speak up and stand up for his product and prove what testing is truly being done. Yeah it may look like he's being thrown to the wolves, but that's his responsibility to stand up for his product if he wants to be successful.



I find, if you really want to test the accuracy of your kit, purchase a few brands of the same kit and test them against each other.

Billy.
Unfortunatley I've done just that and have gotten readings from one end of the spectrum to the other. In the end all I really got was an expensive credit card bill. I'd like to post some of the readings I got but I'm afraid nobody would believe me. I have a chemist friend who made me some control solutions but I was afraid everyone would blame the varying readings on possible inaccuracy on the controls. I was looking for another well known reference solution made by a reputable manufacturer that couldn't be so quickly blamed for the varying readings.

Not sure if this thread accomplished anything or not. How do you trust a test kit?? It seems that Jesse puts his kits through a great deal more testing than others, however, that doesn't mean the test kit will still read as accurately 6 mo down the road. In all honesty is seems like a crap shoot. Pick a kit and go with it seems to be the best option. Over time, all kits will have discrepencies and inaccuracies - including ELOS. The more we question the manufactures about their manufacturing process and regeant reliability the more we do for ourselves by forcing them to provide quality products.

Jeremy

MCsaxmaster
08/11/2008, 09:24 PM
Hi guys,

I'm finishing up my MS in marine biology. My work has dealt heavily with seawater chemistry analysis, hence I am familiar with some of the difficulties in getting good numbers. I don't sell anything nor would I care to. My interest is primarily academic here. When someone says that X is "NIST verified" I'm not entirely sure what that means, so am merely seeking detail. ELOS test kits look like they are well made to me. My question is really about how well made they are, and hence my questions ask for the detail on the claims, nothing more.

Chris

Billybeau1
08/11/2008, 09:28 PM
Well Jeremy, I think the answer lies in the accuracy question. Just how accurate are hobby grade kits ?

In my experience, not as accurate as some want them to be. Yet in many cases, they are accurate enough for our purposes.

Look at the recommended parameters for a reef tank.

Calcium - 380 to 450 ppm
Alkalinity - 7-11 dkh
Magnesium - 1250 - 1350 ppm.

Even numbers slightly above these figures do not seem to cause great harm in most tanks.

I personally think that it is human instinct for some reefers to want the "PERFECT" environment for their livestock. And there is nothing wrong with that. But to expect consistent, accurate figures from ANY hobby grade kit is simply dreaming. There are just too many variables.

I think we sometimes get too hung up on numbers and don't pay enough attention to what the livestock looks like.

If you want precise numbers, you can purchase the next level up at about 200 bucks a pop.

I'll stick with Salifert and Elos. They are close enough for me.



:D

Billybeau1
08/11/2008, 09:30 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13135660#post13135660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lamarine23
Good words Billybeau! I'll leave it alone. No personal offense taken.

It's all good. :thumbsup:

lamarine23
08/11/2008, 11:09 PM
Folks I'm not taking any offense here. I think the point of this thread was lost when the conversation switched to Elos' NIST validation. I never stated anything against using a reference solution I think that is a good thing.

A test kit is only as good as the person using it most of the errors are made when the person testing does not follow instructions or contaminates the sample.

My main point with my response was simply that Jesse provided the information a second time to the same person after he made a false statement about the reagents not being NIST validated. Boomer is part of the "Team RC" and Bertoni is a "Mod" people will take what they say to heart and I don't think the statements made were appropriate when you consider their positions. I'm not saying they can't have opinions just make sure they have the facts to back them.

Ask the questions but at least appreciate the fact that he is here answering them. How many vendors/manufacturers/distributers come on here and explain the way he has?

No need to respond I am merely explaining myself.

bertoni
08/12/2008, 10:29 AM
I stated that the test kits weren't NIST certified, and I have every right to do so. That's why I'm here. Saying the reagents are certified is far from the kit being NIST certified. As I understand what was stated, even the reagents aren't NIST certified, merely checked with a NIST standard.

elosusa
08/12/2008, 12:32 PM
As has been said many times before, NIST does not make seawater samples so, "certified seawater test kits would be impossible". I am comfortable, "merely" using NIST samples to validate our reagent batches and checking our test results with an independent seawater lab, requiring all distributors to keep our kits in climate controlled areas, using non-toxic reagents when possible, checking our charts periodically to ensure color is correct, offering lab quality droppers, glass vials, child proof locks, written and illustrated directions and continually looking to improve our kits, as I am not aware of any other aquarium water testing company that is doing half of what I just listed.
Bertoni I see that you are in Foster City very close to our warehouse. If you have time you should make a visit and I think you would be more than convinced we are doing more than anyone in this industry to assure what we produce/ sell is up to the highest possible standard for this price range.

Boomer
08/12/2008, 12:51 PM
lamarine

First and for most I don't work for anybody in this hobby and never have and have never gotten paid for anything. And I did a bunch of work for HACH also and many others. I give advice and find product for others to sell and all for FREE, to anyone. To INCLUDE, all my talks with Jesse and getting them to have runs at a certified seawater labs. Maybe you could say I did some work for Elos :) Why, because they wanted to go the extra mile lamarine. You seem to have missed what has been said. Jesse and I don't have rounds as Billy pointed out. It is just us trying to find ways of explaining things and how they may be read or interpreted by readers. WE, meaning, Jesse, Elos and I, don't want Elos written things that may misled one is our point of interest.

And I agree with Jon. One needs to understand the meaning of NIST and how it is implied and used. This is something Jesse an I have tried to work on.


false statement about the reagents not being NIST validated

Validated is not Certified. This is in the mind of the beholder as I tried to explain. You are trying to comment on an issues you do not understand.

Jesse and I will take it up at MACNA. What we need to know is what are they doing in regards to NIST and their procedures for a better wording format.



http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/113960NISTpaper.jpg

This can be very misleading as it does say "Certified" an "NIST" and most will take this that the reagents /kit are NIST certified. We have, as Jesse knows, Italians trying to translated some things into some kind of format for us that always does not seem to come right at times. We have been trying to fix this. They know we like NIST and it is what they are trying to work off of, so we know they have taken the extra mile on their kits. NIST is USA thing = National Institute of Standards and Testing. One of the stds in Germany is DIN.

I don't know, off hand, of any company in this hobby making kits, other than Elos, that is trying to attemp this GOOD thing.

Billybeau1
08/12/2008, 01:03 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13140258#post13140258 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
Jesse and I don't have rounds as Billy pointed out.

No sense of humor. :lol:

Just a figure of speech my friend. :D

elosusa
08/12/2008, 01:09 PM
Very well put Boomer, I can live with all of that.

lamarine23
08/12/2008, 01:21 PM
Bertoni your mixing up certified and validated I never said nor Jesse that I can recall as certified by NIST. You purpose here is to moderate that is a position you chose.

Boomer don't tell me what I do and don't know you still have not told me anything that qualifies you to make such statements or recommendations to companies or people.

They make a batch of a particular reagent and validate against a NIST standard reference material, validating the whole batch at one time not the individual reagent found in each kit, but if the batch is off than every kit would be off in that batch, sure some kits can individually become contaminated but that is why they keep everything as controlled as possible.

Its all about how you guys are coming across, your worried about wording, check yours because I interpret yours as very hostile, you could have clarified your statement in the beginning especially since you have had lengthy discussions with Jesse and have a little more insight than others.

Your former Army and I'm a former Marine I expect that we won't be seeing eye to eye so I'd rather agree to disagree.;)

Boomer
08/12/2008, 01:22 PM
:thumbsup: Jesse

Boomer
08/12/2008, 01:46 PM
Boomer don't tell me what I do and don't know you still have not told me anything that qualifies you to make such statements or recommendations to companies or people


I have been doing it for like 30 years. Try not to come across that one has to have a degree in something, as it is just a post hole digger. And I'm not required to tell you anything. To bad Randy is not here he would disagree with your remark above also, as would Habib from Salifert, Tom Frakes form IO, Paul form HACH or Jeff form NOAA. It is not what you have a degree in it is what you know. ;) From Randy long ago, In short, " the merit or credibility of a post or reply can be found within its contents".

They make a batch of a particular reagent and validate against a NIST standard reference material, validating the whole batch at one time not the individual reagent found in each kit

Go back an look at my other post I said about the same thing. You do not know exactly what they do. Even Jesse and I don't know so how can you argue it ?

Bertoni your mixing up certified and validated

No he is not. Go back and look at the image that both Jesse and I posted and what does that sheet say.

The only one here with a wording issue seems to be you. What did Jesse's last post just say ? That is what Jesse, Elos and I have been working on. Are you now disputing all 3 of us ?

lamarine23
08/12/2008, 02:21 PM
Lots of names there, which at the end of the day don't mean a thing because I can find negative feedback on all the products those guys manufacturer or endorse. I don't want to get into that so please keep other peoples names out of it.

Not going to attempt to speak for Jesse (as you have) about what he agreed about.

How much more in depth do you need to know about how they validate the reagents? and why? Are you telling me with the method described above that they (Elos) can not state the reagents are NIST validated?

Like I said you could have easily spoken out about what exactly you meant when you referred to certifed and validated.

This is where confusion has come from so read carefully:
Bertoni first used the words certified to rebut some ones comment about the NIST validation and Boomer validated his comment....here we go please follow along...

Amphiprion States…
One reason I prefer Elos test kits is that they are already NIST validated.

Bertoni Replies......
If that calibration solution is made accurately, it might be a very good choice. I don't have any data on it, though.

I don't think the Elos kits are truly NIST certified, but that might have changed.

Boomer Replies........ (which triggered it all)
Jon

No, they are not NIST, I talked to them about it long ago. A kit NIST validated would cost three arms and a leg. Th word NIST should not be thrown around like that with out a full explanation as to its meaning.

Jeremy

That is true what you have stated. Even if they had someone make up ref solutions does not mean there are correct. We have seen this with pH ref solutions that are way off. Only solutions that are certified are on and NIST are on 100% of the time. And a NIST ref solution is like $$$.
____________________________________________________

Anyone with a smidge of common sense can follow my logic. Sorry I'm not good with the whole quote thing on html!

Billybeau1
08/12/2008, 02:41 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13140799#post13140799 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lamarine23
Anyone with a smidge of common sense can follow my logic.

I'd like to think I have at least a smidge of common sense and I'm sorry I do not follow your logic.

Jesse and Boomer have already agreed on the statements made, so, what are you arguing about.

Lets move on. Please ? We have a lot of people to help in other threads. :)

Boomer
08/12/2008, 02:55 PM
Like Bily said move on :)

lamarine23
08/12/2008, 03:06 PM
I've proven my point....moved on!

StupidsReef
08/12/2008, 03:21 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13135887#post13135887 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jlinzmaier


I started this thread hoping to get confirmation of the accuracy of a multireference control solution. The accuracy of reference solutions and test kits is and will always be questioned. IMO that is what needs to be done to keep manufacturers in check when it comes to quality control. There are way too many test kit manufacturers selling crappy test kits that don't read anywhere near the true value. I think Jesse speaking up for his product and his testing is what he needs to do to be competitive in the market. If we don't question the validation of Jesse's claims what would keep him from selling crappy products like other manufacturers.



For the record, I've used nearly every test kit on the market. I've come across bad manufacturers, bad batches, and bad business. I continually stive to find accurate test kits to keep my water parameters at optimal levels. If people like Boomer didn't look into the truth behind manufactures claims of accuracy we simply wouldn't get quality products. Manufacturers would simply say whatever they want and we have no other choice but to belive it.

I do like ELOS kits, however I cannot speak for their accuracy any better than I can speak for any other test kit brand. As I said before I'm looking for an accurate reference solution to test these kits against. If ELOS reads my tanks alk to be 7.0dkh and Salifert reads it at 10.0 dkh who do I believe?? The only way to find the truth is to test the kit against a known control. Simply taking the word of a manufacturer just isn't acceptable. If your willing to always take a manufacturers word for the truth then I've got some test kits I want to sell you (trust me their accurate)!!

I think it says a lot about ELOS if Jesse is willing to speak up and stand up for his product and prove what testing is truly being done. Yeah it may look like he's being thrown to the wolves, but that's his responsibility to stand up for his product if he wants to be successful.


Unfortunatley I've done just that and have gotten readings from one end of the spectrum to the other. In the end all I really got was an expensive credit card bill. I'd like to post some of the readings I got but I'm afraid nobody would believe me. I have a chemist friend who made me some control solutions but I was afraid everyone would blame the varying readings on possible inaccuracy on the controls. I was looking for another well known reference solution made by a reputable manufacturer that couldn't be so quickly blamed for the varying readings.

Not sure if this thread accomplished anything or not. How do you trust a test kit?? It seems that Jesse puts his kits through a great deal more testing than others, however, that doesn't mean the test kit will still read as accurately 6 mo down the road. In all honesty is seems like a crap shoot. Pick a kit and go with it seems to be the best option. Over time, all kits will have discrepencies and inaccuracies - including ELOS. The more we question the manufactures about their manufacturing process and regeant reliability the more we do for ourselves by forcing them to provide quality products.

Jeremy

This thread's question is something I've pondered for a long time. Very good thread indeed!! And I think for me anyway IMO this post here is about the way I feel. At least there is someone questioning, and then someone from a company responding. Again very good thread.

:)

Boomer
08/12/2008, 03:26 PM
I've proven my point....moved on!

You have not proven anything.....ssssh

Billybeau1
08/12/2008, 03:31 PM
[chimp]

Boomer
08/12/2008, 03:33 PM
Ok :)

jlinzmaier
08/12/2008, 07:18 PM
This thread's question is something I've pondered for a long time. Very good thread indeed!! And I think for me anyway IMO this post here is about the way I feel. At least there is someone questioning, and then someone from a company responding. Again very good thread.

Thank you StupidsReef!

Even though the thread has gotten a bit off track, there has been some important dialogue.

Billy, Boomer, and Jon.

The original question on this thread was if the multireference solution could be trusted as accurate. Since I didn't hear any resounding statements saying "Yes it's worth testing your kits against", are there any other reference solutions I can purchase to test my kits against?

I think with the testing that Jesse does on his test kits (whether it be NIST validated, certified, or neither) shows that his kits may have an edge on other kits when it comes to accuracy. ELOS kits however, still are subject to exposure and contamination. Is there any way for me to validate the accuracy of a test kit 6mo after it's been opened (Without purchasing a new kit to test it against. If that were the case I'd need to buy a new kit each time I got an unexpected reading or I might be correcting a problem that truly doesn't exist)??

Billy has mentioned that these hobby test kits are only hobby kits and we shouldn't expect them to be right on. I agree, I'm not looking for extreme precision, just consistency. As was also stated, reef tank water parameters do have a bit of flexibility before any harm would be caused. Unfortunately, mishaps that can move water parms into dangerous levels do occur and I need to rely on my test kit to pick up on it ( bad batches of salt mix, accidental overdose, dosing pumps go out, etc)

Any thoughts?? (Maybe I just have test kit paranoia!!) Truthfully, I'm just frustrated at being burned by inaccurate kits. The inaccuracy has led to fluctuating water params and overall less stability than I'd prefer.

Jeremy

jlinzmaier
08/12/2008, 07:24 PM
By the way, I did get a reply on the Fauna Marine forum about the accuracy of their product. Don't know that the reply was very helpful but here's the dialogue:

Thinking of getting some of this reference solution but I'd like a bit more info before I buy it.

Is the solution EDTA or NIST validated. What can you tell me of the accuracy of the soution.

I'd like to test a wide range of kits against this solution but I don't want to post inaccurate results if the solution is off. Make me a believer, why should I buy this product and trust the accuracy of the numbers that it indicates.

Thanks.

Jeremy


Hi Jeremy

Thanks for your interest on our product

We let produce this solution in a chemical laboratory of an university
in south germany. the solution based on seawater and not like other references on freshwater.
So the testkits have the same ionic problem with salt like in a normal tank.
We only use the reference for stabil parameters and not for
No3 and Po4.
We didnt use EDTA

Greets Claude

jansenwrasse
08/12/2008, 07:30 PM
Personally when it comes to reef-keeping test kits, I see no reason to have any test kit have a better resolution than 5- 10 ppm. I mean really is your treatment of the aquarium going to be different from 410ppm to 400? No deffinately not. So is there a need for NIST reagents? Personally no not at all. I don't need my Ca reference 1M good to 5 sig figs when my test kit is only good to 2.

JMHO :D

bertoni
08/13/2008, 12:16 AM
lamarine,

I don't see anything hostile in my tone. I am being factual.

I agree that the thread has gotten far off course.

boxfishpooalot
08/13/2008, 03:26 AM
Well why not change the wording to: tested against a NIST certified sample? Instead of NIST certified. This would mean exactly as is I think.

jlinzmaier
08/13/2008, 07:54 PM
Even if I can't rely on the accuracy of the mutireference solution could it at least be used as a reference point to confirm my kit reads the same as it did when it was first opened?? For example, I test the solution with an ELOS ca kit and get a reading of 425ppm. 6 months down the road I should be able to test the solution and get 425. If I don't get the same reading I would know that the regeants have been contaminated or have lost accuracy to exposure.

Sound like a logical plan??

Is there any chance that the mutlitreference solution's elemental composition could change over time??

(doing my damndest to get the thread back on track)

Jeremy

Billybeau1
08/13/2008, 08:21 PM
Jeremy, As much as we spend on our tanks, I would think we could afford new test kits twice a year.

I honestly think you are way too concerned about this. Most test kits will last about 18 months but if you are that concerned, a new test kit twice a year shouldn't be a problem.

jlinzmaier
08/13/2008, 08:36 PM
Great point Billy!!

Jeremy

bertoni
08/14/2008, 12:33 AM
If you just want a reference solution for testing a kit against itself, mix up a 5g container of seawater and use that as your reference. It will keep indefinitely. :)

jlinzmaier
08/14/2008, 08:59 AM
Excellent!

Thanks Jon. Never thought of that.

Jeremy

C. Schuhmacher
08/14/2008, 10:57 AM
Hi Bertoni

How this could work ? the salts have all different parameters and
if shortly after the dissolution you make the test

greets Claude

bertoni
08/14/2008, 11:39 AM
The salts all have different parameters, but once some water has been mixed, the parameters aren't going to change much, with reasonable care in storage.

C. Schuhmacher
08/14/2008, 12:02 PM
HI

The reference solution is made to check a test against a knowlegde parameter.

As sample Calcium

The reference has 400 mg
the test show 380 so everybody knows i need more experience in testing correct or the test showed 20 mg less.

in fresh saltwater you also didnt know how the calcium level is
with a reference solution you know it

For the aquarists tests there is not important the references have a NIST or a laboratory standard with 3 numbers behind the point
For a hobbiest it is important to check if he can
make the test accurate enough or not and can check his own testings
or train it.
The most tests are really not bad for that money but need a correct testing to get the right results.


The reference solution is stabil for a long time so also after 6 month parameter can be checked even if the test gets older

Greets claude

jlinzmaier
08/14/2008, 03:08 PM
with reasonable care in storage.

Jon
I put some in an old one gallon distilled water jug and sealed the lid tight. Anything else I should do to keep the water params from changing over time? It'll be kept in a cool dry location.

Jeremy

jansenwrasse
08/14/2008, 04:22 PM
don't expose it to light, or temps above 85F.

jansenwrasse
08/14/2008, 04:24 PM
I also would be concerned about certain strains of bacteria that could potentially use calcium.

PSam
08/14/2008, 09:45 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13128386#post13128386 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jlinzmaier
Has anyone used this test kit reference solution by Fauna Marine? (http://www.aquariumobsessed.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AO&Product_Code=FM-MR100&Category_Code=)

I'm sure this solution is subject to inaccuracy. discrepencies, bad batches, etc... just as all of the test kits are, but I'm wondering if anyone has checked out this reference solution to validate it's accuracy. Unfortunately there's no info detailing if the solution is an EDTA or NIST validated solution.

I'd like to get some but if I can't be sure that the numbers on this solution are exactly what they say they are then it's kind of pointless to test my kits against it.

Jeremy

I replied to your post in the FM forum. I find the solution helpful, especially if I suspect a kit is off (I usually have ~3 brand kit for each param.)

(LaMotte kH reads ~118, = ~6.6 kh, which is what the solution should read. Other kH kits read it ~6.5, but they all go in .5 kH increments... All Mg kits I've used test it ~1300, solution is 1296. SG is 35ppm, which is the reading I get on refract. Ca = 415 in solution, my kits read between 400 - 425 (resolution dependent), Kalium on Fm K+ kit reads ~400, solution is supposed to be about that, and the K+ kit is hard to read anyway).

Boomer
08/14/2008, 10:00 PM
(LaMotte kH reads ~118, = ~6.6 kh, which is what the solution should read

Actually not :) It should read 6.6 x 10 % = .66 = .66 + 6.6 = 7.26

As almost all kits do not test to seawater Alk pH but Freshwater Alk pH's. So, they read 10 % to low.

PSam
08/14/2008, 10:06 PM
ok, so does that mean they (all the kits I use for kH - elos, salifert, seachem, lamotte, api & marineland) are reading 'off'. as well when I check my tank? Then what is the kH of my aquarium when they all read ~7? so why do all read ~6.5 - 7 when I check v. reference? confused :)

is there a formula like that also for the other parameters - Mg? specific gravity? Calcium?

Or... After thought ... Does this mean maybe I'm more color blind than I thought in reading lamottes color change?

Boomer
08/14/2008, 10:33 PM
As far as I know only the Salifert is on. In tests the Salifert is always higher than the rest, as it is set to seawater, as this is how Habib (owner) did it. I will be talking to Jesse about the Elos at MACNA. A ref is still going to read to low, unless the ref is a seawater ref. or if you titrate to a seawater pH of 4.2 and to a pH of 4.5

If your tank read 7 dKH the actual ~Alk is 7 + (7 x 10 %) = 7.7 dKH. No other parameters are fine usually. Any std for testing seawater SHOULD be a std that is made of seawater with x ppm of y parameter. Not a FW std of x pp of y parameter.Seawater std are rare and those that are out there cost an arm and leg and only for or used by chemical oceanographers 99 % of the time, such as those sold by Seawater Solutions or where seawater is tested by a lab such as ENC. When you are testing seawater you need to know what you are doing. Seawater is NOT FW. There are actually books out for testing seawater properly by accepted std and methods for seawater. Even many pH kits are off. It is called the "salt effect" error, often cause by the high chloride ion in seawater. Reason why many spectrophotometers used in this hobby give funny or errored results par a couple like PO4 or Silica.

You can read more about Alk here.

What is Alkalinity
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/chemistry

From it

Five point 1 you say? Based on the discussion above, is that low enough? Well, the Hach kit was designed for use in fresh water where the pKa of the bicarbonate is much higher than in seawater, and in that situation, it is appropriate. In seawater, however, it is marginal. My tank water took 3.4 meq/L to get down to pH = 5.03, and then an additional 0.4 meq/L to get down to pH 4.00. Consequently, this kit (and others with a similar dye mix) may be missing out on 10% of the alkalinity simply because it isn't titrating low enough. This difference obviously isn't significant to most reef keepers, but is something to keep in mind when doing such things as comparing test kits to standards (in seawater) or to each other.

bertoni
08/15/2008, 09:32 AM
A cool, dry location and a sealed container should be fine.

C. Schuhmacher
08/15/2008, 10:29 AM
Hi Boomer

the FM reference solution is a saltwater ref not a Fw one.
The tests have the same "problem" for testing like they have in the tank.
We have a salinity in the solution of 35 based on standard seawater not on natriumchloride solution ( refraktometers)
Greets Claude

Boomer
08/15/2008, 11:09 AM
Ok

But I don't want anyone taking that wrong ;)

Meaning, it will still show a lower Alk as almost any kit. So, it is still acting as it is a FW ref. With a seawater Alk Kit, there is no such thing, other than Slaifert, it will still be off. With Alk it is not the ref sol so much it is the kit itself. Whether there is the right color change or not the "real" end point of 4.2 is not reached. One would need a kit, like the Salifert, where the end-point pH and color change has a pH of 4.2. One must remember that the color can/is off. Just because there is a color change does not mean it is correct. This is where people get lost.

Let me give an example of a LaMotte pH test kit. The kit uses Cresol Red. This is an indicator for FW or SW. However, if on uses it in seawater you must subtract ~0.27 pH form the reading you get. So, a pH reading of 8.30 is really 8.03 pH. As, it has an error factor of - 0.27 @ 35 ppt. 8.30 - .27 = 8.03

C. Schuhmacher
08/15/2008, 11:33 AM
HI

Thats the reason why we said take the dkH about 6,5 - 7 not more

i think a lot of tests here in germany use the methylorange or
mortimer mixindikator ( i hope i choose the right word)
Did you mean that with "Cresol red" i did not know the lamotte test kits
i think for the normal aquarists it is to hard stuff to understand the chemistry behind the different water test
They only want a test which showed + - accurate parameters

Many greetings Claude

Boomer
08/15/2008, 11:45 AM
Claude

That LaMotte is a low pH and high, pH pH test kit in one. It is not a Alk kit. The best pH indicator for a pH test kit for seawater is Metacresol Purple, as it has zero "salt effect" error. But this indicator is not good for a Alk titration kit due to chemistry. And I do not know off hand which pH indicator is best for a seawater Alk kit that will not have any error.

elosusa
08/15/2008, 04:59 PM
Just to confuse things more I took a look at a few results from the saltwater lab on our kH kits and at the most we are 0.1-0.3 high but never lower than the labs number. These particular tests were done with the 1 dkh resolution for the kit and the lab is testing in 0.1 dkh increments it appears.

MCsaxmaster
08/16/2008, 05:59 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13161132#post13161132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
And I do not know off hand which pH indicator is best for a seawater Alk kit that will not have any error.

There's ALWAYS error due to ionic stength effects, it just depends on how accurate/precise one needs to be ;)

Usually people do potentiometric titrations. There are methods available using bromocresol green and bromocresol purple. I've used mostly the BCG method. It's been as accurate or more accurate than potentiometric titrations (for me, that is) and takes ~6-7 minutes per sample, instead of ~20 min w/potentiometric titrations.

These methods are done with a spectrophotometer though. I'm not sure BCG alone (and definitely not BCP--pKa is too high) would work best alone if one is just eye-balling it.

Boomer
08/16/2008, 10:49 AM
Thanks Chris for stepping in here :D I was hoping you would see this .