Calcium checker

[demariners]

Agreed. Read my post again. I said with the tip attached it seems to work best with 5 drops. At least for me that is.

[Sisterlimonpot]

Originally Posted by BeanAnimal

Don't hold your breath... They could care less what we think or want. If they did, then they would actively work with end users to enhance product features, accuracy and workflow instead of blaming the issues on the end user and their technique.

I help my breath for well over a year... nothing has changed and in fact, reagent (at least mine) constancy from batch to batch has been worse.

I was waiting for you to comment on that, if you didn't I would've. I honestly can't believe that they haven't/will not come up with a fix for this. I was hoping something was in the works, but you're right, it's time to stop holding our breathes. I gave up with my kit, matter of fact I think that the solution is out of date, shame because there is quite a bit left.

[sabbath]

Originally Posted by demariners

Agreed. Read my post again. I said with the tip attached it seems to work best with 5 drops. At least for me that is.

If I go 7 drops with the tip on. I use about .009ml and got a ca reading of 398. The API reads about 420 at the first color change from pink.

[Blayz77]

Well I gotta say that i am bummed about this calcium checker, i bought it before reading up on it along with the phosphate and alk checkers. After reviewing this thread and seeing all of the people saying how innacurate they are i decided to do a little testing of my own.

upon first using my checker a few weeks ago it gave me a reading of 600, at the time i was unaware that this checker was way off so i trusted the reading and thought ***! how did it get so high. i was not testing regularly at that point in time so i had no reference.
i began doing a lot of water changes to work towards corrrecting it while still testing with the hanna checker the values were going lower but still in the 500's the next week.

i tested like 3 days ago with the hanna and got a reading of i think 422 which i finally was like phew back to normal. but then i discovered this thread heh so today i performed many tests to check its accuracy and my results are as follows.

since i still have a salifert calcium test i did 3 tests for a base to check against the hanna.

salifert test 1 = 380
salifert test 2 = 370
salifert test 3 = 370

now in my opinion those are very consistant, and i would have to believe that my calcium level is infact at this range, although lower then i would like.

now for the hanna upon reading i saw a revised method so i did this method 3 times

revised hanna test 1 = 200
revised hanna test 2 = 365
revised hanna test 3 = 555

test 1 i followed the steps using exact measurements of all fluids using the sryinges. meaing when it said add 8ml water i did 8 1ml additions with plunger instead of using the dropper.

test 2 after such a low result i re read and noticed it said use dropper, so i did all the steps again using the dropper where it said to and got a surprisingly close result like the salifert, there might be hope after all.

test 3 being careful to follow the saem steps as i did on test 2 i ended up with a much higher result.

now im sure there is some user error in here somewhere but for it to vary so much is whith out a doubt unacceptable even with some slight human error after all the salifert i did was testing good.

so un satisfied with the revised method i did 3 more tests with hanna this time using the original hanna directions that came with the checker.

hanna original test 1 = 423
hanna original test 2 = 380
hanna original test 3 =414

now while these tests might fall under the acceptable +/- range (didnt do the math) and they do appear to be slightly more consistant. they are however way off from what my salifert is saying except for test 2.

after 9 total calcium tests i am burnt out lol. as of now i have no choice but to trust in my salifert calcium test since it is clearly providing very consistant test results. As for the revised test method and original package method both showed promise getting one test close to the salifert but still has much to be desired. which leaves me disapointed beacuse i really like the idea of having a digital read out, and the overall look of the product, thought the pacaging can use some work.

anyways sorry for the long post thx.

[demariners]

Blayz, I have been able to get consistent results as of late. I make sure I put 1 ml of the reagent, then use the dropped to get the curvette to have the meniscus RIGHT above the live. I would say allow the bottom of the meniscus to be on the line a tad. Then I make sure I get all the powder in and use the green plunger and use the tip and drop exactly 5 drops. I have been able to get consistent results this was. I would make sure you give it about 5 tries and they should be pretty close to each other.

[Blayz77]

i will be performing more tests with the hanna using the revised method and the original packaging method within the next week probably just to double check my findings and or my execution of procedures ill do another 3 test each and report back my findings again.

[demariners]

I had no success with the Klondike method. Maybe it is just me but the standard hanna method seems to work well for me using 5 drops.

Hanna also sent me some of their water, however I have used my RODI water and it provides the same results.

[Blayz77]

Originally Posted by demariners

Blayz, I have been able to get consistent results as of late. I make sure I put 1 ml of the reagent, then use the dropped to get the curvette to have the meniscus RIGHT above the live. I would say allow the bottom of the meniscus to be on the line a tad. Then I make sure I get all the powder in and use the green plunger and use the tip and drop exactly 5 drops. I have been able to get consistent results this was. I would make sure you give it about 5 tries and they should be pretty close to each other.

will do i will try this when i do my next round of testing when u say 5 drops i take it you mean of the sample water from tank?

[demariners]

Yes, if you use the GREEN plunger and use the TIP. Make you you drop them in very slowly or it will over compensate. Don't look at the actual amount on the plunger. Just drop in 5 drops. I usually also fill the plunger a few times with the tank water to clean it out before each use. I do notice that when my meniscus is too high or too low I get strange results. If it is RIGHT on the line, maybe even a millimeter above it I get consistent results. I would also do a salifert test at the same time to compare.

[Blayz77]

Originally Posted by demariners

Yes, if you use the GREEN plunger and use the TIP. Make you you drop them in very slowly or it will over compensate. Don't look at the actual amount on the plunger. Just drop in 5 drops. I usually also fill the plunger a few times with the tank water to clean it out before each use. I do notice that when my meniscus is too high or too low I get strange results. If it is RIGHT on the line, maybe even a millimeter above it I get consistent results. I would also do a salifert test at the same time to compare.

ok i have been using the green plunger and the tip but this time i will watch the drops instead of the plunger making sure to add only 5 drops of tank water and having the meniscus on the line. i also always fill the plunger with tank water a few time to rinse as well.

[Blayz77]

ok so after i got ready for work i mustered up the energy and will power to do 6 more tests with the hanna checker. using the original test method but making sure the meniscus was on the the line, i took extra care with this as best i could and also only using 5 drops of sample water taking time to drop each drop slowly. my results are promising.

test 1 = 346 i chalk this up to practice learning the method changes
test 2 = 362 a little lower then my original salifert but very close
test 3 = 376 i would say this is a respectable result when compared to salifert
test 4 = 376 again very nice result and couldnt believe i actually got matching results
test 5 = 398 not sure what happened here although the little insert on the cap came out while rinsing the curvet i proceeded with test and thats what i got.

after finishing the 5 tests i realized that in a couple of the packets i still had some powder left =( not sure which ones were for what test so i did 6th test making sure i got all powder.

test 6 = 385 using the other vile with the insert in cap and making absolutly sure i got all powder, i would consider this acceptable compared to salifert even though its a tad higher.

considering that all tests came in under 400 this is for sure a better method to use for more consistent results in my testing. it has givin me hope that my hanna checker can produce results close to which my salifert test is telling me.

not sure how much reagent a i have left but i will be conducting a few more tests using demariners method tomorrow retesting with salifert and hanna and seeing how it compares. if the hanna results show close to the salifert as they did just now it may just warrant the purchase of more regeants for further comparisons.

although my results matched more closley this time there is no doubt at this point the hanna is more tedious to perform.

[demariners]

I'm glad to see your results are more consistent. Yea make sure you have all the powder in there and the meniscus is KEY to consistent results. Furthermore make sure you use good quality rodi and exactly 1 ml of reagent. I have done 3 tests in a row and they are about 2-5 ppm off each time which is way better then 500+. When I put too little powder or too much rodi I get high results for some reason. Let me know how it works out.

[dedvalson]

Like everyone else here, I was getting wildly different results in subsequent tests:

1. 405
2. 500
3. 515
4. 463

This was with water with a TDS reading of 0.0. So I thought that the issue is probably the difficulty of dispensing 0.1 mL.

So I thought I would try a totally different approach and it seems to be working very well for me.

I did the following:

1. Use a large syringe to dispense 200 mL of RO/DI water into a clean cup.
2. Use a 1 mL syringe to dispense 2 mL of tank water into the cup.
3. Dispense 1 mL of reagent A into the cuvette
4. Add 9 mL of the mixture from the cup into the cuvette.
5. Make the first measurements.
6. Add the powder, shake till it dissolves and make the second measurement.

I didn't know if this would work because the sample was present in measurement 1, but it seems to. The results I got with this method are:

1. 408
2. 416
3. 405
4. 412

This is very close to my LaMotte test readings of 410.

I think this works better because the 100:1 dilution takes place with larger quantities that can be measured better. I think 1 liter of RO/DI water and 10 mL of tank water might work even better.

Don

[hkgar]

Originally Posted by dedvalson

Like everyone else here, I was getting wildly different results in subsequent tests:

1. 405
2. 500
3. 515
4. 463

This was with water with a TDS reading of 0.0. So I thought that the issue is probably the difficulty of dispensing 0.1 mL.

So I thought I would try a totally different approach and it seems to be working very well for me.

I did the following:

1. Use a large syringe to dispense 200 mL of RO/DI water into a clean cup.
2. Use a 1 mL syringe to dispense 2 mL of tank water into the cup.
3. Dispense 1 mL of reagent A into the cuvette
4. Add 9 mL of the mixture from the cup into the cuvette.
5. Make the first measurements.
6. Add the powder, shake till it dissolves and make the second measurement.

I didn't know if this would work because the sample was present in measurement 1, but it seems to. The results I got with this method are:

1. 408
2. 416
3. 405
4. 412

This is very close to my LaMotte test readings of 410.

I think this works better because the 100:1 dilution takes place with larger quantities that can be measured better. I think 1 liter of RO/DI water and 10 mL of tank water might work even better.

Don

I is a major problem with your procedure, I believe. You are taking the first reading with the tank water already in your mixture. The first measurement is to be with out ANY tank water to get the correct 0 reference for the calculator. Because of the tank water your first reading is flawed leading to an inaccurate second reading.

[Blayz77]

ok so im back to attempt another 3 test stint between my salifert and the hanna using the method i was using yesterday, ill report my finding when finished

[dedvalson]

Originally Posted by hkgar

I is a major problem with your procedure, I believe. You are taking the first reading with the tank water already in your mixture. The first measurement is to be with out ANY tank water to get the correct 0 reference for the calculator. Because of the tank water your first reading is flawed leading to an inaccurate second reading.

I had the same concern but when I got consistent and accurate results I decided that there was no color shift from the first reagent so all that was being calibrated out was the glass and water opacity. Anyway, it works really well for me.

[Blayz77]

ok another round of testing completed and this is my findings

first up was my salifert no surprise here as it was testing similar to yesterday

salifert test 1 = 360
salifert rest 2 = 370
salifert test 3 = 370

next up was the hanna checker same prcedure as devalson using the factory method but making sure the meniscus was on the line and using 5 drops of sample, this time opening the poweder packs all the way making sure all powder was used. my readings were consistantly higher then the salifert today but at least all results stayed close together.

hanna test 1 = 405
hanna test 2 = 408
hanna test 3 = 417

now going by this test sample it would appear that it only varries by 10 points like the salifert, but the readings were much higher. this was probably due to the fact that i made sure to take the extra time and effort to use all the powder.

so now my question is how do i get the hanna to match closer to the salifert, since i went through extra effort to make sure i used all the powder do you think mayby if i used more drops of sample it would lower the readings some?

so instead of 5 drops, do you think if i used 6 it would dilute it a little more hence giving me a lower reading?

[Blayz77]

ok so feeling like experimenting before i got a respons i went ahead and did 3 more tests using up the remaining reagents i had here is what i found

again using the same factory method making sure the meniscus is on the line and using all the powder opening up each packet like a book to make sure it was all used. and putting in 7 drops of sample for first test then 4 for the other two. here are my results

hanna test 1 = 504 (used 7 drops instead of 5 of sample)
hanna test 2 = 364 ( used 4 drops of sample)
hanna test 3 = 353 ( 4 drops of sample)
hanna test 4 = to be continued lol....

after the first 3 tests i had enough to perform one last test but the meter turned off before i could push the button for the result i was to slow i guess. but the color of the vial was similar to test 2 and 3.

so after my findings here i think it will warrant the purchas of some more reagents for further comparison. it looks like for me using 4 drops of sample water was coming very close to what my salifert was telling me.

i will report back in at a later date with more results when i get some more sample.

[demariners]

Looks like you are getting close. I compare my results to my Red Sea pro test and using the 5 drop method it always seems to be spot on for me. I think 7 drops would be too much. The more drops the higher readings. I think 4 drops might be your mark. It is ALL dependent on the meniscus I have noticed. Try with it just slightly below and slightly above and you will see a DRAMATIC increase and decrease. I had it about a millimeter above the line and I got 480. When it was on the line I got 410. I always have used 5 drops and I always make sure all the powder is in there. I still think it is dependent on the meniscus and the drops.

[sabbath]

Originally Posted by Blayz77

ok so feeling like experimenting before i got a respons i went ahead and did 3 more tests using up the remaining reagents i had here is what i found

again using the same factory method making sure the meniscus is on the line and using all the powder opening up each packet like a book to make sure it was all used. and putting in 7 drops of sample for first test then 4 for the other two. here are my results

hanna test 1 = 504 (used 7 drops instead of 5 of sample)
hanna test 2 = 364 ( used 4 drops of sample)
hanna test 3 = 353 ( 4 drops of sample)
hanna test 4 = to be continued lol....

after the first 3 tests i had enough to perform one last test but the meter turned off before i could push the button for the result i was to slow i guess. but the color of the vial was similar to test 2 and 3.

so after my findings here i think it will warrant the purchas of some more reagents for further comparison. it looks like for me using 4 drops of sample water was coming very close to what my salifert was telling me.

i will report back in at a later date with more results when i get some more sample.

How much tank water are you adding with 4 drops?

[Blayz77]

i couldnt tell you how much tank water i am adding with 4 drops because i am not concentrating on the plunger i am only focuse on the tip slowly adding 4 drops. which is the whole point on using this method you are not concerned with the amount you are adding only the number of drops.

[demariners]

Correct. If you use 6 drops according to the plunger that would be .1 ml. Sadly that always gives me a high value. When I use 5 I get stable correct readings.

[Blayz77]

ya when using 5 drops it seemed i was getting more stable readings but they tend to be significantly higher then the salifert. so when i get more reagent im gonna do more tests with 4 drops and see how it compares.

[sabbath]

Okay this helps me some as I just checked again and my kit with the tip on reads;

5 drops= .07ml
6 drops= .085
7 drops= .1ml

So the drops are smaller with mine...
Thanks

[BeanAnimal]

If you take a step back and honestly take a look at this entire situation, it is almost comical.... I did the only sane thing possible and tossed it in the trash. I am down to my last sachets of reagent for the Phosphorus checker (had two, one died) and am considering tossing it too.

I am amazed that so many of you are still hammering away at trying to make this thing work and trustworthy. I just don't understand why Hanna refuses to fix the problems and make these checkers viable alternatives to conventional test kits.