favorite ICP company
- Thread starter L/B Block
- Start date
Might just be the selling point among other things.
They sell this kit to have it processed in the US-do you need that if you buying the US kits?
Derek lapping the rest of us
Alexander1312
Supporting Member
Send mine out this morning - let’s see how much longer FM takes this time. While they can do it in 7 days, all stars need to align for this.
divewsharks
Supporting Member
Interesting, i sent out to Triton on Monday as wall, no results yet. 3 tests (tanks) to Triton / 1 to ATI to compare results. (My SPS dom tank samples were collected at same time, and mailed out at same time).
Alexander1312
Supporting Member
Interesting. So is @derek_SR understating their turnaround time
? With a lab in the US, four days seems to be more on the upper end of what one would expect to get the results back unless there is an issue with USPS.
divewsharks
Supporting Member
I received my results from Triton today. Now waiting for ATI results (time and comparison of readings).
divewsharks
Supporting Member
I received my ATI results 6 days after my Triton results; which with my experience with ATI is the typical response time.
Some of the analysis results did differ from Triton. For example Calcium, Triton: 440mg/l vs ATI: 378 mg/l. Given i also tested my Calcium as a pulled the samples and got a result much closer to ATI's i am more inclined to believe the results from ATI over Triton in this case.
Generally; if a analysis, like Lithium was high on one test it was high on the other (now why my Lithium is high - i do not know yet). However in observation, what ATI calls 'high' might not be 'high' to Triton. Potassium on ATI: 441.7mg/l > Ideal value: 405.5 vs Triton: 407mg/l > Ideal: 380-480mg/l.
Now do i actually care, not really - i am way more interested in the trend lines over time.
Alexander1312
Supporting Member
I am glad you did this. To me it looks like they measured two different tanks.
I only compared a few that matter (to me), but CA (as you stated) and MG differ significantly, and dosing adjustments would be potentially large for these macro elements if you were to make them. Sr is also way off from each other and so is F.
I do not believe the far longer transit time had an impact on ATI measuring frequently much lower than Triton - but maybe someone else can comment? I am only aware of the impact on transit related to nitrate and phosphate (more phosphate I believe).
Looking at the two next to each other, and how ‘helpful’ the reporting is from what I am expecting from these - ATI is so much better (triton calls copper and selenium unwanted heavy metal???) as the ICP starts with what matters most and goes down to arguably less important measurements, has sensible parameter ranges, and does not call out almost every parameter acceptable (what triton does).
Thanks again, very interesting.
divewsharks
Supporting Member
Yes, i mainly looked at the website, was just much easier to post both PDFs here versus a bunch of screen shots.
It doesn't change the analysis though.. I know my CA was low at the time of the sample and that did not register on the Triton results.... that is what i am struggling with.
RandyC
Supporting Member
Many have done comparisons between all the ICP companies and not surprisingly, results are usually different amongst all the various companies. Here's one such example: https://reefbuilders.com/2023/07/12/the-reef-builders-big-icp-test-review-by-sanjay-joshi/
If you're going to rely on ICP for dosing, I'd pick one company that you're comfortable with and just run with the trends.
There are really two reasons:
1) Results are only as good as the tester doing the test. There are a number of factors that go into this as glassware cleanliness, gasses in the air, interpretation of the results are just a few things that can affect what your results are.
2) ICP-OES vs. ICP-MS. ICP-OES is not as complex to run, but is not as sensitive as ICP-MS. ICP-MS requires more technical skill to run.
If you're going to rely on ICP for dosing, I'd pick one company that you're comfortable with and just run with the trends.
There are really two reasons:
1) Results are only as good as the tester doing the test. There are a number of factors that go into this as glassware cleanliness, gasses in the air, interpretation of the results are just a few things that can affect what your results are.
2) ICP-OES vs. ICP-MS. ICP-OES is not as complex to run, but is not as sensitive as ICP-MS. ICP-MS requires more technical skill to run.
Baykes
Supporting Member
Out of curiosity, what did you get as your own calcium test result?
divewsharks
Supporting Member
Hana checker: 350mg/l. Which i did expect as my CA container of ESV was empty and i had forgotten to refill before last business trip.
divewsharks
Supporting Member
I do not rely on ICP for dosing. I test ALK and CA weekly - so I rely on my tests. The ICP is for looking at things i cannot test for/or test easily; and to build trend lines for those things in the good days - so if there are bad days somethign to compare too.
I ran the comparison as i have traditionally used ATI (have used a couple others over the years); but was curious as Triton is faster vs sending to Germany.
divewsharks
Supporting Member
And i like to run "science experiments" like also previously sending off for Aqua Biome tests and such...
You wanna share your AB results? I put mine in my tank journal, and am about to send off another one.