Reef nutrition

favorite ICP company

What's your favorite ICP company?

  • Triton Lab

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • ATI

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Fauna Marin ICP

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • ICP-Analysis.com (Modern Reef)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • MarinLab

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Royal Nature ICP

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Reef Moonshiners (ICP Testing USA)

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Alexander1312 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
divewsharks said:
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).
Click to expand...
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 said:
I received my results from Triton today. Now waiting for ATI results (time and comparison of readings).
Click to expand...
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.
 

Attachments

  • ATI.pdf
    132.9 KB · Views: 14
  • Triton.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 12
divewsharks said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
For what it’s worth, the Triton results on their website are much more useful than the pdf export that is linked above. It shows normal ranges and where your value is on that range more intuitively. It also gives specific suggestions.
 
JVU said:
For what it’s worth, the Triton results on their website are much more useful than the pdf export that is linked above. It shows normal ranges and where your value is on that range more intuitively. It also gives specific suggestions.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
divewsharks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what did you get as your own calcium test result?
 
RandyC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top