Lab analysis of instant ocean and other salt mixes - Page 9

Boomer · #**201** 10/28/2007, 12:46 PM

Thanks Jim for the additional comments

the_real_brian · #**202** 10/28/2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Exhausted DI resin will throw back stripped tds at a higher rate then stripped and produce poor quality water.

On the subject of exhausted resins. I have a couple of resin cartridges that I'm currently using that had holes in the packaging and set on the shelf for several months before I started using them.

Could these holes lead to pre-exhaustion of these cartridges?

They're not changing color like they did in the past and I've already pumped about 200-300 gallons through them.

Thefilterguys · #**203** 10/28/2007, 01:16 PM

Yes open DI resin is aggressive and can be degraded by CO2 and anything else it can grab onto in the air. Use your tds meter as your guide and replace as soon as you start seeing a product water tds reading up from zero.

jim

Quote:

Originally posted by the_real_brian
On the subject of exhausted resins. I have a couple of resin cartridges that I'm currently using that had holes in the packaging and set on the shelf for several months before I started using them.

Could these holes lead to pre-exhaustion of these cartridges?

They're not changing color like they did in the past and I've already pumped about 200-300 gallons through them.

the_real_brian · #**204** 10/29/2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thefilterguys
Yes open DI resin is aggressive and can be degraded by CO2 and anything else it can grab onto in the air. Use your tds meter as your guide and replace as soon as you start seeing a product water tds reading up from zero.

jim

Thank you. I'll do that.

RokleM · #**205** 10/30/2007, 07:55 AM

Well, I had a sample sent to these guys from my main system. 10% water changes every two weeks. 350ish physical gallons, probably 250 actual gallons after displacement. Calcium and kalk reactor. Minor magnesium and strontium dosing. Buckets of Kent Marine salt.

Most of the results are as expected.

Ammonia (NH3-4) 0.030 Good
Nitrite (NO2) 0.005 Good
Nitrate (NO3) 0.4 Good
Phosphate (PO4) 0.12 Good
Silica (SiO2-3) 1.1 High
Potassium (K) 393 Good
Calcium (Ca) 481 High
Boron (B) 0.4 Low
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.0 Good
Strontium (Sr) 11.2 Good
Magnesium (Mg) 1237 Good
Iodine (I¯) 0.03 Good
Copper (Cu++) 0.02 Good
Alkalinity (meq/L) 2.92 Good

These are different than I expected:

Phosphate (PO4) 0.12 Good -- My Hanna is registering .02. I will check again and potentially renew the media since it's been a while.

Silica (SiO2-3) 1.1 High -- This is being discussed, and I'll watch the feedback/outcome.

Calcium (Ca) 481 High -- Slightly higher than my testing. Salifert/LaMotte both show typically 450-460. No action planned here as I don't worry about it being too elevated.

Boron (B) 0.4 Low -- This is the one that really confuses me. According to the studies, Kent Marine weighs in at about 6.4, 3.0-6.0 being acceptable levels. I have to research if this even has an impact on my system or if a buffer/additive is even available.

Alkalinity (meq/L) 2.92 Good -- This is a little lower than my Salifert/LaMotte kits test. Typically I'm in the range of 3.1-3.3, which is closer to the balance of 450-460 calcium. It's odd they register my calcium a little higher and alk a little lower which is less out of balance.

Pretty cool tests, and I look forward to the salt mix outcome. I just wanted to throw the results I received out there.

cd77 · #**206** 10/30/2007, 08:09 AM

RokleM, Thanks for the post! Everyone's silica results from AWT are a little alarming, but Boomer is on the case

FWIW: API's results for Calcium were higher than any other test kit I've used, and their alkalinity was also lower than the test kit I used.

The fact that your Molybdenum was zero makes me wonder if IO or RC has a naturally high molybdenum level.

Boomer · #**207** 10/30/2007, 11:21 AM

Boron

That looks to me like they are giving it in mM / l and not ppm, which makes it right on @ 0.4 mM /l. NSW is around 4.5 ppm

RokleM · #**208** 10/30/2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boomer
Boron

That looks to me like they are giving it in mM / l and not ppm, which makes it right on @ 0.4 mM /l. NSW is around 4.5 ppm

Wow, thanks. You might be onto something. I'll email them back and see if they keep their results or saltwater temporarily after testing, or have any way to 100% confirm the read it correctly (or wrong possibly)

Boomer · #**209** 10/30/2007, 06:00 PM

I already sent them a long e-mail and mentioned that.

gnatp2 · #**210** 10/30/2007, 06:25 PM

Very eager to see the results

DrBegalke · #**211** 10/30/2007, 08:15 PM

I emailed them today regarding the protocol.

USC-fan · #**212** 10/30/2007, 08:23 PM

Thanks Boomer for checking on this service for us!

jthnhale · #**213** 10/31/2007, 08:25 AM

I was just pointed to this thread, what a cool thing.
Thanks to AWT, and to those organizing the testing

I had seen AWT advertised a short while ago and was thinking of signing up with them. This just gave me more reason to do so.

DrBegalke · #**214** 10/31/2007, 07:18 PM

jthnhale: I have been happy with AWT and I agree that it is great they are doing these tests....

I heard from them today... It looks like testing may began next week!

reefkoi · #**215** 10/31/2007, 07:26 PM

Well they owe you for starting this thread! I have signed up and in the last couple days 4 or 5 others in our club have because I told them! I bet they are getting flooded with water samples now.
Chris

DrBegalke · #**216** 11/01/2007, 05:54 PM

chris: interesting suggestion!

Boomer · #**217** 11/02/2007, 11:54 AM

I -emailed them as promised and so far no reply. I did through their website.

cd77 · #**218** 11/02/2007, 11:59 AM

They responded to my last inquiry in less than twenty-four hours regarding an issue not receiving my results. Direct eMail address I used was customerservice@aquariumwatertesting.com. I'm so far very pleased with their customer service and with how quickly I received my first sample results.

However, until these issues are resolved or questions are answered I do not plan to continue paying for their services.

Boomer · #**219** 11/02/2007, 12:04 PM

OK Chris I'll try that method. I e-mailed another company through their website and no reply yet either.

RokleM · #**220** 11/02/2007, 03:40 PM

I never received a response on my Boron issue.

Boomer · #**221** 11/02/2007, 04:33 PM

OK update for AWT

Hello Boomer,

Thank you for taking the time to write us and for bringing these concerns to
our attention.

As a business we place a tremendous amount of trust in the expertise of our
staff and those whom have consulted in bringing this venture to life. In
reaction to the concerns you have expressed and the immergence of a
statistically small number of anomalous readings we are taking several steps
to ensure that we are offering the most accurate possible service.

We are bringing in a third party next week to audit our procedures,
processes, calculations etc. This should serve to illuminate any issues
within our service or inconsistencies in individual technique that may
account for the rare but troubling anomalous readings.

As an example of our trouble shooting endeavors we are investigating a
possible cause for the occasional high phosphate reading. This may actually
be coming from a percentage of the bottle lids. We are testing to see
whether there is an adhesive involved to secure the foam cap liner that may
contaminate the sample.

We are chasing down every angle here to maintain our high standard of
service and your comments are helpful to that end.

Thank you again for your time and I will give you an update when a
meaningful one is available. Until then have a great weekend.

Jeremy Redmond
AquariumWaterTesting.com

cd77 · #**222** 11/02/2007, 05:30 PM

Thanks, Boomer! Looking forward to their "meaningful" update

RokleM · #**223** 11/02/2007, 06:57 PM

BTW, I received a lengthy email back from them. They confirmed again that my Boron is actually that low. SO... now I need to figure out how the heck that is possible and figure out how/if I can get that up. However, they also confirmed the phosphate tests they gave to me were likely wrong and probably tainted. They kept my water and went back and tested .03 (I was testing .02) instead of .12.

Overall, still pretty cool. If they can refine the process a little more, I will seriously consider a subscription of some kind. Very professional and knowledgeable from what I can tell.

melev · #**224** 11/05/2007, 02:33 PM

I think the biggest issue seems to be the Silicate test, right? Hopefully they can work with Boomer and their auditors to come up with a unit of measurement that will correspond with the numbers we compare to, to have a realistic and accurate reading. Everyone's tanks that have been posted about reported higher silicates, IIRC.

DrBegalke · #**225** 11/09/2007, 12:15 PM

Here are my results:

Ammonia (NH3-4) 0.013 Good
Nitrite (NO2) 0.009 Good
Nitrate (NO3) 1.4 Good
Phosphate (PO4) 0.05 Good
Silica (SiO2-3) 0.7 High
Potassium (K) 384 Good
Calcium (Ca) 428 Good
Boron (B) 0.4 Low
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.3 High
Strontium (Sr) 9.1 Good
Magnesium (Mg) 1113 Good
Iodine (I¯) 0.02 Low
Copper (Cu++) 0.03 Good
Alkalinity (meq/L) 3.51 Good

More here: http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...readid=1246454

I guess the 0.7 silica is actually a relatively good reading, compared to other's from AWT...