AWT water testing seems to have similar results

[toothman]

I did not realize how many people were using awt. But look all have high molybdenum, high si, low k. Seems like a odd coincidence. I do not know what to think regarding the accuracy of their tests.

[USC-fan]

I find them to more accurate than my home hobby test kits. My test kits are about 10% off what they give me and of course they have a lot more precise numbers.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I do not know whether they are accurate or not. Elevated silicate is somewhat unusual, but depending on how they are testing, it may not be reactive silicate, but simply suspended SiO2. I would not focus on it.

Molybdenum is known to be generally elevated, but is not know to be a concern, IMO.


I find them to more accurate than my home hobby test kits.

How do you know they are accurate?

[HowardW]

<<< I find them to more accurate than my home hobby test kits.

How do you know they are accurate? >>>



I was going to ask the exact same thing.

I've also sent in a sample to AWT and the results were very close to what I can test for at home with my Seachem test kits. They also showed me as having unusually high silicates and molybdenum as well as iodide (which I was dosing, have since stopped) but most of their other test results seemed reasonable to me.

Since receiving those AWT results I've added a silicate removing specific cartridge to my RO/DI setup although it probably wasn't really necessary.

[USC-fan]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I do not know whether they are accurate or not. Elevated silicate is somewhat unusual, but depending on how they are testing, it may not be reactive silicate, but simply suspended SiO2. I would not focus on it.

Molybdenum is known to be generally elevated, but is not know to be a concern, IMO.


I find them to more accurate than my home hobby test kits.

How do you know they are accurate?

Again I'm using simple hobby test kits. Like for example my NO3/PO4 reads 0 on my test kits. Well i know I have some in the water and AWT found my PO4 @.220 and NO3 @ .4. Now I'm not saying they are 100% right but i do feel they give more accurate results than my test kits.

[bertoni]

Okay, but how do you know their numbers are right?

[USC-fan]

I'm not saying they are 100% right but I still feel they give better numbers then my kits.

I know some people here sent in samples after using a " Hanna Instruments Phosphate Photometer" and found the results from AWT just about the same also.

[m2434]

Originally posted by USC-fan
Again I'm using simple hobby test kits. Like for example my NO3/PO4 reads 0 on my test kits. Well i know I have some in the water and AWT found my PO4 @.220 and NO3 @ .4. Now I'm not saying they are 100% right but i do feel they give more accurate results than my test kits.

I'm curious about one issue and I'm not sure if this is a valid concern, so maybe someone has some insight.

Durring shipping, there will almost certainly be some die-off and decomposition. I would think that this would increase levels of inorganic nitrogen and maybe even PO4. Are they doing anything, or is there any way to compensate for this.

I haven't used AWT, so maybe this is a non-issue.

[Boomer]

I know some people here sent in samples after using a " Hanna Instruments Phosphate Photometer" and found the results from AWT just about the same also.

But also way off. Remember the e-mail from AWT to me ? They stated they know they have a PO4 accuracy problem.


Durring shipping, there will almost certainly be some die-off and decomposition. I would think that this would increase levels of inorganic nitrogen and maybe even PO4. Are they doing anything, or is there any way to compensate for this.

Excellent point Yes there is a way but I have extreme doubts they are adjusting for it. When AWT takes two samples fo water and runs one test with their means of testing and sends the other sample to ENC Labs for verification then I will have more faith And still a number of their so called NSW levels are still off in the minds of most seawater chemists and NSW refs.

[USC-fan]

Yeah i remember that thread.

It only cost $24 per sample so I really can't think I'm going to get "lab grade" test done. I use this service to back up my home testing.

This has help me a lot because I had a bad CA++ test kit that was reading almost 100ppm high. I still would have no clue my CA++ was so far off if I didn't use AWT.

[Boomer]

I know that is fine. I'm still hoping AWT can make things better.

[Thales]

I have found their Ca test to be the worrisome. Aren't they testing with one of those iffy probes?

Their test was a lot lower than my home test, or my test done at The Steinhart Aquarium.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Is it known how they do testing?

[USC-fan]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
Is it known how they do testing?

from the site

We use spectrophotometry, auto-titration, and specialized ion specific probes....

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, but not specific info for each test. I worry about how to interpret some of their results without knowing exactly how they are done.

Some tests for silicate will detect suspended sand particulates, tests for iodine will detect organic forms, etc.