Salifert v. Seachem Ca Test Results

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just realized that the calculator doesn't offer Dow Flake as a choice for Ca addition. That's what I have. How to convert which one?

Use the entry for anhydrous CaCl2 and multiple the answer by 1.2

[leebca]

I thought I had asked this question. Sorry for the other post. (I had anticipated the factor would be 1.3).

[leebca]

RustySnail,

I think evaluating the standard is pretty straight forward. If the SeaChem test kit and the LaMotte test kit both confirm the standard's labeled concentration.

We speak a lot about test kits going bad. It doesn't seem to be a secret. Then why doesn't the manufacturer put plainly on the outside of the package its expiration date? If it was something we ate, they would have to.

[steve the plumb]

Is there a test kit that any one here reccomends.I would think that all these companys make tons of money off this hobby.I can't understand why they cannot make a reliable test kit considering the average reefer spends thousands of dollars on corals,equipement,fish.I spent $28 on the salifert test kit I expect it to be accurate.How much do I have to spend to get a good test kit.$40 $60 I went as far as buying the cal meter.Wich was a waste of money since you can't leave the meter in your sump.I am upset that companys want the most amount of profit with the least amount of effort or accountability.Why is there no one out there who monitors what these companys make(a watch dog for the average reefer)I am wondering what kind of revenues this hobby generates.I know my self I have spent over 10 grand on this hobby and counting.I never spend less than $150 at the pet store.Yet I get bad advice,Somtimes bad service.I see alot of corals that are in bad shape.I hate when I but a product that doesn't work the way it is suppossed to work.I am fed up of getting screwed over and over again.For the amount of money I spend I expect to get better products and better results.

[RustySnail]

Salifert is currently labeling all of their products with an exp. date on the top of the box. If you have a kit that does not have an exp date stamp; it is likely an older kit (not sure how old tho). If you ask Habib (owner of Salifert) over on the Salifert forum he can tell you if the lot# is still a good kit, how old it likely is, and has sends replacements even if the kit is old (what great service). The rep on the Seachem forum will do the same upon request. Both of these companies mark their reagents with lot#'s so they can track product quality/viability. I wish Salifert provided reference standards; it would make self-testing/troubleshooting much easier.

[leebca]

The top of my Salifert box has a label that reads: "12-2009"

That number is not identified as being or meaning anything. Is that supposed to be the expiration date? The package insert says nothing about the meaning of that label.

You used the terms "stamp" and "label." The two aren't the same. Mine has a label.

Regarding lot numbers -- that is a code. That isn't the same as providing the user any info on the age or quality of the reagent.

Both Salifert and SeaChem are responsible organizations. I don't question that. I've been in contact with Habib. He's read at least part of this thread. There's been no offer to replace the product, although a part of his message to me didn't make any sense in the English language. I asked for clarification, but that was 4 days ago and no response since.

I hope it's clear that I am not down on any manufacturer. I just believe there is an order/priority of reliability on their test kit results. In this form of communication, the written word doesn't convey very well that I am not disgruntled, angry or pleased with anyone or any company.

(I perhaps don't use enough smiles).

[leebca]

steve the plumb, (is that the engineer's plumb or the fruit?)

We don't know how accurate the Salifert test kit is supposed to be, since they don't provide any information about this in their insert. They do indicate that ". . .Salifert's Coral Calcium. . .' gives good results. Maybe their test kit just gives 'good' results. Not very good or excellent, just good. I do know that I get consistent results from the same test kit.

I think our best bet for now (since there doesn't seem to be a consumer group interested in this matter --- maybe something we can get Ralph Nader interested in???) is this and other forums like this, and using the search engine therein.

I wanted very much for the calcium probe/meter to work, too. But after reading what was posted about it and Randy's article:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-08/rhf/index.php
I came to the conclusion that it wasn't going to be right for me, at this time.

I think that's about the best we can hope for today.

[steve the plumb]

considering the amount of money people spend on this hobby ,why is it that the consumer always has to try and police the vendor.Someone should take a pole just to see how much money every member of this site has spent.Never mind others who have no clue and have never been on this site and are into the hobby.This site has saved me alot of money and has helped me with info on corals and products.I am a simple plumber who is addicted to the hobby,but I expect when I buy something I don't have to buy it in triplicate because the first product and the second did not fullfill my needs.I hate wasting my money.This hobby is a money pit.If you want to stay in business you have to take care of the consumer.If I go to someones home and I can't fix the problem the proper way.I won't do the job.If I can't fix it I don't charge a dime.I call it a loss of my time but at least I don't screw my customer.There is alot of money to be made in this hobby or else this hobby wouldn't exist.Profit makes the world go around (to bad sad to say)I will try to purchase a hagen test kit and compare results.I will also ask my friend to bring his test kit over and see what that says.

[Hobster]

OK, FWIW, I did some tests the morning.

SG 1.025
Mg 1380 Salifert

Alk 2.98 meq/l Salifert

Ca 400 Salifert low res
Ca 420 Salifert high res

(batch 0502C, 0504B, 0503A) purchased 7/05

Ca 350 Seachem ( did twice)
Ca of Seachem reference 400 = 400.
Unknown date of kit 1 yr plus.

A Salifert test of the Seachem Ca reference was 500 so do not know if they are not compatable or this means something?

So based on this my Ca is somewhere between 350 and 420

I would have to lean towards the SeaChem results only because the reference agreed and not having a reference for Salifert. This assumes (as Randy noted) that the referece is also correct.

"So who ya gonna call"?

[steve the plumb]

I think I will buy a brand new seachem test kit

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I thought I had asked this question. Sorry for the other post. (I had anticipated the factor would be 1.3).

Sorry, the value is higher. I was thinking of going from Dowflake to Kent Turbo calcium or other "anhydrous" calcium chloride, which has some moisture in it despite the anhydrous claim. In that case, use 20% less. My mind is on my vacation.

[leebca]

Randy,

Jose sent me an e-mail that he has changed the calculator and it now contains the Ca of Dow Flake. I haven't check it out yet.

Thanks! (Don't worry about errors. They seem to be a part of how things go on this planet!)

[steve the plumb]

I bought a brand new Seachem test kit.I tested and got 465 ppm.I tested the cal ref that was supplied.The ref was 390 ppm I got 375-380 so I am off by a bit more than likely my fault.I tryed to get all bubbles out of sryinge.I tested with my old kit but I used the regeant #2 from my new kit because my old is kind od dried out.I got 365 ppm so I know the old test kit is finished I threw it away.I tested with the salifert(high res test) I got 540 ppm.I was told by the person at the store that she always gets a 100ppm differance with the salifert test kit.The seachem kit is $44.95 plus tax.The Salifert is $28 plus tax.That store was selling it for $40 plus tax (CDN FUNDS).I might have overpayed for the Seachem but I had no choice.I don't know wich of the 2 results are correct but I would guess the Seachem.

[leebca]

Did the store person offer any opinion on why the 100ppm difference?

I think it's now time to ask Salifert, why?

[MiddletonMark]

I believe Habib is on vacation, otherwise he'd be here probably giving a detailed explanation.

What you want to believe, that's each of our own choice.

But with him on vacation, we're just going to have to wait for him to chime in.

[steve the plumb]

I want to know what are the true results.The sales person does not know why.She has used both test kits,both at home on her 2 salt tanks and at the tanks at the store.She told me she always gets a 100 ppm diff and she doesn't know why.I like the salifert syringe system better.You don't have to get ride of the air plus the drops are smaller,but whats the point if its off.I also happened to run into a customer with a cal meter.He has had it 2 months and it is starting to malfunction.He did not want to return it as I advised him.Since I had so many problems with it.I do hope they solve that bug.I liked the meter and if they fixed the problem I would buy another.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This sort of issue is why I frequently caution folks to not over interpret the results of tests.

I want to know what are the true results.

In my analysis of the calcium meter:

Electronic Calcium Monitoring
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-04/rhf/index.htm

The Salifert kit was reasonably close to what I believe the actual value of my standard to be:

"For initial testing I chose to use as the "standard" a sample of artificial seawater that was mixed to an approximate salinity of S=35. I mixed a 44-gallon batch using Instant Ocean artificial salt mix and reverse osmosis/deionized (RO/DI) water to a conductivity of 52.7 mS/cm, and allowed it to settle for three weeks. I then proceeded to measure its calcium concentration by ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, an $80,000 analytical instrument. I was somewhat disappointed with my inability to use this sophisticated technique to get a precise answer. Despite taking five different samples and analyzing them at eight different emission wavelengths using two different calibration methods (five standard additions of known calcium concentrations to each sample, as well as comparison to a fixed 1000 ppm commercial calcium standard), I was unable to get consistent values. Some of the samples were acidified or filtered through submicron filter membranes to determine if solid materials were impacting the result (they were not). Overall, I took more than 200 measurements, each involving three replicate observations of the emission intensity. Nevertheless, the result was not very satisfying, with a substantial variation occurring between the different values. The average of every measurement taken was 336 ppm. With the uncertainty involved, however, I'd conclude that the true value was probably 340 ± 40 ppm. I also measured the same sample once with a Salifert brand test kit and got 330 ppm calcium."

[BeanAnimal]

Randy,

I am not sure how to interpret your findings. "once with a salifert".... does this mean a single test? Could this just have been lucky? Do you have any idea why measuring the calcium in seawater is so hard?

Bean

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sure, it may have been a total fluke.

Measuring calcium in seawater with a test kit is hard because there are alot of other ions around that can interfere and are themselves present at variable concentration, such as magnesium and carbonate. I suspect that the Seachem standard contains neither, and so isn't a true seawater test, but rather just a check on performance.

[BeanAnimal]

So it would be safe to infer testing against a standard only shows that accuracy of the reagents/kit are "correct" with regards to the standard but may deviate in unforseen ways in the presence of seawater.

It gives me the feeling that a "target" calcium level is someplace between 300-500 and any place in there is good. If you get precipitation, then your a bit high.

Bean

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So it would be safe to infer testing against a standard only shows that accuracy of the reagents/kit are "correct" with regards to the standard but may deviate in unforseen ways in the presence of seawater.

Yes, that would be my interpretation.

I'd try to keep calcium above 380 ppm, and then maintain adequate alkalinity, and things are generally OK.

[Hobster]

Is there no reference that can be made to test the kits?. A tsp of lime in a gal? a known Ca supplement(esv, kent etc?) maybe a glass of milk

[MiddletonMark]

Hobster, I find a big bowl of Haagen Dazs mango ice cream works wonders.

Oh wait, you want to test calcium. I meant for everything else

[Hobster]

Originally posted by MiddletonMark
Hobster, I find a big bowl of Haagen Dazs mango ice cream works wonders.

Oh wait, you want to test calcium. I meant for everything else

I am more a of a Breyers Mint CC my self.
We have mass quanities of Mangos here if you ever want some shipped Had I known, I would have brought some last time we were up there .(In laws live in Madison and surrounding areas)

[MiddletonMark]

Will trade frags for Mangos

Holy cow, I'd say do it next time. They remind my of happy days living in Pakistan as a grad student a decade ago.