Salifert v. Seachem Ca Test Results

L

leebca

Well-known member
I have both the Salifert and Seachem calcium test kits. I've repeated the tests several times on the same water. I've been extra careful on subsequent testings to be sure of the endpoint.

Each time the Salifert test results is 100 ppm higher than the Seachem (350 v. 250). Seachem results on freshly prepared salt water (from mix) is also different by about 100 ppm. Hard to believe that new salt would have that low of calcium at 1.025 sp. gr. and 75F.

Anyone know why the difference? Which one to make calcium additions to?

Any help, insights, references or ideas would be greatly appreciated. It's a little tough to make additions when working with a + or - of 40%. :D
 
You're too smart for me, Randy! :D

I put that bottle aside wondering why I would be needing it.

I tested both. The Seachem came within 10 ppm of their standard, the Salifert was 80 ppm lower than the standard.

Thanks!
 
It was just pointed out to me an error in my last post. The Salifert test came out 80 higher (not lower) than the Seachem test (in ppm). Sorry.

I repeated the Salifert test on the Seachem standard. This result came out to be 460ppm Calcium. (The standard is 390ppm Ca). This second test came out 70ppm higher than the Ca standard.
 
Last edited:
This does not speak very well for the salifert kit... I was under the impression that the salifert kits were the best on the market?

Is there a "list" or "test" of test kits for each parameter so that we can mix and match our tools to get the best results?
Bean
 
Salifert best? I don't think so.

IMHO the LaMotte, Hach, and Seachem test kits are the best. They are followed by Hagen. Behind that is Salifert and slightly further down the line is Red Sea and a few others. I've used all that I've listed above during the past year.

The problem with measuring Magnesium --- I can't find anything other than a Salifert kit. But for Ca I began with Salifert and then found the Seachem kit. I have used the Hagen Ca and LaMotte Ca also. I liked the Seachem endpoint the best.
 
Absolutely! :D PLUS that each test is performed correctly.

A Seachem standard against a Seachem test kit is somewhat a bit of the fox watching the hen house. I have other Ca test kits I'll try the standard with.
 
I tested the Seachem standard with other Ca test kits.

So far the data looks like the following:

Seachem standard is marked 390 ppm

Test Kit ......... Test 1 (ppm) ............ Test 2 (ppm)
Salifert ................. 470 ...................... 460
Seachem .............. 380 ...................... 385
LaMotte ............... 392
Hagen .................. 440 ...................... 440

My Red Sea master kit was outdated and I tossed it about a week ago.

The Hagen test 'suffers' (IMO) from a touchy reagent #2 that has to be shaken well before each use. I found that I get more consistent results when, after sitting for a while, that I waste the first two drops of #2, then use what's behind the spout. I also believe that the color of the Hagen test is too dark. It could easily be half that intensity. It makes the endpoint hard to read. But, I read it twice at the same place.

I think the Seachem test has the easiest endpoint to see.

The LaMotte test kit uses a pill for the indicator color. It takes a few minutes to disintegrate (which the directions require you to make sure it does), making this test the most time consuming of them all.

Both Seachem and LaMotte require that your sample to be tested be diluted in the test vial. Not difficult; time consuming; maybe this improves the endpoint and titration.

All tests are titration tests. I don't watch test costs closely, but a column of cost/test might be useful.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have a permanent thread with such info as the above for many test kits for different water chemistries?
 
I also feel that a sticky with this information should be created. It may even force some of the vendors to put better quality controls on their test kits. It is a shame that this hobby is saturated with so many sub-par items. I understand the quality vs cost ratio, but at some point junk is junk, not matter how much it saves you.

Do you happen to have any experience with the aquarium pharmaceuticals kits? This is what most my local LFSs sell (or red sea).

Bean
 
A large test of many test kits by many aquarists with a known standard would be a great idea. I'm a little hesitant to sticky results of s single set of tests as being representative, however. :)
 
My experience with Red Sea test kits is that they are too subjective. Their color references are not sharp enough to give reliable quantitative information. I'd put most of their tests at the end of the list of preferred test kits.

I don't know the Aquarium Pharmaceutical brand you mentioned.
 
. . .single set of tests. . .
Click to expand...
Not sure what this means. But, a group of people with their own Seachem standard can submit test results to a dated sticky which can be updated as test kits are changed. One sticky per chemistry analyzed.
 
I would like to see some kind of organization instead of a free for all. I know nobody really has the time to undertake this... or it would have already been done.

I fear that it will turn into one of those "look here for..." threads that ends up being 490 posts long and useless as a reference. Similar to the Ballast threads and acylics threads.

A better format would be a table (similar to the post above) with a culumn for each chem paramater and a row for each brand.

Maybe we could get a static group of experienced volunteers to sign up for the tests, instead of accepting random results from random RC members. A small sample of well done tests will likely be as usefull as a large set of random tests run by the masses.

If the results vary wildly within the same brand, we can then assume poor testing technique or poor quality control from the manufacturer. Something that could be further studied to determine the true cause.

If the results are similar within a brand, then it will become quite obvious what brands are suited to what tests according to their overall percantage of accuracy.

Bean
 
Sounds like an interesting thing to gather a reef club and do.

You'd think you could assemble 10-20 folks, all using their Ca test kit [whatever brand] + the exact same standard for all of them ... probably a little more useful.

Because unless we know the standard is `on', does not vary, and has nothing in it that would hinder one or another test ... using 40 different standards with 40 different reefers with 40 different test kits ... will take a lot of #'s and then statistics IMO to sort out some sort of useful conclusion.

A great idea though - I've always wondered [and been saddened] that so few companies go with some `standard' to test against [to see if you're doing the test right, the first time] as well as to check if it's old or not.
Funny thing is - when some others in my reef club and I got together to test salt samples a few months ago [posted results here] ... the Seachem Ca test kit read about 90-100 points low pretty much across the board as compared with 2 Salifert Ca test kits. At the time I assumed my nearing 2 year old kit had either gone old or the reagent dirtied/etc ... but now, I wonder.
 
what about simply using a single standarad and each volunteer mailing it to the next person on the list. In 2-3 weeks a decent amount of data could be collected.

Better yet we could volunteer Randy to provide a "known" standard to several people. These folks could then pass the sample on to a few other folks. If the standard concentration were not marked, then the results would not be biased. Randy (or a chosen person) could compile the blind results via email and compile the table. Because the testers don't know the concentration of the standard, the results would not show a bias.

Maybe to much to ask of Randy... but would be interesting.

Bean
 
A split blind sample, or group of two or three samples, would be optimal, I should think.

I should also think that the sample be salt water (to include likely interference). Either a known quantity by high tech measurement, or by adding known quantity to a sample void of the ingredient would be acceptable.

I don't think it should be done by a single club. It should be spread out across the continent, with different lots of the test kit and without a close communication or regional influence.

:cool:
 
FWIW

I have both the SeaChem and Salifert Ca test kits. I will be testing my tank tomorrow so I will use both and also test the SeaChem standard.
 
That's excellent. The problem with any set of results (like mine) is that it could be a fluke or bad test kit with one or more bad reagents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
High Zinc in ICP Test & Switching to ATI Essentials – Need Advice
Replies
17
Views
3K
Reefing102
Reefing102
D
Corals slowly dying / getting white spots water tests good
Replies
18
Views
2K
griss
griss
F
Cannot raise PH levels, aquarium with Calcium Reactor
Replies
1
Views
764
Vinny Kreyling
Vinny Kreyling
K
Carbon Dosing causes STN/RTN?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Timfish
Timfish
Dr. Reef
Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact
Replies
3
Views
1K
jcarlilesiu
J
Back
Top