boxfishpooalot
Active member
freddie40 said:
Nothing wrong with that, your just impatient like everyone
You will get it.
Salifert v. Seachem Ca Test Results
- Thread starter leebca
- Start date
Nothing wrong with that, your just impatient like everyone
You will get it.
No, Mg and Ca are not in the FF-3 kit, just TH. Yes, the reagents are available.
So the tests (Ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, and pH) are color comparatives, not endpoints?
Yes lee that is correct.
I don't think there was any mention of nitrate for this equipment.[
I see it is not in the newer kit but was in the older one ( 1999)
Nitrate 0 -50 mg / l, 10 mg / l increments, 50 tests
Lets get really confused now :lol:
The older kit also listed Chloride and and not Salinity @ 2-200 ppt. However, I dragged out all my old stuff and they are one in the same. My FF-3 was in Chloride and the new one is in Salinity. The word Chloride is an error in my Products cat, should be Salinity. The do not make a 2-200 ppt test kit give or listed as Chloride in the Chloride section. It is listed as Salinity in the Salinity section but as chloride in the FF-section of my cat. It is still, as I said above, a function of Chloride, they just give it a divider to get Salinity.
Also take note there is an error in that PDF. They have it to convert to actual Chloride, Salinity x 569, that is an error, should be .569, as 35 x .569 = 19.9 ppt NSW Chlorinity. IMHO that is also an error, when it should be 19.374, as the Cl- NSW std is 19.374, so 19.374 / 35 + .5535. And I do not have a clue where they came up with that .569.
In chemical oceanography we use te std set by Kundsen, which is;
Salinity / 1.8065 = Chlorinity or Chlorinity x 1.8065 = Salinity ppt
The PDF also shows Salinity x 940 = NaCl, should be .940. And IMHO that is wrong also, should be more like .860. As NaCl makes up about 30.1 ppt out of 35 ppt 30.1 / 35 = .860
Ok, my head is spinning and time to quite
(Done about 70% of the Ca testing. Still working on it.)
OK
So the tests (Ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, and pH) are color comparatives, not endpoints?
Yes lee that is correct.
I don't think there was any mention of nitrate for this equipment.[
I see it is not in the newer kit but was in the older one ( 1999)
Nitrate 0 -50 mg / l, 10 mg / l increments, 50 tests
Lets get really confused now :lol:
The older kit also listed Chloride and and not Salinity @ 2-200 ppt. However, I dragged out all my old stuff and they are one in the same. My FF-3 was in Chloride and the new one is in Salinity. The word Chloride is an error in my Products cat, should be Salinity. The do not make a 2-200 ppt test kit give or listed as Chloride in the Chloride section. It is listed as Salinity in the Salinity section but as chloride in the FF-section of my cat. It is still, as I said above, a function of Chloride, they just give it a divider to get Salinity.
Also take note there is an error in that PDF. They have it to convert to actual Chloride, Salinity x 569, that is an error, should be .569, as 35 x .569 = 19.9 ppt NSW Chlorinity. IMHO that is also an error, when it should be 19.374, as the Cl- NSW std is 19.374, so 19.374 / 35 + .5535. And I do not have a clue where they came up with that .569.
In chemical oceanography we use te std set by Kundsen, which is;
Salinity / 1.8065 = Chlorinity or Chlorinity x 1.8065 = Salinity ppt
The PDF also shows Salinity x 940 = NaCl, should be .940. And IMHO that is wrong also, should be more like .860. As NaCl makes up about 30.1 ppt out of 35 ppt 30.1 / 35 = .860
Ok, my head is spinning and time to quite
(Done about 70% of the Ca testing. Still working on it.)
OK
really poor customer service
Hmm, I wonder how many people have bought the HACH FF-3 for seawater and do not know, when HACH's knows, you can not measure CO2 in seawater. The have been told this many times in OH say 20 years :lol:
Why do you think Habib dos not make a CO2 kit for SW, while others still do Another good trick was ozone test kits for seawater use, when the color change is really do to hypobromite and not ozone. How bought all those pH test kits no corrected for seawater. Or that pH meter you calibrated with NIST buffers which are off - .15 pH units in seawater??
I have been around Habib along time and I know what his customer support is like. Any company may slip up know and then. He has probably the highest customer support in this industry, just ask someone. I could go on for an hour about Habib but will leave it at this
Hmm, I wonder how many people have bought the HACH FF-3 for seawater and do not know, when HACH's knows, you can not measure CO2 in seawater. The have been told this many times in OH say 20 years :lol:
Why do you think Habib dos not make a CO2 kit for SW, while others still do
Another good trick was ozone test kits for seawater use, when the color change is really do to hypobromite and not ozone. How bought all those pH test kits no corrected for seawater. Or that pH meter you calibrated with NIST buffers which are off - .15 pH units in seawater??I have been around Habib along time and I know what his customer support is like. Any company may slip up know and then. He has probably the highest customer support in this industry, just ask someone. I could go on for an hour about Habib but will leave it at this
No, the quote is from freddie40 Lee , last post page 8. Look at the post at the top of this page by boxfish, he has the same quote. The were remarks directed to him about other companies that in 20 years can't get things right and HACH and the FF-3 fit 
, last post page 8. Look at the post at the top of this page by boxfish, he has the same quote. The were remarks directed to him about other companies that in 20 years can't get things right and HACH and the FF-3 fit BeanAnimal
Premium Member
freddie knows nothing about this topic.... he just droped by to flame habib/salifert becasue he purchased an out of date kit and habib didn't start a production run just for him, then ship the finished reagent overnight from another country.
I think Boomer just tried to shpw that if freddie thinks this is "poor customer service" than feddie needs to give up the "analyst" portion of his ocupation. There are plenty of "high end" companies that sell poor products, even after being shown that the products don't do what the label says.
Bean
I think Boomer just tried to shpw that if freddie thinks this is "poor customer service" than feddie needs to give up the "analyst" portion of his ocupation. There are plenty of "high end" companies that sell poor products, even after being shown that the products don't do what the label says.
Bean
Those following this thread, may wish to see the project data, located at this thread:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=661882
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=661882
alrha
Premium Member
just finished reading the 9 pages of this thread.
I have so far been using salifert kits and have recently purchased seachem Ca and Mg kits just to try them out (see which i like better). When I test, i will post any differences I observe between the two kits.
Regarding the customer service, I have found that IME, both Salifert and Seachem have always provided me with top-notch customer service and are both well informed, educated, and scientific regarding their products.
Now, as far as a "true reference" or "actual value" of Ca:
Are we not aiming to get the same concentration of Ca as there is in the ocean? so even if the kit is off by 200ppm, and the ocean contains 200ppm Ca while the kit is reading 400ppm Ca, wouldnt it be optimal to have the kit read 400ppm Ca on our tank as well (even if it is only 200ppm Ca in actuality)?
It seems to me that the goal is for the kit to be consistent so that we can know that we are replicating the same concentration in our tanks as in the ocean. This is very simple.
Habib has calibrated his kits based on NSW. All we need to know is what value Habib gets using his kits on NSW and aim for the same value.
At the same time, the Seachem kit should also be used on NSW and have the value recorded so we know what to aim for using their kit.
Even if that means 400 with salifert and 300 with seachem, that is fine, just as long as they are consistent with that of natural seawater.
I have so far been using salifert kits and have recently purchased seachem Ca and Mg kits just to try them out (see which i like better). When I test, i will post any differences I observe between the two kits.
Regarding the customer service, I have found that IME, both Salifert and Seachem have always provided me with top-notch customer service and are both well informed, educated, and scientific regarding their products.
Now, as far as a "true reference" or "actual value" of Ca:
Are we not aiming to get the same concentration of Ca as there is in the ocean? so even if the kit is off by 200ppm, and the ocean contains 200ppm Ca while the kit is reading 400ppm Ca, wouldnt it be optimal to have the kit read 400ppm Ca on our tank as well (even if it is only 200ppm Ca in actuality)?
It seems to me that the goal is for the kit to be consistent so that we can know that we are replicating the same concentration in our tanks as in the ocean. This is very simple.
Habib has calibrated his kits based on NSW. All we need to know is what value Habib gets using his kits on NSW and aim for the same value.
At the same time, the Seachem kit should also be used on NSW and have the value recorded so we know what to aim for using their kit.
Even if that means 400 with salifert and 300 with seachem, that is fine, just as long as they are consistent with that of natural seawater.
RustySnail
New member
I think the issue is "why is there a difference"; when there should be little/none. Also; why does the Seachem kit give different results than Salifert but while testing it's own reference standard it gives a 'correct' reading (with respect to the rated Ca conventration).
NSW Ca concentration is not constant; it varies depending on location it's collected. I cant just go buy a gallon of NSW and expect a 400ppm reading; so IMHO it's not a 'standard'.
Could someone suggest a homebrew ref standard that we can make to test the kits with (I know it wont be the same as SW; but maybe we could quantify the difference between the kits?)
NSW Ca concentration is not constant; it varies depending on location it's collected. I cant just go buy a gallon of NSW and expect a 400ppm reading; so IMHO it's not a 'standard'.
Could someone suggest a homebrew ref standard that we can make to test the kits with (I know it wont be the same as SW; but maybe we could quantify the difference between the kits?)
alrha
Premium Member
RustySnail said:
Habib posted proofs showing that ion concentrations in NSW are consistent at various locations and depths. Even if one suspects that there is a high variance, then take a sample from a coral reef (Red-Sea, Great Barrier Reef, Carribean, Fiji, or the like) and use that as a standard to which you can aim to have a similar concentration in your tank, no matter what the actual value is.
i dont care for all the kits to measure the same number necessarily just as i wouldnt care for them to be the same color. if any particular kit is skewed one way or another it would not matter so long as you know the value obtained on the standard sample of NSW.
FWIW, you can buy a 0.1 M CaCl2 (4,000 ppm) standard from ThermoOrion:
http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/products/all_products/0,1061,12054,00.html
http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/products/all_products/0,1061,12054,00.html
Douglas LEHMAN
Premium Member
Hello Randy
Maybe you can shed some light on this;
I have and use both the Seachem and Salifert Ca tests.
I have found them both easy to use with repeatable results.
When checking two of my systems the fun begins!
1)Is a 150 gallon system maintained with Kalk and Kent buffer the results have been the same Ca around 340 with both test kits, dKH 8/9, Mg- who knows as it is not added or tested for. As this is a fish/soft coral dominated aquarium I feel OK with the numbers.
2) Is a 200 gallon SPS/clam dominated system maintained with a home built Ca reactor (ARM media) and dosed with EVS liquid Mg at 15 ml a couple of times a week if I remember to! Salifert test shows it to be 1250 or so. dkh is at 12 and has been steady for years. Now the rub, Seachem tells me the Ca is 370 while the salifert says 440 or more. Do you know of any thing that would cause such a discrepancy? Who two believe? As the corals and clams have both grown over the years it could be a moot point!
I use IO salt and a fresh batch always shows the Ca to be around 370 with both test kits. Thank you for your time and please let us know your thoughts.
Maybe you can shed some light on this;
I have and use both the Seachem and Salifert Ca tests.
I have found them both easy to use with repeatable results.
When checking two of my systems the fun begins!
1)Is a 150 gallon system maintained with Kalk and Kent buffer the results have been the same Ca around 340 with both test kits, dKH 8/9, Mg- who knows as it is not added or tested for. As this is a fish/soft coral dominated aquarium I feel OK with the numbers.
2) Is a 200 gallon SPS/clam dominated system maintained with a home built Ca reactor (ARM media) and dosed with EVS liquid Mg at 15 ml a couple of times a week if I remember to! Salifert test shows it to be 1250 or so. dkh is at 12 and has been steady for years. Now the rub, Seachem tells me the Ca is 370 while the salifert says 440 or more. Do you know of any thing that would cause such a discrepancy? Who two believe? As the corals and clams have both grown over the years it could be a moot point!
I use IO salt and a fresh batch always shows the Ca to be around 370 with both test kits. Thank you for your time and please let us know your thoughts.
One of the things that we are fortunate for in this hobby is that exact values do not seem especially critical, and the difference between 370 and 430 ppm calcium may be unimportant. That said, I do not know why you see a difference, or which kit, if either, is likely to be more accurate in your case.
steve the plumb
In Memoriam
I have the same problem Salifert always mesures higher than my seachem.I did buy an $11 A Pharm test kit.Guess what the kit gave me 10 ppm differance than my Salifert where as seachem$44 gave me about 70 - 100 ppm differance.I think I paid $19 for the Salifert.The A Pharm I was told is pretty accurate and is one of the cheapest tyest kits out there.Its very easy to use.I prefer usinf the full test (salifert)because I find its very hard to get half of that small spoon.They should have provided another spoon for those who want to test that way.Its impossible to be sure you have exactly half a spoonfull.That used to drive me nuts thinking I didn't put enough of the regeant or I put to much and thats why I had differant results from my seachem kits.Maybe I am a little anal but when I buy something I expect it to do what it says.
Its impossible to be sure you have exactly half a spoonfull.
It does not matter how full it is within reasonable bounds).
The less you add the less intense the colors will be. The more you add the more intense the colors.
The point at which the color changes will be practically the same.
However using say triple the amount of powder will make the colors so intense that it will be more difficult to see the color change.
Using 50% more or less than what is said to use is still pretty good in observing the color change.
It does not matter how full it is within reasonable bounds).
The less you add the less intense the colors will be. The more you add the more intense the colors.
The point at which the color changes will be practically the same.
However using say triple the amount of powder will make the colors so intense that it will be more difficult to see the color change.
Using 50% more or less than what is said to use is still pretty good in observing the color change.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
HAbib,
This has been mentioned before...
It would be very helpful if you reworked the instructions for each kit. I feel that the information such as you described in the previous post MUST be a part of the documentation with each kit.
In addition, better instructions and explanations regarding the air bubbles in the syringes would be a great addition. Also, Not only an explanation and recomendations, but a general idea of how much of a difference (or error) the filling and reading of the SW and reagent syringes makes.
Your users should not have to dig for this info on a forum. Inclusion of this info or FAQ would greatly improve the professional feel of your product and go a long way towards showing how accurate it really is. Many of the questions posed in this thread alone could have been answered right out of the box, literally. Seeing that your instruction sheets are just photocopies, this should be a trivial task.
I have switched to your kits and am thrilled with them except for lack of well written instructions that touch on the points eluded to above.
Bean
This has been mentioned before...
It would be very helpful if you reworked the instructions for each kit. I feel that the information such as you described in the previous post MUST be a part of the documentation with each kit.
In addition, better instructions and explanations regarding the air bubbles in the syringes would be a great addition. Also, Not only an explanation and recomendations, but a general idea of how much of a difference (or error) the filling and reading of the SW and reagent syringes makes.
Your users should not have to dig for this info on a forum. Inclusion of this info or FAQ would greatly improve the professional feel of your product and go a long way towards showing how accurate it really is. Many of the questions posed in this thread alone could have been answered right out of the box, literally. Seeing that your instruction sheets are just photocopies, this should be a trivial task.
I have switched to your kits and am thrilled with them except for lack of well written instructions that touch on the points eluded to above.
Bean
steve the plumb
In Memoriam
Thanks habib I wasn't sure of what results I get if I didn't put exactly half.I didn't know if test would or wouldn't be affected.I like to go as per instructions so as to get proper results.
facewedgie
New member
dont know if this has been answered yet, and dont know if it is even relevant, but this intrigues me, and i wanted to post before reading further...the amount of di water required to run seachems test is approx. 3.5 ml compared to 1ml for the actual water sample.
facewedgie
New member
and, oh yeah, btw......ty lee for the great reading and for all your hard work...
I don't think that one can infer that there is any concern based just on the volume of the test fluids, but I do not know its history.
Similar threads
