Salt Analysis Study Results

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11820883#post11820883 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jamesdawson
Well,
Thanks DrBegalke and AWT!
Click to expand...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11821819#post11821819 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by melev
After reading all the work they put into this study, how can anyone not be impressed with how they went about doing this series of tests? New RO/DI system for the test, acid washed barrels, some mixing of salt (who really stirs their bucket of salt before making ASW?), and all the double testing of these many salts, each unlabeled to avoid skewing the results... I think they did a very nice job with what they tried to accomplish.
...
Thank you AWT for doing this. It is very interesting.
Click to expand...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11821853#post11821853 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by King-Kong
yeah Melev -- this is an incredible resource.. should be stickied. It really ends a lot of speculation for me.
Click to expand...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11822558#post11822558 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cd77
Well done, Dr. Begalke! Thank you for all of your efforts to get this report! And thank you, AWT! :)
Click to expand...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11825866#post11825866 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
I really appreciate the hard work that went into this study. Considering that this study (apparently) was funded out of pocket from the researchers, it was a very generous endeavor.
Click to expand...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11826338#post11826338 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
Dr.
First, thanks for taking the time and pushing the issue of getting this done. And I thank you still again . :thumbsup:

As we all know on any salt study there will always be issues on how it was done or should of been done but at least they took the time and spent the money to give us something and I do appreciate AWT for doing this salt test study for us.
Click to expand...
I definately agree that AWT was very generous in completing this study.

Boomer makes a good point in that any such study will have its advantages and disadvantages.

I think James and some of the others above make good suggestions. Testing additional samples (most likely adjusted to 35 ppt) would be a good start. If there is enough interest, I will be happy to help with that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that is very helpful. Can that extrapolation only be done for "the big 3"?

Also, now that that has been done, that goes back to my first post. Who has ever heard of IO with 430 Ca, 8.7 Alk, and 1410 Mg at 35ppt? From these numbers, it sounds like the perfect salt, but we all know this just isn't true.
 
Lobster, you can't really take the data from this study and say that it represents the typical values for these salt brands. Again, the sample size is way too small.
 
Many have complained about the sample size and that is very true it is way to small. They should have done as I suggested or is normally done 35 grams in 965 mL of water.

Another issue Randy brought out is that the Salinities and Conductivities do not match up and they are not stating how Salinity was measured and there are a number of methods to do this other than SG to S, i.e., d Method, Knudsen Method, Chlorinty, Chlorosity etc..

Billybeau and others

Actually, I kinda liked the fact that they measured out exactly the same grams of each mix.

Yes, me to and this is the way as I stated it should be done at first. This tells you flat out how much water you are paying for :(

a2fire2i

Thanks for doing the sheet :)

Dr

If you or they continue on this study and I hope you/they do, you should have them make it clear, as we NEED to know, what the methods used are, otherwise we are somewhat blind and left in the dark.
 
I see I mad an error on my first post :(

35 grams of salt mix with 96.5 grams

35 grams of salt mix with 965 grams or 965 ml of water
 
FYI, from AWT:
... We believe there is some misunderstanding pertaining to
the actual salts that were tested. The salt that we mixed up for the "yield"
test was discarded after the data was collected. <b>The salts that were tested
by parameter were all mixed up to 53mS, and double checked with a
temp-compensated refractometer.</b>
 
Last edited:
Thats good news. Now to interpret the results...

sample size is the real "issue" now...

The variance is my main interest. From this small sample size it seems it may be much higher than we expect. Or it may show these were "bad buckets" such as in the case of reef crystals. We jsut do not know...

The average values are important, but only if the variance is low.

I dont care if I pick a salt with perfect average values (say 420 for Calcium) if lets say I sacrafice ranging 100 ppm between buckets at 370 to 470 from one to the next.
 
Last edited:
Well, obviously AWT doesn't want to keep testing stuff for free just because we want more facts, but here's a thought for those of us so inclined...

If we open a brand new bucket / bag of salt, we mark down any Lot # information, the type of salt, and where it was purchased (City & State). Mix up the salt to avoid the settling issue mentioned, scoop out a clean cup of salt into a brand new ziplock bag, bag it again, and mail that to AWT along with the normal fee to get it tested.

In that way we could increase the "n=" factor, and they aren't out any money. It comes down to our pocketbooks and the effort involved to send in some salt. They would still have to mix it with their RO/DI water, and the test wouldn't be as precise as what they did - they controlled as many variables as possible from what I read in the PDF, but it might give us more data to mull over.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11831801#post11831801 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DrBegalke
FYI, from AWT:
We watched the Reef Central posts this morning to gauge the responses
to the salt assay. We believe there is some misunderstanding pertaining to
the actual salts that were tested. The salt that we mixed up for the "yield"
test was discarded after the data was collected. <b>The salts that were tested
by parameter were all mixed up to 53mS, and double checked with a
temp-compensated refractometer.</b>
Click to expand...

Excellent. This is much better. That solves one major issue.

However, I am still... curious? suspicious? doubtful?... about the IO calcium readings in particular.

I'm not trying to complain or be ungrateful, I'm really grateful for AWT for doing this study. I'm just trying to understand some of the readings...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11831849#post11831849 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by melev
So all test results are for 35ppt?
Click to expand...


Yes, it was not clear in the report I posted, but they tested the 7g in 200mL water as a yield measurement, discarded those samples, and then used 35ppt (53 mS/cm) samples for the rest of the testing.

Also, I should note that they sent me the pdf but allowed me to decide how/when/if to distribute it. I could have just posted the raw data, or posted it in another manner, but thought making a quick website and posting the entire pdf, logo included, was the best way to go.

Sorry for any confusion, maybe I can start another thread or the mods can post something on the first page clarifying the 35ppt procedure.
 
Contact one of the moderators and tell them the exact phrase you want added to the post, preferably in bold. ;)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11827041#post11827041 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Billybeau1
Hey Boom. Actually, I kinda liked the fact that they measured out exactly the same grams of each mix.

This gives everyone an idea of how much salt the different brands need to make 35 ppt.

If one were to actually crunch the numbers, they would see that some salts, although more expensive initially, actually produce more gallons of salt at 35 ppt.

This could be a big deal for those with bigger tanks.

After all, calcium and magnesium levels are the biggest things we're concerned about, right.

All these other numbers are so minor, that most reefers will never see a difference in their tanks.

Until we hear of a commercial salt mix actually killing tanks, I suspect all the rest of this stuff is worry for nothing. :)

BTW, I have several comments about this study that I will reserve for another day.

That said, I take my hat off to AWT for stepping up to the plate. This was a very bold (and dangerous) move on their part.
Click to expand...

why dangerous?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11832694#post11832694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ezcompany
why dangerous?
Click to expand...

because people like to threaten lawsuits allot in this hobby.

Dave
 
I don't think there will ever be a salt test done that we can't completely pick apart! LOL
It's crazy............so many variables..............so many issues to take into consideration.
C
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11833118#post11833118 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by poo-tang
AWT should quote a price on melev's idea...i'll send in a sample!
Click to expand...

Sounds good, I'm in if we can get this going.

Question is, do we want to pick just a few of the more promising salts from the AWT survey or do we open it up to any of the tested salts?

Either way, I'm game.

James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
New saltwater toxic?
Replies
8
Views
162
pelagic
P
F
Icp high iron phosphate and iodine help
Replies
4
Views
336
wvned
wvned
Reignfire
Stray current
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
griss
griss
Brian60077
Red Sea Salt
Replies
3
Views
341
Uncle99
Uncle99
Reefing102
ICP Analysis is shutting down
Replies
1
Views
593
SantaMonica
S
Back
Top