Why NOT to trust a Refractometer against a profiLux

AQD_ottawa

New member
We recently completed a case study testing various brand refractometers against electronic conductivity devises, including ProfiLux.

The findings were very interesting and I thought I would sahre this with you as so many users question why does the $300 probe of profiLux read less than my bargian refractometer. Well here is the REAL answer!

The first test was as follows.

calibrate 3 devises per manufacturers guidelines

Refractometer
Digital salinity pen
Digital conductivity monitor
PROFILUX SALINITY PROBE ON A PROFILUX PLUS II EX

The next step was to do a test using only the guidelines of each devise.

The refractometers read using GHL calibration solution around 1.018ssg

All other devises read 1.024ssg

We then swapped the calibration fluid fluid with another brand and the readings did not change as expected.

Next step was to make sure all devises other than the Auto temperature compensated (built in feature) refractometers were at the same temperature of 22oC ALL units stayed the same other than the refractometer which reading crept up to 1.020ssg.

At this point I had already worked out that the temperature compensation of refractometers was not really doing its job on all ones tested so passed the evaluation to Brent of Big Al's in Montreal Canada.

Here is his findings. (copied text from email)

The digital units seem to work really well, and really doesn't agree very well with the refractometer. The digital pens are consistent with our conductivity meter, and the conductivity measurement on the Profilux, and consistent with various salinity calibration solutions that we have. That it agrees with the conductivity meter is not surprising to me, as it is also, well, a conductivity meter.

All this tells my pea-sized chemical engineer mind is that conductivity meters, calibrated using a standard solution (which may or may not contain all the minor 'noise' level ions such as Mg, Ca, etc), provide consistent conductivity measurements of saltwater solutions... From a technical standpoint, given the dominant nature of the Na and Cl ions in saltwater, conductivity should translate very well to salinity. And temperature compensates very easily. Yet the basic engineering behind a refractometer is also solid. Although refractive index (as a proxy for density as a proxy for salinity) is temperature dependent, it is not strongly so (heat water in a pot on your stove from 25 Celsius to 75 Celsius, and the water level does not change significantly). And it does not account for the difference in measurement that you found in your testing a week or two ago.

All of which brings to rise a few questions:

"¢How strong (or poor) is the temperature compensation on refractometers?
"¢Given that the heat capacity of a drop of water is MUCH less than the heat capacity of the prizm on the refractometer, do we need to heat a refractometer up to the exact temperature of the solution we are measuring in order to get a proper reading?

This is the point we are all missing, in my humble opinion. It is practically inconsequential what the temperature of the drop of water was prior to the application on the refractometer; it is only important the temperature of the solution on the glass. And the glass temperature has a huge impact on that measurement.

I am coming around to the fact that conductivity is a better proxy for salinity than is refractive index, at least within the context of the marine aquarium hobby.

Back to me -

To sum up - irrelevant of your refractometer stating it has ATC (auto temp compensation) if you want an accurate reading with a refractometer make sure the glass is the same temp as the testing solution, but as this is quite impossible then better still buy the accurate Profilux salinity probe and get true readings every time!

Class dissmissed ;)
 
I'll still stick with my $80 refractometer that will last forever and just has to be recalibrated than a $300 probe that will have to be replaced 1.5-2 years, and a $200 upgrade...
Just doesn't really seem cost effective...

Are there any real other benefits that offset the cost? Like does it replace another piece of equipment you would have to pay for?
 
Firstly the GHL salinity probe if looked after will last for years, anything up to 5 years plus.

benefits to offset the cost - How about the huge innaccuracy of the refractometer if you are not careful in making sure the glass and water tested are the same temperature?

Look at the published figures 1.018 against proven 1.024 thats huge!!

The biggest benefit of the salinity probe is accuracy, then the fact you can adopt auto top up based on raised salinity values, and ease of knowing what your salinity always is.

This article is not here to promote the salnity probe by GHL those who have one already know the benefits, it is here to highlight the question we get asked so often, why is there such a difference between digital conductivity readings and manual refraction devices.
 
CORRECTION -

The GHL salinity probe is $235.00 NOT $300 the kit is $300 if adding the upgrade port on its own

So if you have an EX the probe will cost you $235.00
 
But you can with the ProfiLux :)

The now quite overly proved not very accurate refractometer only can do one thing, read SSG and not very well as the tests prove, however the GHL probe its functionality could save your system from a salinity crash while you sleep!
 
Can we get more info on what refractometer you used? as well as how it was calibrated?

I've NEVER had a problem with mine, never heard of anyones after being calibrated being that far off...
 
The most popular were tested I am not mentioning names as that opens huge can of worms.

You never have had an issue because maybe you have never tested it against a digital devise with electronic accuracy of temp compensation.

All refractometers were calibrated in two ways,

1. by manufacturer guidelines and provided calibration Di water
2. By calibrating to 30ppt or 50ms and also 53ms

The results were the same.
 
Firstly the GHL salinity probe if looked after will last for years, anything up to 5 years plus.

benefits to offset the cost - How about the huge innaccuracy of the refractometer if you are not careful in making sure the glass and water tested are the same temperature?

Look at the published figures 1.018 against proven 1.024 thats huge!!

The biggest benefit of the salinity probe is accuracy, then the fact you can adopt auto top up based on raised salinity values, and ease of knowing what your salinity always is.

This article is not here to promote the salnity probe by GHL those who have one already know the benefits, it is here to highlight the question we get asked so often, why is there such a difference between digital conductivity readings and manual refraction devices.


You are preaching to the choir in this forum Michael. The add-ons are the reason most of us, especially me, purchased the Profilux system. The problem is the price of the probe relative to the standard we all have used for years. Refractometers are a vast improvement over the swing arm hydrometers most of us were using less than 10 years ago. There is no doubt that a properly maintained and calibrated salinity probe would offer greater accuracy, however, I don't think there is a perceived urgency to have greater accuracy. There were countless threads 2 years ago about the inaccuracy of the refractometers and everyone was running out to buy PinPoint calibration fluid to calibrate their refractometers. It kind of died down fairly quickly.

I think you should use this forum for more product features like this. I would not only like to know how it compares to the standard (refractometers) but also the consequences of being off by .006
 
Hi

I would love to take my research out onto the open forum but it would get removed fast and I would have my knuckles rapped by Mr R Baker :(

So if anyone wants to carry the torch please be my guest ;)

I could write lots of comparative threads, one I am burning to write is the price of ProfiLux vs other brands and although the ProfiLux on the face of it is more expensive, when you start adding the extras you need to other brands to equal just the basics of ProfiLux you are laready matching our price. I would also love to do a review of build quality, rip all the controllers apart on a bench and compare, but as you say I am preaching to the converted.

However - these specific findings were published purely to answer the profiLux critics that own profiLux and always doubt the salinity probe over their "trusted" refractometer, the purpose was to put this debate scientifically to bed. If this post has any use outside the forum, anyone is welcome to copy it where they wish.

In regards to a salinity reading of .006 out, this can be at worse catastophic and at the other end of least worse you can have issues balancing DKH with CA as the salinty level is not high enough to hold both in suspension. But thats a debate for the Fauna marin forum really ;)
 
The most popular were tested I am not mentioning names as that opens huge can of worms.
We need this information! Any real study provides specifics on all variables involved. If the actual study does not include this information we can just as well assume the refractometers used in the study were purchased from Toys-R-Us. All experimental studies include specific information regarding who/what, where, when, how, results/findings, and conclusions.
However - these specific findings were published...

Where was it published? I want to read this study. As a person that reads a fair amount of research, I need to read the study myself.:hammer:
 
everything you ask for is in the first post we could not have covered it more in detail. ;)
What you have in the first post is just some information you got in an e-mail. that is by no means a "published" study and lacks any details.
However - these specific findings were published

If it was a real published experimental study it would include the brands of refractometers, brands of probes, all ambient temperatures, all calibration fluid temperatures, equipment used to calculate those temperatures, how many times each refractometer/probe was tested, proper statistical analysis using analysis software such as SPSS, who tested the equipment, and who funded the study. And most of all, to be a published study it has to be, ummm, published.
 
I give up!

How many times tested - I personally lost count how many times I tried to get any refractometer to agree with a digital conductivity meter.

Brands of probes - pinpoint - aqua mate - GHL ProfiLux

Calibration fluid temp - 22oC raising on further tests to 25oC and then lowering to 20oc - as expected the digital units coped well with the change and no drift was reported, however the refractometers varied by about .003 across the range.

Software ? HUH how do you plug a refractometer into a piece of software?

Who tested it - Er me, and Big Al's of montreal

Who funded it - ME!

Published - well I guess this thread des not exist then, but I do remember publishing it here

Read what you wish into the findings, its you tank ;) all we can do is provide the accurate findings we obtained.

If you wish to have disbelief or doubt the findings wihthout doing any tests similar to the above, then this is up to you.

I am quite sure many will still continue to believe without doing any tests themselves that the refractometer is mightier than the electronic age of precise temperature compensation.

Look at it another way - we sell about 500 refractometers a month, and about 5 profilux salinity probes (due to cost) so if anyone thinks I am biased think again.

As my fellow tester said to me and I agreed, this will be a hard pill for people to swallow as everyone has got used to using one piece of equipment.

But lets not get too carried away here, - IF the glass of the refractometer is at the right temperature it will be close to the same accuracy. But how many people will do this and how do you know it is at the right temp?

And as an end note - I am not saying either dump out your refractometer, what I am saying is if you want to know why you get a different reading using your GHL salinity probe, this is the reason why - differences in temp compensation. As long as you are aware of the importance of this then all pieces of equipment tested will work. But for optimum accuracy utilise the ProfiLux slainity functionality.

I will also add the higher that the quality of refractometer I would hope would react faster or better.
 
Last edited:
You can't post something on a public forum and call it "published." Well, you can do what you want, but that leads people to believe it was an actual study that a major journal found it to be worthy to be "published" in an article. Further, analysis software is not something to plug a refractomer into. Analysis software, such as SPSS, is a computer program design for statistical data analysis. You manually type in all of the recordings from an experiment, the analysis program crunches the numbers and gives much valuable information as to how to interpret the data. Just basic statistics really. I'm not trying to argue. My best guess is that your interpretation of your findings are probably true. It's just that when I saw the word "published" I just thought it was a study that one of the major marine/reef magazines had actually published.
I give up!
Me too! I'm just too "research minded" I guess. In order for me to believe something of this nature. I have to see a published study by actual research oriented experts. You know the sayin... "Don't believe everything you hear."

Thanks for the information you were able to provide. It was enough for me to look further into the topic.
 
Last edited:
Here is a published discussion article that would support what Michael found in his own observational experiment.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-12/rhf/index.php

I had some Pinpoint 53mS calibration fluid that I never tried before. I am deeply concerned by what I found when I tested the fluid in my refractometer. I guess I will be saving up for a probe.
 
Back
Top