Alex’s IM 150 EXT

[Alexander1312]

Euphyllias look pretty unhappy immediately after dipping in KCI, but not too bad. Cotton candy added from nano tank. Flesh band is not great, which is why I moved it from the nano tank, and hope it will do better here where I am watching closer trace elements.

 

[Alexander1312]

Timing of ozone usage (vs. dosing major and minor elements)

Learned something new yesterday from Christoph / Oceamo in the German-speaking podcast:

Not relevant for most here since not many, if any use ozone, so more a note for me.

I recently reduced ozone dosing from 24/7 to 10 minutes every hour in the first 10 minutes of each hour, due to low/0 SAK values. This increased my SAK value to 1 and my skimmer also seems to perform better now. The main reason for my reduction in ozone usage.

Christoph said that trace element dosing should not overlap with ozone dosing as ozone would try to oxidize these elements (known bromate concern, but apparantly not limited to bromine only).

I struggle with maintaining certain key elements such as Nickel, Vanadium, Copper, and Zinc, which coincidentally are being dosed hourly while the hourly 10 minute ozone dosing occurs.

I have now moved the ozone schedule so that it would not conincide with any trace element dosing. However, I might need to move ozone dosing further away (several hours) from any trace element dosing, as he recommended, which will require additional dosing schedule changes.

Will see in the next ICP in late April if any impact.

 

[Alexander1312]

Reading and addressing ICP results have become rather BAU, and the mystery in what to do with them is mostly gone.

There are still quite a lot of nuances to go into, but my main actions are a) calibrating home testing results, and b) chasing perfect parameters.

While it is debatable who runs the best ICP lab currently - it is either Oceamo or Fauna Marin - Fauna's reporting is superior in my opinion, once you understand how to read the report.

Unfortunately, this could have been one of the better test results if it were not for the totally off salinity (this was discussed in the other thread at great length) due to a not-calibrated refractometer.

Other insight was the following:

• Hanna tester overstates alkalinity by quite a bit - 0.6 dkh.
• Hanna tester overstates phosphate by quite a bit - .0.06 mg/L
• My resins seem to be depleting already (silicate and silicon in osmosis water results), but I blame the membranes (2), which I replaced. This could have been the wrong action, but the last time the resins lasted much longer, so I suspect that the membranes do not do a good job upfront, and the color coding of the resins does not indicate otherwise.
• Most critical trace elements to adjust are those under the dynamic elements, which continue to not look good despite increased dosing of these - I blame GAC and GFO for this. But I do not want to stop either of them - hopefully GFO at one point.

One the best news today was the new Fauna ICP tests finally come with a pre paid shipping label - which is fantastic, and whic was massive pain point in the past. Also, I got these test results in 8 days, when I shipped my samples on Thursday morning vs Friday previously.

 

[RandyC]

Reading and addressing ICP results have become rather BAU, and the mystery in what to do with them is mostly gone.

There are still quite a lot of nuances to go into, but my main actions are a) calibrating home testing results, and b) chasing perfect parameters.

While it is debatable who runs the best ICP lab currently - it is either Oceamo or Fauna Marin - Fauna's reporting is superior in my opinion, once you understand how to read the report.

Unfortunately, this could have been one of the better test results if it were not for the totally off salinity (this was discussed in the other thread at great length) due to a not-calibrated refractometer.

Other insight was the following:

• Hanna tester overstates alkalinity by quite a bit - 0.6 dkh.
• Hanna tester overstates phosphate by quite a bit - .0.06 mg/L
• My resins seem to be depleting already (silicate and silicon in osmosis water results), but I blame the membranes (2), which I replaced. This could have been the wrong action, but the last time the resins lasted much longer, so I suspect that the membranes do not do a good job upfront, and the color coding of the resins does not indicate otherwise.
• Most critical trace elements to adjust are those under the dynamic elements, which continue to not look good despite increased dosing of these - I blame GAC and GFO for this. But I do not want to stop either of them - hopefully GFO at one point.

One the best news today was the new Fauna ICP tests finally come with a pre paid shipping label - which is fantastic, and whic was massive pain point in the past. Also, I got these test results in 8 days, when I shipped my samples on Thursday morning vs Friday previously.

I wouldn't state that your Hanna checkers are "overstating." They seem to be well their within error range as stated by the manufacturer. So, including that there is some possibility of human error injected, it's probably a reasonably reported value and working normally. Also, who's to say the ICP test is exactly correct? They will have their own reporting error as well. Do they state what it is?

Unfortunately, your quest to obtain your "perfect values" with hobby grade equipment is not going to happen.

Phosphate

 

[PjFish]

Freezer ziplock or double bag it, or small canvas bag like sleeping bags come in then smash with flat surface like 2x4, meat tenderizer..rolling pin will work.. Small tipped hammers in such may break the bag unless your hitting the 2x4 on top of bag..
If you purchased a Molcajete ( mortar pestal) make salsa in it which is the only way!! You will never go back ha. May need to preseason the stone if its not already unless it’s marble..

 

[Alexander1312]

I wouldn't state that your Hanna checkers are "overstating."

I would. And I did. Because they are.

They seem to be well their within error range as stated by the manufacturer.

Exactly. It is overstating the results because it has an error rate. Like EVERY other tester. But if it helps you better understanding, I can add ‘relative to the ICP results’. But hopefully we are not getting in this petty debate, as this was implied.

So, including that there is some possibility of human error injected, it's probably a reasonably reported value and working normally.

Never said it did not. In fact, I quite like the Hanna Checkers.

Also, who's to say the ICP test is exactly correct?

Hm, is the ICP OES more accurate or the Hanna checker? Now you make me think.

They will have their own reporting error as well. Do they state what it is?

Unfortunately, your quest to obtain your "perfect values" with hobby grade equipment is not going to happen.

It will happen Randy, try to be more positive.

 

[Alexander1312]

Freezer ziplock or double bag it, or small canvas bag like sleeping bags come in then smash with flat surface like 2x4, meat tenderizer..rolling pin will work.. Small tipped hammers in such may break the bag unless your hitting the 2x4 on top of bag..
If you purchased a Molcajete ( mortar pestal) make salsa in it which is the only way!! You will never go back ha. May need to preseason the stone if its not already unless it’s marble..

Love it!

 

[RandyC]

I would. And I did. Because they are.

Exactly. It is overstating the results because it has an error rate. Like EVERY other tester. But if it helps you better understanding, I can add ‘relative to the ICP results’. But hopefully we are not getting in this petty debate, as this was implied.

Never said it did not. In fact, I quite like the Hanna Checkers.


Hm, is the ICP OES more accurate or the Hanna checker? Now you make me think.


It will happen Randy, try to be more positive.

My problem with you constantly stating all these hobby grade testing equipment are bad and giving an impression that they're wrong. I'm simply stating facts, not being negative. These are hobby grade testers with an error range and they are all reporting normally as they should. You calling out all these testers as bad or "overstating" is erroneous and gives an impression these testers are faulty, when in fact, they are not. You're comparing a machine that cost $100,000+ and requires that a trained technician to run the device to a $50 hobby grade tester. Hobby grade testers have their place, but getting perfect and highly accurate numbers are not what they can do.

 

[FinalPhaze987]

If you purchased a Molcajete ( mortar pestal) make salsa in it which is the only way!! You will never go back ha. May need to preseason the stone if its not already unless it’s marble..

Works great for avocados and meds..haha

 

[Alexander1312]

Speaking of salsa.

First time cleaning the return pump in 12 months or so - VarioS4. That‘s what rainy weather can do to you.

Of course, this will only be cleaned with sulfamic acid, not material damaging citric acid or even vinegar .

 

[Alexander1312]

My problem with you constantly stating all these hobby grade testing equipment are bad and giving an impression that they're wrong. I'm simply stating facts, not being negative. These are hobby grade testers with an error range and they are all reporting normally as they should. You calling out all these testers as bad or "overstating" is erroneous and gives an impression these testers are faulty, when in fact, they are not. You're comparing a machine that cost $100,000+ and requires that a trained technician to run the device to a $50 hobby grade tester. Hobby grade testers have their place, but getting perfect and highly accurate numbers are not what they can do.

Ok, thank you for clarifying. I never meant to complain that the hobby grade testers are inaccurate - I found them actually super accurate given how cheap they appear to be - CA Salifert being the most impressive one in terms of relative accuracy.

Having said that, I did complain about the accuracy of salinity devices, but more so because I was under the impression by reading feedback from others, including here in the club, that they were highly accurate. Also, i consider salinity to be the most important water parameter, so I would be willing to spend some money in getting a very accurate device, if it exist - but the professional conductivity meters seem to be crossing a line in terms of price .

I guess there was a misunderstanding why I am quoting the differences between ICP and my home testers. This was not to make the home testers look poor, but to explain that I am using the ICP results for calibration my own results, in relative terms, not absolute numbers. This is a rather common practice amongst those who perform ICP on a regular basis, and is an often reliable way to get ICP grade results which home testers. For example, my PO4 is consistently 69% lower through ICP vs Hanna, as confirmed by 3-4 ICP tests. The same applies for dkh where ICP shows consistently 92% of what I am measuring - btw, I already consider shipping time in this.

To me, the money I spend on ICP can serve a dual purpose, seeing where my water is on parameters I cannot measure, and checking the accuracy of my own testing. With these two benefits, the cost/benefit is more favorable .

 

[Alexander1312]

I have expected this to happen anytime given its size and it finally came off the rock [candy cane]. I was considering cutting it but have no place to put it as my frag tank is fully stocked, at least until the swap.

I am working on freeing up some space short term to place it in a different area of the tank.

If folks want a piece of it, let me know, but ideally this will need to be picked up this weekend.

 

[MichaelB]

I have expected this to happen anytime given its size and it finally came off the rock [candy cane]. I was considering cutting it but have no place to put it as my frag tank is fully stocked, at least until the swap.

I am working on freeing up some space short term to place it in a different area of the tank.

If folks want a piece of it, let me know, but ideally this will need to be picked up this weekend.

View attachment 78921

If a frag of candy cane were to end up in my care I would be grateful recently lost most of mine from lyngbya stuff smothering it. I couldn't get it until swap. So no worries if you couldn't hold it till than.

 

[Darkxerox]

I have expected this to happen anytime given its size and it finally came off the rock [candy cane]. I was considering cutting it but have no place to put it as my frag tank is fully stocked, at least until the swap.

I am working on freeing up some space short term to place it in a different area of the tank.

If folks want a piece of it, let me know, but ideally this will need to be picked up this weekend.

View attachment 78921

I tried to frag mine with bone cutters and it was a disaster, so I sent the majority of the colony up to @nlopedota lol

Definitely need to borrow the band saw for that one. The central skeleton is super hard and dense.

 

[MolaMola]

I would love a piece. I am sorry to see its own successful growth led to its falling - ha! I never saw a huge candy cane bouquet until yours. I have a bandsaw you can use (have to get it from the school). Haven’t used it in a long time but should be fine bc I only ever used RODI water in it. I also have tank space to hold pieces for you.

 

[Alexander1312]

If a frag of candy cane were to end up in my care I would be grateful recently lost most of mine from lyngbya stuff smothering it. I couldn't get it until swap. So no worries if you couldn't hold it till than.

I will save you one for the frag swap.

 

[Alexander1312]

I tried to frag mine with bone cutters and it was a disaster, so I sent the majority of the colony up to @nlopedota lol

Definitely need to borrow the band saw for that one. The central skeleton is super hard and dense.

This is the third larger piece in 2 years, never had an issue with fragging these with bone cutters. Maybe I am still running too high phosphates .

 

[Alexander1312]

I would love a piece. I am sorry to see its own successful growth led to its falling - ha! I never saw a huge candy cane bouquet until yours. I have a bandsaw you can use (have to get it from the school). Haven’t used it in a long time but should be fine bc I only ever used RODI water in it. I also have tank space to hold pieces for you.

Feel free to come by anytime and pick up a frag.

When I moved it out of the water to place it somewhere else, a large piece of it broke off (picture) from its sheer weight (the whole colony was super heavy):

 

[Alexander1312]

Looks like there will be some pavona frags too at the frag swap. This guy also grew out of his place.

 

[Alexander1312]

ICP Testing [Trip to Germany]

I dual-purposed the rather unpleasant occasion, which required me to fly to Germany at very short notice last Tuesday (and which makes me miss the long-awaited frag swap on Sunday), and took ICP water samples with me for both the IM 150 and the Nano tank and dropped them off personally at the Fauna Marin lab.

I took the samples on Tuesday morning, dropped them off on Thursday, and got the results on Friday, including the MS results, which typically take longer as they do not do them every day (yet), unfortunately.

What I wanted to test mainly was how extended shipping time impacts the results. I often wait 8-10 days to get the results and question their accuracy in some cases.

Some commentary on the results:

1. Salinity - 37 PSU
The main disappointment with the results was the absolutely (!) unacceptable salinity values for both the IM 150 and Nano reefer.

I have been using the new VeeGee refractometer and the multireference solution from Fauna Marin to calibrate it. When taking the sample, I had an almost 100% three-way alignment between the reference solution, the IM 150 and the nano tank salinity readings. Still, the ICP came out that much higher than 35 PSU.

I strongly doubt that their conductivity meter for the ICP is off, and I somewhat do not think it is an issue with the refractometer as it seems to keep calibration rather well. My strong suspicion is the calibration solution. I discussed this with Claude and he does not think so.

2. Alkalinity
A longer shipping time does not seem to impact alkalinity readings. I have applied the same 0.92 factor to my Hanna home testing and this pretty much matched the results after 3 days in transit, vs. typically 8-10 days.

3. CO2
This was interesting as I was under the impression that the high CO2 readings impacted my generally low PH. As it turns out, the high CO2 from previous tests seemed to have been caused mainly by the long transit time.

- For Nitrate and Phosphate below, I was not able to measure immediately before taking the sample as I was running late for the airport. My measured amounts are from a few days before only -

4. Nitrate: 13.2 vs. 13.5 (ICP)
FM ICP use the same/similar filter for the syringe as oceamo, which is supposed to keep the sample stable up to 10 days. I am not using a factor for NO3 as it always seemed to pretty much match ICP, which made me suspicious, assuming the initial sample had a higher NO3 than measured 10 days later. However, it looks like this is not the case as the ICP results were pretty much as expected.

5. Phosphate: 0.14 vs 0.127 (ICP)
I am using a correction factor of 0.7 for my Hanna measured PO4. Based on the results now, this factor might be too high, and potentially closer to 0.9 with the insight from the reduced shipping time.

6. Silicon and Silicate
Both continue to be high, which my sponges love, but need to come down as I am not in the diatom growing business. Compared to previous months, there is a strong downward trend for both so replacing the two RO membranes recently vs resins (which seemed as per the color fine) seemed to have the desired effect, and I assume it will take a bit to come down to acceptable levels. My RODI water test also showed no more residual silicon and silicate.

7. SAK
I am back to not detected levels, which is not desirable. I might need to further reduce my ozone, and the low amount is most likely due to new activated carbon added a couple of days before the sample taking. Still need to see this higher.

8. Dynamic elements
As these are considered critical, I continue to target them to be in the preferred range. I typically add around 30% more of each element after each ICP but this might still not be enough, as I have been trying to raise them for at least 12 months now, and still 3 of the 5 are well below. i will go up by 50% for some of them now.

9. Barium
High due to the use of Zeolite. Nothing that can be done, and not too problematic.

10. Iron
High due to heavy use of GFO, but also the last water change was only two days before the testing. I just bought aluminum based adsorber in Germany which I will use for a while until iron comes down. If anyone has a great high quality source for aluminum based adsorber media in the US, please let me know.

10. Selenium
Interesting, this is almost too high now after being not detectable in all previous ICP OES. This proofs what is well known that ICP OES is not good in detecting Selenium and if Selenium needs to be optimized, an MS is required to accurately assess this.

11. FSS
Fluoride - Sulfur - Strontium almost in the perfect range now, unfortunately only because all three were higher due to elevated salinity - more to do know.

12. Calcium
Looks like there are some issues with my home testing, which historically has been very much aligned with ICP. This is the second time I measured approx 20 mg/L higher than ICP. I will apply now a correction factor of 0.9 to my home testing results, as I prefer to get CA right.

13. RODI analysis
As I mentioned above, no more showing of silicate and silicon, but copper and zinc. I assume my carbon needs replacement, but happy to hear other thoughts.