Reefs dot com article on triton testing

al*

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I believe that's the sentiment of most people...

I agree... For what it's worth, though, I think the thread and the article are important for skeptical people to make their minds up, despite no answer from Triton.

In another forum some people get barium results that are over four times the typical solubility limit in seawater at atmospheric pressure - which at least lets me infer that there is not much filtering going on before the analysis and the results for things like barium and aluminium have to be taken with a few picograms of salt...
 

Electrobes

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
255
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So has no new information surfaced about the topic? [emoji29]
 

joefishUC

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
775
Reaction score
575
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi all:
A lot of information has been covered in this thread already. Perhaps the gap that exists between what hobbyists need for reef aquaria testing vs what marine scientists need for analytical purposes will never be closed on this thread.

If anyone has specific questions as to how Triton recommends using the information gained via an ICP test in regards to learning more about their aquarium and how to enhance their husbandry techniques please feel free to contact us on our sponsor page or via pm.

Thank you
 

Thales

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
4,722
Location
SF BA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joe, I think some of this is what people are waiting for:

Ehsan wrote:
I can filter following questions out of all that have been said in the article and here :

1. Is TRITON ICP-OES testing PRODUCT good and helpfull for practical reefkeeping ( hobby or public aquaria ), is there a Value to the testing for this purpose. ( Fit for Purpose discussion ) by all informations we have right now ( Article and reality ) ?

2. Is TRITON ICP-OES testing PRODUCT good and helpfull for any other purpose like academic or scientific publications or a legal survey on court ... ?

3. How has TRITON managed to overcome the problems coming with ICP-OES testing of seawater and why is that possible as cheap or at all ?

4. Do the guys from TRITON know what they do ?

5. What does the DATA in the Article realy tell us and wich value does it have for the Reefkeeper, also how much weight does it have acording to the Fit for purpose discussion ?

6. Is there anything that can make the customers of TRITON feel more confident with the testing ? is there any need to feel more confident with TRITON ? what would be the best way to get this confidence ( from the viwe of the reefkeeper )?

7. How accurate / precise is TRITON TESTING PRODUCT and how accurate /precise, for wich purpose it need to be ?

8. Chemical geek questions like is Iodine testing effected by acid ? wich elements will be effected by acid ? in detail wich sideeffects will bacteria, (nano)particles, Matrix diviations/variations... have on the testing.

9. Is there any way that the TRITON TEST PRODUCT user wll be able to determine the accuracy / precision in his own personal TEST matrix ?


I think by going trough a planed discussion like that all of us would be able to contribute better, and the information for the audience will be more informativ.
Please feel free to add anything i could have missed.
I will chime in and start with the first question then.


from -
https://www.reef2reef.com/forums/re...com-article-triton-testing-2.html#post2223206
 

al*

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I doubt we will get any answers. Triton let this thread die, why is anyone's guess...
People will still have their water analyzed by them despite possible shortcomings and they will continue to fret over minuscule deviations in their tanks. :rolleyes:
 

al*

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, they said they would answer some questions (Ehsan even made a list of them) and then they didn't deliver. Those answers could have been the start of a nice discussion and they could have brought some insights to everyone here - without them, everything is conjecture.
 

Thales

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
4,722
Location
SF BA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Some people told me that they were told at MACNA that I had changed my mind about Triton. I haven't actually thought much about it since the response we posted earlier in this thread.
 

craigbingman

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
44
Reaction score
61
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Some people told me that they were told at MACNA that I had changed my mind about Triton. I haven't actually thought much about it since the response we posted earlier in this thread.
That's rich. Or perhaps I should say, "that's not Rich."
 

JunglePete

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
9
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Smear campaign against Triton Testing?

I know that this is an older thread, but I was researching Triton recently, looking for critical reviews of their testing service, and the “skeptical reefing” article and this thread came up high on my Google search.

To me the article reads as a long running smear campaign against Triton… An exquisite example of negative propaganda.

And I think this is unfair to Triton and unfair to the reefing community that often hail “Skeptical Reefing” as a voice of truth in a sea of misinformation… when in the case of this article is exactly the opposite.

The methods used by the authors in the article seem ultimately flawed and the authors refuse to make any concessions regarding these flaws. They seem to just push forward, tearing down what they can based on the flimsy “evidence” they have compiled… ultimately resorting to defamation and bullying tactics.

… and to what end?

Where were they even going with this? …. certainly not towards truth or progress.

In the final posts, an author, Richard Ross (aka Thalus) claims, regarding his arguments with Triton, “I haven't actually thought much about it”.…

Really? Well as of March 2020, you still have a smear campaign running on your website, permanently damning a company, despite having compiled no substantial damning evidence against them.

Reading the snarky, below the belt comments subtly littered throughout the article and this thread by the author make me want to punch a hole in the wall…
And if that's how I feel about it, I can't imagine how the owner/operator of Triton feels.. I don't know him personally, but from what I can tell he believes whole heartedly in what he is doing and is passionate and committed to making this technology available to the reefing community. And for that I and many others are grateful.

In addition, from my vantage point, Triton was attempting, despite a language barrier to be open and transparent about everything (accept for his exact testing methods, which he has every right to protect).

So, from my perspective Triton has done an all round great job… and then to be attacked for this, and to be attacked by aggressors who claim, or are interpreted by many, to be a voice of truth in the industry…. That could absolutely drive anyone to retaliation… And despite this I think Triton has maintained a relatively cool head about it all. Mean while the aggressors (the authors in this case), those with very little to loose, other than perhaps their pride, have acted incredibly inappropriately (i.e. the almost 4 year old smear campaign against Triton on their website)

I think the authors fail to realize that they're not just attacking a “bananas and ginger theory” here. They're attacking somebody's lifework, somebodies “baby”.… Which in my mind is fine if their intentions were in the eyes of progress and they had valid, well presented arguments…..

I’ll add one final note: since the article was written Triton testing has become a VERY effective tool in the arsenal of a true skeptical reefers, although probably not for the authors of the article. For example it has been effectively used to find aluminum contamination from suspect ceramic bricks commonly used by aquarists as well used to find imbalances in certain popular salt mixes. Distinctions that I believe would not have been made without affordable access to these types of test. These are only 2 examples of Triton tests effectiveness, and I imagine there are many more.
 

JunglePete

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
9
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
But, no-one should care about feelings. This is skeptical reefing! People came to this thread to find out the truth about Triton testing…. So let’s get to it!… Let’s get skeptical!

What can triton test?

The authors of the article seem to struggle with the term “fitness for purpose”, expressed by Triton as a selling point. Alluding to the idea that Triton is being unclear or hiding exactly what they have to offer. “makes our skeptical alarm bells start to ring”


Well, I think triton has clearly and honestly presented what they can and cannot do in their testing (at least theoretically) with their published and accessible Limits of Detection (LODs). So let’s start there. (…. or one could start by explaining how an ICP machine works… which proves or disproves very little as far as how accurate or precise Triton ICP testing is… But it sure makes the author seem smart and knowledgeable). Anyway…

The LOD expresses the smallest concentration that can be detected for each element.

Triton LODs are available at:
http://www.shop-topreef.de/web/topreef/documents/article/410d563cf61c3b465d7e4e6341d80c17.pdf

Table below to illustrate how one can interpret the LOD
Screen Shot 2020-03-06 at 4.23.52 PM.png

The table presents the concentration of the 32 elements (tested by triton) as they are found in average Natural Sea Water (NSW), in the order from highest concentration to lowest concentration (***Pilson 1998.....I think. more at bottom of post).

The next column lists the limits of detection (LODs) for each element. Triton gives range of LODs for each element (that depends on how they calibrate the machine) so I went and gave the highest value… which is theoretically the least sensitive value that the machine should perform at…. So the Triton ICP could/should perform a bit better in reality than how I have it presented here.


The 3rd column lists the LOD divided by the average NSW level.

…..Which basically shows if an element is detectable at average NSW levels.

If the value is greater than 1x (or 100%) than it is not detectable at average NSW levels.

It also shows how much would have to be present to show up on the test… For example copper shows a value of 15x… so it would take 15 times the amount of copper found in average NSW to show up on the Triton test.

As you can see, of the 32 elements generally tested by Triton, 16 of the elements (half of them) are below Tritons Limit of detection (LOD) in average NSW levels.

(Fun Fact: As you can see on the chart, all the elements that are generally undetectable by Triton at average NSW levels, happen to be at a concentration of under 1ppb)

Discussion:

Is it a bad thing that up to half the elements aren’t detectable at average NSW concentrations?


No, because the test, despite not being precise in concentrations below the LOD, delivers very useful information in the event that the elements pop up above the LOD, indicating that certain elements are at unnaturally high levels.

Is Triton ICP the most accurate and precise test available for trace elements?
No.

Do I want to pay significantly more for a test that is potentially somewhat more accurate and precise for the elements below 1ppb?

My personal answer: No, based on these LODs and tests I have seen online, I think Triton has found a great balance of precision and detectability at a great price point… and therefore a very appropriate “fitness for purpose” for the aquarists as a whole.

So for many elements Triton offers a more qualitative than absolute quantitative value… which they openly admit to.

“In a lot of cases the Qualitative analysis would be even enough, so no accuracy at all would be helpful already for our purpose.”

…and he goes on to point out the alternative of not having the elements listed at all, which I think most people would agree would not be as good.



**The average NSW levels are, I believe, from Pilson (1998) (I copied them from the (new) Marine aquarium reference. Vol I Moe (2014) and cross referenced them with other references on the internet that had the same numbers (also from Pilson)) and are in mg/Kg which translates to mg/L, but not exactly because of the density of SW at various temperatures that could lead to variations of about 2.5% higher levels express in mg/L than mg/Kg… Maybe? (anyone please correct me if I’m grossly inaccurate here, since this was a point of contention by the authors brought up several times in the article)

… which is strange because the authors did not bring up the +/- variations in their "Certified sample" that went up to +/- 10% (20% range) for some samples (Copper and Manganese).. rather they made no mention of the deviation and treated those certified samples, that had been adulterated with acid, as the Holy grail of precision and accuracy…

“The amounts of the different elements in the standard are accurate, precise and certified, so running the standard through the Triton Lab process allows us to assess the accuracy and precision of the Triton Lab testing.”

I don't see it that way.
 

JunglePete

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
9
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
More on LODs

The above LODs were compared to the average levels of elements in NSW (Pilson 1998).
What about comparing the LODs to the maximum levels found in NSW (Pilson 1998) …. A more comprehensive list can also be found at a site presented by Randy Holmes Farley at:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/rhf/index.php

If one where to run a Triton test on NSW with the maximum concentration of elements found in NSW, Aluminum would enter the detectable range on the Triton ICP Test… Shown in table below.
Max.png

Also, Triton’s “setpoints” (levels Triton recommends or find acceptable) include Mn, Al, Ni and Zn at levels 12.1x, 1.8x, 7.1x and 6.8x (respectively) higher than the maximums found in NSW. At these setpoint levels these elements are detectable. (Bringing the list of elements that should stay below LOD down to only 12)

T Setpoints.png

So for the 12-16 elements that are below LOD, and desired below LOD, any reading from Triton tests for these 12 to 16 elements would be useful in that it would indicate that there is an excessive metal issue in the Aquarium.


Very useful information IMO.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
More on LODs

The above LODs were compared to the average levels of elements in NSW (Pilson 1998).
What about comparing the LODs to the maximum levels found in NSW (Pilson 1998) …. A more comprehensive list can also be found at a site presented by Randy Holmes Farley at:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/rhf/index.php

If one where to run a Triton test on NSW with the maximum concentration of elements found in NSW, Aluminum would enter the detectable range on the Triton ICP Test… Shown in table below.
Max.png

Also, Triton’s “setpoints” (levels Triton recommends or find acceptable) include Mn, Al, Ni and Zn at levels 12.1x, 1.8x, 7.1x and 6.8x (respectively) higher than the maximums found in NSW. At these setpoint levels these elements are detectable. (Bringing the list of elements that should stay below LOD down to only 12)

T Setpoints.png

So for the 12-16 elements that are below LOD, and desired below LOD, any reading from Triton tests for these 12 to 16 elements would be useful in that it would indicate that there is an excessive metal issue in the Aquarium.


Very useful information IMO.

Interesting viewpoint.

Understand though that Triton is a business. The goal of a business is to make a profit (a good thing). As with all “for profit“ businesses, the bottom line drives decision making (of course), not just science. Businesses will be as ethical and as transparent about how they do business only to the extent that customers demand (that is the norm).

Triton could be doing sloppy analytical science and I wouldn’t know it. Is it harmful? That is a grey area. If the results unnecessarily scare me, and cause me to unnecessarily spend money on supplements, I would not like that but that is the way, at least to some extent, all businesses work. If businesses were totally honest and transparent about how they are doing business, I believe it would hurt their profit margin. This is likely the main reason most businesses, unless required to do so, never, ever provide data to backup their claims. This should be very obvious for the saltwater aquarium business.

I think a healthy level of skepticism is required when dealing with any business. It drives them towards improving IF enough customers demand higher quality services.
 

Mastering the art of locking and unlocking water pathways: What type of valves do you have on your aquarium plumbing?

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 48 48.0%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 54 54.0%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 23 23.0%
  • None.

    Votes: 26 26.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 9 9.0%
Back
Top