Are Hanna Checkers The Gold Standard In Hobby Grade Test Kits?

[Dan_P]

A more extended discussion would be to first define gold standard. To me, as a scientist, that term would imply high accuracy and have no weighting to convenience or ease of use or cost. Others here are using the term differently, and that’s of course, fine.

In the truest sense, none of the Hanna devices are the gold standard by my definition. No science lab would use them for important measurements. Look at what companies such as Oceamo use to add to their icp data. They are not Hanna checkers. They are lab instruments of various sorts, such ion chromatography.

I have nothing in particular against most of the Hanna checkers (although I think the calcium checker is poorly designed and the conductivity meter is not even close to the best available). They may often be the best choice for some folks for some parameters.

While I think the case is often overstated, I do agree that since exact and “correct” values are often not needed by reef aquarists, reproducibility of even somewhat incorrect answers is valuable and may be fine.

I do think that folks using them should always check the Hanna specs for accuracy. Several times a week I am pointing out to folks that even Hanna says the values they are seeing in some scenario are not exact enough to support some claim or concern. The digital precision gives folks a false sense of accuracy.

For alk, I would claim a real titration of a large volume of tank water with a quality standard acid is the gold standard. That’s one of the few high accuracy tests that folks can inexpensively do at home.

For salinity, there are a few options, including high precision glass hydrometers and conductivity meters. All need to be validated for accuracy, IMO.

Thanks. I found this reply useful.

Your observation that “reproducibility of somewhat incorrect answers (inaccurate measurements) is valuable” speaks to the idea that you need to know how accurate you have to be to select the correct measurement method. The notion of a gold standard method might be irrelevant. Matching accuracy requirements is what is most important (@Rick Mathew often speaks to this ). And that is why an important measurement, one that requires high precision and accuracy, would not utilize a Hanna Checker.

There might be analogies to financial accounting. There are times when to-the-penny accounting might be important, say a lemonade stand, and then there are times when rounding to the nearest $1000 is fine, say Randy’s 2025 budget

 

[drolmaeye]

I'm with you on that. Was hoping for a 20% off sale this weekend but not seeing one.

If you go directly to the Hanna website, you can get 15% off + free shipping through this weekend. I think I might as well fill up on reagent, LOL.

 

[Dan_P]

I do

I can pick any week and find pics of that coral. When one has an issue I scroll through pictures and can see when it started. Then I cross reference that with logs in my parameter tracking program and look for clues

I have a Goni that one day I realized hadn’t extended in a while. Went back through pics and found the last time it was extended. A few days later I noticed I added some fish. I didn’t know who would be bothering it and don’t have a camera so I put the Goni in a enclosure. And it started opening again. Once it was opening consistently I removed the enclosure. It stopped opening. That led me to believe it was a fish. I started observing from a distance and noticed the new damsel had strong interest in this one Goni and was almost hosting it like a clownfish and was irritating it. This led me to moving the Goni to another system where it remains open

Brilliant! Illustrates the importance of observation nicely.

 

[GARRIGA]

The hobby might have its measurement priorities mixed up.

What we measure follows an odd pattern for hobby that is focused on growing things. We measure chemistry but not biology, right? Who precisely keeps track of coral mass/size/volume over time? Who actually measures the color of their coral? Who is comparing photographs of their coral week by week?

How practical would it be for hobbyist to measure life in their box? Farmers and frag tanks yes (within reason) but that’s likely beyond the scope of most hobbyist. Not saying it’s not a valid endeavor but based on my ask one could anecdotally ascertain if these narrow ranges that are mostly self imposed based off small scientific studies are valid by simply checking the visual success of those not following it. At some point much might just be dogma regurgitated without facts supporting it. Richard Ross opened my eyes to phosphates. Started down that rabbit hole and quickly realized how improbable for me to adhere unless more effort than wanted deployed. Not to mention the additional gear and testing then realized it’s but a few sticks needing that along with high flow and light yet industry markets as if all keep these select which I suspect why many lured towards as exclusivity has a strong pull. Kind of like the dark side

 

[VintageReefer]

And that is why an important measurement, one that requires high precision and accuracy, would not utilize a Hanna Checker.

Maybe if you are comparing to lab grade equipment.

Why would you feel this is less precise than any other test kit which requires measuring, counting, and a users interpretation of when a “color shift” happens or matching on a color wheel which certainly can be affected by the ambient lighting in the room.

 

[Reefer Matt]

Maybe we should define what our options are for home hobby grade testers, and then compare to the Hanna Checkers. From my memory, we have API, Red Sea, Seachem, Salifert, Aqua Forest, Tropic Marin, Neptune Trident, Hanna Checkers, and I know there are some more. These types of testers are what I had in mind, as some Reefers have preference of one over the other.

 

[VintageReefer]

Maybe we should define what our options are for home hobby grade testers, and then compare to the Hanna Checkers. From my memory, we have API, Red Sea, Seachem, Salifert, Aqua Forest, Tropic Marin, Neptune Trident, Hanna Checkers, and I know there are some more. These types of testers are what I had in mind, as some Reefers have preference of one over the other.

5-in-1 test strips.

100% consistent

Consistently wrong

 

[MnFish1]

but the true question still is

Which is the gold standard: Trident or Hanna

neither is the true answer imho. I would never believe a mail in ICP - since there are so many things that can influence the sample (travel time, etc)

 

[MnFish1]

Maybe we should define what our options are for home hobby grade testers, and then compare to the Hanna Checkers. From my memory, we have API, Red Sea, Seachem, Salifert, Aqua Forest, Tropic Marin, Neptune Trident, Hanna Checkers, and I know there are some more. These types of testers are what I had in mind, as some Reefers have preference of one over the other.

Maybe I'm wrong - but Im getting the impression that you think Hanna is the gold standard. If not - there is no reason to compare others to that particular test, right? Then add in the fact that there are like 10 tests we're looking at and it may become less useful. The answer is - none are the gold standard - if one is using the definition of 'gold standard'. Instead, each company should be doing studies compared to the 'gold standard' before they release their product. Unfortunately, I think you might be using the term 'gold standard' incorrectly - or at least - when people are answering - its hard to understand

 

[GARRIGA]

neither is the true answer imho. I would never believe a mail in ICP - since there are so many things that can influence the sample (travel time, etc)

Why visual observation perhaps the gold standard.

 

[GARRIGA]

5-in-1 test strips.

100% consistent

Consistently wrong

I can confirm that although those strips great for cycling where mere absence or presence desired.

 

[landlubber]

The reagents Hanna products use can be annoying compared to the drops Salfert uses.
I personally basically only use a Hanna p04 tester and do think its a decent tester

 

[ChrisfromBrick]

especially when it gives me a number that I like.

 

[VintageReefer]

The reagents Hanna products use can be annoying compared to the drops Salfert uses.
I personally basically only use a Hanna p04 tester and do think its a decent tester

I feel the powder based ones are annoying because you have to make sure you get all the reagent dumped out and I always have residue and question if it’s factored for.

You should consider trying the alkalinity test. It’s super easy, liquid based, and fast. I haven’t used an alk test faster or easier than theirs

 

[Reefer Matt]

Maybe I'm wrong - but Im getting the impression that you think Hanna is the gold standard. If not - there is no reason to compare others to that particular test, right? Then add in the fact that there are like 10 tests we're looking at and it may become less useful. The answer is - none are the gold standard - if one is using the definition of 'gold standard'. Instead, each company should be doing studies compared to the 'gold standard' before they release their product. Unfortunately, I think you might be using the term 'gold standard' incorrectly - or at least - when people are answering - its hard to understand

No, I don’t believe Hanna is the gold standard. But I am confused as to why some Reefers treat it that way. For example, we can read many posts where someone compares two test kits, but believes the Hanna over the other. Trident and Hanna especially. Some Reefers even calibrate their Trident to what the Hanna says. Things like that is what prompted this conversation.

 

[MnFish1]

No, I don’t believe Hanna is the gold standard. But I am confused as to why some Reefers treat it that way. For example, we can read many posts where someone compares two test kits, but believes the Hanna over the other. Trident and Hanna especially. Some Reefers even calibrate their Trident to what the Hanna says. Things like that is what prompted this conversation.

IMHO - the reason - there is a 'digital result' - you get x.xx - rather than comparing to a color test

 

[Solo McReefer]

They are prone to the same technique errors as all the other tests

Where it is the 'gold standard' is reading the color of the liquid at the end

And then it converts it to the number

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

then there are times when rounding to the nearest $1000 is fine, say Randy’s 2025 budget

lol

Just spent an unexpected $800 on replacing damaged car tires (a nail too close to the side wall to fix and a tear in a side wall of another) and another $750 to fix a plumbing leak coming down through the kitchen ceiling. Wish I could round those to zero. lol

 

[Dan_P]

How practical would it be for hobbyist to measure life in their box? Farmers and frag tanks yes (within reason) but that’s likely beyond the scope of most hobbyist. Not saying it’s not a valid endeavor but based on my ask one could anecdotally ascertain if these narrow ranges that are mostly self imposed based off small scientific studies are valid by simply checking the visual success of those not following it. At some point much might just be dogma regurgitated without facts supporting it. Richard Ross opened my eyes to phosphates. Started down that rabbit hole and quickly realized how improbable for me to adhere unless more effort than wanted deployed. Not to mention the additional gear and testing then realized it’s but a few sticks needing that along with high flow and light yet industry markets as if all keep these select which I suspect why many lured towards as exclusivity has a strong pull. Kind of like the dark side

Measurement of coral growth wouldn’t be very useful if we could not put it into context, say its maximum growth rate. If I want to know whether the conditions I am supplying the coral are any good, growth rate is a handy metric. Answering the question whether the nitrate, phosphate or trace elements are at a good level could be answered by checking the coral growth rate. Of course, it would be tricky if all of these parameters were fluctuating all over the place.

 

[Dan_P]

Maybe if you are comparing to lab grade equipment.

Why would you feel this is less precise than any other test kit which requires measuring, counting, and a users interpretation of when a “color shift” happens or matching on a color wheel which certainly can be affected by the ambient lighting in the room.

I am a big user of Hanna Checkers. I along with @taricha and @Rick Mathew have pressure tested these devices. They generally do what they are suppose to do consistently. The point is that they have their limits. If we wanted to improve on accuracy, we would probably use a spectrophotometer to measure color intensity. I rarely do because the questions I need answering are more like “yes-no” questions rather than trying to tell the difference in concentration of 0.01 v 0.02 ppm.