Triton & sporenelementen icm gevaarlijke waarden

[Marcpardon]

En waarschijnlijk wordt daarna de geloofwaardigheid van de precisie van de uitslag van welk element en van welk testlab dan ook - alleen maar kleiner
M.a.w: Je zal ten alle tijden verschillen zien, en die verschillen - in percentages - worden alleen maar groter naarmate de concentratie kleiner is.


M.v.g Jimmy

Het zien van afwijkingen binnen een bepaalde marge lijkt me ook aanvaardbaar. En over die marge kunnen we discussiëren. Persoonlijk vind ik een afwijking tot 20% best aanvaardbaar voor dit soort hele lage waarden als we praten over microgrammen. Bij triton blijkt dit voor een aantal waarden behoorlijk anders te liggen.

Is het niet te taak van de leverancier van de test om ons iets te vertellen over de betrouwbaarheid/nauwkeurigheid van de meting? Dit lijkt me ook de normale gang/procedure in labland ....

 

[anthony28]

Als je alle elementen wilt meten die triton zegt te kunnen meten dan ben je een behoorlijke duit kwijt.
Tenzij het financieel toch niets uit maakt lijkt me dit voor een gewone hobbyist niet te doen.

Misschien zouden we er eens over kunnen discussiëren of de hele range aan Triton metingen wel zo interessant is. Er is namelijk een behoorlijke reeks waar je , zoals Triton ze uitvoert, geen fluit aan hebt. Denk dan aan de elementen die we met de hobbytestjes nauwkeurig genoeg kunnen meten, waarvoor de meetwaarden bij (Triton) standaard "onmeetbaar" zijn (Fe en Mn) of die volgens het gepubliceerde onderzoek "mogelijk" zwaar afwijken. Laat je deze elementen buiten beschouwing en laat je dus alleen nuttige analyses doen, dan scheelt al een stuk minder. Als het dan ook nog zo zou zijn dat je dan wel betrouwbare waarden krijgt, wellicht door een ander bemonsteringsprotocol waarbij bijv wel wordt aangezuurd / of in ieder geval de max. afwijking vast staat, dan kan ik daar wellicht beter mee uit de voeten.

 

[Marcpardon]

http://www.reef2reef.com/forums/ree...060-reefs-dot-com-article-triton-testing.html

Voor de mensen die de reactie van eshan willen lezen

 

[Dogue09]

Re: Triton & sporenelementen icm gevaarlijke waarden

Perfect,

hier ook al een voorbeeld van de 500% afwijking die ik al eerder vermelde.

But regarding to the Article your point us absolutly Valid, and also belong to the Fit for purpose discussion. Like on the Cadmium amount in the Test, just because we have been 0.0005 mg/l (500% in that case) out is it better not to use that parameter at all ? what would be the Alternativ , not testing ???

All the best Ehsan

The 500% out value is what is one of the worse things in that "supposed scientific" Article.
Cd ( Cadmium ) is tested on 0.6 ppb and should be in the CRM at 0.1ppb. Not only that it is not certified Value , the autors highlite it with a diviation of 500%.
While the real deviation is just 0.5 ppb ( 0.00005 mg/l ), you could also acount it as the most accurate Result in the test.
Who tells you that the deviation at 100ppb would not also be 0.5 ppb wich then would be just 0.5% relativ deviation ?
Manipulativ things like that are horrible to me, and do not belong into a scientific assament of Data.
Just fearing users of this is the only purpose of such a act.



---- update ----

vanaf de start

Hey guys, I have read this thread for sure and kept back until everything calmed down a bit ;-) .
I realy understand the side of craig and also would like to explain a bit about our testing, as i feel the Time has arived.
There is nothing realy wrong written up in this thread, but this is also not a easy discussion at all.
I will try in my simple english to contribute to this thread as good as I can, hopfully it will work.

To the Artikle I need to say I like the way ICP-OES testing ( the difficulties ) are discribed , even if some difficulties are missing... and also the way it try to say don´t overestimate ICP testing.
I just don´t realy like the way the DATA is presented or/and assessed.
However I will try the next days to explain why we don´t like to use acid for the general testing method... also you need to know that there are more methods we us for testing not only one, in some of them we use acid (HNO3).

I realy like to make the way we work understandable... but as a scientific thinking man, I can absolutly understand all points of view.

All the Best Ehsan

"Originally Posted by craigbingman"

That would be very good. I look forward to your responses.

I should be transparent about my objectives. There are three at this point:

1. To be assured that everyone in the chain of custody for these samples observes good lab practices and handles them with customary minimal precautions (lab coat, protective eyewear and gloves.)


Ok we are running our lab in a proffesional way Craig, including : fire extinguishers , eye wash , venting .... we use professional liquid handling tools , "suprapure" gardes of acids , Analytical Certified standards for ICP or IC ( NIST conform )... and for sure lab coat, protective eyewear and gloves and all kinds of needed signs and declaretions.... ( safity is very important, and german government is very strict in that point ).
Just to let you know all Pics on the webpage are original pictures of our facilities, not "faked buyed ones" . and even the hands on them are my hands : Galerie | Triton GmbH.

"Originally Posted by craigbingman"

2. To get Triton to accept acidified samples if they are declared as such.





Declaration, in a case like that would be realy nice and professional ... but to be honest, we will never turn into a Acid testing Lab or test soils, oils , viniger or blood. we use our Laboratory for QM of our production ( also for some other companys ), QM of our rescources , and for the PRODUCT WATERTEST that we offer to the Publiic for NSW, artificial seawater ( saltmixes ) , Aquariumwater and for error detection reasons somtimes for freshwater ( tapwater or DI...). Also for sure for Research and Development.
We don´t see a reason or a benefit to expand this for acid or anithing else in the moment. ( I need to admit I am not sure if I have understand you correctly in this point craig lets see if the discussion will help here )

"Originally Posted by craigbingman"

3. That we all sing kumbaya around the campfire and that no lawyers are mentioned again.

These three things and a good science discussion would make me very happy.




If we can choose another song, also I would love to go Camping with you both

( while singing all cameras will need to be turned of ).

All the Best Ehsan

---- update ----

First i would like to ask you Randy and Craig, do you have access to a ICP-OES of the newst generation approx 4 years old ( like ours ) without any restriction to use it ?

Don´t get me wrong , I am asking because of the possiblility to experimentaly try some stuff that possibly will come up in the discussion , as we work very practical in that point.
Otherwise in some points we will only be able to go by scientific papers , wich in a practical way will not help to much.

In my opinion the Article is mixing up a lot of things that we should saperate from each other, to not let the discussion get caotic ( like the article ).

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.

sorry for the bad english.

All the best Ehsan

 

[Jimmy54]

Hey Ray, we hebben het al gelezen ... althans .... degene die er in zijn geïnteresseerd.

 

[Dennis tb]

Re: Triton & sporenelementen icm gevaarlijke waarden

Perfect,

hier ook al een voorbeeld van de 500% afwijking die ik al eerder vermelde.

But regarding to the Article your point us absolutly Valid, and also belong to the Fit for purpose discussion. Like on the Cadmium amount in the Test, just because we have been 0.0005 mg/l (500% in that case) out is it better not to use that parameter at all ? what would be the Alternativ , not testing ???

All the best Ehsan

The 500% out value is what is one of the worse things in that "supposed scientific" Article.
Cd ( Cadmium ) is tested on 0.6 ppb and should be in the CRM at 0.1ppb. Not only that it is not certified Value , the autors highlite it with a diviation of 500%.
While the real deviation is just 0.5 ppb ( 0.00005 mg/l ), you could also acount it as the most accurate Result in the test.
Who tells you that the deviation at 100ppb would not also be 0.5 ppb wich then would be just 0.5% relativ deviation ?
Manipulativ things like that are horrible to me, and do not belong into a scientific assament of Data.
Just fearing users of this is the only purpose of such a act.



---- update ----

Leest Eshan hier ook mee? (misschien beter in het engels voor hem....)

Hello Eshan, I really hope you would like to reconsider this statement of yours. You claim you can measure certain values in the lower ranges with your protocol. If a value in the lower range deviates a multitude from the original value (like in this case 5X) than it does not matter for statistics in what unit you present your data ng, pg, ug of what so ever. If the deviation in this case matters for the person who would own the aquarium where this value is measured is a different thing. I competely agree with you there, but you just cannot state that this is one of the most accurate data presented due to the very low amount of cadmium. Example: we produce antibodies at our firm: we deliver those in pico grams or nano grams. If we state that a solution contains 2 pico grams of a certain IgG and the real value is 4, we would be massacered by the FDA. My comment here is, and I hope I state it clearly: If you present your results as actual values without giving a realliability interval, people can expect that those values are real and a 2,3,4,5 fold difference from the real value is statistically way off.

I still consider the Triton measurement as a very handy tool to get data about certain elements and I don't see a big problem in the deviations mentioned in the article (same as the person who wrote the article). I also send a sample now and than to get some info about my water. But with all due respect, if you know that certain elements give a huge background signal and a therefore difficult to quantitate in the lower range, please state that somewhere. There is completely no shame in that.
Kind regards,
Dennis

 

[Dogue09]

Re: Triton & sporenelementen icm gevaarlijke waarden

Hey Jimmy,

je hebt helemaal gelijk, is eigenlijk dubbel

gr Ray

Hey Ray, we hebben het al gelezen ... althans .... degene die er in zijn geïnteresseerd.

---- update ----

Hoi Dennis,

Het zou zomaar kunnen, maar zoals Jimmy al opmerkte het is eigenlijk dubbel

je vraag zou je wellicht beter in hem zijn gedeelte plaatsen http://zeewaterforum.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?374-Triton-Applied-Reef-Bioscience

gr Ray

Perfect,

hier ook al een voorbeeld van de 500% afwijking die ik al eerder vermelde.

But regarding to the Article your point us absolutly Valid, and also belong to the Fit for purpose discussion. Like on the Cadmium amount in the Test, just because we have been 0.0005 mg/l (500% in that case) out is it better not to use that parameter at all ? what would be the Alternativ , not testing ???

All the best Ehsan

The 500% out value is what is one of the worse things in that "supposed scientific" Article.
Cd ( Cadmium ) is tested on 0.6 ppb and should be in the CRM at 0.1ppb. Not only that it is not certified Value , the autors highlite it with a diviation of 500%.
While the real deviation is just 0.5 ppb ( 0.00005 mg/l ), you could also acount it as the most accurate Result in the test.
Who tells you that the deviation at 100ppb would not also be 0.5 ppb wich then would be just 0.5% relativ deviation ?
Manipulativ things like that are horrible to me, and do not belong into a scientific assament of Data.
Just fearing users of this is the only purpose of such a act.



---- update ----

Leest Eshan hier ook mee? (misschien beter in het engels voor hem....)

Hello Eshan, I really hope you would like to reconsider this statement of yours. You claim you can measure certain values in the lower ranges with your protocol. If a value in the lower range deviates a multitude from the original value (like in this case 5X) than it does not matter for statistics in what unit you present your data ng, pg, ug of what so ever. If the deviation in this case matters for the person who would own the aquarium where this value is measured is a different thing. I competely agree with you there, but you just cannot state that this is one of the most accurate data presented due to the very low amount of cadmium. Example: we produce antibodies at our firm: we deliver those in pico grams or nano grams. If we state that a solution contains 2 pico grams of a certain IgG and the real value is 4, we would be massacered by the FDA. My comment here is, and I hope I state it clearly: If you present your results as actual values without giving a realliability interval, people can expect that those values are real and a 2,3,4,5 fold difference from the real value is statistically way off.

I still consider the Triton measurement as a very handy tool to get data about certain elements and I don't see a big problem in the deviations mentioned in the article (same as the person who wrote the article). I also send a sample now and than to get some info about my water. But with all due respect, if you know that certain elements give a huge background signal and a therefore difficult to quantitate in the lower range, please state that somewhere. There is completely no shame in that.
Kind regards,
Dennis