Best brand of test kits
- Thread starter reefworm
- Start date
Salifert is a little cheaper to purchase than Lamotte, but you cannot get refills for Salifert, but you can get refills for Lamotte (i.e. you save money with Lamotte in the long run if you start getting the refill kits).
Lamotte has a better "kit" than Salifert. All Lamotte parts are glass -- Salifert is plastic -- Lamotte has a nice little case they come in -- Salifert is a cardboard box.
Overall, I like the Lamotte better, but for accuracy, I think Lamotte and Salifert are both about as good as you will ever need.
Hope that helps,
Eboman
Lamotte has a better "kit" than Salifert. All Lamotte parts are glass -- Salifert is plastic -- Lamotte has a nice little case they come in -- Salifert is a cardboard box.
Overall, I like the Lamotte better, but for accuracy, I think Lamotte and Salifert are both about as good as you will ever need.
Hope that helps,
Eboman
This question IMO should be answered by MattM of inlandreef.com, he has tested many different kits and his results are right on the money, Matt, you should answer this post, but it was basically a combo of like 3 or 4 different brands for differnt kinds of tests.
Nobody has said it yet, so ill chime in. If you want to measure the delicate details (Ca, Mg, etc..) the lamotte or salifert are great. For the basics just buy something cheap, such as fastest. You will find that it is easier to judge the basics by the wellbeing of your occupants. Thus, no need to measure often, although it depnds on you of course. Hope it helps!
oh...cool. Dont know if I can help. Yet, I know that under lab conditions, these companies (not us, if thats what your asking, test kits can/will vary between batches... kinda like beer) Anyways, they test their product and a competitors product. I always feel with all the garbage today about accuracy (such as SG, temp corrected and so forth.) That you will always go for animals' reactions. Otherwise, you go with what the companies say, along with thos eof the Reef community that have access to equipment to test, people around here have their water analyzed by emory, right around the corner. Close enough to what kits read. More or less, this is my opinoin, of course. Alot of people have the idea that after so long the tank is at an equilibrium, and testing is random or when animals look bad. Although I feel that the need for routine recordkeeping is a great idea, and thus you will know exactly where the problem lies... Im a lil too lazy to test weekly, but I like to test monthy/bi-monthly. Hopefully you can understand my sloopy writings... - later!
Salifert and Lamotte both have a good reputation. I have used Salifert and been happy with the results. I tried using the Lamotte Ca test kit when the store was back-ordered on Salifert. After trying 4 times and never seeing the end-point the kit describes I gave up and threw the kit away and found a different supplier for the Salifert kit. The Salifert Ca kit is somewhat less involved as well.
I have no experience however with the other Lamotte kits.
Allen
I have no experience however with the other Lamotte kits.
Allen
The following thread was posted on 7/1/01 by Eric Borneman. Please read carefully no. 3. http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=3bf02d3b7c60355ca6b44ece6a6f59b4&threadid=27435
"I am not saying that keeping natural seawater levels is a bad thing. Hardly. But, if you:
1. look at Atkinson and Bingman's test of synthetic seasalts,
2. know or read about the turnover times of these elements in the wild and in the aquarium,
3. realize the virtual futility of trying to measure accurately these elements using what tests are available,
4. realize that there is not sufficient evidence to support the requirement, use, uptake or need of many of these elements
by corals (or other invertebrates/fishes,
5. recognize that where uptake is documented for organisms, the source is not well established if at all,
6. know that for most organisms that uptake of minor and trace elements are acquired by diet, not by being bathed in them, and
7. that many if not most of the trace and minor elements are toxic and are quickly eliminated from tissues in low doses and may poison at high levels,
"I am not saying that keeping natural seawater levels is a bad thing. Hardly. But, if you:
1. look at Atkinson and Bingman's test of synthetic seasalts,
2. know or read about the turnover times of these elements in the wild and in the aquarium,
3. realize the virtual futility of trying to measure accurately these elements using what tests are available,
4. realize that there is not sufficient evidence to support the requirement, use, uptake or need of many of these elements
by corals (or other invertebrates/fishes,
5. recognize that where uptake is documented for organisms, the source is not well established if at all,
6. know that for most organisms that uptake of minor and trace elements are acquired by diet, not by being bathed in them, and
7. that many if not most of the trace and minor elements are toxic and are quickly eliminated from tissues in low doses and may poison at high levels,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cwa46:
<STRONG>The following thread was posted on 7/1/01 by Eric Borneman. Please read carefully no. 3. http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=3bf02d3b7c60355ca6b 44ece6a6f59b4&threadid=27435
...
3. realize the virtual futility of trying to measure accurately these elements using what tests are available,
...
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you look at the quoted thread, Eric is specifically referring to strontium and iodine and more generally referring to other trace elements. I do not believe his comments in any way refer to the measuring of calcium, alkalinity, nitrate, nitrite or ammonia. In his Aquarium Corals book he does advocate testing for these things, and most others would agree (nitrite and ammonia only on set-up or when some change or problem occurs.)
Tests for phosphate and silicate I find useful mostly for testing source water if not using RO/DI and in the case of phosphate for testing new batches of activated carbon. Even this is probably unneccessary if using a high quality brand of carbon.
Allen
<STRONG>The following thread was posted on 7/1/01 by Eric Borneman. Please read carefully no. 3. http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=3bf02d3b7c60355ca6b 44ece6a6f59b4&threadid=27435
...
3. realize the virtual futility of trying to measure accurately these elements using what tests are available,
...
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you look at the quoted thread, Eric is specifically referring to strontium and iodine and more generally referring to other trace elements. I do not believe his comments in any way refer to the measuring of calcium, alkalinity, nitrate, nitrite or ammonia. In his Aquarium Corals book he does advocate testing for these things, and most others would agree (nitrite and ammonia only on set-up or when some change or problem occurs.)
Tests for phosphate and silicate I find useful mostly for testing source water if not using RO/DI and in the case of phosphate for testing new batches of activated carbon. Even this is probably unneccessary if using a high quality brand of carbon.
Allen
I haven't tried the two most popular test kits recommended here. But of the ones I have tried, I enthusiastically recommend Red Sea Fish Pharm. These test kits are superb. They are super easy to use and understand. I can't say for sure how accurate they are, but the results seem to reflect the conditions in my tank.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John@Carline:
<STRONG>This question IMO should be answered by MattM of inlandreef.com, he has tested many different kits and his results are right on the money, Matt, you should answer this post, but it was basically a combo of like 3 or 4 different brands for differnt kinds of tests.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Somehow I missed this thread first time around. As John mentioned, we have been playing with several brands of test kits for about 6 months in order to determine a new selection to carry. The parameters we have looked at are:
<OL TYPE=1>
<LI>Accuracy
<LI>Ease of use
<LI>Ease of interpreting results
<LI>Price
</OL>
Our results, and the kits we will be carrying, are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>pH - Aquarium Systems FasTest
<LI>Alkalinity - Tropic Marin
<LI>Ammonia - Aquarium Systems FasTest
<LI>Nitite - Tropic Marin
<LI>Nitrate - Tropic Marin
<LI>Calcium - Tropic Marin
<LI>Silicate - Salifert
<LI>Phosphate - Salifert
<LI>Iodine - Salifert
<LI>Magnesium - Salifert
<LI>Copper - Aquarium System FasTest
<LI>Protein - Tropic Marin
</UL>
General Comments:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Tropic Marin kits are some of the best we've seen, but their pH kit tends to read high, and their Ammonia kit has a problem with one of the reagents reacting with the plastic bottle after a while, so we don't recommend those two. We included their Protein test kit for its uniqueness.
<LI>LaMotte kits mostly got disqualified on price.
<LI>All Copper kits we judged to be hard to read - on most you're trying to tell between faint blue and really faint blue. Human color accuity is worst in blue. The Aquarium Systems kit we went with gives you shades of amber, which is much easier to read. The only caveat is that you can get a false high result if your water is yellowish.
<LI>Many of the Aquarium Systems reagents are made by Salifert.
<LI>Many of the Salifert kits that we didn't go with were needlessly hard to use when compared to others.
<LI>The Salifert Iodine test is hard to read, but no worse than other Iodine tests.
</UL>
[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: MattM ]
<STRONG>This question IMO should be answered by MattM of inlandreef.com, he has tested many different kits and his results are right on the money, Matt, you should answer this post, but it was basically a combo of like 3 or 4 different brands for differnt kinds of tests.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Somehow I missed this thread first time around. As John mentioned, we have been playing with several brands of test kits for about 6 months in order to determine a new selection to carry. The parameters we have looked at are:
<OL TYPE=1>
<LI>Accuracy
<LI>Ease of use
<LI>Ease of interpreting results
<LI>Price
</OL>
Our results, and the kits we will be carrying, are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>pH - Aquarium Systems FasTest
<LI>Alkalinity - Tropic Marin
<LI>Ammonia - Aquarium Systems FasTest
<LI>Nitite - Tropic Marin
<LI>Nitrate - Tropic Marin
<LI>Calcium - Tropic Marin
<LI>Silicate - Salifert
<LI>Phosphate - Salifert
<LI>Iodine - Salifert
<LI>Magnesium - Salifert
<LI>Copper - Aquarium System FasTest
<LI>Protein - Tropic Marin
</UL>
General Comments:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Tropic Marin kits are some of the best we've seen, but their pH kit tends to read high, and their Ammonia kit has a problem with one of the reagents reacting with the plastic bottle after a while, so we don't recommend those two. We included their Protein test kit for its uniqueness.
<LI>LaMotte kits mostly got disqualified on price.
<LI>All Copper kits we judged to be hard to read - on most you're trying to tell between faint blue and really faint blue. Human color accuity is worst in blue. The Aquarium Systems kit we went with gives you shades of amber, which is much easier to read. The only caveat is that you can get a false high result if your water is yellowish.
<LI>Many of the Aquarium Systems reagents are made by Salifert.
<LI>Many of the Salifert kits that we didn't go with were needlessly hard to use when compared to others.
<LI>The Salifert Iodine test is hard to read, but no worse than other Iodine tests.
</UL>
[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: MattM ]
Reef keepers often perceive the LaMotte test kits to be "better" than Salifert because LaMotte provides a glass test vial and a plastic case, while Salifert includes a plastic test vial and comes in cardboard.
Actually, the reverse is true; the crystal polycarbonate test vial used by Salifert is a modern laboratory standard, while the green glass vial provided by LaMotte is unacceptable for laboratory use (green here refers to a grade or quality of glass, not to a color).
Crystal polycarbonate as used by Salifert is chemically inert. About it's only real fault is that it can get scratched up over time with use; crystal polycarbonate labware is generally considered disposable.
In contrast, ordinary green glass like that provided by LaMotte leeches alkali compounds like crazy because of the way it's manufactured, which can materially alter the pH of the test sample. This may or may not significantly affect the outcome of the test depending on the test protocol used and what's being tested for, but it's amazing how much alkali comes out of cheap glass, and for how long.
Glass like that from the LaMotte kit really needs to be pickled in acid for a long time (days) before it can be considered lab-safe. To be really lab-safe with glass, you need at least a good grade of borosilicate glass, like Type-1 Class B borosilicate glass or above. Truly great glass labware, something like Wheaton-33 low extractable borosilicate glass, is prized by scientists for the most precise testing work and costs big bucks. Since you won't get good lab glass like this in any throw-away test kit, look for good-quality plastic vials like Salifert's.
Even the best glass, and plastic too, needs to be washed after every use with acid at least as strong as 5% acetic (white vinegar), and dilute hydrochloric acid is even better. Many things for which reef keepers test, especially orthophosphates, stick to glass and plastic so well they can't be washed away with any amount of plain water. How many reefers acid wash their test-kit vials between tests? Not many, I'd bet.
While I'm picking on LaMotte here, I can't help but mention their Calcium test kit. The salt water instructions call for the user to measure out exactly 1.0 milliliter of tank water to be tested. To accurately measure 1.0 ml requires something like a 10 ml Class A PFTE burette, marked in .05 ml increments. But amazingly, LaMotte provides only a plastic eyedropper, and one that holds only 0.5 ml at that. Just the error that comes from using this eye-dropper to measure the all-important water sample can completely destroy any hope of really accurate testing of such a tiny amount. For the user of average skill, this kit presents some real problems, and only an experienced and very careful user can get decent results from this kit.
With all due apologies to the LaMotte fans on the board, I can't help but suspect that at least part of the reputation that LaMotte test kits enjoy is due to their high pricing, and their packaging - although exactly what the sturdy blue plastic box has to do with the supposed accuracy of the test kit inside frankly escapes me.
Actually, the reverse is true; the crystal polycarbonate test vial used by Salifert is a modern laboratory standard, while the green glass vial provided by LaMotte is unacceptable for laboratory use (green here refers to a grade or quality of glass, not to a color).
Crystal polycarbonate as used by Salifert is chemically inert. About it's only real fault is that it can get scratched up over time with use; crystal polycarbonate labware is generally considered disposable.
In contrast, ordinary green glass like that provided by LaMotte leeches alkali compounds like crazy because of the way it's manufactured, which can materially alter the pH of the test sample. This may or may not significantly affect the outcome of the test depending on the test protocol used and what's being tested for, but it's amazing how much alkali comes out of cheap glass, and for how long.
Glass like that from the LaMotte kit really needs to be pickled in acid for a long time (days) before it can be considered lab-safe. To be really lab-safe with glass, you need at least a good grade of borosilicate glass, like Type-1 Class B borosilicate glass or above. Truly great glass labware, something like Wheaton-33 low extractable borosilicate glass, is prized by scientists for the most precise testing work and costs big bucks. Since you won't get good lab glass like this in any throw-away test kit, look for good-quality plastic vials like Salifert's.
Even the best glass, and plastic too, needs to be washed after every use with acid at least as strong as 5% acetic (white vinegar), and dilute hydrochloric acid is even better. Many things for which reef keepers test, especially orthophosphates, stick to glass and plastic so well they can't be washed away with any amount of plain water. How many reefers acid wash their test-kit vials between tests? Not many, I'd bet.
While I'm picking on LaMotte here, I can't help but mention their Calcium test kit. The salt water instructions call for the user to measure out exactly 1.0 milliliter of tank water to be tested. To accurately measure 1.0 ml requires something like a 10 ml Class A PFTE burette, marked in .05 ml increments. But amazingly, LaMotte provides only a plastic eyedropper, and one that holds only 0.5 ml at that. Just the error that comes from using this eye-dropper to measure the all-important water sample can completely destroy any hope of really accurate testing of such a tiny amount. For the user of average skill, this kit presents some real problems, and only an experienced and very careful user can get decent results from this kit.
With all due apologies to the LaMotte fans on the board, I can't help but suspect that at least part of the reputation that LaMotte test kits enjoy is due to their high pricing, and their packaging - although exactly what the sturdy blue plastic box has to do with the supposed accuracy of the test kit inside frankly escapes me.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
