AWT test result

[bcjm]

I decide to order a water test. I sent the water out last Friday and I got the result from them today. I don't see how is it possible with a calcium reactor and Kalk. reactor my calcium is 306ppm.

 

Ammonia (NH3-4) ........................Good ......................................... 0.006

Nitrite (NO2)................................Good ......................................... 0.002

Nitrate (NO3)...............................Good .............................................0.4

Phosphate (PO4) ..........................Good ........................................... 0.11

Silica (SiO2-3) ............................. High..............................................0.9

Potassium (K) ...............................Low............................................. 151

Calcium (Ca).................................Low....................................... 306

Boron (B) .....................................Low.....................................2.1

Molybdenum (Mo)......................... High..............................................0.2

Strontium (Sr) .............................Good ........................................... 10.9

Magnesium (Mg) ..........................Good .......................................... 1400

Iodine (I

Edited November 24, 2009 by bcjm

[Coral Hind]

Do you have a large amount of corals or clams that are sucking up the calcium? You might have to up your dosages. Have you checked what is coming out of the calcium reactor to make sure it is working at peak?

[Boret]

What's the pH of the Ca Reactor effluent?

[Sikryd]

What's the pH of the Ca Reactor effluent?

 

 

^^^^ +1

 

Coraline also sucks up a lot of calcium

[bcjm]

^^^^ +1

 

Coraline also sucks up a lot of calcium

 

The PH is about 6.5.

 

I just test the calcium level using Salifert test kit. It shows 400 PPM. My calcium has always around that range. It has never been below 380 not to mention 310.

[Boret]

The PH is about 6.5.

 

I just test the calcium level using Salifert test kit. It shows 400 PPM. My calcium has always around that range. It has never been below 380 not to mention 310.

 

3 things that come to mind.... one is that your test kit is not that reliable.

Two, maybe the time between taking the sample and actually testing it had an effect on the Ca (some kind of precipitation because of a reduction of pH, temp, agitation of the vial on transit to AWT, etc...). You could try to take a test vial, fill it up with water, let it sit closed and in the dark for 24 to 48hrs and test Ca with your test kit, see if you get the same result as AWT.

Three, the AWT test are not reliable.

Other than the Ca, your numbers look great. I am affraid of sending my water and get some crazy numbers.

[ctenophore]

Read up on AWT- there is a nontrivial number of people who feel that their calcium (and some other) results are not accurate. Their results are questionable as last I checked, they do not have their service standardized by a "real" lab. I believe a few folks got together and sent them standardized samples and found that the results were significantly inaccurate. Take this with a grain of salt; this hearsay is based on my research into whether or not to use their service over a year ago and I decided not to based on what I found.

[rocko918]

Read up on AWT- there is a nontrivial number of people who feel that their calcium (and some other) results are not accurate. Their results are questionable as last I checked, they do not have their service standardized by a "real" lab. I believe a few folks got together and sent them standardized samples and found that the results were significantly inaccurate. Take this with a grain of salt; this hearsay is based on my research into whether or not to use their service over a year ago and I decided not to based on what I found.

 

i don't like the sound of this! I just ordered my box last week and will be sending my sample in soon.

 

Not trying to dis credit you Justin but do you have any article i can read so i can be more educated on their results.

[ctenophore]

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/show...postid=11534990

 

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthre...hreadid=1328512

 

There are more. I can't find the one with RHF discussing their calcium results. Keep in mind these are almost two years old now. They were timely when I was evaluating them but they may have improved since then. Maybe searching in RHF's chemistry forum would turn up more relevant results.

[rocko918]

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/show...postid=11534990

 

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthre...hreadid=1328512

 

There are more. I can't find the one with RHF discussing their calcium results. Keep in mind these are almost two years old now. They were timely when I was evaluating them but they may have improved since then. Maybe searching in RHF's chemistry forum would turn up more relevant results.

 

 

cool thx, will check-em out.

[flowerseller]

Test everything you can, have someone else test the same with their own test kits, and wait till you get the sample back to see.

 

I'll say this based upon my years in this hobby,

I see the alk test results to be on the lowest side of "good".

I see the Ca could be at that level based upon the alk level.

I don't care as much about an effluent pH of 6.5 because it immediately appears that not enough effluent is being added. I've long called Ca reactors - alk reactors as that's really where the action is.

If it where, the alk would be higher and the Ca would be more elevated than the 306.

I also feel the Mg level is high based upon the alk and Ca readings which are both on the lowest side of "good".

This could cause precipitaion of Ca into calcium carbonate based upon the Mg and alk which could cause the reading you got.

 

 

I could also be full of *@ since I've got nothing but turkey and stuffing on my mind once it get all theses flowers delivered on Wednesday.

But....

I don't think that's it.

[bcjm]

Does anyone know how to adjust these two elements?

 

Potassium (K) ...............................Low............................................. 151

Boron (B) .....................................Low.....................................2.1

[Brian Ward]

Does anyone know how to adjust these two elements?

 

Potassium (K) ...............................Low............................................. 151

Boron (B) .....................................Low.....................................2.1

 

To my knowledge, those are considered "trace elements" and are not something that we typically adjust or even test for. Remember if you're going to adjust something you need to be able to readily test it as well. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it.

[Coral Hind]

Brightwell sells a "Potassion" supplement. I use a bulk dry form Potassium from Get Tanked.

 

Get Tanked also sells the Boron in dry form. If your Boron is low it can cause your dkh to be low.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Coral Hind

[ctenophore]

Does anyone know how to adjust these two elements?

 

Potassium (K) ...............................Low............................................. 151

Boron (B) .....................................Low.....................................2.1

You're best off doing water changes to correct any trace element imbalances, real or imagined.

[Boret]

Check also the chemistry of the Salt you use. Some of them will have low levels of Boron, Potassium, etc, to start with, so the water change won't do much to improve those numbers. I didn't know the effect of Boron on dkh, thx for the info Coral Hind. There was an article comparing different salts, I will try to find it.

 

Potassium will help improve "blue" coloration. Not sure on it though, just what I read on the Brightwell Potassium bottle.

 

I think Chip makes really good points. I didn't think of it that way.

 

If you were to get the water tested at a professional lab... how much would it cost? Maybe someone might know....

 

If the guys at AWT are just using slightly better grade test kits than what we use.... well kudos to them for a great business plan (while it lasts) but two thumbs down for a crappy service. I really want to believe that they have good and accurate testing equipment. I wanted to do the 4 test deal, to check the status of my tank water, test my results against theirs and track more accurately the levels in my water. Thanks for sharing your results bcjm.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Boret

[mogurnda]

You're best off doing water changes to correct any trace element imbalances, real or imagined.

Agreed. The problem with tests like these is that you can start worrying about things that are not really a problem. Borate is indeed a buffer, and adding some will increase your alkalinity, but is not consumed in appreciable quantities. Some marine mixes, including SeaChem, used to use a lot of borate to maintain alkalinity until people realized that the carbonate level was a lot more important than total alkalinity.

[bcjm]

I got a response from AWT after complaining the low calcium reading. Is this a BS?

 

We are not using a test kit to measure your water sample, rather a direct read probe. So yes, the Calcium results that you are going to get from us are going to be significantly different than what you were to read on a home test kit. Your water sample measured 306 ppm of Calicum on our probe.

 

The discrepancy is an artifact of the testing methods. The titration based test kits that you are using cannot differentiate between the different forms that an element might take in your water. For example, calcium can be in the free/ionic form, but it can also be found in temporary associations with several other molecules such as carbonate, bicarbonate, fluoride, sulfate, phosphate, ect. Your test kit is essentially a calcium hardness test, telling you the total amount of calcium of all forms in the water. We use an Ion Specific Electrode for calcium. This electrode only “sees” calcium ions, or free calcium. The amount of free calcium will ALWAYS be lower than the total calcium. In natural seawater, where the ionic balances are constant and stable, the total calcium will be about 20% higher than the free calcium. In aquaria, where the water chemistry is much more variable and dynamic, that ratio is usually much wider.

 

Since your concern about calcium levels pertains to coral growth, you should know that corals don’t really care what form the calcium is in. They prefer free calcium because it is the easiest form for them to use, but they will happily use whatever form is available, with only a tiny bit more metabolic energy expended to break the calcium ion away from whatever it is bound to. Very often, they will also find a use for the other molecule as well, for example, Phosphorus is the primary component of cellular membranes, carbonate can provide carbon for zooxanthallae, ect…

 

In the end, what you really want to watch for is the stability of the ratio between the two measurements. This indicates a stable ionic balance and a more stable overall water chemistry. It is this kind of long-term water chemistry stability that corals really thrive in. I hope that this helps.

Edited December 6, 2009 by bcjm

[basser9]

I have used awt for a year and test it against 2 calcium test i have and it always comes back about the same as the home test kits i have.

THE SAME GOES FOR ALK.

my main reason was to test it against my seachem low range kit and it and seachem are pretty close my nitrates stay around .5.....

YOU made a mistake in my opinion mailing on a Fri i always mail on a Mon/Tue and get back the results 2 days later.

[Origami]

I got a response from AWT after complaining the low calcium reading. Is this a BS?

 

This is similar to what another aquarist reported here: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php...amp;postcount=5

 

Take a look at RHF's response in the next post. He says:

 

"I don't buy it. IMO they just have not developed their method sufficiently.

 

Only 10-15% of the calcium ions in seawater are complexed that way, and even if they are, their method needs to take it into account and produce accurate answers."

 

Then he goes on to cite an article that he wrote....

 

You have to make your own assessment, but if you're seeing good growth of your stony corals, then your calcium level is probably fine. It would be very difficult to get such an imbalance between calcium and alkalinity using the balanced supplementation methods that you're using. Most often, the imbalance shows up not with low calcium, but as low alkalinity in these cases.