45 replies to this topic

[humbug]

Thought I’d share this one with the group. I’ve mentioned it before in threads, but though it worthy of a bit more visibility.  The aim here isn’t to product-bash per se – it’s to try to encourage people to QUESTION the products they are using, and just not to accept they behave in accordance with manufacturer’s claims.
 

For years I’ve used API test kits . . . and recommended them to others as readily available, affordable kits. It’s only in recent times that I had some questionable results from my own tanks, and a niggling doubt formed. Then I started seeing a string of interesting posts on Facebook groups that just didn’t make sense – people battling “high nitrates” which continual, massive water changes in scrupulously clean tanks couldn’t combat. It didn’t make sense. The one common factor – API test kits.
 

So I did some tests for myself. I tested a water sample with two API nitrate kits from my collection, and one JBL kit. All kits were within use by dates and had been stored properly since purchase. The water came from a large moderately stocked tank running a large Marine Pure block in the sump for nitrate reduction. With my maintenance regime I would expect nitrate levels to be low. Results were as follows:
 

Older API kit - 40 ppm (3 months before expiry, bottles well used but shaken well before every use)
Newer API kit - 160 ppm (2+ years to expiry, bottles used for one or two tests only)
JBL kit - between 5 & 10 ppm
 

I have since made a comparison using JBL and ELOS kits on other samples from the same tank and they gave identical, low results.
 

While the API nitrate kits appear to be particularly problematic, I no longer trust the API nitrite kits either. I had a situation with dead fry in a tank. API kits indicated water was fine, while JBL showed elevated nitrite. Without the JBL kit I wouldn’t have known how to deal with the problem.
 

I keep hearing of similar stories – a couple of weeks ago a guy had unexplained deaths in his tank. Took water samples to two shops and their testing using API kits indicated there were no issues. He took a sample to another shop who tested with another brand and identified elevated levels of nitrite and sky-high nitrate. Problem identified . . . . . eventually.  If the guy hadn’t been persistent, he would still be in the dark as to how to proceed to solve his very real problem.
 

I hear the cries already. “API kits are fine – you just need to use them properly!” Sorry – I am fully aware of the issues of API nitrate kit reagent 2 settling out of solution and the need for shaking the @*&% out of the bottle before use. I’m well aware of the pitfalls of unclean test tubes, inaccurate sample sizes etc, etc. I’m a degree qualified engineer with 25+ years’ experience in Test and Evaluation. I suggest if I can’t get reliable, repeatable results from a test kit, then they aren’t suitable for the general hobbyist.

 

A hunt on the internet quickly reveals that my experiences aren’t uncommon. We are now seeing a number of well-respected LFS refusing to sell these kits, based on customer’s and in-shop experiences.
 

The response I’ve had from a technical representative of API on this subject is to say . . . . . interesting. Let’s just say it didn’t do anything to improve my confidence in the products.

I used to recommend API kits to others as a relatively affordable, readily available option. I no longer do so. False negative test results mean problems can’t be identified. Excessive readings lead people to take drastic, unwarranted interventions on their tanks.

 

Problem is – we buy a product, particularly one from a major well-known company, and we just expect it will do what it says it should . . . . . .

Please – rather than accept those results with blind faith, retain a healthy degree of scepticism.  If results don’t seem to make sense, try to find a LFS who use an alternative brand who can validate or otherwise your parameters.   You owe it to your fish!

 

Edited by humbug, 05 June 2017 - 05:10 PM.

[Westie]

Interesting...... are JBL and ELOS test kits available in Perth?

[malawiman85]

Plenty of us have posted concerns with API kits in the past.
I genuinely believe the API nitrate test is flawed.

Nice post.

[humbug]

Here's another example, simply because people like pictures.  I could post heaps of these.

This is the results of a test of a local hobbyist's tank. She kept doing decent water changes on her moderately stocked tank and the nitrates "remained high". We tested a sample using her near new API kit and a JBL kit of mine. Tests were conducted in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions – to the letter.
 

The photo doesn't show colours well, but the API kit was giving a reading of 160ppm nitrate, while the JBL kit was reading around 20ppm.

 

[humbug]

Interesting...... are JBL and ELOS test kits available in Perth?

I'm unwilling to personally recommend any brand now.  Once bitten, twice shy.  I'm personally using JBL and have been building my confidence in the brand over a couple of years.  Unfortunately the previous wholesaler of JBL is no longer bringing the products into Australia, so I'm forced to buy online from the UK or Germany.  I see that Aquotix are now stocking the JBL Proscan test strips.  I wondering if they would consider taking on other JBL products??????  I suggest there is a small band of JBL advocates hungry for access to them, and that band is gradually growing.  Perhaps some gentle encouragement from customers asking the question might be in order???

ELOS are certainly available over here in Adelaide.  They are unquestionably accurate, but are expensive. 
 

Don't dismiss other brands.  People are also recommending Salifert and Sera. 

Its suggested that the problem with the API nitrate test is the instability of the reagent 2.  The reagent precipitates out of solution over time.  If this is the case, then its likely that brands that supply one of the reagents as a powder (as JBL does) are likely more accurate. 

Its also been suggested that one issue with the API ammonia kit is that its supplied as two liquids.  Other brands supply the reagents as three liquids.  It is perhaps worth looking for one of those brands.






 

Edited by humbug, 05 June 2017 - 06:37 PM.

[Ageofaquariums]

I use so many different test kits its insane. The API one has the advantage of being FAST! Its better than strip tests for accuracy. ALL test kits have issues, reagents dont always play nice with other aquarium chemicals, and it only takes putting the wrong lid on a bottle to send its accuracy to hell. User error is a HUGE problem with testing and dosing. No matter the kit you use, record the results. Trend data is more helpful than 0.000001% accuracy.

[humbug]

I use so many different test kits its insane. The API one has the advantage of being FAST! Its better than strip tests for accuracy. ALL test kits have issues, reagents dont always play nice with other aquarium chemicals, and it only takes putting the wrong lid on a bottle to send its accuracy to hell. User error is a HUGE problem with testing and dosing. No matter the kit you use, record the results. Trend data is more helpful than 0.000001% accuracy.

Sorry - but I'm going to take you to task on this one.  Statements like this are nothing but a smokescreen. 
 

I can assure you that with my background in T&E, I don't inadvertently place the wrong cap on the wrong bottle. I store products properly.  I use them in accordance with instructions.

Recording "trend data" is utterly meaningless for troubleshooting issues, which is what most more-experienced hobbyists use kits for.  Trend data is only useful in other circumstances if those results are REPEATABLE.
 

We are NOT talking about small, inconsequential errors in results here. Do you seriously suggest that this is a discussion about "0.000001% accuracy"???????   There is a HELL of a difference in the required course of action in dealing with a tank with a nitrate reading of  5-10ppm, and one of 160ppm.   In my high pH tanks, actually knowing if I have 0.5 ppm ammonia or not is important to me. I certainly need to know if nitrite is present when trying to troubleshoot a tank with dead fry.  If our uncertainty level in results from these kits is this great, what exactly is the point of the test??????? 
 

These are products which are marketed to HOBBYISTS, for HOBBYIST use.  In hobbyists' hands, it can be expected that they will be used irregularly, and over an extended period of time.  These products SHOULD maintain their effectiveness under those conditions - in fact there is a legal obligation on the manufacturer under Consumer Law that they do so.  There is a significant body of evidence in the public domain which demonstrates that API kits are simply not providing reliable, repeatable results in the hands of users. 
 

Suggesting that "user error is a huge problem" is a pretty convenient fob-off line.  Perhaps I have a higher regard for users and their ability to follow simple instructions than you have.  But putting it frankly, if the general hobbyist is unable to achieve meaningful, reliable results with these kits, and those results are so heavily impacted by "user error", then they are simply not "fit for purpose".
 

I sincerely believe that in attempting to produce a product which is "easy to use", API have lost focus on the actual reason for the product - that of providing useful results.

Edited by humbug, 06 June 2017 - 03:13 PM.

[humbug]

Whooops - I've just had one of those smh moments. I hadn't realised that API were a sponsor of this forum . . . . . 

 

 

. . . . but then I sat back and thought about it.  Should that make a difference to my ability to voice a concern to the group?  Should forum sponsorship act as a form of censorship, either directly or indirectly?  Hopefully not.  Apologies if I've made things uncomfortable for forum admin, though.  Certainly not my intention!

 

[bigjohnnofish]

lol from what i heard they just send the dodgy api test kits to south australia...     

 

i use straight tap water as a test constant... it has never tested positive for nitrate... and although ammonia levels used to vary since they built/upgraded treatment plants ammonia level is constant also...  i have 60 odd tanks and use redtail tank as a nitrate high reading... at best its 40ppm and at worst 80ppm... so if i get a reading of zero theres a problem... also if i get a nitrate reading from straight tap water theres a problem... so i have a test constant to fall back onto if i need to check my test kit....

with ammonia its same deal test tap water for a high reading and i have one tank that has more media and filtration it could ever use... it always produces zero ammonia reading... it has self cleaning media and isnt effected by filter cleaning... so thats my constant zero ammonia reading...

i have a big pond out front that is lowly stocked and can be used as another constant backup......

to date never had a problem with api....

 

you have no idea how many people incorrectly use test kits... people dont like to read instructions if it takes any longer than 2 mins....

 

 Should forum sponsorship act as a form of censorship, either directly or indirectly?  Hopefully not. 

 

 

 has done in the past - but i can't shouldnt elaborate on this 

[Ageofaquariums]

If you remove a couple of the prolific posters from the equation, the body of fan material about the JBL kits in the public domain is tiny. As to you taking such a great deal of offense to "user error" being a common problem I can only offer a LOL in response. Test kits with powder reagents are too complicated for many hobbyists. Its just that simple.

 

As to trend data not being important, I call bull dust.

Trend data IS THE DATA you want. Its how we work out optimal husbandry such as partial water changes and filter cleans. Its how we track breeding cycles or detect trigger events that are causing issues. If you dont use trend data, your problem solving will only ever focus on fixing symptoms, rather than finding the trigger event and ensuring the cause is removed. Those of us who are not students of history, are doomed to repeat it.

 

In a lab if we are unsure of test kit accuracy we calibrate it. You can buy known quantities/concentrations of chemicals, or you can make them up yourself. Give "aquarium test kit calibration" a google and you will see what I mean. Bit bad form to post links to other forums, but maybe this will interest some  http://archive.iorod...g-api-test-kits .

 

API kits are used more than any others in the hobby. In my experience their failure rate is very low. Before Dr Wellfish, things were a lot worse. Many do not realise just how far test kits have come in the hobby. Theres always room for improvement, but if you ask those in the trade about the API Freshwater Master Kit, you will find how happy we are its a thing. Its the main tool we use to turn betta keepers into reefers. Sure you dont need one as a betta keeper, and you will turn to fancier kits as a reefer....  but that bit in between? API gets it done.

[Westie]

 has done in the past - but i can't shouldnt elaborate on this 

 

go on, I dare ya! ha ha

[Delapool]

Interesting discussion!

Planning on comparing API nitrate and JBL PROSCAN tomorrow. I'd love to get a proper water sample done but hard to justify the cost when mainly I'm happy. I'm tempted to buy another test kit but I'm just fooling myself as I have no standards.

In an assay laboratory I would know the assay machine has been calibrated with say a high, medium and low assay standard (similar to a ph pen). The company getting the samples assayed would also add their own assay standards, some with only subtle differences to test both accuracy and precision.

http://cdn.antarctic...on_accuracy.png

Even then the assay machine will show some drift and I was told that this is worse near 0. As well the machine is likely to be accurate near the standards used to calibrate and give more inaccurate assay results elsewhere.

The company can then send the sample to other labs (round robin testing) to see how close they all are to each other because there will be differences. A heck of a lot of money can be spent on this.

So for the test kits I think they are great value for money. I don't trust them because I do none of the above checks (but my wallet thanks me!). I am happy to use them as mainly if I dose ferts, results go up. If I test tap water, I get nothing much. So broadly happy

I think this is a great discussion because for me it highlights not having blind faith in your assay result, no matter how expensive the test or how it is done.

With I guess a different hat on, I'm more fussy and for geek interest -> I have a suspicion that my API reads low relative to JBL (no idea which is true and if that ratio is always the same as nitrates increase). So far it's bugging me but not a show stopper.

What would worry me is if I repeated a water test and results varied badly. (Of course at the same time I'm all for getting test kits more accurate and cheaper as well).

Apart from the JBL PROSCAN, I am wary of pool or aquarium cardboard test strips and have found bad under-calls in results by myself and in other threads I've read.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[humbug]

I’m so glad you cleared that all up for us Age of Aquariums.  If I’m understanding your advice correctly – those who get odd results from API test kits are dim-wits unable to follow simple instructions, and those who speak out openly about potential issues are “prolific posters”, who’s experiences aren’t valid, and should be ignored.
 

So now furnished with this new-found knowledge, it seems I have a bit of work ahead of me. 
 

Firstly, I’ll need to let Sharon know that she should be using the consistent 160ppm+ nitrate readings she’s been getting from her near new API kit when testing her lightly stocked, well maintained tank, and use them to plot trends.  From this she will be able to determine her maintenance regime going forward, even if that indicates that she needs to do twice daily, 90% water changes to get the readings down to anything like recommended levels for her fish. 
 

I’ll need to pass similar advice on to Adam . . . . . and Ken  . . . . . . and Andrew . . . . . . and Debby . . . . . .  who have had similar experiences.  In the future when I encounter guys tearing their hair out trying to reduce unbelievably high nitrate levels in their tanks – I’ll let them know not to worry!!!   All they need to do is plot trends!!  Just like with Sharon, it will solve all their problems!
 

I’ll let Larry know that the first two LFS he went to who couldn’t help him identify his tank issues got it totally wrong.  They should have got him to bring in water samples over an extended period of time so they too could “plot trends”.  Trends of zero nitrite, and low nitrates in all likelihood, based on their initial findings.  Hopefully they will come to some sort of conclusion based on those trends before he loses the rest of his fish. 
 

But geesh - that third LFS Larry went to must have had rocks in their head!!!  Why on earth would they even contemplating doubting the accuracy of API tests and retest using another brand? And why on earth would they think that the nitrite level they identified could be a pointer to an issue?  It just beggars belief.  I’ll let them know their course of action was entirely unwarranted.  Apparently API have a low failure rate.
 

I’m in a bit of confusion here though – should I instead be dropping a note to the two LFS that originally tested Larry’s water and found no nitrite and low nitrates, and pass on the advice about “user error”?  Do we assume that they too are struggling to follow the kit instructions?  Or maybe they accidently swapped the caps of the bottles over? 
 

Eeekk – I can see this is all going to take me a bit of time.  Ummmmmm . . . . .  what’s next on my list? 
 

I need to let Sandra know that the vet she had out to attend to her mystery fish deaths, who got an ammonia reading using his Sera kit while Sandra’s API kit registered zero, has come to entirely the wrong conclusion.  He’s likely just another of these incompetent souls who suffers from “user error” with API kits, and has misguidedly switched to Sera.  I wonder if Sandra will pass the message on to the vet for me to save me one call . . . . I’m starting to get nervous about my phone bill now.
 

After all that, I’ll need to sit back with a coffee and somehow reconcile with myself those fry deaths in my tank.  Bugger – user error again.  I should have known! My incompetence was responsible for not getting a nitrite reading using a perfectly adequate test kit.  But then that begs the question - should I go as far as to contact the Uni and let them know those high distinctions I got in chemistry must have been a clerical mistake? I’m incapable of placing five drops of a single reagent into a sample of water and shaking it!  I can’t possibly have stumbled my way through all those uni pracs!
 

Hmmm – I can see I’ve got a busy day ahead of myself here.  No time to finish that coffee.
 

But here’s my real problem.  What am I going to say to the specialist aquarium shops who, through personal experience and customer feedback, have stopped stocking API kits?  Guys with decades of experience in fish keeping and the industry.  I had massive respect for these guys, and I now realise that respect was misplaced.  Hmmm – obviously they too are misguided in their opinions. Their mistaken views on these kits, and their decisions to place their ethics ahead of profit, were simply idiotic.  Think of the money they have lost through sales!!!!  More dumb-asses I guess.  Good job that they felt unable to publicly voice their concerns because of the potential implications of future dealings with a large wholesaler.  If they had voiced those concerns, they would now have egg on their faces based on this latest info.  But I’m still not quite sure how best to break this astounding news to those guys . . . . . . .
 

I’m exhausted already just thinking about it all.  I’m glad the failure rate of API kits “is very low”.  Imagine the task I would be facing now if it was higher!!!
 

I guess when I’m asked in future for advice about alternative brands, I’ll just have to let people know that apparently while they may be capable of using two reagent bottles for a test, three bottles will likely prove too taxing for them.  And I mean, who actually cares about getting a meaningful result from their kit anyway – ease of use is far more important!  And fancy even considering a kit with a powder????   That’s simply beyond the capabilities of anyone without a higher degree in chemistry.

 

Or perhaps . . . . just perhaps . . . . I should be just a tiny, weeny bit sceptical of the above response, knowing that perhaps there may be a tincey, incey, wincey little bit of a vested interest involved in defending a product.  But no, that would be very wrong of me to even contemplate that a company with a considerable turn-over of these products, and in receipt of discounts based on their sales volumes, might provide such a response . . . . . .

 

As I said before, perhaps the alternative action is for hobbyists to take caution using test kit results - ANY RESULTS.  If you consider yourself capable of contending with three bottles of liquid reagent instead of two, or going as far as dealing with the immense complexities of a spoonful of powder, then perhaps take that massive leap and consider an alternative brand. 
 

PS – names above have been changed in an attempt to protect the identity of the misguided, ill-informed, dim-wits involved

 

i use straight tap water as a test constant... it has never tested positive for nitrate... and although ammonia levels used to vary since they built/upgraded treatment plants ammonia level is constant also...  i have 60 odd tanks and use redtail tank as a nitrate high reading... at best its 40ppm and at worst 80ppm... so if i get a reading of zero theres a problem... also if i get a nitrate reading from straight tap water theres a problem... so i have a test constant to fall back onto if i need to check my test kit....

with ammonia its same deal test tap water for a high reading and i have one tank that has more media and filtration it could ever use... it always produces zero ammonia reading... it has self cleaning media and isnt effected by filter cleaning... so thats my constant zero ammonia reading...

i have a big pond out front that is lowly stocked and can be used as another constant backup......

to date never had a problem with api....

Just so you know - the kits we have come across that are giving such high results for nitrates still give zero results when on used on samples of tap water. 
 

Edited by humbug, 08 June 2017 - 01:30 PM.

[Westie]

this is the part where admin ask people to please be civil and discuss the topic in a calm manner...... interesting thread but please don't lose your cool

[humbug]

I suspect my level of frustration over this topic is showing.  We are talking about a growing body of evidence from a significant number of experienced, capable, informed, well credentialed individuals, many of who simply aren't in a position to speak publicly.  I'm just not prepared to accept the kits are fine, its "user error" line we keep being fed.

Edited by humbug, 08 June 2017 - 03:40 PM.

[malawiman85]

AOA,

I've seen lots of user error with API kits. That's a fair call but there really are problems with the kit based on my experience. Maybe it's user error... But I'm university qualified already and have nearly finished a MSc... If people like Humbug and myself aren't capable of getting this test to perform reliably then who can?
I agree that powder is too hard... Compared to drops... If they perform the same way... but they don't. Most people simply don't understand its comparing quandongs and oranges.

I like your point about trend data and learning but it doesn't change the fact that occasionally shit goes bad and you need a reliable test to get you on the right track.
I had a nitrate kit that registered around 80 on tank water every time. 0 on tap water though... Nothing in between. That's just wrong, doesn't matter how you cut it.
An alternative kit registered between 20 and 40 religiously on the same maintenance schedule and yep, the API kit registered 80 again.

[humbug]

Don't get me wrong - I agree entirely with both AoA and malawiman about the importance of trend data.  Its why I'm forever pointing people to the importance of having their own kits and testing to establish how often they need to do water changes etc. 

The point I'm making is that trend data is useless if your kit is providing a result of 80ppm or 160ppm EVERY time you test, irrespective of what the actual nitrate level is.  This is what we seem to be finding all too often.  How do you possibly reconcile that data into anything useful in the way of a maintenance regime?

I also suspect that at times the nitrate kits are giving readings lower than actual.  This problem is less likely to be picked up.

These issues aren't batch specific, and are being seen in other countries as well.  The problems may well be only a small proportion of kits, but it places doubt over EVERY kit.  How do we predict which are "good" and which are "bad"?

Edited by humbug, 08 June 2017 - 02:38 PM.

[Westie]

Not to rubbish API, but given the experiences from others I'll be ditching my Nitrate test part of the master test kit and get an Elos Nitrate test kit. Looks like AoA are out of stock of the Elos so I'll grab one off eBay. Vebas sell the Salifert branded test kits which I think are more for salt water tanks, but they could be another option to try?

[malawiman85]

Seachem

[humbug]

Seachem
 

 

I haven't looked at the Seachem test kits before now.  I notice they come with a "reference for test validation".  Interesting

 

Edited by humbug, 08 June 2017 - 05:44 PM.