I have been getting questionable calcium results with my test kits recently so i took a sample to Brendan at Skiptons for a cross reference and he tested my water at 400ppm with his Seachem kit.I tested the same sample with my Lamotte kit and with the undilute test stopped the test at 1200ppm before i ran out of titrant,then ran their diluted 12:1 test and came up with 495ppm.The undiluted test is innaccurate due to high levels of mineral salts in salt water according to Lamotte so you must use the diluted test.
So this leaves me with either 400 or 495 which is a considerable difference IMO and which one do i believe as both are reputable tests.
I am new to BRS but wondered if it has'nt already been done would it be an idea for a study at a meeting where we obtained a sample of known values and ran various tests with various brand kits and find out which ones are actually accurrate and which ones are just accurrate according to their manufacturers.Maybe we could even test some monitors especially the new calcium monitor.
Any thoughts???
So this leaves me with either 400 or 495 which is a considerable difference IMO and which one do i believe as both are reputable tests.
I am new to BRS but wondered if it has'nt already been done would it be an idea for a study at a meeting where we obtained a sample of known values and ran various tests with various brand kits and find out which ones are actually accurrate and which ones are just accurrate according to their manufacturers.Maybe we could even test some monitors especially the new calcium monitor.
Any thoughts???