Inland Reef / Reefs.org Salt Analysis Project

[Baalz]

liquid I agree.
But before I do.. I would like to say I only posted because I felt the same as Minderaser did and didnt agree with cjdevito's comment that Minderaser was attacking anyone.

cjdevito,
I am quite capable of independent thought. I favor no boards in particular and I am not someone's lackey.
[/quote]

 

[kazzoo]

But I continue to believe that getting the full elemental analysis for all these salts is an essential first step, and that future studies, of whatever nature, will find these results valuable.

What do you expect to be the immediate benefits of this study that we as hobbyists will find helpful in determining what ASW would be best to use in our aquarium?

 

[Len]

Randy,

Politics aside .... The the original salt study thread was, in part, a solicitation for donations. Thus, I don't see why public discussion about how donations are to be handled (or Inland's preferences on the matter) is inpertinent to the topic. That's why we're a bit confused why such threads were either deleted or editted for content. I am in no way making inferences of motive or causation on your behalf, but simply relaying my opinions on the issue and an explanation of why I am confused such posts were censored.

FWIW, donations through second parties is illogical. Inland has a simple donation site set up, and I'm not sure why money has to pass via so many hands to get to their study. FYI, every additional transaction costs the study 3% in surcharges, and it prevents accessible accountability for the undertaker of the study (Inland).

 

[randy holmes-farley]

I already answered that exact question when Shane asked in the thread where his post was deleted. Here's the original answer that is still posted there, and it is the same as that which I reposted here. It should not be news to anyone that had actually looked at the thread where the posts were deleted:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... genumber=1

I stepped in here as one of the people that is most involved in RC and also RDO. Sort of like a mediator, one might say.

The things that have been deleted relate to the handling of money, not having anything to do with designs or purposes of studies. There does not need to be a public discussion of how RC handles it's money, IMO. However, that is just my opinion. John may feel differently, and may choose to take up the discussion of money publicly or privately with you and others.

I'm sure that anyone that has committed money through RC that has questions about it can have them answered by John or others if they just ask.


__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley
Want to talk chemistry? Try the Reef Chemistry Forum
http://reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisp ... orumid=112




Here, if you want to reopen James's posts you can have them too. Since this thread is apparently no longer a scientific discussion, but a debate about who did what to who and when did they do it, it fits right in



Hi Randy,

Thanks for the reply, I think there is certainly a misunderstanding here which I'd like to clear up:

You said:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There does not need to be a public discussion of how RC handles it's money, IMO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For the record, this is NOT a discussion of how RC handles its money. This money does not belong to RC or Reefs.org, it belongs to the donors who intend to contribute it to Inland Reef for the reefs.org/Inland Reef salt analysis project.

So I think we have a valid point. We should maximize this amount, not "throw it away" by giving it needlessly to Paypal.

Cheers
James Wiseman

 

[randy holmes-farley]

I'm sorry, I had thought that all those throwing your name out as the logical person to take over and lead had at least discussed this with you.

They did. I hadn't answered until just now.

 

[Anonymous]

Can we split this thread up. One for the actual discussion about the study and one for the discussion of the money and the he said/she said?

 

[jamesw]

I'd like to thank Matt Marula for re-stating their reasons for wanting to conduct this new study. Folks - Read MattM's post and decide for yourself if its worth donating time and money to. I think it is and that's one of the reasons that reefs.org is helping them in this.

I'd also like to thank Randy for reposting the information about the Paypal Donation Fees. I posted that information on the other board because I felt it was important that donors using the link there would know that they were wasting some of their donation.

No matter what boards you frequent, if you do decide to contribute money to this project please please use the Paypal link on Inland Reef's website. The reason why restated here:

For the record, this is NOT a discussion of how RC handles its money. This money does not belong to RC or Reefs.org, it belongs to the donors who intend to contribute it to Inland Reef for the reefs.org/Inland Reef salt analysis project.

So I think we have a valid point. We should maximize this amount, not "throw it away" by giving it needlessly to Paypal.

Cheers
James

 

[randy holmes-farley]

Len:

Politics aside .... The the original salt study thread was, in part, a solicitation for donations. Thus, I don't see why public discussion about how donations are to be handled (or Inland's preferences on the matter) is inpertinent to the topic. That's why we're a bit confused why such threads were either deleted or editted for content. I am in no way making inferences of motive or causation on your behalf, but simply relaying my opinions on the issue and an explanation of why I am confused such posts were censored.

Yes., the original salt study thread was such a solicitation. The thread where the posts were deleted was not a solicitation for money. It was entitled " Feedback on the Salt Analysis Project"

Nevertheless, I can see why one might think that discussions about payment methods would be reasonable to put there. That's why people posting them (Shane and James) were neither given a warning nor were banned. They did not break any explicit rule.

Nevertheless, I (and I'll take the heat on this personally if need be) believe that the posts were not entirely on the up and up. To be perfectly honest the posts (especially James') seemed more directed at opening old wounds between RC and RDO than in really saving $30 (a 3% fee on $1000).

RC as a commercial board is giving far more money ($500) than could be siphoned off to PayPal fees. Further, there was some uncertainty about payment methods and the fees associated with them (including the credit card fees) in the inital study posts at RDO when RC set up the system that they choose to use to help fund this study. FOr RDO folks to then go back and ask that the whole system be changed to save $30 seemed rather less than genuine to us (especially as many contributors had already sent the money in via the system that John set up and the fees, whatever they are, are already incurred).

In short, how RC handles money is the sole purvue of John to control, and is not something that requires public discussion. I also posted that anyone with questions about how he handles their donations is more than welcome to ask him and I am certain he will respond. Further, I also expect that he will refund anyone's contribution if, for any reason, including PayPal fees or the fact that the study may change to something they don't really care to sponsor), they wish their money back before the study consumes the money.

 

[liquid]

Nevertheless, I can see why one might think that discussions about payment methods would be reasonable to put there. That's why people posting them (Shane and James) were neither given a warning nor were banned. They did not break any explicit rule.

Nevertheless, I (and I'll take the heat on this personally if need be) believe that the posts were not entirely on the up and up. To be perfectly honest the posts (especially James') seemed more directed at opening old wounds between RC and RDO than in really saving $30 (a 3% fee on $1000).

Just for the record, my post was on the up-and-up and I had no devious thoughts behind posting it to RC. It just struck me as strange as to why there had to be multiple payment options and I thought I'd bring it up as my post went unanswered here on our thread. The 'Feedback' thread seemed the logical place to post it.

Also, I have no interest whatsoever in opening old wounds between the boards. Since becoming an operator here, I have worked hard at fostering better relations between RC and RDO. Ask Agu, Anemone, Carlos, Dwayne, Phillstone, etc. about me.

With that said, let's try to move forward on this thread. I think we're making some positive gains and do not want to see this thread digress.

Shane

 

[randy holmes-farley]

FWIW, donations through second parties is illogical. Inland has a simple donation site set up, and I'm not sure why money has to pass via so many hands to get to their study. FYI, every additional transaction costs the study 3% in surcharges, and it prevents accessible accountability for the undertaker of the study (Inland).

But it didn't when John set up the system. We have Shanes post saying people could not use PayPal. So John set up a sysem where people could. Shame on John, I must say. Thinking to make it easier for people to donate.

Accessible accountability? Are you serious? Every single contribution at RC is publicly posted, along with a running total of the amount. Complete accountability to the public using that system, and to Inland when they see the total list of contributors and the total contribution.

Let's not fabricate concerns here.

Here's the RC contributor thread:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... did=163484

 

[randy holmes-farley]

With that said, let's try to move forward on this thread. I think we're making some positive gains and do not want to see this thread digress.


I agree.


But I continue to believe that getting the full elemental analysis for all these salts is an essential first step, and that future studies, of whatever nature, will find these results valuable.

So what does that mean for the study. Has it changed any from the original proposal? Is it still a pure analytical chemistry test (no bio testing?)? Is it the plan to test solids? etc.

 

[Anonymous]

So what does that mean for the study. Has it changed any from the original proposal? Is it still a pure analytical chemistry test (no bio testing?)? Is it the plan to test solids? etc.

Wouldn't it be best to insure we do both the bio testing and the analytical testing from the same batches of salt. It doesn't make sense to me to do the analyical testing of the salts. Have Inland do what ever with the salt, get more salt and do the bio testing. The coorleation with the slats would change. By doing both we can now say salt sample contained this and performed this well on the bio. To me this seems like the best way to do it. How much salt is needed to perform the analyical tests?

 

[randy holmes-farley]

How much salt is needed to perform the analyical tests?

The actual test requires very little. In the ICP tests that I've run, 100 mL of test fluid is a good amount. Certainly, a liter would be more than anyone could afford to use. :mrgreen:

The problem is in ensuring uniformity. Folks that worry about such things (like pharmaceutical scientists assaying a batch in a barrel to pass QC tests) take samples from various places from within the container, and then combine them or test them individually. In that sense, you will need more salt, but then not end up using a whole lot of it.

Still, if there are some impurities in the mix, and you happen to not sample them in a small sample, you'll miss them. Bits of rusted metals, black flecks that some aquarists have reported, etc.

The best way to solve that problem is to dissolve the entire container in water.

Also, don't forget that we'll need to have a pure water sample tested. What do we suppose is the copper level in DI water? Maybe more than NSW.

 

[MattM]

I updated the original post several days ago. In the update I offered to provide samples of all the salts to Dr. Shimek for additional bio-assay testing if he is willing and able to do so. In that case, the bio-assay would be with the exact same samples that were tested.

As to testing solids or liquids, I will take your advice on this, Randy, but allow me to check with the labs tomorrow to see what their take on this is. I.e., which is better for the equipment they are using. I know one labs requires any liquid sample to be stabilizing by adding nitric acid to bring the pH below 2. Don't know what effect this might have...

Ensuring conformity will be an issue if we are not mixing the entire bag. However, what are your thoughts on getting liquid samples to Ron? Are there issues with the amount of time that passes before the testing? The dry would be more stable if conformity could be solved. Then again, how many hobbyists always mix the entire bag?

If we go with liquid samples, we can cut down the NSW to only one sample, and then add a sample of our RO/DI water, so it can be accounted for in the salt solutions.

FYI on the money thing, I first posted the study on 12 March at 3:09 AM, I proposed a site to collect donations at 1:39 PM, and I had it up-and-running at 4:04 PM, same day. So I'm not sure when the time period was that John was forced to set up a separate system.

We are eating the credit card fees on donations made though our site - 100% of the donor's money goes to the test.

 

[JohnL]

I noticed that there is one particular poster that is being a "seagull" on this thread - flying in and *****ing on everything but not making any constructive contribution. Since this is reefs.org we are not going to delete his posts - so just try to ignore him (would we be extended the same courtesy? Nope, we'd be censored!). Sorry about that gang.

I'm sorry you feel that way James...

I'm just going to fly in this one last time...

...and let you know that we raised $800 from our members plus our matching contribution of $500 gives you $1,300 for this project. I will be sending you the money via PayPal shortly. I have directed all future donations from RC members to your PayPal link in this thread. I wish this project great success. I would just like to urge the planners to think it through so that we get some meaningful results and do not just waste the contributing members money.

Actually... on second thought, I'll mail you a check so you don't get hit with a PayPal fee

 

[JohnL]

So, 4 salts plus NSW times three samples each would be 15 tests. The lab we normally use charges $350 per ICPMS test for these quantities, so that's $5,250. We decided right away, that we are not prepared to spend that amount ourselves right now.

Great idea, Matt but why not start with IO and Crystal Sea now. Then the two others as we have the money.

Then the thought occured to me that if we try to raise the money, maybe this could be a one time opportunity to get every popular salt tested. Additionally, quantity discounts might apply. Well, it turns out that we can get 17 salts plus NSW tested for a total of just over $10,000. More than four times the number of salts for about twice the price.

This could be a second round if we have the money, couldn't it?

 

[jamesw]

Thanks John,

I'd like to personally thank everyone who donated money for this study so far.

Please don't Paypal or send any money to us - direct it to Inland Reef as they are the ones conducting the study. For contact information, you can click PM under MattM's post to send him a Private Message and make arrangements.

Thanks again,
James

 

[MattM]

For contact information, you can click PM under MattM's post to send him a Private Message and make arrangements.

All our contact info is in the first post on this thread.

Thanks!

 

[jacmyoung]

I agree with John that if we have enough, the four salts used by Dr. Ron should be tested first. Also the bag of salt should be desolved in water in a similar way Dr. Ron did. After all it was his bioassay led to this project to verify his data. I definitely believe testing saltwater samples is more beneficial than testing solids.

After this study publication, I have personally contacted several labs, one lab which speciallizes in saltwater on the West Cost quoted me $160 to test 7 major metals in my saltwater sample, the detection limits were 0.002ppb to 0.05ppb as I recall, and that was for a single-sample order. Although if we need to test every metal the cost should be much higher.

 

[MattM]

O.K. I just spoke to the folks at General Engineering Labs in South Carolina.

They indicated a desire to get the samples dry, as they would dissolve them in a hydrochloric/nitric acid mix to get everything into solution for their equipment. We discussed elements that may precipitate out when aquarists mix their salt, and so we settled on us mixing the salt, decanting the dissovled portion and sending it to them. They will then dilute with acid for testing.

They are working on a quote for us right now.

So, how does this sound for a revised testing procedure:

1. Obtain 50 gallon bags of each salt to be tested. We will still attempt to get at least three different lots of each.
2. Cut open each bag and take approximately equal samples from the top, bottom, middle, front and back of the bag. Mix these together thoroughly to obtain the raw sample.
3. Mix each with RO/DI water to a s.g. of 1.025. Make the initial mix a little high in s.g. so that we can adjust to 1.025 by adding water, not salt. This should improve consistancy somewhat.
4. Note the yield of 1.025 water from the weight of raw sample dissolved. This will be used to later calculate the actual yield for each 50 gallon bag.
5. Stir until thouroughly dissolved and measure initial pH.
6. Continue to peroidically stir and let sit to allow any precipitates to settle.
7. After 24 hours, decant the portion to be tested from the precipitates, double check s.g., measure final pH, and send a 100ml sample to the lab. Include a sample of our RO/DI water in each test batch so any addition it makes to the salt can be accounted for.

We can not get the quantity discounts by doing 4 only samples - the price almost doubles for these low quantities since there is set-up and calibration for each test run. However, we don't have to get all 50+ samples at once either. We can get the 50+ sample price by doing 10-20 per batch. So I think we can start getting the first lot of each salt together and do this in three lots. That also would give us time to ensure different salt batches. If funding falls short, we will loose some of the bag-to-bag consistancy tests, but none of the salts.

If we get Dr. Shimek or someone else to do further bio-assay analysis, we can either A) Retain each mixed dry sample and provide it to the tester, or B) Mix enough liquid of each sample to be able to supply some to the tester. My concern with (A) is that the water will be different. My concern with (B) is the stability of the solution in the time between the lab analysis and the bio-assay.

Randy, what are your thought on this, and on the proposed procedure?

And Eric, can you locate a couple good elenemtal analyses of NSW for us? We will include one NSW sample in the analysis (just as a check on the lab), but I have been convinced that we should rely on existing published literature for the comparison to NSW.