Save $ With Your Api Test Kit

It seems to me like our questioning something we didn't understand got all of us off on the wrong foot. Most of us have never studied Latin so were curious as to what your abbreviation meant.

I could understand using Latin in a medical paper but I actually think it is arrogant to use it on a fish forum. To me it is saying "Look how smart I am. I can speak above everyones head and they will accept my theory because I am smarter than they are". Maybe wasn't the original intention but that is how it progressed.

Sometimes one needs to consider ones audience when trying to make a point. I completely understood your formula. I don't follow the instructions that came with the kit. I had already started using half the amount of water and product to do my tests. (as was suggested by another member of this forum)

I doubt that I will go as far as you suggest. I just use 2 1/2 mls of tank water and the proportional amounts of product. (I could say bottled chemicals but I prefer product)

I actually see no need to try to cut down the amount of product used for each test in my case. My kit will expire long before I have used all of it since I don't have to run the test often now that my tanks are cycled.

Your formula could help someone that has dozens of tanks that have to be tested often I suppose but for most of us it isn't really necessary.

I paid 20 some dollars for my test kit Dec 2015. I feel sure I will still have some of the product left when the best by date arrives in 2022. Not a bad investment and actually the least expensive thing I have purchased for taking care of my aquariums.

 

I'm curious.. these colors are hard to read already. Are the smaller liquid test sizes even harder to read?

Yes, I tried doing I this way, and had to start over with proper dowe just to get my results. I also don't appreciate someone who know more about math then another, bing so arrogant twords their "fellow Americans" but that's just me

 

that is just how I naturally talk and write, so is it arrogant to just be me? plus I do define what my abbreviations mean, it is standard practice to define something esoteric like an abbreviation first then continue to use the now no longer esoteric term, I did that in the first line of the OP, ex: gtt=drops, then someone specifically define the latin gtt=guttae. Other people's poor reading comprehension shouldn't be my problem. I would like to continue to help both considerate and rude people equally.*side story* In fourth grade my fellow classmates would call me the dictionary dork, not a term of endearment, so I'm used to having this kind of reaction from strangers, if not just my peers of being "smart shamed", it is better to thrive on it then feel dejected.

Yes, I tried doing I this way, and had to start over with proper dowe just to get my results. I also don't appreciate someone who know more about math then another, bing so arrogant twords their "fellow Americans" but that's just me

Fellow American, please improve spelling, grammar, and punctuation; so that I can understand what thoughts you were intending to convey. I do not want to incorrectly infer anything and make assumptions. If I was ignorant and read something I could not understand I would use google or a book.

Smaller samples are less accurate, irregardless of how many drops of reagent are used.
When an environmentalist takes a soil sample, they use a tube about 3/4" in diameter and about 18" long, and they usually take a dozen of them. The test is engineered to test a specific sample size, and to be acceptably accurate with that sample size.
Scientifically, the test isn't even all that accurate when done according to the directions. A proper sample would include at least 6 separate draws of water, taken from different parts of the aquarium. It would then be read with a spectrometer instead of eyeballing the color against a mass-produced chart.
The test is what it is. It's accurate enough to keep billions of fish alive when used as directed, but it's still only 7th grade quality.

irregardless is not a word, and don't you think I would've done the ground work before posting. I try not spout random nonsense. online conversation is always taxing for me because it tends tone deaf and I don't like to use emoticons. ive always done multiple samples. control samples and variable samples; I do sometimes call myself a scientist.

It seems to me like our questioning something we didn't understand got all of us off on the wrong foot. Most of us have never studied Latin so were curious as to what your abbreviation meant.
I could understand using Latin in a medical paper but I actually think it is arrogant to use it on a fish forum. To me it is saying "Look how smart I am. I can speak above everyones head and they will accept my theory because I am smarter than they are". Maybe wasn't the original intention but that is how it progressed.
Sometimes one needs to consider ones audience when trying to make a point. I completely understood your formula. I don't follow the instructions that came with the kit. I had already started using half the amount of water and product to do my tests. (as was suggested by another member of this forum)
I doubt that I will go as far as you suggest. I just use 2 1/2 mls of tank water and the proportional amounts of product. (I could say bottled chemicals but I prefer product)
I actually see no need to try to cut down the amount of product used for each test in my case. My kit will expire long before I have used all of it since I don't have to run the test often now that my tanks are cycled.
Your formula could help someone that has dozens of tanks that have to be tested often I suppose but for most of us it isn't really necessary.
I paid 20 some dollars for my test kit Dec 2015. I feel sure I will still have some of the product left when the best by date arrives in 2022. Not a bad investment and actually the least expensive thing I have purchased for taking care of my aquariums.

thank you for the understanding and the constructive feedback.

 

You do come across as somewhat arrogant even though your math is unquestionable. Some of your other statements, not so much. You just seem to be talking down to people and taking a superior attitude. We're not all dummies here. My IQ has never been measured lower than 156 and as high as 163 but I don't brag about it. Wait, maybe I just did?

 

I like the idea of saving money as much as the next man, but .63ML isn't that a bit difficult to measure out?

 

I’d have to thank Kasshan for giving me my source of good logic.

 

that is just how I naturally talk and write, so is it arrogant to just be me? plus I do define what my abbreviations mean, it is standard practice to define something esoteric like an abbreviation first then continue to use the now no longer esoteric term, I did that in the first line of the OP, ex: gtt=drops, then someone specifically define the latin gtt=guttae. Other people's poor reading comprehension shouldn't be my problem. I would like to continue to help both considerate and rude people equally.*side story* In fourth grade my fellow classmates would call me the dictionary dork, not a term of endearment, so I'm used to having this kind of reaction from strangers, if not just my peers of being "smart shamed", it is better to thrive on it then feel dejected.


Fellow American, please improve spelling, grammar, and punctuation; so that I can understand what thoughts you were intending to convey. I do not want to
incorrectly
infer anything and make assumptions. If I was ignorant and read something I could not understand I would use google or a book.


irregardless is not a word, and don't you think I would've done the ground work before posting. I try not spout random nonsense. online conversation is always taxing for me because it tends tone deaf and I don't like to use emoticons. ive always done multiple samples. control samples and variable samples; I do sometimes call myself a scientist.


thank you for the understanding and the constructive feedback.

wow, you are something! but I'm going to exit here. thanx for the info, but you are very rude for sure

 

the solutions inside the bottle don't need to be shaken. Solutions by definition are homogeneous meaning consistently uniform, that is why in the test kit they are called ''solutions'' and NOT ''tinctures" or "suspensions" one can look this up in a simple dictionary. therefore there should be no settling because it a solution. if your product is settling inside the bottle and requires shaking I would throw it out because it has gone bad.

the only other major problem would be user error.

Just for clarification
Important Information for API Freshwater Master Test Kit Users!

"Liquid Nitrate Test Kits from any manufacturer can have a common problem
with their last test solution. For some companies, it is bottle number
3, but for us it is bottle number 2. One of the ingredients wants to
solidify out of liquid solution. If the test bottle sits for any period
of time, this can happen. If this does happen and the test is performed
without Bottle # 2 mixed properly, then you can get a falsely low
reading. I have never heard of falsely high readings with Nitrate Kits.
I would try tapping your Bottle # 2 a few times on a table or counter
top. This should loosen-up anything that has solidified. Then I would
shake this bottle for about 2-3 minutes, to really mix it up. Try the
test again and hopefully this will fix your problem. With regular weekly
usage, this bottle should only need to be shaken for 30-60 seconds."

Off topic but this why we suggest they run the test again after vigorous shaking and whacking the #2 bottle around when some members get a 0 nitrate reading.

 

Irregardless is worth 15 pts, but along your line of thought Actress isn't a word. Don't attack peoples use of sub dialects to avoid issues.
The API sample size is already too small to give any reading more accurate than describing the sky as blue. I don't believe you take multiple vials from different water levels either.

 

Irregardless is worth 15 pts, but along your line of thought Actress isn't a word. Don't attack peoples use of sub dialects to avoid issues.
The API sample size is already too small to give any reading more accurate than describing the sky as blue. I don't believe you take multiple vials from different water levels either.

Not for nothing neither is irregardless. The word your looking for is regardless.

 

In my opinion, the greatest risk with the proposed method comes from measurement error. Notwithstanding that measuring 0.63mL is difficult (read: impossible) for most of us, the proportional error around the test outcome is greatly magnified using the lower measurement volume.

Here, let me try to 'splain you:

Let's say our measurement of the liquid to be tested (tank water that we put in the test tube) is off by 0.25mL (just a number that I picked).

For the 5mL test volume, that 0.25mL error would be only 5% of the test liquid volume (0.25mL/5mL = 0.05). So the final test result will still be relatively accurate (at least within the limits of the test method - i.e., assigning a test result based on matching a colour to a number - that part gets me every time :banghead.

However, for the 0.63mL test volume, a 0.25mL error would be 40% of the test liquid volume (0.25mL/0.63mL = 0.40, assuming our measurement error is a fixed volume, not proportional). As a result, the accuracy of the lower-volume test could be out as much as 65%, based on the quick and dirty math I've done.

I did a quick column chart with error bars for illustrative purposes. Note that in theory both tests give the same result (as shown by OP), but the smaller-volume test is subject to relatively much larger error. The actual numbers on the vertical axis are not relevant, it's the error between the two methods that is important (the number I used are not shown, but it's scaled and proportional).


All this being said, I do agree that if you are able to measure 0.63mL correctly and accurately, and assuming the smaller volume of coloured water displays the resulting colour the same as a larger volume, then yes this method would work as described by OP.

 

Probably more accurate than current tube line anyway.

 

Well that was a fun read!

Like watching sheldon be confused when he irritates someone with his callous mannerisms and tone lol.

While I appreciate direct, aggressive, and concise communication, it isn't always appreciated. I think that's the biggest reason this thread got where it is.

From the oxford dictionary:

Irregardless is sometimes incorrectly used instead of regardless, but is not usually considered correct in Standard English, as the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less and as such is redundant. It originated in the mid-19th century, probably as a blend of irrespective and regardless, but despite its age it has remained objectionable to many.

All in all, if you're willing to and have the correct equipment by all means go down to the lowest consumption you can. Just ensure your bottles are all thoroughly mixed and that your technique is precise and accurate.

I'd rather consume the product as described. Nobody is going to sue for inaccurate readings. Otherwise test strips wouldn't be sold for anything but ph. The kit is cost effective as it is. I'm sure I spend more money on water every year than I do on the test kit.

Lastly, our language is living. That's why there's so much confusion with the oxford comma. Soon one day, I'm sure I will convince the world that dearth means the opposite of what it currently does!

 

Well said Wraithen. Why do we feel it is ok to be ugly to each other?

 

A quick question. How do you guys measure the 5ml in the test vials. Do you use the top line of the water or the bottom of the concave depression that always forms? That can make a small difference in the results.

 

I've always heard to use the concave. That's what was used in my biology lab.

 

I've always heard to use the concave. That's what was used in my biology lab.

Yeah, that's what I always heard too but it's hard in such a small vial to get it exactly right. I can't even imagine trying to accurately measure the amount of water that has been suggested here.

Another thing. Since each test requires a different number of drops, 5 ml may have been decided on as the best volume to use without having to have different size vials for each test.

 

A quick question. How do you guys measure the 5ml in the test vials. Do you use the top line of the water or the bottom of the concave depression that always forms? That can make a small difference in the results.

I try to get it in the middle of the line. You could also use a dosing syringe to measure the 5 ml out.

 

Man this entire thread makes me want to hang myself.

 

You go by the meniscus. That's the bottom of the depression of water. I use a syring to fill to the line.

 

You go by the meniscus. That's the bottom of the depression of water. I use a syring to fill to the line.

I don't have a syringe or dropper. I use a piece of airline tubing I dip in the tank, hold my finger over the end, and then transfer it to the vial. I usually have to do that 5 times or more to get it right. I really should get something better.

 

I don't have a syringe or dropper. I use a piece of airline tubing I dip in the tank, hold my finger over the end, and then transfer it to the vial. I usually have to do that 5 times or more to get it right. I really should get something better.

Cheap disposable straws work. I got my syringe at a big r. It's like tractor supply or any one of those types of places.

 

Smaller samples are less accurate, irregardless of how many drops of reagent are used.
When an environmentalist takes a soil sample, they use a tube about 3/4" in diameter and about 18" long, and they usually take a dozen of them. The test is engineered to test a specific sample size, and to be acceptably accurate with that sample size.
Scientifically, the test isn't even all that accurate when done according to the directions. A proper sample would include at least 6 separate draws of water, taken from different parts of the aquarium. It would then be read with a spectrometer instead of eyeballing the color against a mass-produced chart.
The test is what it is. It's accurate enough to keep billions of fish alive when used as directed, but it's still only 7th grade quality.

He knows 5th grad math but not statistics/sampling or scale.

 

Simply put

test: 8drops/5mL = 1drop/0.63mL
Nitrate test: 10drops/5mL = 1drop/0.5mL
test: 5drops/5mL = 1drop/1mL
: 3drops/5mL = 1drop/1.6mL

Thank you! I was just asking the same question as to how can I stretch my apI test kit a little further!

 

Thank you! I was just asking the same question as to how can I stretch my apI test kit a little further!

I actually never go so low in most of my test tubes. I was just clarifying the OP's formula to help clear up some confusion.

I do cut the ammonia and the nitrate tests in half and just use 2.5 mls of water. The other tests use so little solution I just go ahead and use the full amount. In most cases the best by date will pass before all of the PH and nitrite solutions are all used unless someone has numerous tanks that have to be tested often.

I bought my kit almost 3 years ago and I finally had to buy a new nitrate testing kit a couple of months ago. If I had thought about cutting the test in half to start with I wouldn't have had to buy one when I did. I still have plenty of all the other test solutions left.

 

I actually never go so low in most of my test tubes. I was just clarifying the OP's formula to help clear up some confusion.

I do cut the ammonia and the nitrate tests in half and just use 2.5 mls of water. The other tests use so little solution I just go ahead and use the full amount. In most cases the best by date will pass before all of the PH and nitrite solutions are all used unless someone has numerous tanks that have to be tested often.

I bought my kit almost 3 years ago and I finally had to buy a new nitrate testing kit a couple of months ago. If I had thought about cutting the test in half to start with I wouldn't have had to buy one when I did. I still have plenty of all the other test solutions left.

Yes, one could cut the test however you like but the formula is still a life saver! Wish I would have seen this before! Sad part is if I would of seen this post I would not have ordered a new API test kit from amazon last night Already shipped out. 10 drops adds up per bottle/test when you have several tanks..I live out in the middle of nowhere's land so I try to keep things I need on hand as I don't have a store near me..