refractometer calibration
 

I've always calibrated my refractometer using plan old RO water and although I knew some error would be involved I was under the impression the amount would be so small it would not make a difference. However I keep hearing more and more lately people stating after reading a few articles that this isn't the case and you need to calibrate your refractometer with some kind of calibration fluid otherwise you'll be off a noticeable amount.

Just wanted to share that after receiving some PINPOINT Salinity Calibration Fluid to calibrate my conductivity probe I stuck some in my refractometer and it's it reads exactly 1.026 as it should, not even out the slightest bit as far I can tell.

So regardless what articles my suggest it seems I can conclude that RO water is certainly an acceptable calibration solution. Anyone else try this and get similar or different results?

Yes, my refractometer came with 18 megaohm water(pure) for calibrating at 0, I compared that to my RODI and it was the same, I bought calibration fluid after reading (probably the same) an article and checked the calibration and yes it was correct. All 3 gave the same results, so now I can use my RODI water to check my calibration fluid.:crazy:

What is calibration fluid? Sounds like RO water in a fancy container with a pretty label for a stupid amount of $$$. Somebody always out to make a buck...lol Good to know this has been double checked, I always use RO water to check mine. Thanks for posting....:biggrin:

most LFS will calibrate for you.. Or so I have heard... mines over due to be calibrated, I'm sure my salinity is off by now

Why bother? You got RO water?

yeah, not great RO though I dont trust it to be as accurate

This is a point of the thread to eliminate the myths involved with refractometer calibration. Straight tap water reads zero on my refractometer, which was just proven accurate.

really?
but water quality varies where ever you go, so personally wouldn't use tap water for my refractometer
especially considering the poor water quality we have in Wetaskiwin

The refractometer is for salinity. Try it and see what it says then compare to you RO, if the numbers are the same, then I would say either is fine for calibrating it. If you get different numbers then just use your ro.

It should be able to test for both salinity & specific gravity.
I believe that the proper water temp should also be part of the equation for calibrating. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes really, my tap water isn't great here either, sitting at around 300ppm. However the point wasn't to tell you to use tap water but rather your RO water is perfectly fine for calibrating. At the end of the day do you feel best with but you are wasting your time bringing your refractometer to a LFS for calibrating. They will either use RO water or a calibration fluid, however unless the calibration fluid is new (more likely been sitting around for long time) you probably run more risk with that being contaminated.

As for temperature ideally what you use to calibrate should be close to your tank temp as far I as know, however IME this makes little difference as well as long as it's pretty close, ie room temp is fine.

I encourage anyone to try calibrating their refractometer with proper solution and comparing the results for themselves. I only only posted this to prevent the need for others to try such an experiment and put to rest the myth of inaccurate refractometers. Now I'm not saying there ins't error involved however the errors we are talking about are in the ppm range while our equipment measures in the ppt range with is 1000 times greater. You simply can't measure that kind of error with our refractometers nor can you even calibrate the device that accurately anyway.

I'm on board with calibrating with with RO water but in my person experience a cold refractometer can give an incorrect reading.
Colder instrument---> Salt water cooled---> Density drops---> Incorrect reading. That being said everything I have read says the amount is almost negligible, where's Kien when you need a science experiment done!!

Yeah density obviously decreases with temperature but at a rate of less than one tenth of a percent per 10 degrees C. So if you're close it really won't make a difference. Not to say you should use boiling or close to freezing temp water to calibrate but using say 21C water to calibrate for a tank running at 24C really won't make a detectable difference.

To give an idea, 4C RO water from my fridge reads about 0.5ppt on my refractometer, just barely over the zero line. And that's a pretty significant temperature difference.

I'm not near my tank, anyway you can do the same with salt water and see if that changes the reading a measurable amount?

I'll put the calibration fluid in the fridge and post later

If you have a seawater refractometer then calibration with water should provide a good reading at normal salt water ranges. However, it is still recommended that one use calibration fluid.
If you have a salt water refractometer (NaCl) which is most common in the hobby, there will be an error at normal salt water ranges if calibrated with water.
Randy Holmes-Farley on Refractometers and Salinity

I was waiting for someone to state they'll be error and post that exact article. This is exactly why I started this thread.

May I ask how much error you would expect and if you've actually tried it yourself?

1.026 Calibration fluid reads 1.027 at 4 degrees C

Actually, I haven't tried it myself because I have no use for a refractometer.
Without checking on the math of it, I believe the error is .0017 or thereabouts but I don't remember low or high just off hand. The answer is in that article.
There is NO WAY that an accurate refractometer that measures NaCl in water like the standard refractometer does, can read accurately throughout the scale measuring sea water with the many different salts involved as the refractive index is affected. If your NaCl refractometer calibrated with water is reading correctly at normal salt aquaria ranges, then it is a poor quality that has errors that just happen to read correctly at that range for some reason but it is scientifically not possible for a quality refractometer to do so.
I don't use a refractometer because I started over 18 years ago when everyone around here used either floating hydrometers or SeaTest swing arms.
As I already had a complete set of hydrometers from when I worked in a lab, that was my first choice, but I switched to using swing arms when I broke the floater that checked the range of the aquaria. I purchased a new Fisher Scientific certified calibrated floating hydrometer and a new columnar cylinder for measuring the s.g. in (I broke both hydrometer and cylinder at the same time). I also bought two SeaTest swing arms to use for everyday use so I wouldn't break another glass floater.
I used the certified hydrometer to check the swing arms, and one read slightly high and the other was slightly low.
With this older style you could remove the swing arm and so I shaved a touch off the weight in the arm of the high reader to make it read accurate at 1.026, and shaved a touch off the float material of the arm to allow the reading to rise to 1.026.
Now, I'm still using the swing arms, rinsing well after each use, soaking overnight in white vinegar once a week, and check once or twice a year against the certified, and it still reads accurately.

I've always used RO water to calibrate or check my refractometer. Could never bring myself to bother ordering & trying calibration fluid despite reading all the dire warnings & horror stories on various forums. I've also used a floating hydrometer as well as the swing arms. Tank has been running for 4-5 years with no apparent issues related to out of whack salinity.

The two swing arms I have both yield different readings with the same test water. I don't like them, they're crap, even though I put correction marks on them using the refractometer reading as a calibration standard. In a pinch I'll use one & go by the mark I put on them, although I'm not sure why I haven't thrown them in the trash.

I broke the floating hydrometer a while back, but actually really liked it. Old tech but very accurate. The only thing you need to watch for is solution temperature since the floaters have no temperature compensation like most refractometers do. The floaters are designed, calibrated & tested at a specific temperature & the instructions usually include a temperature compensation chart. Provided the solution you're testing is around 20C, the floating hydrometer will be bang on. I use one regularly for my wine & beer making efforts, I think I recall using it on the tank water & it was accurate.

Ah yes, the refractometer. I have the instructions for mine & the calibration procedure calls for distilled water, no mention of any other claibration fluid. RO or RODI water should be a fair substitute I would think. My refractometer is temperature compensated, so provided I leave the solution on the prism glass for at least 30 seconds to adjust to the ambient temperature of the refractometer, the reading will be accurate. I've read the arguments about refractometer scales not being linear, but from my own experience, if I have a reading one notch above zero with RO water, then test tank water at 1.026, if I tweak the refracto to read zero with RO water, a subsequent test of tank water gives me 1.025. Quite linear I would say. No need to waste time & $$$s on calibration fluid that checks your refractometer at 1.026 or whatever.

Here are the calibration instructions for my refractometer verbatim:

1) Open daylight plate, and place 2-3 drops of distilled water on the main prism. Close the daylight plate so the water spreads across the entire surface of the prism without air bubbles or dry spots. Allow the sample to rest on the the prism for 30 seconds before going to step #2. (This allows the sample to adjust to the ambient temperature of the refractometer).
2) Hold daylight plate in the direction of a light source and look into the eyepiece. You will see a circular field with graduations down the center (you may have to focus the eyepiece to clearly see the graduations). The upper portion of the field should be blue, while the lower portion should be white.
3) Because this instrument is equipped with Automatic Temperature Compensation, the ambient working temperature of the room must be 20C (68F) whenever the instrument is recalibrated. Once calibrated, shifts in ambient temperature within the acceptable range, should not affect accuracy (10-30C). Using distilled water as a sample, look into the eyepiece and turn the Calibration Screw until the boundary between the upper blue field and the lower white field meet exactly on the 0.0 ppt (or 1.000 spec. grav.).

So it appears quite important that the calibration be carried out at the proper ambient temperature 20C. No mention of calibration fluid whatsoever.

Photos of readings years ago with the two swing arms & the floating hydrometer using the same tank water. Don't recall what the refractometer read exactly, but do remember that the floating hydrometer read virtually the same.

Coralife swingarm
https://public.blu.livefilestore.com...rmB.jpg?psid=1

IO Deep Six swing arm
https://public.blu.livefilestore.com...rmB.jpg?psid=1

Made in Taiwan floating hydrometer
https://public.blu.livefilestore.com...roB.jpg?psid=1

IIRC, the refractometer read right around 1.025 with the same water. Result... Coralife low by 2-3 points, IO a tad more than 1 point low & floater just a fraction under refracto reading. Unlikely that I'll be ordering any calibration fluid.

From your article:
So even with tap water the error is very small, if you can read the difference between 1.0264 and 1.0261 on a refractometer you've got skills beyond the average person.

And yeah it's the crappy refractometers work better...
The article actually states calibrating with water is perfectly fine. It only suggest using a natural seawater calibration fluid once to simply verify the quality of unit, cause yeah obviously there is a lot of cheap crap out there and once can't be too careful.

Another fine example of how people use long boring articles to exaggerate facts into myths, and more annoyingly they never even actually read the article or this case even use the equipment in discussion.

A refractometer calibrated with 0 TDS water @ room temp. is more than accurate for mixing saltwater, I've seen people with systems anywhere from 1.022 to 1.027 and everything is living.
Lets face it, we're mixing seawater not rocket fuel.
Swing arm testers should be banned, they are a waste of recycled plastic.

You need to read the article fully so you understand each segment and don't let your opinions reflect in what you are seeing.
First of all, the article isn't mine, it is by a respected chemist in the medical field who just happens to spend a lot of time researching the hobby and helping hobbyists on RC.
Quote:
First calibrate the refractometer in pure freshwater. This can be distilled water, RO (reverse osmosis) water, RO/DI water, bottled water and even tap water with reasonably low TDS (total dissolved solids). Calibrating with tap water that has a TDS value of 350 ppm introduces only about a 1% error in salinity, causing readings in seawater to read a bit low. So 35 ppt seawater (specific gravity = 1.0264) will read to be about 34.7 ppt, and will show a specific gravity of about 1.0261
You are taking this out of context. This error is specifically the error between calibration with freshwater and calibration with TDS of 350 ppm.
The section you didn't see states:
You appear to be picking sentences out of the article and not using them in the context of the part of the article they are found in.
IMO, it's only boring to those that aren't really interested in the whole facts and while I agree that in the great scheme of things, the .0017 error isn't going to cause your tank to fail, it is there, and it's hypocritical IMO to crucify use of swing arms by someone who ignores the limitations of many refractometers.
From the quote I pasted from Randy's article, it appears you haven't adhered to your own policy of "they never even actually read the article", (at least in it's entirety).
As for me not using a refractometer, it is because I know their limitations and I know that a certified calibrated hydrometer is more dependably accurate than a refractometer, and that I have no need to use a refractometer because it isn't going to make my tanks run any better.

Each method of measurement in the hobby has its limitations. From my personal experience, the swing arms appear to be the least reliable & messy to use. The floating hydrometer & refractometer are easier & less of a mess. Only thing for the floater is that it's useful to draw a water sample & place it into a tall cylinder to get the best results. Trying to read it while bobbing in the tank is not a good idea. The refractometer is dead simple, a couple of drops of water, easy to read scale thru the eyepiece. My floater is broken, my swing arms gathering dust in the basement. I'm stuck with the refractometer which I calibrate periodically with pure water. So much simpler to use when I'm trying to match my freshly mixed water to tank water before water changes.

[quote=rayjay;716120]You need to read the article fully so you understand each segment and don't let your opinions reflect in what you are seeing.
First of all, the article isn't mine, it is by a respected chemist in the medical field who just happens to spend a lot of time researching the hobby and helping hobbyists on RC.

I am a huge fan of Randy, but sometimes it's just too much science.

Quote@IMO, it's only boring to those that aren't really interested in the whole facts and while I agree that in the great scheme of things, the .0017 error isn't going to cause your tank to fail, it is there, and it's hypocritical IMO to crucify use of swing arms by someone who ignores the limitations of many refractometers

I check my refractometer regularly, I keep it clean, I always test @ tank temp. and I allow 30 seconds for temp. compensation, purchased calibration fluid only to find out I didn't need to, that's not ignoring its limitations.
I've had 4 swing arms, all off by at least 3 points, 2 were 7 ponts apart, they are all in the garbage because the are not worth their weight in recycled plastic and yes they should be crucified.

Each segment only outlines possible sources of error in a worst case scenario, not confirmed or "for sure" types. These types of articles are thorough and based on theoretical events and not actual. That's why at the end of the day you'll see conclusions are vague yet still suggest calibration with freshwater is perfectly acceptable despite all the errors listed.

In addition if you look into the matter further you will find numerous cases of hobbyists experimenting finding the same results as I have. Some have even purchased rather expensive so called seawater refractometers and compared them to other types and getting identical results.

At the end of the day articles like this should be taken with a grain of salt, not to be used in a black and white scenario saying things like there's no way it'll be accurate cause this article lists sources of error. The parts I quoted previously where to reflect and taken from a what I believe was more concluding section of the report, it was certainly not nitpicking certain sections and stating them as fact. I've read the article numerous times, however I followed what I mentioned above, using it as good source of information on the subject but not the only one.

The simple matter is stating refrectometers need a special fluid for calibration is a myth, while based on some fact it's an exaggeration on those with unverified assumptions.

I agree 100%