In the state of South Carolina, DHEC (Department of Health andEnvironmental Control) is sending out those in code enforcement with aPalintest photometer to accurately test water Does anyone have experiencewith the Palintest or any other photometer? I have looked at the ColorQ by Lamotte as another option and it also has been accepted by DHEC, but I don't have much information on which device is better. Any input or are many of you still doing drop tests? While the ColorQ is a viable option, many service professionals want to use what their local code enforcement is using to make sure they are on the same page.
You need to be a member of Pool Genius Network to add comments!
Replies
Great information guys! I'm interested in moving from a Taylor test kit to photometric testing now. Thanks for the info!
Scott,
Thanks for the personal touch, but apologies aren’t necessary. Forum discussions are like debates. Not everyone is supposed to agree. Being that I put out there that I was a dealer for the Palintest units, your response, via LaMotte influence as it was, put out the challenge of defending manufacturer against manufacturer, in a case of “he said, she said”…and that is what I was responding to. I tried to be objective, and use common sense as criteria in determining what claims had merit, and what claims are just sales hype.
Your response also allowed an opening to expand on a question that’s been put out there a few times, but never goes anywhere. That being the 2-minute wait on the combined test that I referred to in Val Argents Presentation at the 2008 WAHC conference. You would think there would be some debate over it in the trade magazines, or form the NSPF or somewheere...yet no one discusses it. Why?? I really wanted an answer, so I asked myself. I tried for almost a year to get a response from Taylor on this same issue, and basically got nowhere…they’re looking into it, but feel there is no need to change. In this discussion, I will be surprised if anyone responds to the issue here. Everyone is afraid to tackle the concern head on, to disrupt what was taught in their training, to question the authority of the Taylors, LaMottes, and yes, even Palintest. Hey, it wouldn’t be taught in our certification courses if it were not right. The problem is no one talks about it? There is no dialog or reasons for the corporation to respond because everyone knows that “they know what’s best for us”. The sad fact is, we all have put a blind trust in some of these corporations, and have come to accept the trade off that any and every questionable test result is our fault, is bad reagents, is house keeping, is something other than the methodology THEY have chosen for us to use. Standards???…who needs that…there’s no law saying we have to do that for a pool.
Remember a couple of years back when Taylor changed their pH test formulation because the chlorine was somewhat bleaching out the sample? A thing they knew was happening for 25 years prior, but never told anyone about. All them years, the pH test was admittedly wrong, even though they always claimed their test was chlorine inhibited. All of a sudden they came out with the new and improved pH test, inhibited to 10-PPM chlorine, and guess what, it still bleaches some what at 2-3 PPM chlorine, at least that’s what I’m finding. Maybe it is just me, and I'm doing it all wrong...but I doubt it.
The point is, one has to question the importance of all this code related emphasis on balance, combined chlorine, DBP’s, max levels of cyanuric, when there’s viable questions concerning the actual tests that these requirements are based on. Just ignoring them is not much of an answer, not in this day and age.
So, maybe it is I who should be the one to apologize.
Sorry for the digression,Al, Wow!!! I really appreciate everything that you put into this discussion. Please know that I was never insinuating that you gave me false or misleading information. You are definitely more of an expert on this subject than I am and I took your first response and shared it with my rep from LaMotte who gave me much of the info I put into this forum. Thank you for breaking things down and giving me the true tolerance specifications for the ColorQ as well as info directly from Technical Service with LaMotte. Obviously, my local rep gave me some information that was incomplete. Again, please know that I appreciate your input and expertise and that I never felt you gave me misleading information. I really respect your opinion on this matter.
Al Neumann said:
Scott,
I’ll try to answer your questions as best as I can. Just remember, I’m a very small company, namely me, and am a relatively low volume dealer for the photometers. I primarily use them for my own customers, and becoming a dealer was a way of buying direct. Because of what I do with HCF Venturi Liquid Chlorine Feeders, using settings in excess of ½ gpm, and controlling pH to 2-decimal places, accurate testing is a priority. Believe me when I say I didn’t make the decision to go with the Palintest lightly. I don’t believe everything a manufacturer tells me. For me, and this may be to my fault, l base my decisions on objective analysis, and on common sense. it has to make sense. I’m afraid that this is going to be a long post.
You stated,
Both British and American Standard Procedures document the requirement for a 2-minute standing period for the DPD titration test, to ensure that the reaction is complete. You can view this in the 21st edition of the American Standard Methods section 4500-Cl G.DPD Colorimetric Method page 4-67.
The DPD-FAS requirement is at 4500-Cl F. DPD Ferrous Titrimetric Method. It requires the 2-minute stand after addition of the potassium iodide and before completion of the titration. See page 4-66 section 3 procedures, step 3
Now one can say that this is just for industrial and municipal purposes. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that specifically mandates the 2-min wait for Pool and Spa applications. But…what does that mean? The quick method, which is what the LaMottes and Taylors are doing by eliminating the 2-minute wait, according to the standard, is just picking up the monochloramines, and ½ of the trichloramines. Assuming that our emphasis on combined chlorine levels and state code requirements for shocking, wouldn’t you think that the dichloramines, and the other ½ of the trichloramines would have some importance on determining the requirements for shocking? What does that mean for what is taught in our AFO-CPO classes? What does that mean for ASPI Standards? What does that mean to the UVc Industry, when they say, “we get down to 0,2 PPM’s…then I say by what test? Common sense says that standards are important, and it’s time the LaMottes and Taylors out there give us a reason why they do this test the way they do. Am I the only one that sees a problem in this???
(Note: Chip Blatchley in his studies are showing us that organo-chloralmnenie cause an interference in the DPD Test, so I don’t know what effect that has overall in the accuracy of either method. Also note: Dr Palin discovered the DPD Test Procedures, back in the 60’s, and Palintest was his company. He drafted all the methods of chlorine residual analysis by DPD, both titrimetric and colorimetric, for the USEPA, UK Standing Committee of Analysts and AWWA, among others. Val Argent studied directly under Dr Palin, and is currently the Chief Technical Consultant for Palintest. If you send me an email, I’ll send you a copy of the Presentation she did at the 2008 World Aquatic Health Conference in Colorado Springs. In it, she references a 4-minute wait for liquid tests.
In a nut shell, these are the findings she talks about: The total chlorine test must be allowed to develop for 2 minutes after addition of all reagents, or a substantial underestimate of the combined chlorine fraction may occur. The tablet test is always complete after 2 minutes. The FAS-DPD drop count method should be allowed 4 minutes for the most accurate result.)
You stated,
Scott, Palintest Standards are sealed color tubes that for a specific wavelength should have a specific range of a % tranmittance tolerance. These standard vials are individually calibrated on instruments traceable to NPL transfer standards. The only thing I can say about matching them to a visual kit is that it is a meaningless adventure. Visual Kits have their own issues with accuracy and interfearances. It’s why most people went to a photometer in the first place, so what’s the point in comparing it to them. The exception might be if the photmeter is way off, and visual kits will get you in the ballpark..
You stated,
This is true for any photometer, and Is part of the learning curve. Plastic tubes that the Color Q uses are just that plastic, and easily scratched. Palintest tubes are glass. Also, the Palintest units have a longer view path, are built to IP 67 water proof rating standards, and are considerabley built stronger.
You stated,
Scott, You missed the point I was making about calibration and not knowing if perhaps one led is off and is reading wrong. The tolerances for CH and cyanuric are just too wide to know where your pacticular unit is within that range. Routinely comparing it to standards is the only real way of knowing.
You stated,
Scott, I’m going to take the easy way out on this, and just give you the info that I got direct from LaMotte Tech Service , back in January of 2008, about the Color Q. I was just relaying to you what they told me, via numerous emails and phone conversations. At the time I was researching what photometer to align myself with. Maybe they improved the Cyanuric Acid Test a little since then, but +/- 10 is still a big range when code is only 30 ppm’s. I’m not sure on the Palintest 3or 6, as to the accuracy of the cyanuric acid test, but the 9 and 25 are indeed 2ppm’s. I can send you the transmittance chart for it if you want. I’m pretty sure though that the 3 & 6 are the same.
I don’t like doing this, but you kind of insinuated that I was giving you false info. These are 2 of the pertinent emails from Tim Parent, who was a Tech Rep for LaMotte.
January 23, 2008
Its Tim again, I talked to you a couple times this week about the ColorQ. You may certainly use standard solutions to check the ColorQ if you wish but again, there is no calibration feature for the ColorQ. We estimate that under normal use, the ColorQ will hold up for 2 – 3 years. It could be longer, depending on how well the meter is cared for. Similar to a pocketester style meter, there will come a point when the ColorQ should be replaced with a new unit, to assure the greatest accuracy in testing. The ColorQ does have a 6-month warranty.
The tolerance specifications for the ColorQ are:
pH +/- 0.1
Chlorine +/- 0.1 from 0 – 3ppm
+/- 0.5 from 3 – 6ppm
+/- 1.0 from 6 – 10ppm
Bromine +/- 0.2 from 0 – 6ppm
+/- 1.0 from 6 – 12ppm
+/- 2.0 from 12 – 22ppm
Alkalinity +/-10 from 0 – 150ppm
+/-20 from 150 – 250ppm
Hardness +/- 20 from 0 – 200ppm
+/- 30 from 201 – 300ppm
+/- 60 from 301 – 700ppm
Cyanuric Acid +/- 15 from 0 – 80ppm
+/- 30 from 80 – 125ppm
The same holds true for the Waterlab 2 except the fact that the alkalinity and hardness titrations are a bit more accurate. Remember, acid base titrations are still the industry standard for accuracy, as outlined in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater.
Regards,
Tim Parent
Technical Service
LaMotte Company
January 24, 2008
Sorry Al, been very busy here, thanks for your patience.
We expect the ColorQ to last 2 to 3 years (I realize “season” is too vague a term).
+/- 15ppm does seem less accurate than you might expect out of a colorimeter, but it is true. It is one test that is very difficult to achieve a better accuracy. You are probably aware of inherent limitations of the melamine methodology since it is a turbidimetric test that relies on a precipitate reaction in proportion to cya. However, it is still the only cya test method on the market, at least that I know of. The ColorQ gives a more general reading on cya, whereas the other tests are more sensitive. We are up front about this with our customers. We primarily market the meter for the chlorine, pH and other colorimetric methods and we like to educate our customer about the reasonable expectations of the cya test.
The Waterlab 2 specifications are as I listed them. Yes, it gives the added features of a serial port, ac adapter and is a meter that we can service more readily. It has trimmers that can be adjusted to reset the calibrations whereas the colorQ does not and can not be recalibrated.
You stated,
Scott, what’s the point? Are you saying that European Engineering andTechnology isn’t as good as the USA? Where do you think most of the UVc units are made? The bottom line here is that the Palintest units, meaning the 3, 6, 9,and 25 are much higher quallity than the Color Q ever thought of being.
You stated,
Scott, my experience with field reps from LaMotte or Taylor is zero. I’ve been in business for 17 years, and have yet to see a rep in the field. I see them at trade shows, Maybe they just visit distributors. Many Palintest dealers have their own customer base, and service what they sell. I take very good care of my end customers, and train them very well, and give them the tools they need to appreciate the lab grade equipment they are using.
Here is link of the current dealers in the US. Yes, Palintest is mostly proprietary, with the main supplier in Florida being CES, and in the Carolinas, that would be Duffield Aquatics. Pool Corp is not listed, so this must be a recent addition. They can sell pretty much anywhere they have an outlet, which is all over the place. Don’t know why they didn’t call you back. You must have got lost in-between shows or something.
http://www.palintestusa.com/contact-us.aspx?id=18
Paintest Pool Products
http://www.palintestusa.com/products-category.aspx?category=2You can read some info on the Lamotte ColorQ in this thread. Because the chlorine test is DPD based, it works best when the FC is less than 10 ppm (i.e. not great for measuring high shock levels) though even over 5 may be a problem. It is not good at higher Calcium Hardness (CH) levels and tends to start under-estimating at around 250 ppm and above.
There's less info on the Palintest in http://www.troublefreepool.com/palintest-pooltest-5-t13188.html, this thread, but this is a bit dated (didn't test for CH at that time with the Pooltest 5) so are y'all talking about the Pooltest 6 or something more elaborate (Pooltest 9 Pro Plus, Pooltest 25)? It seems that the Palintest is similar to the ColorQ in its limitations on measuring FC due to DPD bleaching. Note that they recommend dilution if values are near the top of the scale which their instructions say is above 4 ppm FC or TC, CH above 300 ppm, CYA above 150 ppm. The Palintest 25 Professional Plus instructions say the same thing. I don't care if the meter reads to within 1 ppm for CYA, that doesn't mean it is that accurate. The turbidimetric test can clearly be measured more accurately with a photometer, but the amount of turbidity itself is sensitive to water conditions that aren't related solely to the CYA level. The +/- 5 ppm with the high-end LaMotte system sounds about right, but the ColorQ won't be that accurate.
Al, I appreciate your info from actual field experience. I have spoke withLaMotte about the ColorQ and they gave me some different information about their device vs. Palintest.
You mentioned a 2 minute wait for the DPD 3 method, which is something that is recommended by the EPA for drinking & waste water, but not needed in the pool water testing for accurate testing. Their formulas for DPD testing used in their liquid reagents, tablets & powder reagents are designed to give accurate readings for pool & spa testing. LaMotte DPD tablets are EPA approved and the govt/military is one of our largest buyer of DPD tablets for testing drinking water & waste water for our troops.
They offer standards for Chlorine & pH, but are not included with the kits and sold separately. They said they have found most users do not use the standards and will compare their results to another kit like one of our visual kits if something does not match up. The 1st test that is run is the blank calibration test using the same water to be tested, but is used to reset the 2 LEDs inside the meter. For any electronic photometer if it is not reading properly it is usually because the meter chamber is dirty or the test tubes are dirty or scratched. Of course not following instructions with wait times or proper mixing can lead to incorrect results. Users have to take good care of photometers because if they just toss them around can cause the leds inside to shift which will cause incorrect readings.
The low cost ColorQ could be considered throw away after a few years, since it maybe cheaper to just buy a new meter than to have it serviced. LaMotte normally charges about $70 to $80 dollars to clean, adjust leds and replace parts if needed. It makes sense for the user to buy a brand new meter than to have it serviced, so this is why it is considered a throw away after a few years. I know the Palin Test meter cost much more and like the LaMotte WaterLink Express meter it makes sense for the user to have it serviced than paying hundreds of dollars for a new meter.
The Cyanuric Acid information is incorrect with the current accuracy +/- 10ppm from 0 to 80 ppm and +/- 15 ppm from 80 to 125 ppm. The meter can measure CYA in 1 ppm increments. They claimed that they truly doubt Palin Test has a 2 ppm accuracy using tablets, as not even their new WaterLink 3 Express meter with 4 LEDs using powder UDVs will accurately measure CYA at +/- 2 ppm, but it measures at +/- 5 ppm/10 ppm accuracy.
All the raw materials that LaMotte uses to make the ColorQ meter and reagents are made in the US, exception is the red carrying case which is purchased from China, while all of Palin Test meters & reagents are made overseas and shipped to their US warehouse in KY.
LaMotte also hopes service professionals see the value LaMotte adds to their products with in-the-field reps that support their product line. I know Palin Test does not offer local reps which can help their customers with questions or training .
As a dealer for Palintest, what are your thoughts on their claims? With my local code using Palintest I feel that my customers would prefer to use something that DHEC is using despite ColorQ being an acceptable alternative, but I can only sell what I can buy. Palintest refuses to call me back which leads me to believe they have an exclusive with Pool Corp.
Al Neumann said:
LOVE my ColorQ Pro11
It is easy to use, and seems accurate to me.
I send it out with the guys if they are ever having "issues" with a service clients pool, and it usually ends up telling the story of what's going the problem is.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next