TF100 pH test vs. K-2006

Jump to latest Follow Reply
C

chem geek

TFP Expert
LifeTime Supporter
Mar 28, 2007
11,919
San Rafael, CA USA
I recently received the TF100 test kit and it's great, but I do have one thing I liked better about the K-2006 kit. The pH test in the K-2006 uses a larger comparator and had a scale of 7.0, 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, 7.8, 8.0 which I find easier than the TF100 smaller comparator that has a scale of 6.8, 7.2, 7.5, 7.8, 8.2. Though it's nice to have the extra range down to 6.8 (in case of doing the "lowering TA" procedure), I normally just want a more accurate pH reading in the normal range of 7.2 to 7.8. I also find it easier matching the colors in the larger comparator tube.

By the way, having the CYA test measure down to 20 ppm is great. I had separately bought the Taylor K-1720 a while ago just to get that capability.

Also, I noticed that my DPD powder in the TF100 was more granular and gray-purple colored than in the K-2006 which was a white powder. Is that normal? [EDIT] It seems to measure chlorine OK -- it just looks different. [END-EDIT]

Richard
 
chemgeek said:
Also, I noticed that my DPD powder in the TF100 was more granular and gray-purple colored than in the K-2006 which was a white powder. Is that normal?
Click to expand...
I have no comparison to make but my DPD powder in my TF100 is granular and gray-purple too.
The results I get (when not over 5.0) seem comparable with the Ortho test so I assumed it was working fine.
 
My TF100 DPD powder was bright white and fine with occasional slightly purple spots when it was new back at the start of June, but is now more granular and gray. It gets darker as it ages and absorbs mosture from the air. From what I have read it is still good until it is dark grey/black and very lumpy (two or three years if you are careful with it).
 
Hi, guys,

First, thank you for the very nice words about the kit.

The comparator tube was a hard choice. I liked the 7.0 - 8.0 comparator and found it easier to read, also. As I thought about the posters on this site, so many log on with troublesome pool water to begin with so I opted for the larger range from 6.8 - 8.2 I'm not positive just how helpful that's been but I have seen some posted test results at either 6.8 or 8.2. Obviously, they could still have water higher or lower but it seemed like a better range for what is likely to be pool water in need of help.

The powder comes to me from Taylor fairly smooth and grayish-white. Within a week of breaking the seal on the container, the powder starts to darken and clump somewhat. That process continues until the powder is distinctly medium grey and downright clumpy. (I still have some from Ben's kit that I purchased over four years ago) At that point, it seems to stabilize and get no darker or clumpier (if that's a word).

Interestingly, I have occasionally tested FC side by side using that old powder along with a new batch and, the few times I have done it the results were identical (+-.5ppm)

Some of the clumps don't dissolve but it seems to have no affect on the accuracy of the test
 
My DPD powder from Ben's kit last year arrived gray/purple in color. My refill from Dave this summer arrived gray/purple. They looked idential. They both worked/work great. I have not seen the elusive white powder some speak of.

um, Dave, I think 'clumpier' qualifies as a word on this forum! :wink:

Joyce
 
I find it much more difficult to compare the colors in the pH test from the TF kit than the kit my PB gave me. All the colors look the same to me through the little blocks. My PB's kit also has an acid demand test, it makes it really easy to figure out how much acid to add to get to a target level.
 
duraleigh - would it be possible for you to offer the other PH view tube as an optional accessory in the refills section of your site? I agree that the current configuration is good for the kit, but the fanatical amoung us would love to have an easy way to purchase all the options.
 
Jason,

Absolutely. My projects over the Winter are to offer many more "hardware" items. (view tubes, mixing cylinders, etc) and to add a total refill package that would allow you to replace your entire chemistry in one pak and save some money.

My "real" job has increased pretty dramatically, as it always does from September to Christmas but my goal is to have the site updated (there's some other improvements that need to be made) and the new products added by November 1st.....just in time for the swimming season, eh?....maybe in New Zealand :lol: :lol:
 
Be aware that the large pH view tube (actually the k-2000 series test block) requires a DIFFERENT pH reagent than the one included in the TF100! The TF100 uses pH reagent R-0014 and the large tube requires R-0004! It also gives you the capability of acid and base demand tests if you have the charts that are included in the booklet provided with the K-2000 series of test kits.

I actually have both comparators and indicators and find myself using the small one with the R-0014 most of the time unless I need to do an acid demand test, which is practically NEVER.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
Differences in Taylor K-2006 and TF100 Total Alkalinity (TA)

My TF Test Kits TF100 Total Alkalinity (TA) test consistently records a lower TA than my Taylor K-2006 TA test. The difference isn't small either -- the Taylor K-2006 records a significantly higher number of at least 130 (140 if I use the rule of not seeing any more changes) while the TF100 test kit records 100.

The difference is most likely due to either a differing concentration of the sulfuric acid or a difference in the drop sizes with the TF100 kit having a bigger drop size (unless the drop size is intentionally different and the concentration is adjusted accordingly).

I have some empty Taylor bottles and have measured around 23-26 drops per milliliter, but I don't have an empty R-0009 sized bottle from the TF100 kit. If someone does (I'm sure Dave does), then if you measure how many drops it takes to get to the 5 ml mark in your tube, then divide by 5 and compare that to the 23-26 number. I used filtered water for my test. Just from my naked eye observation, it appears that the TF100 R-0009 drops "seem" bigger than the K-2006 R-0009 drops but that could be an illusion.

A difference of 10% or even 20% (+10% to -10%) is understandable, but I'm seeing a difference of over 30%.

Richard
 
Re: Differences in Taylor K-2006 and TF100 Total Alkalinity (TA)

chem geek said:
My TF Test Kits TF100 Total Alkalinity (TA) test consistently records a lower TA than my Taylor K-2006 TA test. The difference isn't small either -- the Taylor K-2006 records a significantly higher number of at least 130 (140 if I use the rule of not seeing any more changes) while the TF100 test kit records 100.

The difference is most likely due to either a differing concentration of the sulfuric acid or a difference in the drop sizes with the TF100 kit having a bigger drop size (unless the drop size is intentionally different and the concentration is adjusted accordingly).

I have some empty Taylor bottles and have measured around 23-26 drops per milliliter, but I don't have an empty R-0009 sized bottle from the TF100 kit. If someone does (I'm sure Dave does), then if you measure how many drops it takes to get to the 5 ml mark in your tube, then divide by 5 and compare that to the 23-26 number. I used filtered water for my test. Just from my naked eye observation, it appears that the TF100 R-0009 drops "seem" bigger than the K-2006 R-0009 drops but that could be an illusion.

A difference of 10% or even 20% (+10% to -10%) is understandable, but I'm seeing a difference of over 30%.

Richard
Click to expand...

Funny, I have much dfferent results. My TF100, K-2005, K-2006, and PoolSolutions PS243S all test within 20 ppm of each other on the TA test while the LaMotte Waterlink Express at work always tests about 40 ppm lower than my lowest readings (on the PS234S) on a regular basis (I suspect from not a high enough concentration of sodium thiosulfate in the mix of dry reagents which has been sort of confirmed by the techs I have talked to at LaMotte. There test is not a titration but, rather, colormetric). From my conversations with Dave he is using actual Taylor reagetns but I do not beleve that Ben did but rather got them from another source and they were equvalent. It is possiible that the dropper tip on your bottle might be slightly defective. Also, the TA test in my AquaChem 6 way cheapie kit from walmart gives identical results to the TF100 and the K-2005 (even though it uses a different indicator!
 
I got an idea from what you said -- I have a spare empty Taylor bottle (I'll thoroughly clean it with filtered water) and will try putting some of the TF100 R-0009 solution into the Taylor bottle and then see what sort of measurement I get. I'll plan to do this on the weekend and will do all three tests: TF100, Taylor K-2006, and TF100 solution in a Taylor bottle. That should be pretty definitive. I'll let y'all know.

Richard
 
Richard, Evan,

I am most interested in the results of your experiments. For clarification, I do use only Taylor reagents. While we have never found a defective dropper tip, we have found some of the bottles to be malformed so that certainly means the dropper tips can be as well.

Please let me know if I can supply you with any bottles, tips, or chemistry......I'll shoot 'em right out to you. I am very appreciative of you taking the trouble to dig a little deeper....let me know if I can help.
 
I tested the TA today and using the TF100 reagents, but using the Taylor dropper (I had an empty Taylor container that I thoroughly cleaned and put in some TF100 R-0009 liquid) I got a TA of 130 (mostly changed at 120; still changed a little to 130; no change to 140) while using the TF100 R-0009 container I got a TA of 110 (mostly changed at 100; still changed a little to 110; no change to 120). I also tested using the Taylor kit and got a TA of 130 -- same as using the TF100 reagents but in the Taylor bottle for counting the drops.

So I can say rather definitively that the drop size is different in my R-0009 bottle in my TF100 kit compared to the Taylor K-2006 kit. If you want to send me another bottle that I can try, that would be fine. I don't know which one is "right", but my Taylor kit seems to be consistent even when I've replaced it's bottles over time.

Richard
 
Well, I did a slightly different experiment.

I thoroughly rinsed my OTO comparator tube(s) and put 100 drops of water from a Taylor dropper in one side and 100 drops from a TF-100 dropper in the other side. Both droppers filled the tubes about 3/4 full and were so close to one another you could say they were identical.

Examining both dropper tips (Taylor's and mine) They are identical in height and the hole appears identical as well. I don't know this for sure but it would seem to me that there is a standard orifice size for dropper tips unless it is a specialty product.

On Monday, Richard, I'll send you a couple more TF-100 dropper tips to see if that brings your results a little closer together.
 
Dave,

I got your dropper tips last week and just tested with them (I didn't get a chance this weekend). I measured how many drops it took to get to 5 ml. The error is +/- 5 drops approximately so I just went to the nearest 10 drops that looked like it was at the line and then went past it to make sure.

The Taylor 0.75 ml bottle size uses a smaller dropper tip "fitting" since the bottle mouth is smaller, and its actual tip takes 130 drops to fill 5 ml so that's 26 drops per ml.

My original dropper tip in the TF100 took 110 drops to fill 5 ml so that's 22 drops per ml.
One of the new dropper tips you sent took 120 drops to fill 5 ml so that's 24 drops per ml.
The other new dropper tip you sent took 125 drops (could be considered 130) to fill 5 ml so that's 25 drops per ml

So the new dropper tips you sent are certainly better than what I had before. The error from 130 to 110 is about 18% which is the same as the error in TA from 130 to 110, when I used the TF100 reagent. I've now put the "best" dropper on the TF100 bottle and will try that out in the future for a TA test, but didn't have time to do that now (but I'm sure it will be closer).

The moral of the story: dropper tips do matter and can lead to a 20% error. Also, reagents do vary a little and could lead to a 10% error. Both of these together can lead to a 30% error (well, technically, difference since I don't have an "absolute" standard).

Do you want me to send you back the "bad" dropper tip? I marked it with a pen so I could distinguish it so ignore that if you want me to send it back.

Richard
 
Hi, Richard,

Thanks for such a thorough comparison. We've always purchased the tips from one resource and they only have one item that's produces a countable drop so there's no reason to send it back.....the possibility of them sending us the wrong tip or us mixing up item numbers doesn't make sense.

Somehow, the manufacturer must've done something to that first one you got but I don't know what. If you think about how they work, it seems the surface tension of the fluid has more to do with the drop size than the opening size or shape. However, I do know they make another tip that looks similar but it dispenses a stream rather than a drop so I guess the shape is critical.

Hopefully, the vast majority of them are accurate enough to get consistent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply