Lamotte ColorQ Pro 7 - just how accurate ( especially T.A and C.H. Readings)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
P

poolteckie

0
In The Industry
May 12, 2018
24
BC
I bought a ColorQ Pro 7 in May 2018... Seems to work well.
However, there is no way to 'Benchmark' how accurate the reading are!
The results are way different then a Taylor K2006

I tested the CH in a pool: with the ColorQ Pro 7, the CH readings were in the 110 ( really low for a pool). However, with the Lamotte drop-by-drop test kits ( using the sample tube and swirling ti'll the color changes), i get 170 - a huge difference!
I retested 4 times - the ColorQ was consistent throughout, but so was the ordinary Lamotte test kit .
So which kit is faulty ? why such a wide value gap in readings???
Is the ColorQ not accurate in the TA and CH ? Have they fixed this problem - if it is a problem?
Thx
 
:wave: Welcome to TFP!

There are many threads discussing that tester.


Bottom line, we have typically found it to be unreliable and it has some limitations which make following our methods impossible.
 
pt,

Welcome to TFP... A great place to find the answers to all your "Colorful" questions.. :shark:

I have both the TF-100 and the ColorQ Pro 7, so I am not a test kit snob... :p

The Pros for the ColorQ is that it is small and easy to carry, actually looks like a professional test kit, and is very easy to operate.

The Cons are that does not have the accuracy of the TF-100 or Taylor K2006..

The Calcium Hardness (CH) that the ColorQ does is really a Total Hardness test.. I know, they call it a CH test, but I sent them an e-mail and their response was that the test was actually a Total Hardness test. Depending on your local water this can be quite different than Calcium Hardness..

For me anyway, the TA test changed depending on the batch of reagents... I noticed a jump of about 30 ppm when I used a new bottle of reagent vs. an old one.. I did the TA test several times, and in both cases, the ColorQ was constant in every test.. But the new bottle was always about 30 ppm different than the older bottle which was still well within the expiration date.

So... my solution was to use my ColorQ for my routine tests where I am not looking for a specific number, but rather a change... For example.. if I am measuring FC, I'm checking to see if it is going up or down, not so much that it is exactly 8 ppm...

I use my TF-100 when I really want to know exact number.. I also use the TF-100 to "calibrate" the ColorQ.. So, if the ColorQ says the CH is 250 but the TF-100 say the CH is 300, I just automatically add 50 to the ColorQ's results...

Thanks for posting,

Jim R.
 
poolteckie said:
I bought a ColorQ Pro 7 in May 2018... Seems to work well.
However, there is no way to 'Benchmark' how accurate the reading are!
The results are way different then a Taylor K2006

I tested the CH in a pool: with the ColorQ Pro 7, the CH readings were in the 110 ( really low for a pool). However, with the Lamotte drop-by-drop test kits ( using the sample tube and swirling ti'll the color changes), i get 170 - a huge difference!
I retested 4 times - the ColorQ was consistent throughout, but so was the ordinary Lamotte test kit .
So which kit is faulty ? why such a wide value gap in readings???
Is the ColorQ not accurate in the TA and CH ? Have they fixed this problem - if it is a problem?
Thx
Click to expand...
It's a problem with the color Q.

Please do not confuse the specificity of the results the ColorQ gives with accuracy. We have had members attempt to use the ColorQ to follow our methods and almost all have abandoned its use due to inaccuracies and inconsistencies. We even had one member test the same sample of water three times in a row and ended up with three different sets of results. Here is an example of a ColorQ post: ColorQ vs TF100 and here is a review where the Color Q was used alongside a TF-100. Test Kit Comparison
 
tim5055 said:
It's a problem with the color Q.

Please do not confuse the specificity of the results the ColorQ gives with accuracy. We have had members attempt to use the ColorQ to follow our methods and almost all have abandoned its use due to inaccuracies and inconsistencies. We even had one member test the same sample of water three times in a row and ended up with three different sets of results. Here is an example of a ColorQ post: ColorQ vs TF100 and here is a review where the Color Q was used alongside a TF-100. Test Kit Comparison
Click to expand...

aww geez! I just bought the ColorQ pro 7 just under a week ago rom Amazon.ca for $230 . I bought it because i test pools for a living and found it to be easier.
I used to use the Lamotte drop by drop test kit but i struggle trying to get the rubber cap on the tube with every test ; and the test vial flips over and spills your samples with reagents if you try to force the black rubber cap on too hard!
But had no idea the TA and CH would be way off ..
uugh looks like ill have to try to get my money back :(
 
poolteckie said:
aww geez! I just bought the ColorQ pro 7 just under a week ago rom Amazon.ca for $230 . I bought it because i test pools for a living and found it to be easier.
I used to use the Lamotte drop by drop test kit but i struggle trying to get the rubber cap on the tube with every test ; and the test vial flips over and spills your samples with reagents if you try to force the black rubber cap on too hard!
But had no idea the TA and CH would be way off ..
uugh looks like ill have to try to get my money back :(
Click to expand...
Yea, it's sad but true. Amazon is good, tell them it doesn't test properly and they generally take it back.

The Lamotte drop by drop test kit you are using is what we generally recommend for folks in Europe where the Taylor kits are very hard to get. From what we have found it is as good as teh Taylor, but a bit more expensive than Taylor below the border.
 
tim5055 said:
Yea, it's sad but true. Amazon is good, tell them it doesn't test properly and they generally take it back.

The Lamotte drop by drop test kit you are using is what we generally recommend for folks in Europe where the Taylor kits are very hard to get. From what we have found it is as good as teh Taylor, but a bit more expensive than Taylor below the border.
Click to expand...
I find the Lamotte drop by drop test kit hard to get the rubber cap on the vial and it tips over all too easy if you force the cap on while sitting on the deck. But the TA and CH only use 5 drops instead of the 20 drops Taylor uses.
But both are good....Just too bad they can't make testing physically easier/ faster when you have to test a boat load of pools every day.
Thanks for the advice on contacting Amazon customer support about return the kit...Ill get on that
 
I think I found a work around with the Color Q pro 7:
1) with each new batch of reagents and
2) select say a Taylor K2006C kit ( or one that you know is precise).
3) have on hand: S/B ( baking Soda) ; C/C ( calcium carbonate ) - both for T.A and C.H testing
4) mix in a cup ( or so) a strong enough solution of either S/B or C/C ( but not so high that the Color Q and your favorite test kit cant read but get the readings as high as possible)
5) compare the 2 readings and take note of 'both' readings ( very important)
6) go as low as possible a reading ( but not too low that neither test kits can't read)
7) take note of both readings
Now you could draw a line or use Excel to interpolate all the readings in between ( Using the Color Q test for example the TA: 250 obviously very high value from the Color Q but your fav. test kit says otherwise : 200 ; difference of 50 ppm).
Next the lowest reading capable of being read from both test kits say: 20 ppm ( TA), a difference of 0. Everything in between say: the Color Q gets a value of 100 so interpolating that would around 25 ppm ( around half ) so add 25 to the 100ppm the Color Q got. Hopefully this would only work if the values are 'linear'
And, equally important. Sadly you would have to re-calibrate ( steps 1 through 7 ) for each new batch of Color Q reagents
I havent fully tested this out but the logic and my first test ( since I am running out of reagents at the moment), I havent been able to confirm that yes indeed, all the values are linear ( otherwise, interpolation wouldn't be possible).
Unless the Moderators have a different opinion regarding ..
Thx
 
That sounds like a real painful process and ignores the fact that it can often report different results even when tested back to back. And it still has limits, like 10ppm of FC.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
poolteckie said:
Unless the Moderators have a different opinion regarding ..
Thx
Click to expand...
I repeat my suggestion, see if Amazon will take it back.

As Jason points out, we had a couple of folks who reported testing the exact same sample of water three times back to back and got 3 different sets of results.

If you are doing this for a living you can't afford to mess up a couple of pools because of a testing error.

As I said before, do not confuse the specificity of the results the ColorQ gives with accuracy.
 
One of the things you see over and over when you have been on this site for years is someone will purchase a product, be it a specific chemical, sanitation method, or test device, and when told it is not a good choice they will go to great lengths to make it work. I have seen it with ionizer systems, many many times with Baqua, and several test kits including the ColorQ. A persons pride is hard to break, and that is a blanket statement as we all suffer from it.

The simple solution is to discontinue using the product and use one proven to work. The difficult solution is to venture through a long tedious set of tests and spreadsheets in an attempt to find a deviation and then forever recalculate the results given by the device. Which solution makes more sense? And which solution will invoke some people to present a long paragraph defending their decision and possibly attacking the person who would question them? (Hey jblizzle, pools work different in Texas, remember? :p )

So if you want to continue putting such effort trying to make this tester work, that is fine. But I would only ask that you sincerely ask yourself why you are doing it. You don't need to tell me, but you should know why you are doing things the way you are doing them.
 
As a color blind person i used the colorq for 3 years with my last pool. Never once had algae. Never once had to slam. I believe the colorq FC max reading is 10 so if you ever have to slam you will not have an accurate reading. But if you follow TPP methods correctly you should not have to slam anyway.

I now have a LaMotte Waterlink Spin. I will use that and my wife will use our 2006 and compare results. Ill post a video here once our new pool is done.

Like others - I’m a gadget guy
 
Just an fyi, the test kits we recommend require you to count drops to see a color change. The actual color is not important it is the change you are looking for so many people who are color-blind have had no problems with the test kits we recommend. PH is the only test where you're actually having the match colors. And even then as long as your matching the colors it doesn't matter what color you're actually seeing :)
 
View attachment 2015_Frankie_Tsang.pdfI wanted to get to the bottom of this - regarding : just how accurate 'Pool Testing Kits' from various companies are.
So I stumbled on a White Paper researched from BCIT, ( British Columbia Institute of Technology) kinda like MIT. What they wanted to know is just how accurate the major test kit manufactures actually make their kits..
In short, no one test kit is really any better than the other - they all have faults. If you want to read the findings ...

Enclosed is a PDF file of BCIT's findinds of all 3 test kit makers - they are all not equal - surprisingly
google search word : Accuracy of Swimming Pool Test Kits Abstract - The BCIT cIRcuit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frank in FL
I had to scan through the document quite a bit to figure out what Taylor test kit they were talking about. It appears they are just using a dpd test to estimate the chlorine levels. This is not the test we recommend. We recommend the fas-dpd chlorine test which is much more accurate.

In fact it appears that all of the test kits in that paper were color comparison test. None of them are the titration tests like we recommend.
 
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