Billybeau1
Premium Member
I have never got 4 1/2 cups in 8 gallons to get to 1.0264
I suspect your hydo is giving false results. Is it a swing arm or a floating ?
A General Guide to Salt Mixes
- Thread starter Billybeau1
- Start date
- Status
I have never got 4 1/2 cups in 8 gallons to get to 1.0264
I suspect your hydo is giving false results. Is it a swing arm or a floating ?
The0wn4g3
New member
I've used IO for about 2 years now, and before that I used Oceanic for about 6 months. After the Oceanic produced a thick brown coating in my LFS's saltwater reservoir I changed to IO. Personally, I hate Oceanic..
Anyway, now that I see these numbers, the Reef Crystals looks a lot better in calcium and magnesium than the IO. I can't get a magnesium test kit, so I have to depend on my salt. Would it be better to change to the Reef Crystals because of the elevated mag and cal? Why do most people use regular IO over the Reef Crystals?
Anyway, now that I see these numbers, the Reef Crystals looks a lot better in calcium and magnesium than the IO. I can't get a magnesium test kit, so I have to depend on my salt. Would it be better to change to the Reef Crystals because of the elevated mag and cal? Why do most people use regular IO over the Reef Crystals?
aastretch64
New member
Billybeau1 are you say that it is not enough salt? How many cups do you put in 8 gallons to make 1.0264?
I use a swing arm, as well as periodic test at the LFS (with refractometer).
Alex
I use a swing arm, as well as periodic test at the LFS (with refractometer).
Alex
Billybeau1
Premium Member
In my testing, a few salt mixes produced 35 ppt with 1/2 cup, IO and RC not being in that category. I seem to recall those to need somewhere close to 3/4 cup per gallon.
Swing arms can be very erratic. I don't trust them. You can get your own refract for about 50 bucks online. A fine investment IMO.
Billybeau1
Premium Member
Many reefers use IO because it is very consistent bucket to bucket with the things we don't see or measure for. Knowing this, supplementing calcium and magnesium is a breeze.
That said RC has become increasingly popular over the last couple of years and many reefers like the added calcium and magnesium.
If you switch to RC, stick with the bags for a little while as some buckets of RC apparently got out with lower calcium and magnesium.
I'm sure the company is getting this straightened out post haste since this salt is currently on the rise.
I've used RC for many years and feel its worth the few extra pennies for the higher cal and mag. But thats just me.
Canarygirl
New member
Randy et al who are using/testing Seachem Reef Salt, it's true that Seachem lowered the borate level somewhat however it is still significantly higher than NSW and it is still necessary to compensate for borate alk when measuring its available alk. I am one of the Zeovit users who uses Seachem Reef Salt. THere are very few salts compatible with Zeovit as you may know because we need our alk at NSW levels (6.5 - 8.0 dhk). SCRS is one of the few available in the U.S.
Anyway, we all substract 1.2 dhk for the SW mixed to 1.025.
Anyway, we all substract 1.2 dhk for the SW mixed to 1.025.
Nanz
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11655934#post11655934 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ezcompany
2nd 5 gallon batch mixed tonight from a different bucket of Red Sea Coral Pro Salt. 5.5 DKH, did not bother to test Ca
Thats exactly what mine tested at with 1.026 :mad2:
I normally calibrate my refractometer with DI as the instructions say but today I ordered a calibration solution to see if its calibrated correctly.
I tested Alk with Lamotte and Ca, Mg with Salifert.
>aastretch64, I also have the same params for Reef Crystals. This is why I changed to Red Sea Pro. But it appears their salt was worse than Reef Crystals. I just ordered a new Seachem salt so I will check it when it arives.
Randy et al who are using/testing Seachem Reef Salt, it's true that Seachem lowered the borate level somewhat however it is still significantly higher than NSW and it is still necessary to compensate for borate alk when measuring its available alk. I am one of the Zeovit users who uses Seachem Reef Salt. THere are very few salts compatible with Zeovit as you may know because we need our alk at NSW levels (6.5 - 8.0 dhk). SCRS is one of the few available in the U.S.
I do not believe it is necessary to measure borate in it, as Seachem reports it is only a few fold over NSW and that is not enough to impact alkalinity tests substantially (for mos tpeodple anyway, zeo folks seem to take these sorts of numbers unusually seriously, apparently).
NSW borate only provides only 2.9% of the total alkalinity at pH 8. I show that here:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/chemistry
It also provides only 0.3 dKH at pH 8.2. If you triple that, it is still only 1 dKH. That said, if you are really concerned about 1 dKH of alkalinity, then it might be worth considering and subtracting as you do. You'd need a good way to measure boron, however.
I do not believe it is necessary to measure borate in it, as Seachem reports it is only a few fold over NSW and that is not enough to impact alkalinity tests substantially (for mos tpeodple anyway, zeo folks seem to take these sorts of numbers unusually seriously, apparently).
NSW borate only provides only 2.9% of the total alkalinity at pH 8. I show that here:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/chemistry
It also provides only 0.3 dKH at pH 8.2. If you triple that, it is still only 1 dKH. That said, if you are really concerned about 1 dKH of alkalinity, then it might be worth considering and subtracting as you do. You'd need a good way to measure boron, however.
Last edited:
Canarygirl
New member
The easiest thing to do, for those of us concerned about this small amount of alkalinity, is to subtract from the total alk measurement.
at 1.027 subtract 1.4 dhk
at 1.026 subtract 1.3 dhk
at 1.025 subtract 1.2 dhk
at 1.024 subtract 1.1 dhk
etc. Close enough for government work. Then if you're not using 100% Seachem salt you get to prorate for the percent of Seachem in your total volume....great fun.
at 1.027 subtract 1.4 dhk
at 1.026 subtract 1.3 dhk
at 1.025 subtract 1.2 dhk
at 1.024 subtract 1.1 dhk
etc. Close enough for government work. Then if you're not using 100% Seachem salt you get to prorate for the percent of Seachem in your total volume....great fun.
Billybeau1
Premium Member
I've gotta be honest Canarygirl, if you are worried about a .3 difference in dkh then I don't know what to tell you.
Hobby grade kits are off that much test to test just due to test noise.
If this Zeo whatever you people use demand a specific alkalinity to the tenth of a dkh then I don't think its worth the trouble. JMHO.
Hobby grade kits are off that much test to test just due to test noise.
If this Zeo whatever you people use demand a specific alkalinity to the tenth of a dkh then I don't think its worth the trouble. JMHO.
The easiest thing to do, for those of us concerned about this small amount of alkalinity, is to subtract from the total alk measurement.
at 1.027 subtract 1.4 dhk
at 1.026 subtract 1.3 dhk
at 1.025 subtract 1.2 dhk
at 1.024 subtract 1.1 dhk
I agree it is easy, but how do you know it accurately reflects the borate present in the aquarium? It does, FWIW, change substantially with pH even with a fixed boron concentration.
at 1.027 subtract 1.4 dhk
at 1.026 subtract 1.3 dhk
at 1.025 subtract 1.2 dhk
at 1.024 subtract 1.1 dhk
I agree it is easy, but how do you know it accurately reflects the borate present in the aquarium? It does, FWIW, change substantially with pH even with a fixed boron concentration.
No, the borate alkalinity test is inaccurate in my testing:
The Seachem Borate Alkalinity Test Kit
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/june2003/chem.htm
The Seachem Borate Alkalinity Test Kit
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/june2003/chem.htm
Canarygirl
New member
Billybeau, I am worried about 1.2 dhk because the difference between having 8.0 dhk in my tank and 9.2 dhk (or between 6.5 and 5.3 dhk) can mean the difference between thriving corals and TN events. That's the way it is with Zeovit and those of using it choose to accept that fact.
Randy, we got that correction factor supplied to us by Seachem themselves and it is working for us. What are you saying changes substantially with ph?
Randy, we got that correction factor supplied to us by Seachem themselves and it is working for us. What are you saying changes substantially with ph?
The necessary correction changes with pH.
Assume they gave the correct correction for pH 8.2. At pH 7.9 it is half as much. At pH 8.5 it is about twice as much. That is because the amount of borate changes with pH.
How do you know "it is working"?
How would you know if it is wrong and it really doesn't matter if you correct or not?
The necessary correction changes with pH.
Assume they gave the correct correction for pH 8.2. At pH 7.9 it is half as much. At pH 8.5 it is about twice as much. That is because the amount of borate changes with pH.
How do you know "it is working"?
How would you know if it is wrong and it really doesn't matter if you correct or not?
Billybeau, I am worried about 1.2 dhk because the difference between having 8.0 dhk in my tank and 9.2 dhk (or between 6.5 and 5.3 dhk) can mean the difference between thriving corals and TN events. That's the way it is with Zeovit and those of using it choose to accept that fact.
Seems like a good reason to look for other husbandry practices.
Seems like a good reason to look for other husbandry practices.
Canarygirl
New member
The reason we believe it's working is because of people having healthy reefs while using the salt. One example is CAReefer (Marshall). When available alk goes outside of the NSW range, people get either burned tips (too high) or basal STN (too low) or even total RTN. That's the only way that we know.
What you describe about the ph affecting the correction factor, is new information to me and probably to all the other Zeo users of this salt. It makes me a bit worried, and maybe I will switch to a different salt.
As far as the narrow range of safe alk levels being a reason to change husbandry practices, that's totally valid. After trying zeovit it is much more difficult than I thought it would be to get it "dialed in." I chose the method--as most people do--because of the gorgeous colors of people's tanks...blah, blah, you've heard all this a hundred times. I'm not ready to quit, being a persistant (stubborn?) person by nature. But after a year if I haven't achieved my goals with this system or if I feel like it's too much work for what I'm getting out of it, I will switch to "other husbandry practices."
It's important to state however, that the husbandry practices that will change are only the use of the zeo supps, and the probable addition of a phosban reactor. Most zeo husbandry practices are the same as other people's: testing your parameters and keeping them stable, performing water changes regularly, using good quality salt, using a good quality skimmer, matching nutrient import levels to export levels, using carbon, observing your corals carefully to see how they are responding to your husbandry practices, etc.
Stormtrker
New member
Canarygirl, very well worded!
Rickyrooz1
Acropora Nut
Thanks for the info!
What you describe about the ph affecting the correction factor, is new information to me and probably to all the other Zeo users of this salt. It makes me a bit worried, and maybe I will switch to a different salt.
IMO, the single most important factor that allows so many hobbyists to maintain nice reef aquaria is the fact that many aquarium organisms are very forgiving of conditions, and do not require an exact match to their natural environment. That doesn't mean we should not strive for it, but most reefers fail it in some way, and still often have nice tanks.
There are many chemical complexities that most reefers gloss over without ever knowing there was more to it. That is certainly OK for most reefers if the belief is that highly exact parameters are not necessary. And in most cases, the majority of reefers have shown that to be true.
There are so many of these that it almost boggles the mind of those who sometimes are reminded of them all. They range from salinity complexities (improper calibration and temperature correction of every method used by reefers, etc.) to test kits that respond to more ions than what they are intended for. When the few hard core folks here have threads on them, most RC members, even those brave enough to post in the chemistry forum, usually tune out.
Alkalinity is certainly right up there in complexity that folks simply ignore. So if you have found a highly sensitive situation or organism, it might be useful to delve into these complexities to support the ways that you choose to deal with the sensitivity. Correction factors, for example, might need to be much more elaborate than simple borate corrections, and I'll show why below.
Let's start by assuming that you are correct that you need to maintain a narrow range of total alkalinity.
Right off we are faced with a dilemma. It is certainly not possible for a coral to sense total alkalinity. Bear with me. Total alkalinity is not a "thing" in the water. Total alkalinity is only a number that reflects how much acid is necessary to drive the pH down to a very low level; about pH 4.2 for normal seawater, as I show here:
What is Alkalinity
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/chemistry
Since corals are not believed to be able to do such a titration, or even the biochemical equivalent somehow, what they must be responding to is something in the water that makes up total alkalinity.
These possible "things" that they might respond to are part of the definition of total alkalinity in seawater:
TA = [HCO3-] + 2[CO3--] + [B(OH)4-] + [OH-] + [Si(OH)3O-] + [MgOH+] + [HPO4--] + 2[PO4---] - [H+]
In order to try to understand what your corals might be responding to, we can probably toss out many of them because they are such minor contributors that you would not have noticed a correlation with total alkalinity. The ones I'd initially toss out are the forms of phosphate, magnesium hydroxide ion, hydrogen ion, silicate ions, and hydroxide ion.
That leaves borate, carbonate, and bicarbonate.
let's suppose the answer is not directly borate, as you presumably would have noticed the Seachem salt to be bad even with the correction as it has several fold higher borate than other mixes at the same pH and total alkalinity.
So that leaves carbonate and bicarbonate, and brings me to my main point: a simple measure of total alkalinity DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THESE IF YOU IGNORE PH.
The problem with using total alkalinity as a measure of either bicarbonate or carbonate is that it does not really tell you how much of either is there unless you know the pH. The graph below shows how the relative portion of these two ions changes with pH:
In particular, for a given total alkalinity, the amount of bicarbonate drops from pH 7.8 to pH 8.5. Likewise, the amount of carbonate rises over this range.
Bicarbonate drops by a factor of 1.4, from 2.2 meq/L (6.3 dKH) to 1.6 meq/L (4.4 dKH).
Carbonate rises by a factor of 3.7, from 0.11 meq/L (0.22 meq/L contribution to total alkalinity; 0.6 dKH) to 0.39 meq/L (0.78 meq/L contribution to alkalinity, or 2.2 dKH).
In summary, my assertion is that what is important to a coral can only be something actually in the water, and that total alkalinity cannot perfectly serve that function if exquisite accuracy is necessary and no correction is made for pH.
if the thing that is important is bicarbonate, then you might consider adjusting for it.
If carbonate is important, you might consider adjusting for it.
It would be easy to make a table of both corrections as a function of pH.
Both of these corrections are equal to or larger than than the narrow range that you detail as necessary based on total alkalinity.
IMO, the single most important factor that allows so many hobbyists to maintain nice reef aquaria is the fact that many aquarium organisms are very forgiving of conditions, and do not require an exact match to their natural environment. That doesn't mean we should not strive for it, but most reefers fail it in some way, and still often have nice tanks.
There are many chemical complexities that most reefers gloss over without ever knowing there was more to it. That is certainly OK for most reefers if the belief is that highly exact parameters are not necessary. And in most cases, the majority of reefers have shown that to be true.
There are so many of these that it almost boggles the mind of those who sometimes are reminded of them all. They range from salinity complexities (improper calibration and temperature correction of every method used by reefers, etc.) to test kits that respond to more ions than what they are intended for. When the few hard core folks here have threads on them, most RC members, even those brave enough to post in the chemistry forum, usually tune out.
Alkalinity is certainly right up there in complexity that folks simply ignore. So if you have found a highly sensitive situation or organism, it might be useful to delve into these complexities to support the ways that you choose to deal with the sensitivity. Correction factors, for example, might need to be much more elaborate than simple borate corrections, and I'll show why below.
Let's start by assuming that you are correct that you need to maintain a narrow range of total alkalinity.
Right off we are faced with a dilemma. It is certainly not possible for a coral to sense total alkalinity. Bear with me. Total alkalinity is not a "thing" in the water. Total alkalinity is only a number that reflects how much acid is necessary to drive the pH down to a very low level; about pH 4.2 for normal seawater, as I show here:
What is Alkalinity
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/chemistry
Since corals are not believed to be able to do such a titration, or even the biochemical equivalent somehow, what they must be responding to is something in the water that makes up total alkalinity.
These possible "things" that they might respond to are part of the definition of total alkalinity in seawater:
TA = [HCO3-] + 2[CO3--] + [B(OH)4-] + [OH-] + [Si(OH)3O-] + [MgOH+] + [HPO4--] + 2[PO4---] - [H+]
In order to try to understand what your corals might be responding to, we can probably toss out many of them because they are such minor contributors that you would not have noticed a correlation with total alkalinity. The ones I'd initially toss out are the forms of phosphate, magnesium hydroxide ion, hydrogen ion, silicate ions, and hydroxide ion.
That leaves borate, carbonate, and bicarbonate.
let's suppose the answer is not directly borate, as you presumably would have noticed the Seachem salt to be bad even with the correction as it has several fold higher borate than other mixes at the same pH and total alkalinity.
So that leaves carbonate and bicarbonate, and brings me to my main point: a simple measure of total alkalinity DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THESE IF YOU IGNORE PH.
The problem with using total alkalinity as a measure of either bicarbonate or carbonate is that it does not really tell you how much of either is there unless you know the pH. The graph below shows how the relative portion of these two ions changes with pH:
In particular, for a given total alkalinity, the amount of bicarbonate drops from pH 7.8 to pH 8.5. Likewise, the amount of carbonate rises over this range.
Bicarbonate drops by a factor of 1.4, from 2.2 meq/L (6.3 dKH) to 1.6 meq/L (4.4 dKH).
Carbonate rises by a factor of 3.7, from 0.11 meq/L (0.22 meq/L contribution to total alkalinity; 0.6 dKH) to 0.39 meq/L (0.78 meq/L contribution to alkalinity, or 2.2 dKH).
In summary, my assertion is that what is important to a coral can only be something actually in the water, and that total alkalinity cannot perfectly serve that function if exquisite accuracy is necessary and no correction is made for pH.
if the thing that is important is bicarbonate, then you might consider adjusting for it.
If carbonate is important, you might consider adjusting for it.
It would be easy to make a table of both corrections as a function of pH.
Both of these corrections are equal to or larger than than the narrow range that you detail as necessary based on total alkalinity.
Last edited:
- Status
