Algae, Silicates, Water Parameters and Poor SPS Coloration

ppurcell

ppurcell

New member
I've had chronic problem in my tank with poor SPS coloration and a fuzzy brown algae and a small amount of cyano bacteria from time to time. Since I installed the temporary sump, and consequently shut down the UV, carbon, GFO and purigen, I have seen my fuzzy brown algea start growing much more rapidly.

Recently, there have been a couple of threads about water parameters and another thread regarding diatoms or other brown algae. So, I have long wondered if my fuzzy brown algea is algae, diatoms or cyano.

About a week ago Jpaglia posted a link to aquariumwatertesting.com who do exactly what their name says. I purchased a single test set and they sent me two bottles in a prepaid return mail box. I filled them Monday afternoon, handed them to the mailman and I received the results last night. Very nice. So, I thought I would post my test results and get some feedback.

Most of the numbers that are 'LOW' can be explained by the fact that I haven't done a regular water change in over two months. I did add maybe 10 gallons during my sump swap though. The calcium level is the most surprising value on the report to me. I have a calcium reactor, and a kalk reactor running. And the last time I tested about a month ago the Ca was reading about 405 ppm.

Other Info:

The tank is a 75, with a 20 gallon refugium, and about 115 gallons total water volume.

I use IO salt which I supplement the salt mix with Seachem Reef Complete (Ca, Mg, Sr).

I have been running about 200g PhosAr in a TLF reactor, changing the media out every 3 months. It has been off since the temporary sump went in.

I started running Purigen and carbon (again) about two months ago. I am using 250g or Purigen and probably 700g of carbon in a fluidized reactors. It has been off since the temporary sump went in.

I feed dry Cyclopeze about 3 days a week, or 1/4" piece Rods food 2-3 days a week, or a rinsed cube or either mysis or brine 1-2 days per week. The frozen foods are supplemented with either Garlic Extreme or Selcon.

awtresults031908.png


So, the floor is open to thoughts, questions and suggestions.
 
seems like your diatoms are from high silica and your poor SPS color is from low Calcium. Yeah I know, stating the obvious.
 
I can say that my calcium is not normally low, that is a recent development. But the poor coloration has been persistent for at least two years.

I agree that the it would seem like silica would equal diatoms, but I'm wondering if there is a way to prove that the stuff I am getting really is diatoms.

Obviously, I plan to do what I can to correct each of the out of spec parameters. Mg and Ca will be first and easiest to get to proper levels. I have Dow Flake, which contains Boron, but I don't recall if boron and borate are interchangeable. RHF, indicates in this article: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2004/chem.htm that Boron isn't a particularly important parameter to monitor.
 
Last edited:
Hey Phil,

I wouldnt worry too much about the calcium, the lower mag explains it, but 405 isnt anything to really worry about. It's not low enough to really effect coloration. (Bumping up the mag may also have an effect on the algae...)

The silica readings from AWT have been coming back high on many people's, I've heard people getting this reading even with Silica Buster in their ro/di (Maybe RandalB can chime in?).

Po4 is elevated enough to cause problems... make sure you're getting 0tds on your make up water and continue the water changes. Between that, the GFO/Purigen/Carbon and the DAS you should be able to overcome the problem.

I'd also stop feeding the Rod's. I no longer use the stuff, I feed it and algae grows. I can feed 5+ cubes of mysis and other frozen with no algae response, and one dime sized piece of Rod's gets me in trouble.

I realize some people love it, but for some SPS tanks I just don't feel it's needed...and in my case causes more harm than good. And no this isnt a bash against Rod's food...it really is great, but it's not for everyone.


Another personal preference.... I do not care for IO. I had algae issues from day 1 back in my FO days. Maybe try a different salt? e.g. Tropic Marin or SCRS :p



HTH,

eric
 
Tagging along, hope to learn something today:)

It says on the website you will get comments from a marine biologist.What did they have to say?
 
I would be skeptical of the numbers from AWT on Ca and Mag for sure.

I have been really, really trying to get comfortable with their testing as I have been traveling for work quite a bit and would LOVE to find somewhere I can "outsource" my testing to.

However AWT has some chronic issues it appears. If you search the reef chemistry forum you will see a pattern of issues identified with their magnesium and calcium numbers being significantly low.

For example, I have tested my water for Ca with 2 different expiration salifert kits, API, LaMotte, Elos and Instant Ocean and they all are (within there increment bounds) on or about 430 for my tank yet AWT gave me 268. Same for Mag, mine all come around 1300 and AWT was 1050.

As someone else said every result (except one) posted about AWT showed high silicate. Now either it is true and everyone does have high silicate or there is something up with their tests on that one too.

Later after work I will try to find some of those threads and post them here for reference. Also the DFWMAS club out of Dallas did a project to test out test kits and AWT and found their Ca and Mag numbers to be very low.

DFWMAS Link:
http://www.dfwmas.org/pdf_files/Test Kit Analysis.pdf


Bottom line is I would get a second or third opinion before boosting your Ca or Mag as you may overshoot your desired range given their low readings.

Again this saddens me as I would love for this mail in thing to work, heck even if they just used test kits I use and did it repeatedly I would probably buy their service, but for now I have to do the tests myself in my little spare time to get numbers I can feel are accurate.
 
Interestingly, while the last couple of posts were being made, I went downstairs and retested the calcium levels on the tank. Using two different Salifert tests with different batch numbers I get 410ppm on both. I think I might have a test kit from someone besides Salifert around, so I'm going to look for it and try that too.

If the AWT results are really that unrealiable, then that turns out to be a big disappointment.
 
I made the time to read the article Whiirly posted and it is an interesting read. The part about their process only measuring free calcium ions and not those that are bound still would not explain a difference of 200 ppm. They quote that the bound calcium makes up 10-20% of the total that they are unable to measure, but that would account for a maximum of about 50 ppm, not 200 ppm.

It is too bad that the "Profession Testing Lab" isn't named in the article.
 
Eric, on the RO/DI front. My setup is:

5 micron -> Carbon -> Carbon -> GAC -> 98% RO x2 in parallel -> DI -> DI

I measure 2 ppm on the RO output and 0 ppm between the two DI cartridges. When the measurement rises from 0 to 1, I move the 2nd DI to the 1st position then put in fresh resin in the 2nd position. Should result in 0 TDS water all the time.
 
oh man...who mentioned me?

Sure thing....PP and Lactose....send/better yet, bring me a sample and i can get a GCMS test on your water. 26 point analysis....

I just helped whirily out to see where he stands....

LMK.

Rich K.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12136054#post12136054 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ppurcell
I made the time to read the article Whiirly posted and it is an interesting read.
Click to expand...
Credit for posting the article goes to Tony/lactose - my fault.

Rich - I'd love to take you up on your offer. I'll PM you for details.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12137147#post12137147 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ppurcell
Credit for posting the article goes to Tony/lactose - my fault.

Rich - I'd love to take you up on your offer. I'll PM you for details.
Click to expand...


phil it will give you a chance to see his Beautiful tank too :)
Thanks again Rich
 
thanks for posting this. its an interesting read.

one thing that i think is particularly problematic in the report of the test results from AWT is that they don't tell you some things that are very important to know, like the test method that was used to determine the reported values, and the range of values that they consider to be the thresholds for high, low, and normal. they also don't tell you the values of their control specimens (you just have to take it on faith that they performed adequate controls and properly calibrated the equipment).

Its possible that the AWT people may not be using the most desirable testing methods to measure Ca and Mg. if that's the case, their reported numbers would be meaningless and you'd have to question the value of sending another specimen to them.

In your tank, Ca++ is in an equilibrium state between free Ca++ ions in solution and "bound" Ca++ ions that are chemically complexed with another compound/ion. Depending upon the test that is used, its possible to measure total calcium or free calcium, and the numbers obtained would be markedly different.

Its possible that they're just performing a quick and dirty test using an electrode to measure the amount of free ionized calcium in the sample. that type of measurement is very easy to make. the problem is that it provides a totally meaningless result, as it only measures the amount of free calcium in solution, and ignores the amount of bound calcium that is in equilibrium with the free calcium. bound calcium may account a major portion of the total calcium level in your tank, so a "total calcium" measurement would be more meaningful that a quick and dirty "free calcium" measurement.

about magnesium -- again, it would be helpful to know what type of test they're using to measure magnesium. some of the more common/inexpensive benchtop tests use a Calcium precipitation method, which means that the accuracy of your magnesium tests would be dependent entirely upon the accuracy of your calcium tests.

i have to say, i'm quite surprised that your Ca and Mg numbers could be so far off. my first instinct is that AWT is measuring free calcium. that's a meaningless test. if you can get mass spectroscopic analysis from Rich, I'd jump on that. its the gold standard.
 
You are correct in your assumption about their testing method, here is their email to me:

Hello Phillip,

We will soon address this question on the FAQ section of the website, because we are getting it a lot. The short explanation is that both readings are correct. Your titration-style kit reads total calcium, both free ions and complexed calcium. Our ion specific electrode reads only ionic calcium. The difference in the two values is the ratio of free to bound calcium. Corals prefer free calcium, but they don’t really care one way or the other, it’s just easier for them to use free calcium. In natural seawater, about 20% of total calcium is bound. The rest is in the ionic state. In aquariums this value is typically higher…as much as ½ of the calcium can be in this bound state. Please understand, the bound state is a temporary association. Molecules of all types are constantly forming and disassociating in your water. It is normal. Just watch that the two numbers stay steady over time. This will indicate a steady ionic balance in your water, and that is a much more favorable condition for coral growth than trying to manipulate the numbers to suit what we “think” they should be


And here is my reply back to them:

Thank you for the quick reply,



I’m not a chemist, but the vast majority of people and most of the test kits for the hobby reference NSW levels (including the report I received yesterday). Since AWT is in a business which targets the saltwater aquarium industry, why wouldn’t you use a test which reports results which align with the target levels we strive to maintain? The information in your report is somewhat contradictory to your email too.


These values represent only the amount of free calcium ions present in the samples. According to Randy Holmes-Farley, the total calcium concentration can be 10% to 20% higher.

Tested: 208 mg/L

(LOW) Your calcium level is too low. We recommend using a commercial calcium additive to raise this level. There are several methods for doing this. Calcium is a critical parameter for coral growth in reef aquariums, and chronically low levels will cause coral mortality and lossof coralline algae and other invertebrate species.


So the first observation is that 10%-20% higher is substantially different than 50%. I guess you are saying in the ocean it will be 10-20% and in the aquarium it could be up to 50%. That is a bit too vague and ambiguous. I’d much prefer a test which could provide either total calcium or both free and bound calcium.


I was asking some questions on RC about problems I am having with algae/diatoms/cyanobacteria (I’m not positive which are or are not present) and posted my water test results. That in turn started the conversation about the water parameter test results and someone attached the following report to my thread. http://www.dfwmas.org/pdf_files/Test Kit Analysis.pdf which indicates the AWT test results are consistently below titration tests for Ca and Mg. For my part, I would be more comfortable and much more willing to sign up for a testing subscription if I were confident that test results are presented in a way that would allow me to use them to validate my own test kit results. If they are measuring and reporting differently, then some of the value is lost and with it my willingness to spend $40 per test set.
 
I was hoping the conversation would come back to figuring out my algae/diatom/cyano and coloration problem.

So pursuing the sandbed... there are two. I have a DSB/Plenum using special grade reef sand (1-2mm) in the display and I have a 5" DSB using Southdown in my fuge.
 
How old is the DSB in the fuge? I'm guessing the problems can't be from the DSB/plenum if it's working properly. I really don't know too much about plenums.

T5's... you still running them? I had to take mine down because I was having algae issues from them if I didn't change the bulbs every six months. I have no algae problems at all now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rrrrob
Thoughts on Purigen?
Replies
11
Views
728
alejandrodia
A
griss
Mystery Solved
Replies
12
Views
574
Sugar Magnolia
Sugar Magnolia
beckya
purple tang
Replies
1
Views
208
OrionN
OrionN
C
25G softy reef
Replies
6
Views
412
griss
griss
U
Goniopora
Replies
3
Views
179
Uncle99
Uncle99
Back
Top