arragonite sand
- Thread starter seanb1
- Start date
ConsultantERP
New member
"Aragonite has a distinct advatage in seawater. It is able to dissolve at a significantly higher PH than calcite"
If I have read correctly that quote is a comparison between Calcite and Aragonite, even though one will dissolve quicker than the other, does not mean that either one will have a noticable affect in the aquarium.
If I have read correctly that quote is a comparison between Calcite and Aragonite, even though one will dissolve quicker than the other, does not mean that either one will have a noticable affect in the aquarium.
Patrick12
Crypt Assassin
All this talk is really about whether the aragonite will help you maintain the parameters you desire in a reef aquarium and as I think it has been clearly discussed....aragonite, calcite, LR, whatever, will not do that solely in and of themselves. You will have to have a more responsive and consistent means to maintain the higher pH that we all strive for.
That said, it certainly does not mean that there is NO benefit to using these substrates. And, I mean that there is a chemistry related benefit. To say that they offer "no noticeable effect" is not really accurate either...unless by "noticeable" you are strictly referring to their ablilty to maintain the pH you want. They DO INDEED have a noticeable effect, it is just that in order to notice the effect you may need to try using some pea gravel or other traditional "frreshwater" substrate. See how low your pH dips with that stuff and how much buffer is needed to maintain desired levels then.
All in all, I think the only real point to take away is that using substrates that dissolve and add buffers to the aquarium as they do so, does help, they just don't maintain the higher pHs or we want or that they SEEM to advertise. Also, these substrates are not going to free you from regular buffering agent additions due to the lower pH levels you must reach before they dissolve.
That said, it certainly does not mean that there is NO benefit to using these substrates. And, I mean that there is a chemistry related benefit. To say that they offer "no noticeable effect" is not really accurate either...unless by "noticeable" you are strictly referring to their ablilty to maintain the pH you want. They DO INDEED have a noticeable effect, it is just that in order to notice the effect you may need to try using some pea gravel or other traditional "frreshwater" substrate. See how low your pH dips with that stuff and how much buffer is needed to maintain desired levels then.
All in all, I think the only real point to take away is that using substrates that dissolve and add buffers to the aquarium as they do so, does help, they just don't maintain the higher pHs or we want or that they SEEM to advertise. Also, these substrates are not going to free you from regular buffering agent additions due to the lower pH levels you must reach before they dissolve.
They DO INDEED have a noticeable effect
So presumably someone has noticed the effect? Have you?
That said, it certainly does not mean that there is NO benefit to using these substrates. And, I mean that there is a chemistry related benefit. To say that they offer "no noticeable effect" is not really accurate either...
Well, I'd have to stick by the claim that there is no noticeable benefit. Many people use silica sand, and do not have appreciably different water chemistry experiences.
Perhaps one can replace "noticeable" with "significantly useful" if that makes more sense to folks.
So presumably someone has noticed the effect? Have you?
That said, it certainly does not mean that there is NO benefit to using these substrates. And, I mean that there is a chemistry related benefit. To say that they offer "no noticeable effect" is not really accurate either...
Well, I'd have to stick by the claim that there is no noticeable benefit. Many people use silica sand, and do not have appreciably different water chemistry experiences.
Perhaps one can replace "noticeable" with "significantly useful" if that makes more sense to folks.
Patrick12
Crypt Assassin
I have noticed a difference between my silica sand bottomed tank and aragonite tanks. The amount of buffering that was required with the silica sand tank was much greater than are the aragonite tanks, My husbandry and other factors being the same. I very much agree with the replacement moniker "significantly useful" and thought I had intimated that very sentiment....but I guess not. Other than to say that I did tend to have more difficulty with my alkalinity and pH with non-aragonite tank. My experience there.....just sharing it.
The amount of buffering that was required with the silica sand tank was much greater than are the aragonite tanks,
That means nothing and as no bearing on anything. The tanks would need to be under exact controlled conditions and with the same animals, bio-load, feeding, cleaning and the list continues , etc..
Other than to say that I did tend to have more difficulty with my alkalinity and pH with non-aragonite tank.
That may well be but its not a means for drawing a conclusion. Others have no issue as you claim, as Randy brought up. The term, IMHO or My experience, is often baseless. Don't take this wrong. For example, 35 % of the US population think the Sun revolves around the Earth and Planets. Some think the Earth is flat. And some think Russia is where Canada is.
That means nothing and as no bearing on anything. The tanks would need to be under exact controlled conditions and with the same animals, bio-load, feeding, cleaning and the list continues , etc..
Other than to say that I did tend to have more difficulty with my alkalinity and pH with non-aragonite tank.
That may well be but its not a means for drawing a conclusion. Others have no issue as you claim, as Randy brought up. The term, IMHO or My experience, is often baseless. Don't take this wrong. For example, 35 % of the US population think the Sun revolves around the Earth and Planets. Some think the Earth is flat. And some think Russia is where Canada is.
Patrick12
Crypt Assassin
Well, when reading my last post it sounds contradictory to me a little, so I feel more explanation is in order. All I really mean to say is that my alkalinity tended to always be on the low side and pH tended to only go to and drift back from 8.1. I would of course take action and add the proper buffer or builder as required, but still 8.1 was about all I could get. I grew tired of the sand blowing all over the place and getting in between the magnet cleaner when my kids would "help" me out, so I replaced the substrate with larger aragonite. Same LR, same fish, same salt, same WCs, same exact everything.....except aragonite substrate for silica sand. My aragonite tank, would be higher in alk and pH....8.2-8.3 and I rarely had to add much to it in the way of buffers. So that is where my posts are coming from. The only difference to the tank....and I do mean ONLY.....was the substrate. So is 8.1 to 8.3 that noticeable......in the grand scheme of things I do not really think so, as I shoot for consistency over any certain number. But, I may have to say noticeable in the fact that I did not have to buffer the tank near as often once I replaced the substrate to aragonite.
So take it for what its worth....."disagree" or not. I have no detritus accumulation issues, but I am not using "large" pieces of aragonite either. Could be if the detritus builds up, it takes away from the "significanlty useful" effect? Who knows?
So take it for what its worth....."disagree" or not. I have no detritus accumulation issues, but I am not using "large" pieces of aragonite either. Could be if the detritus builds up, it takes away from the "significanlty useful" effect? Who knows?
Patrick12
Crypt Assassin
That means nothing and as no bearing on anything. The tanks would need to be under exact controlled conditions and with the same animals, bio-load, feeding, cleaning and the list continues , etc..
They most definitely were.
That may well be but its not a means for drawing a conclusion.
No "conclusion' drawn.....just stated that the other conclusion that there is absolutely, positively no noticeable effect is not a "conclusion" I share....and by the other post.....niether do Fenner or Calfo.....who I greatly respect and admire, having met and conversed with them both.
Others have no issue as you claim, as Randy brought up. The term, IMHO or My experience, is often baseless.
I do not recall using either terms other than to relay this one experience as an experience I experienced.
Don't take this wrong. For example, 35 % of the US population think the Sun revolves around the Earth and Planets. Some think the Earth is flat. And some think Russia is where Canada is.
Went a little far with that one. But I guess anything to make a point....I think????
I'm sorry Pat but I don't buy at all by a long shot.
You are implying your tanks are run under exact lab conditions, all foods are weighted out the same , animals all of them in each tank have the same population density, are the same size, have the same uptake in dry good mass etc, etc, etc, and that nothing has any effect on the media in question other than one is quartz and other is aragonite.
"That means nothing and as no bearing on anything. The tanks would need to be under exact controlled conditions and with the same animals, bio-load, feeding, cleaning and the list continues , etc.. "
They most definitely were.
other conclusion that there is absolutely, positively no noticeable effect is not a "conclusion"
I'll grant you something like this and so will Randy
Your Alk is 10 dKH and the sand adds on a daily bases, 0.0001 dkH. And your Calcium is say 400 ppm and it will add .001 ppm Ca and it will buffer your tank 0.000001 pH
I do not recall using either terms other than to relay this one experience as an experience I experienced
It is what you are implying though and how your posts continue to read.
Went a little far with that one.
It is called logic, to explain things on more simpler terms, so it jumps out at you and gets your attention, when the subject matter is not understood.
I think we have all said enough and are now just talking in circles.
You are implying your tanks are run under exact lab conditions, all foods are weighted out the same , animals all of them in each tank have the same population density, are the same size, have the same uptake in dry good mass etc, etc, etc, and that nothing has any effect on the media in question other than one is quartz and other is aragonite.
"That means nothing and as no bearing on anything. The tanks would need to be under exact controlled conditions and with the same animals, bio-load, feeding, cleaning and the list continues , etc.. "
They most definitely were.
other conclusion that there is absolutely, positively no noticeable effect is not a "conclusion"
I'll grant you something like this and so will Randy
Your Alk is 10 dKH and the sand adds on a daily bases, 0.0001 dkH. And your Calcium is say 400 ppm and it will add .001 ppm Ca and it will buffer your tank 0.000001 pH
I do not recall using either terms other than to relay this one experience as an experience I experienced
It is what you are implying though and how your posts continue to read.
Went a little far with that one.
It is called logic, to explain things on more simpler terms, so it jumps out at you and gets your attention, when the subject matter is not understood.
I think we have all said enough and are now just talking in circles.
Patrick12
Crypt Assassin
Well I guess all that is left to be said so that this thread can end the way you want it is that you are always right and I am wrong......since that is what this really seems to be about. So there you go...please just accept it.
As for all the foods and everything else....I would say yeah, they were as close to the same as I am ever gonna get without a lab grade scale. All I was merely doing was sharing an experience that I had with two different tanks. That is all. I am not calling for the masses to change anything. Obviously, there are planty of others who feel even more strongly that I that there are benefits to aragonite over silica based substrates or there wouldn't even have been a discussion in the first place. But, because it does not jive with your thoughts...I must be misleading or leaving something out...well not the case. It is only because I had said experience that I felt led to post. It is an N=1 and not worth quibbling about so I won't. But it did happen and the only differences were the substrates. I keep a log and all other parameters were nearly the same......but as I stated, I doesed to keep things stable and merely found that I dosed less with the aragonite substrate......even if there will be no exchange of funds for the info, since you are not buying.
I did say take it or leave it.......so lets just leave it then,
As for all the foods and everything else....I would say yeah, they were as close to the same as I am ever gonna get without a lab grade scale. All I was merely doing was sharing an experience that I had with two different tanks. That is all. I am not calling for the masses to change anything. Obviously, there are planty of others who feel even more strongly that I that there are benefits to aragonite over silica based substrates or there wouldn't even have been a discussion in the first place. But, because it does not jive with your thoughts...I must be misleading or leaving something out...well not the case. It is only because I had said experience that I felt led to post. It is an N=1 and not worth quibbling about so I won't. But it did happen and the only differences were the substrates. I keep a log and all other parameters were nearly the same......but as I stated, I doesed to keep things stable and merely found that I dosed less with the aragonite substrate......even if there will be no exchange of funds for the info, since you are not buying.
I did say take it or leave it.......so lets just leave it then,
Patrick12
Crypt Assassin
Oh and because I cannot edit....
It was not two different tanks, but it was the same tank with the silica sand replaced by aragonite. Once I replaced the substrate, all other manners and techniques continued, but with just less alk and pH fluctuations.....they still occurred, just less often. That is all I am saying.
It was not two different tanks, but it was the same tank with the silica sand replaced by aragonite. Once I replaced the substrate, all other manners and techniques continued, but with just less alk and pH fluctuations.....they still occurred, just less often. That is all I am saying.
OK, we can agree to disagree.
kaptken
New member
I can add some info from the opposite direction. I keep a 20 gallon barrel of RO water for daily makeup which i remin and buffer with Aragomite, fine powdered aragonite. I cleaned the barrel about a year ago, refilled it with RO water and then added 4 or 5 heaping tablespoons of Aragomite to the barrel and stirred. It brings my PH up to 8 or a little higher. But it has a DKH only of about 1 DKH. It takes very little alkalinity to reach the PH solubilty endpoint. I havent added any more aragomite in the past year. It looks like most of it is still on the bottom, stirred up each time a refill, and let it settle. I go thru about 20 gallons of makeup water a week, so probably 1000 gallons of RO PH 7 water have passed over that 5 tablespoons of aragomite this past year, and not depleted it appreciably yet.
On the other side of the coin, I set up My 75 reef 9 years ago with a 4 inch plenum argonite sand bed, and it hasn't dropped a smidge. But if you vacuum your sandbed, you could be removing sand over time too.
The argument about deep sandbed microbial processes can make local acidic conditions that will disolve the aragonite and put it in solution. But the plenum system seems to prevent those extreme sour microbial conditions. which is good for the tank. and still reduces nitrates.
These are things i have wondered about too, and observed in my tanks. Does anyone else have the same experience with remin RO water using aragomite and plenums? I just like to bump my make up water to PH 8 before i add it. but the alk it adds is very minimal.
On the other side of the coin, I set up My 75 reef 9 years ago with a 4 inch plenum argonite sand bed, and it hasn't dropped a smidge. But if you vacuum your sandbed, you could be removing sand over time too.
The argument about deep sandbed microbial processes can make local acidic conditions that will disolve the aragonite and put it in solution. But the plenum system seems to prevent those extreme sour microbial conditions. which is good for the tank. and still reduces nitrates.
These are things i have wondered about too, and observed in my tanks. Does anyone else have the same experience with remin RO water using aragomite and plenums? I just like to bump my make up water to PH 8 before i add it. but the alk it adds is very minimal.
Last edited:
Aragomite to the barrel and stirred. It brings my PH up to 8 or a little higher. But it has a DKH only of about 1 DKH.
:thumbsup: Yes, that is exactly what it should do for RO water. I show that here:
Calcium Carbonate as a Supplement
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2002/chem.htm
from it:
"The calculation is even more involved when atmospheric carbon dioxide is allowed to enter the system. Thankfully, Pankow has again done the calculations for us. In equilibrium with normal atmospheric carbon dioxide, the solubility is increased by about a factor of 3, with the alkalinity about 1 meq/L and the calcium about 20 ppm. In this case, the pH drops to about 8.3 as the carbon dioxide enters the system. Confirming Pankow’s calculation, this result is about what I got when I let both AragaMIGHT and Southdown aragonite sand sit in RO/DI water for a few days). "
FWIW, the pH of makeup water is not at all important to the final tank water. The ph of pure fresh water added to replace evaporated water, even if it reads pH 6 with a probe, will not depress the tank water. So it is never the cause of low tank pH. That said, the top off water can be a fine way to deliver something that you want to add to the tank, such as limewater.
I discuss that here:
Reverse Osmosis/Deionization Systems to Purify Tap Water for Reef Aquaria
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-05/rhf/index.htm
specifically here:
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-05/rhf/index.php#8
Final Effluent pH
Aside from the issues discussed above concerning the effluent’s pH when the DI resin becomes depleted, the final pH coming out of an RO/DI system should not significantly concern reef aquarists. Many aquarists with low pH problems have asked, for example, if their aquarium’s low pH may be caused by their replacing evaporated water with RO/DI water that they measure to have a pH below 7. In short, the answer is no, this is not a cause of low pH nor is it something to be generally concerned about, for the following reasons:
1. The pH of totally pure water is around 7 (with the exact value depending on temperature). As carbon dioxide from the atmosphere enters the water, the pH drops into the 6’s and even into the 5’s, depending on the amount of CO2. At saturation with the level of CO2 in normal (outside) air, the pH would be about 5.66. Indoor air often has even more CO2, and the pH can drop a bit lower, into the 5’s. Consequently, the pH of highly purified water coming from an RO/DI unit is expected to be in the pH 5-7 range.
2. The pH of highly purified water is not accurately measured by test kits, or by pH meters. There are several different reasons for this, including the fact that highly purified water has very little buffering capacity, so its pH is easily changed. Even the acidity or basicity of a pH test kit’s indicator dye is enough to alter pure water’s measured pH. As for pH meters, the probes themselves do not function well in the very low ionic strength of pure freshwater, and trace impurities on them can swing the pH around quite a bit.
3. The pH of the combination of two solutions does not necessarily reflect the average (not even a weighted average) of their two pH values. The final pH of a mixture may actually not even be between the pH’s of the two solutions when combined. Consequently, adding pH 7 pure water to pH 8.2 seawater may not even result in a pH below 8.2, but rather might be higher than 8.2 (for complex reasons relating to the acidity of bicarbonate in seawater vs. freshwater).
:thumbsup: Yes, that is exactly what it should do for RO water. I show that here:
Calcium Carbonate as a Supplement
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2002/chem.htm
from it:
"The calculation is even more involved when atmospheric carbon dioxide is allowed to enter the system. Thankfully, Pankow has again done the calculations for us. In equilibrium with normal atmospheric carbon dioxide, the solubility is increased by about a factor of 3, with the alkalinity about 1 meq/L and the calcium about 20 ppm. In this case, the pH drops to about 8.3 as the carbon dioxide enters the system. Confirming Pankow’s calculation, this result is about what I got when I let both AragaMIGHT and Southdown aragonite sand sit in RO/DI water for a few days). "
FWIW, the pH of makeup water is not at all important to the final tank water. The ph of pure fresh water added to replace evaporated water, even if it reads pH 6 with a probe, will not depress the tank water. So it is never the cause of low tank pH. That said, the top off water can be a fine way to deliver something that you want to add to the tank, such as limewater.
I discuss that here:
Reverse Osmosis/Deionization Systems to Purify Tap Water for Reef Aquaria
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-05/rhf/index.htm
specifically here:
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-05/rhf/index.php#8
Final Effluent pH
Aside from the issues discussed above concerning the effluent’s pH when the DI resin becomes depleted, the final pH coming out of an RO/DI system should not significantly concern reef aquarists. Many aquarists with low pH problems have asked, for example, if their aquarium’s low pH may be caused by their replacing evaporated water with RO/DI water that they measure to have a pH below 7. In short, the answer is no, this is not a cause of low pH nor is it something to be generally concerned about, for the following reasons:
1. The pH of totally pure water is around 7 (with the exact value depending on temperature). As carbon dioxide from the atmosphere enters the water, the pH drops into the 6’s and even into the 5’s, depending on the amount of CO2. At saturation with the level of CO2 in normal (outside) air, the pH would be about 5.66. Indoor air often has even more CO2, and the pH can drop a bit lower, into the 5’s. Consequently, the pH of highly purified water coming from an RO/DI unit is expected to be in the pH 5-7 range.
2. The pH of highly purified water is not accurately measured by test kits, or by pH meters. There are several different reasons for this, including the fact that highly purified water has very little buffering capacity, so its pH is easily changed. Even the acidity or basicity of a pH test kit’s indicator dye is enough to alter pure water’s measured pH. As for pH meters, the probes themselves do not function well in the very low ionic strength of pure freshwater, and trace impurities on them can swing the pH around quite a bit.
3. The pH of the combination of two solutions does not necessarily reflect the average (not even a weighted average) of their two pH values. The final pH of a mixture may actually not even be between the pH’s of the two solutions when combined. Consequently, adding pH 7 pure water to pH 8.2 seawater may not even result in a pH below 8.2, but rather might be higher than 8.2 (for complex reasons relating to the acidity of bicarbonate in seawater vs. freshwater).
