It's Still in the Water!

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
Click to expand...

Somehow, I think your simplistic interpretation is missing something. Perhaps if any of us had read the actual paper, we'd know better

Actually, Randy, I have read the paper. I suppose that it is possible that if you had read the paper, you might indeed know better.

My interpretation, however simplistic, is correct.

This is my last post in this thread.
 
Actually, Randy, I have read the paper. I suppose that it is possible that if you had read the paper, you might indeed know better. My interpretation, however simplistic, is correct.

This is my last post in this thread.

Oh, that's disappointing that you won't tell us some of the details. I'll have to go about ordering it myself. Since it shows both positive and negative effects of both nitrate and iron to a coral and it's zoox that we actually keep, it would seem to be of general interest to many reefkeepers. There are lots of considerations on how this result might relate to our aquaria, and without knowing the details, it is hard to assess what it means.

For example, did increased iron and nitrate encourage growth of something else in the system (from algae to the mentioned zoox growth and photosynthesis increase) that used up phosphate as a limiting nutrient? If so, that wouldn't seem to relate to most aquaria, but would be as we expect for increased growth in a low phosphate system like natural or synthetic seawater (but not most tanks).

Without knowing details like that, we are unable to asses whether the iron and nitrate are "toxic' or are actually growth stimulants, as we generally recognize them.

After I get a copy (which may take me a while), I'll be glad to provide any necessary details to those who are interested in knowing what was tested, how it was tested, and what the endpoints were (from the abstract we can't even tell if that was coral growth rate or something else). If you change your mind and provide it in the meantime, I'm sure we would appreciate it.

FWIW, I'm glad that you are so impressed with the stastics of using 2 tanks for each test in this paper. Running 2 tests has apparently taken the test from being laughable (as you described mine) to one that you quite like. So if one other person duplicated my result with iron additions, you'd be happy with my results? Perhaps you should check out my forum. There are posts there from people with the same results. Should I say QED? Naw, I 'd hate for you to have to respond.

FWIW, I too am basically uninterested in pursuing heavy metal toxicity in reef tanks until someone shows there to be some toxicity in reef tanks. I am very interested in papers discussing the effects of iron additions to corals and other organisms in our tanks, since I supplement with it, and will strive to find out as much as is available on the subject, and then provide it to the reefkeeping public as warranted.
 
OK, I bit the bullet and forked over the $30 for the full text and links associated with the paper (the Ferrier-Pages et al paper).

Since it involves a coral that we keep (Stylophora pistillata) and a supplement that we add (iron, either alone or in food), it is worthy of extensive discussion (not here, but likely in an upcoming AAOM article of mine).

FWIW, however, while the authors do use the word "toxicity" of the iron with respect to calcification (making Ron's assertion technically correct), they go on to state that it may be as simple as the demonstrated faster zoox growth using up nutrients or photosynthetic byproducts that the coral would otherwise have gotten, and hence calcification may be slowed in a nutritent poor system like theirs.
 
Randy,
OK, I bit the bullet and forked over the $30 for the full text and links associated with the paper (the Ferrier-Pages et al paper).

Great! I phoned here yesterday but she is still on vacation.
If there is need to ask her still some things please let me know.

they go on to state that it may be as simple as the demonstrated faster zoox growth using up nutrients or photosynthetic byproducts that the coral would otherwise have gotten, and hence calcification may be slowed in a nutritent poor system like theirs.

This sounds very obvious.

BTW how did you get the paper. I did not came further then being only available to subscribers to that magazine.

Thanks
 
Randy,

When I follow the link I see:

The article you have requested could not be found within the system or is not within your institution's current entitlements; access to journal entries is based upon current journal subscriptions


Probably buying articles is only allowed for the poor Americans and the rich Europeans have to take a subscription.:D

Perhaps Ron is willing to give me a subscription as a gift:D
 
It could be that it is only a US thing. At that page, I see lots of negative stuff about needing a subscription, etc., but also:

"If you do not have a User Name and
Password click the "register to purchase"
button below to purchase this article.

Price: US $30.00 "

Maybe they don't trust euros:D
 
Possible experiment to prove that chelators can affect toxicity

Possible experiment to prove that chelators can affect toxicity

Well, since I am a bit too lazy to read through 6+ pages of the chemist vs. Biologist battle, one claiming that nothing done in a lab is feasible in nature, the other claiming that the other one doesn't have a good enough control, I am going to propose a possible experiment that one could do to determine the toxicity of Cu in seawater.
It has been established that certain bacteria secrete siderophores to complex metals (usually Fe, but others are known), which either allow uptake of these metals to aid in biological processes or to protect themselves against them.

One could have a tank with a known concentration of a metal that at that concentration will kill 50% the animals used (whether it be a mollusk, coral, whatever) in X time. This of course is the control. In another tank, the metal and food supply (be it nitrate or ammonia) is added and to it a known concentration of a bacteria is added, allowed to multiply, and then the test subject is added. The concentration of the metal in the water won't change and since the kinetics of most siderophores is so fast, the only barrier is how much chelating ligand is produced.
This of course would have many trials, each with different concentrations of the metal and bacteria as well as time allowed for the bacteria to reproduce.

This could also be done by just adding straight siderophores or another natural chelating ligand to the metal spiked water but this wouldn't be as natural as what may happen in ones tank.

Argue away.

Matt

Oh ya, since I proposed this first (I think), if someone does do this, please cite me (email me for info :-)).
 
Matt:

That would be a fine experiment for showing what COULD happen, but it wouldn't show if it does happen in a real reef tank.

IMO, the best first experiment would be to show that something (anything) in real reef tank water (taken as a whole) is toxic to a coral compared to natural seawater.

Then, one could begin the long task to find out what that agent(s) are (if any). There are many things different between tank water and seawater, and nailing down one or more culprits may be difficult (or may be easy if you find it on the first couple of trys).

Assuming that an artificial seawater can be found that is just as good as natural seawater for whatever tox test is used, then one can add back certain compounds to see what effect they have, both individually, and as part of a larger collection of things. This is where the experiment becomes tricky, as whatever is added needs to be similar to the form that it takes in reef tank water (for metals, this would include oxidation state and organic binding). You could do your siderophore experiment here, but the issue may be that the one you picked may not reflect what is really happening, and may give a misleading result, one way or the other.
 
True true, but i was assuming that Dr. Ron's cites were accurate and that it has been proven that certain metals in concentration are toxic to corals.

Just think of the size and PITA it would be to do a HPLC of tank water to find all the organics. It makes me shudder just to think of it.

Matt
 
Matt,

Biologist battle, one claiming that nothing done in a lab is feasible in nature,

If the questionon or a part of it is if ligands are present in aquariums then I can say yes they are.

It is relatively easy to measure them in aquariumwater.
I have done this already.

And since ligands are present in aquariums they can alter the toxicity of metals such as copper.
 
Ron:

I noticed that there is a paper by Norris and Fenical (reference below) that tests a bunch of organic toxins from various seaweeds. One that may be of interest to your upcoming test of reef tank water on sea urchin eggs was from the tropical red algae Laurencia caraibica. It was found to be toxic to the fertilized eggs of the temperate sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus.

You might consider this type of information in drawing conclusions about what may be toxic in your tests.

"Chemical Defense in Tropical Marine Algae; in "The atlantic barrier reef ecosystem at Carrie Bow Cay, Belieze, I Structure and Communities" Rutzler and Macintyre (eds); Smithsonian Institute Press, pp. 417-431; 1982.
 
LOL -

Randy, that book is sitting behind me as I type. Its a signed edition from Rutzler and MacIntyre. I had, in fact, just pulled that article for an article Anthony Calfo is writing on Caulerpa. How's that for unbelievable because that is an obscure book!

It also has one of the only sources of information around on the zoanthid Isaurus. The chapters are amazing - covers all the Caribbean corals, zooplankton, corallines, inverts, geomorphology, water currents and exchnage, and on and on - and completely, too, I might add.

Just another reference available from the library of Borneman :)
 
Ron,

I will - if I can get the $$ - be examining the metals in tank sediments late this autumn as one of the upcoming components of the this project of mine.

Perhaps you should undertake some research about the organic components, if you think they are important.

Here is an abstract which is worth considering before drawing any conclusions on heavy metals in the sediment and their toxicity.

Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 44 (4) (2002) pp. 286-293

An overview of toxicant identification in sediments and dredged materials
Kay T. Ho a * ho.kay@epa.gov , Robert M. Burgess a, Marguerite C. Pelletier a, Jonathan R. Serbst a, Steve A. Ryba a, Mark G. Cantwell a, Anne Kuhn a and Pamela Raczelowski b
a Atlantic Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA
b University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02892, USA

Abstract
The identification of toxicants affecting aquatic benthic systems is critical to sound assessment and management of our nation's waterways. Identification of toxicants can be useful in designing effective sediment remediation plans and reasonable options for sediment disposal. Knowledge of which contaminants affect benthic systems allows managers to link pollution to specific dischargers and prevent further release of toxicant(s). In addition, identification of major causes of toxicity in sediments may guide programs such as those developing environmental sediment guidelines and registering pesticides, while knowledge of the causes of toxicity which drive ecological changes such as shifts in benthic community structure would be useful in performing ecological risk assessments. To this end, the US Environmental Protection Agency has developed tools (toxicity identification and evaluation (TIE) methods) that allow investigators to characterize and identify chemicals causing acute toxicity in sediments and dredged materials. To date, most sediment TIEs have been performed on interstitial waters. Preliminary evidence from the use of interstitial water TIEs reveals certain patterns in causes of sediment toxicity. First, among all sediments tested, there is no one predominant cause of toxicity; metals, organics, and ammonia play approximately equal roles in causing toxicity. Second, within a single sediment there are multiple causes of toxicity detected; not just one chemical class is active. Third, the role of ammonia is very prominent in these interstitial waters. Finally, if sediments are divided into marine or freshwater, TIEs performed on interstitial waters from freshwater sediments indicate a variety of toxicants in fairly equal proportions, while TIEs performed on interstitial waters from marine sediments have identified only ammonia and organics as toxicants, with metals playing a minor role. Preliminary evidence from whole sediment TIEs indicates that organic compounds play a major role in the toxicity of marine sediments, with almost no evidence for either metal or ammonia toxicity. However, interpretation of these results may be skewed because only a small number of interstitial water (n=13) and whole sediment (n=5) TIEs have been completed. These trends may change as more data are collected.


Also worth considering is the heavy metal speciation and pollution in Cleveland Bay (Australia) , the nearby coral reefs (a.o. magnetic island) and the advice not to dredge only around mass spawning periods.
 
LOL

That book came out in the late 70's early 80's something like that, You're not a old man like me.

I meant you're not old enough to have been there and had it signed. ;)
 
Originally posted by Habib
Click to expand...

Habib,

Here is an abstract which is worth considering before drawing any conclusions on heavy metals in the sediment and their toxicity.

I don't need you to tell me what is important in discussing heavy metals in sediments and their toxiciity; the following are some of my publications on the topic. I was senior or sole author in the Parametrix reports and they are available from the Region X EPA library in Seattle. Although most of this is in the grey literature, much of it has been the basis of TIE development in the areas considered. Publication in the peer-reviewed literature was not an option because the funding was corporate, or municipal and they wouldn't pay for my time.

When you gather some experience in the practical applications of this, we can discuss it further.

Shimek, R. L., T. Thompson, and D. Weitkamp. 1991. Slag, benthos, and bioassays: poor correlation of bioassay predictions and the benthos. In: Chapman, P., F. Bishay, E. Power, K. Hall, L. Harding, D. McLeay, M. Nassichuk and W. Knapp (Eds.) Proceedings of the seventeenth annual aquatic toxicity workshopL November 5-7, 1990, Vancouver, B. C. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2:1046.

Shimek, R. L., T. A. Thompson, T. H. Schadt, and D. E. Weitkamp. 1992. Interpreting conflicting biological and chemical results from a Puget Sound sediment data set. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Puget Sound Research '91, Proceedings. 2:546-552.

Sole or senior contributing author for the following major project reports, Parametrix, Inc.

Asarco-Tacoma = Arsenic refinery and the studies concern off shore heavy metal deposition.

Parametrix. 1989a. Asarco Tacoma remedial investigation. Prepared for Asarco, Incorporated, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Parametrix. 1989b. Asarco Tacoma smelter offshore marine sediments feasibility study. Prepared for Asarco, Incorporated, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Parametrix. 1990a. Asarco Tacoma smelter offshore feasibility study. Supplementary marine sediment survey. Prepared for Asarco, Inc., P. O. Box 1677, Tacoma, Washington.

Parametrix. 1991c. Asarco Tacoma Smelter Offshore Feasibility Study - Supplement Number 2. Prepared for Asarco, Inc., P. O. Box 1677, Tacoma, Washington

Parametrix, 2000. Descriptive analyses of the benthic infaunal communities of two 24 month Asarco Pilot cap stations with a brief comparison to two selected reference stations.

St. Paul Water Way - heavy metals and organics contamination

Parametrix. 1990b. St. Paul Waterway Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Monitoring Report. 1988-1989. Unpublished report to Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, Tacoma, Washington. 115 p.

Parametrix 1991a. St. Paul Waterway Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Monitoring Report. 1990. Unpublished report to Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, Tacoma, Washington.

Parametrix. 1992b. St. Paul Waterway Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Project. 1991 Monitoring Report. Unpublished report to Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, Tacoma, WA, and Champion International, Stamford, CT.

Parametrix. 1993a. St. Paul Waterway Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Project. 1992 Monitoring Report. Unpublished report to Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, Tacoma, WA, and Champion International, Stamford, CT.

Parametrix. 1994. St. Paul Waterway Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Project. 1993 Monitoring Report. Unpublished report to Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, Tacoma, WA, and Champion International, Stamford, CT.

Parametrix, and R. L. Shimek. 1994. Biological indicators - St. Paul Waterway area remedial action and habitat restoration project. Unpublished report to Champion International, Stamford CT., and Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, Tacoma, WA.

Simpson-Tacoma Kraft mill - We fixed this one. It was the first and I think still is only remediated marine Superfund site. Organics here mostly.

Parametrix. 1990c. Outfall benthic survey results - Simpson Tacoma Kraft mill. Prepared for: Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, P. O. Box 2133, Tacoma, Washington.

City of Tacoma - Organics, Heavy metals.

Parametrix 1991b. City of Tacoma Central Waste Water Treatment Plant. Draft 1990 Outfall Monitoring Report. Benthic Macro-Infaunal Invertebrate Analysis. Unpublished draft report to the City of Tacoma, Washington. 46p + appendices.

Parametrix. 1992a. Central Wastewater treatment plant, 1991 Outfall monitoring report. Benthic macro-Infaunal invertebrate analysis. Unpublished report to the City of Tacoma.

Sitcum Waterway - Habitat restoration. Heavy metals and organic contamination.

Parametrix, 1997. Principal Coordinate Analyses of the 1996 Benthic Infaunal and Epibenthic Zooplankton Data from The Sitcum Waterway area. Prepared for: City of Tacoma

Parametrix, 1999. Principal Coordinate Analyses of the 1998 Benthic Infaunal and Epibenthic Zooplankton Data from The Sitcum Waterway area. Prepared for: City of Tacoma
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Saltwater cycle possible stuck
2
Replies
26
Views
806
Guygettnby
Guygettnby
B
Threw in the towel - Free SW stuff
Replies
0
Views
166
BSAJim
B
H
Alkalinity/Calcium Balance
Replies
1
Views
408
griss
griss
zaitmi
Nitrogen Cycle Query
Replies
17
Views
1K
monkeysee1
monkeysee1
F
Low ORP
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
griss
griss
Back
Top