Lanthanum chloride
- Thread starter Gary Majchrzak
- Start date
Thanks for your input Tom - I'll have a look through the articla (or at least the first page that is accessible) when I have a chance later on.
If what you're saying is true then it would appear as though the biggest culprit could have been the CaCO3 Reactor. Will let you know what the reading is today after my modifications.
However, I don't think the calcium reactor got down as low as you stated in your post.
Regards,
Sheldon
If what you're saying is true then it would appear as though the biggest culprit could have been the CaCO3 Reactor. Will let you know what the reading is today after my modifications.
However, I don't think the calcium reactor got down as low as you stated in your post.
Regards,
Sheldon
Loosely bound PO4 species may have been leaching into the water from rock and or substrate surfaces ;such equilibration is common during the first week or two of low PO4 water when substrate or other aragonite has been been previously exposed to higher PO4 water.
Lanthanum phosphate is calssified insoluble. I doubt the calcium reactor ph would be low enough to dissolve it ; but maybe, the lower GI tract is around 6.8ph and it doesn't dissolve there it binds up phospahte. Sometimes folks with kidney issues can't process out phosphate well. Lanthanum is used to precipitate it out and pass it out via the GI tract relieving the kidneys of that burden as I understand the process.
Lanthanum phosphate is calssified insoluble. I doubt the calcium reactor ph would be low enough to dissolve it ; but maybe, the lower GI tract is around 6.8ph and it doesn't dissolve there it binds up phospahte. Sometimes folks with kidney issues can't process out phosphate well. Lanthanum is used to precipitate it out and pass it out via the GI tract relieving the kidneys of that burden as I understand the process.
Interesting; but still cloudy...
Interesting; but still cloudy...
Hey Tom - that certainly is an interesting perspective. In my case the removal of the calcium reactor and the consequential sudden drop in PO4 suggests that the calcium reactor was a culprit for some yet unknown reason. There also seems to be a noticeable improvement in progress when I remove the precipitates out of the canisters... i.e. when the downward progression or PO4 stalls; I try to remove as much of the processed stuff as possible (which doesn't appear to be a whole lot actually; and all of a sudden the progression of phosphate in the right direction resumes again (except for when I think the CaCO3 reactor became the holdup). I'll keep observing and see if I/we can't figure what was causing this type of coincidence.
I should note however that my CaCO3 reactor was set to a pretty high bubble count, so it is possible that the pH of the first chamber could have gotten quite a bit lower than 6.0, I've only measured the effluent coming off the last chamber of the calcium reactor; which really should be buffering the pH back up (thru over 3ft of slow travel upward which works out to at least 25 mins or so). At this exit point, the pH usually measures below 7.4 after 20+ mins of buffering time.
For one reason or another, it would appear as though the efficiency of this system looses some or much of it's efficacy if you do not secure a good precipitate export strategy (filter socks, or skimming, or otherwise). Elliott's account cited previously seems to support this notion, as well as the many trials people have had when using the wrong sized filter socks. If the PO4 is not redissolving back into the water column based on the insoluble nature of LaO4P, then could you hazard a guess as to what could be causing the observed stalemate...? Could it be that some sort of heterotrophic activity is leading to P being liberated from the LaO4P and re-associating with O2 to form new PO4???
Ahhh-d'know - I'm not a chemist, in fact far from it. I'm just throwing some questions out that might shed some light on the anomalies between what you've explained, and observations recently discussed.
Regards,
Sheldon
Interesting; but still cloudy...
Hey Tom - that certainly is an interesting perspective. In my case the removal of the calcium reactor and the consequential sudden drop in PO4 suggests that the calcium reactor was a culprit for some yet unknown reason. There also seems to be a noticeable improvement in progress when I remove the precipitates out of the canisters... i.e. when the downward progression or PO4 stalls; I try to remove as much of the processed stuff as possible (which doesn't appear to be a whole lot actually; and all of a sudden the progression of phosphate in the right direction resumes again (except for when I think the CaCO3 reactor became the holdup). I'll keep observing and see if I/we can't figure what was causing this type of coincidence.
I should note however that my CaCO3 reactor was set to a pretty high bubble count, so it is possible that the pH of the first chamber could have gotten quite a bit lower than 6.0, I've only measured the effluent coming off the last chamber of the calcium reactor; which really should be buffering the pH back up (thru over 3ft of slow travel upward which works out to at least 25 mins or so). At this exit point, the pH usually measures below 7.4 after 20+ mins of buffering time.
For one reason or another, it would appear as though the efficiency of this system looses some or much of it's efficacy if you do not secure a good precipitate export strategy (filter socks, or skimming, or otherwise). Elliott's account cited previously seems to support this notion, as well as the many trials people have had when using the wrong sized filter socks. If the PO4 is not redissolving back into the water column based on the insoluble nature of LaO4P, then could you hazard a guess as to what could be causing the observed stalemate...? Could it be that some sort of heterotrophic activity is leading to P being liberated from the LaO4P and re-associating with O2 to form new PO4???
Ahhh-d'know - I'm not a chemist, in fact far from it. I'm just throwing some questions out that might shed some light on the anomalies between what you've explained, and observations recently discussed.
Regards,
Sheldon
Hi Sheldon,
We need a chemist with the know how to tell us what ph is a dissolution point for lanthanum phosphate in a reef tank. The best I could do was find the solubility reference for lanthanum phosphate ; it is pk 26.44 g @ 70 degrees F and that it is considered highly insoluble with hydrochloric acid involved in dissolution methods but I don't have the knowlege of the right fromulae to translate that into a generalized ph level for a reef tank. The papers I searched up are mosltly pay for view for complete text and I don't have subscriptions.
Perhaps someone will chime in.
The medical use tells us it won't dissolve at GI tract ph. Whether it dissolves at ph 6 ,5 or lower is unclear maybe it will redissolve in reactors operating with low ph . When I used it in the past concurrently with my calcium reactor ( at 6.5) I did not note a significant PO4 increase.
The calcium reactor could also be a a source of PO4 all by itself since the dissolving argonite crystals include some PO4.
Some bacteria might liberate it but they'd use it it if they bothered with it and would have an easier source from argonite which dissolves at around 7.7ph.
As for backflushing filters, I think a clogged sand filter will create hypoxic to anoxic areas with consequent ph variation. Also the ph for freshwater in a pool is much lower than a reef tank to start with.
We need a chemist with the know how to tell us what ph is a dissolution point for lanthanum phosphate in a reef tank. The best I could do was find the solubility reference for lanthanum phosphate ; it is pk 26.44 g @ 70 degrees F and that it is considered highly insoluble with hydrochloric acid involved in dissolution methods but I don't have the knowlege of the right fromulae to translate that into a generalized ph level for a reef tank. The papers I searched up are mosltly pay for view for complete text and I don't have subscriptions.
Perhaps someone will chime in.
The medical use tells us it won't dissolve at GI tract ph. Whether it dissolves at ph 6 ,5 or lower is unclear maybe it will redissolve in reactors operating with low ph . When I used it in the past concurrently with my calcium reactor ( at 6.5) I did not note a significant PO4 increase.
The calcium reactor could also be a a source of PO4 all by itself since the dissolving argonite crystals include some PO4.
Some bacteria might liberate it but they'd use it it if they bothered with it and would have an easier source from argonite which dissolves at around 7.7ph.
As for backflushing filters, I think a clogged sand filter will create hypoxic to anoxic areas with consequent ph variation. Also the ph for freshwater in a pool is much lower than a reef tank to start with.
pecan2phat
Active member
Very interesting and helpful discussion guys 
On another note, has anyone experienced slight hazing of the glass panes from long term diluted dosing of lanthanum chloride?
On another note, has anyone experienced slight hazing of the glass panes from long term diluted dosing of lanthanum chloride?
Thanks Tom.
Pecan - H2OENG posted a similar question about 2 pages back. I've only seen a similar situation in areas of high water flow. i.e. the first canister of my rig-up has a recirc. pump; in that canister only does it appear as though precipitate material is coating the walls all the way up the canister. I wipe it down every week or two; and so experience no problems getting the clear acrylic back to crystal clear again. I'm not sure if these particular precipitates are lanthanum phosphate; or lanthanum carbonate... or both! However in contrast; the latter two canisters just have water being fed into them via a 1/4" polyethylene tube... no recirc action whatsoever. In both of these canisters the acrylic walls remain clear. Thus my association to 'high flow' contact scenarios... it could also be that the recirc canister is running hotter???
I would first check (acrylic manufacturers) to see if vinegar will cause crazing in acrylic before doing anything; and if not, perhaps you can try wiping it down with vinegar (but test the reaction on a scrap piece of acrylic); then begin wiping (just reg. water; no vinegar) the areas that are fogging weekly or a couple times a week if ur not doing so already. If it were a glass tank I'd just go straight ahead with the vinegar treatment. That's just how I'd approach trying to solve it; though I've never had to deal with this problem as yet...
Regards,
Sheldon
Pecan - H2OENG posted a similar question about 2 pages back. I've only seen a similar situation in areas of high water flow. i.e. the first canister of my rig-up has a recirc. pump; in that canister only does it appear as though precipitate material is coating the walls all the way up the canister. I wipe it down every week or two; and so experience no problems getting the clear acrylic back to crystal clear again. I'm not sure if these particular precipitates are lanthanum phosphate; or lanthanum carbonate... or both! However in contrast; the latter two canisters just have water being fed into them via a 1/4" polyethylene tube... no recirc action whatsoever. In both of these canisters the acrylic walls remain clear. Thus my association to 'high flow' contact scenarios... it could also be that the recirc canister is running hotter???
I would first check (acrylic manufacturers) to see if vinegar will cause crazing in acrylic before doing anything; and if not, perhaps you can try wiping it down with vinegar (but test the reaction on a scrap piece of acrylic); then begin wiping (just reg. water; no vinegar) the areas that are fogging weekly or a couple times a week if ur not doing so already. If it were a glass tank I'd just go straight ahead with the vinegar treatment. That's just how I'd approach trying to solve it; though I've never had to deal with this problem as yet...
Regards,
Sheldon
pecan2phat
Active member
Thanks Tom & Sheldon,
I've been dosing a continuous maintenance solution of 1 ml to 100 ml of RO water via a medical doser set at 5 ml per hour, (120 ml per day of diluted 1.2 ml lanthanum chloride) for a 300g fowlr system the last 2 months for phosphate control and have started to notice the slight haze on the glass panes. It is definitely more noticeable where the Tunze streams are hitting the side panel area so your high flow area theory is spot on.
Pad scrubber and razor blades have no effect.
I was hoping that this was not a side effect on glass with the lanthanum chloride dosing.
I've been dosing a continuous maintenance solution of 1 ml to 100 ml of RO water via a medical doser set at 5 ml per hour, (120 ml per day of diluted 1.2 ml lanthanum chloride) for a 300g fowlr system the last 2 months for phosphate control and have started to notice the slight haze on the glass panes. It is definitely more noticeable where the Tunze streams are hitting the side panel area so your high flow area theory is spot on.
Pad scrubber and razor blades have no effect.
I was hoping that this was not a side effect on glass with the lanthanum chloride dosing.
Glass is pretty bullet-proof, short of blunt impact or thermal stress I don't think many things will affect it's molecular structure... so it sounds to me like you have some calcification/hardening occurring on the surface. If it were me I'd look for some kind of squeeze bottle with a scrubbing pad/fabric for a head and try to buff it out with vinegar (staged process of course so as not to drop your system pH too rapidly..) Hek I might even try hydrogen peroxide to see if that softens it up.
As an aside but possibly related account, I should add that the other system in which I use [diluted] LaCl3 via continuous-run; I also happened to be using biopellets. On a couple of occasions I noticed a tough; almost calcified film building up along the front corners (4" - 5" from the vertical silicone edge). When I attacked it with the glass scraper blades it felt very chalky (as if I was trying to scrape a chalk-board; certainly not the smooth glass feel I'd expected). However, what seemed to have a much better effect was the Kent algae mop (the cloth on a ribbed plastic substrate seemed to simulate more of a buffing effect on the glass).
I'd assumed this film was related to the biopellets (plastic breaking down and adhering to surfaces), but perhaps it might have been more related to the LaCl3 instead. I haven't noticed it lately, but your account certainly brings that incident back to mind. As a note, I think my film accumulated where it did perhaps because my buff-like algae scrubbing routine was a little less thorough it those locations: right next to the edges of the front glass.
Hope that helps a little, and let us know how it goes.
Regards,
Sheldon
As an aside but possibly related account, I should add that the other system in which I use [diluted] LaCl3 via continuous-run; I also happened to be using biopellets. On a couple of occasions I noticed a tough; almost calcified film building up along the front corners (4" - 5" from the vertical silicone edge). When I attacked it with the glass scraper blades it felt very chalky (as if I was trying to scrape a chalk-board; certainly not the smooth glass feel I'd expected). However, what seemed to have a much better effect was the Kent algae mop (the cloth on a ribbed plastic substrate seemed to simulate more of a buffing effect on the glass).
I'd assumed this film was related to the biopellets (plastic breaking down and adhering to surfaces), but perhaps it might have been more related to the LaCl3 instead. I haven't noticed it lately, but your account certainly brings that incident back to mind. As a note, I think my film accumulated where it did perhaps because my buff-like algae scrubbing routine was a little less thorough it those locations: right next to the edges of the front glass.
Hope that helps a little, and let us know how it goes.
Regards,
Sheldon
Last edited:
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
place the 10 micron socks under aquarium drain returns. Dose LaCl3 into the draining water or into the socks. Use your skimmer as "cleanup"...to help remove whatever makes it through your 10 micron filters. To maximize results couple a LaCl3 treatment with a wet skim water change.
You can make a LaCl3 treatment as complicated as you want but the bottom line basics should be adhered to. Do not dose too much or too quickly. Don't cloud up the water. Monitor PO4 with a low range test kit and watch alkalinity. Go slowly.
SPotter
Active member
Thanks Gary. I am planning on starting with a 3ml LaCl3 to 2l rodi ratio for my system which is about 450g twv. I have a hanna ulr phosphorous kit and I am planning on adding it with a dosing pump. It will take a day and half to add the 2 liters of solution but I figure if I do it on the weekend it will give me an opportunity to test several times during the dosing period and be able to track the results better.
This is a great thread and should be made a sticky.
Eureka!!
Eureka!!
So I just thought I'd update y'all on the progress of my little experiment for those of you who are interested. I think my last post was prior to last Wednesday, and at the time The PO4 level had come down from 0.14 to 0.10 after cleaning out the canisters. There was a little discussion about PO4 redissolving, or at least an observation of the LaCl3 reactor system stalling, or even regressing its progress if precipitates are allowed to remain in the system without immediate export....
Sooo.... here's a little confirmation of that theory: after cleaning out the canisters on the previous Sunday, the overall system PO4 dropped by only 0.04ppm to the 0.10 level last reported. The Sunday following that Wednesday visit, I was not too pleased to see that after only 3 days the system PO4 had risen up to 0.12ppm. At this point in time I decided to clean the canisters once again; plus replace the polyethylene [exit] lines that were visibly populated with lanthanum phosphate precipitate.... This thorough clean-out happened last Sunday....
Well last night (Wednesday) I tested the system water after only 3 days following this thorough clean-out and voila! the PO4 now measures 0.04ppm... thus proving the discussed theory that unexported precipitates will in fact adversely effect the efficacy of the system. Incidently, I did take a photo of the precipitate lined polyethylene line prior to replacing it, but that pic seemed to have escaped my blackberry somehow... Nonetheless, please enjoy the pics below:
New Measurement as of 8pm last night:
Can you tell which skimmer the LaCl3 Reactor Drains into?
Skimmer A:
Skimmer B:
How about some Macros...
Skimmer A:
Skimmer B:
Whatdoyahthink....:bounce3:
Regards,
Sheldon
Eureka!!
So I just thought I'd update y'all on the progress of my little experiment for those of you who are interested. I think my last post was prior to last Wednesday, and at the time The PO4 level had come down from 0.14 to 0.10 after cleaning out the canisters. There was a little discussion about PO4 redissolving, or at least an observation of the LaCl3 reactor system stalling, or even regressing its progress if precipitates are allowed to remain in the system without immediate export....
Sooo.... here's a little confirmation of that theory: after cleaning out the canisters on the previous Sunday, the overall system PO4 dropped by only 0.04ppm to the 0.10 level last reported. The Sunday following that Wednesday visit, I was not too pleased to see that after only 3 days the system PO4 had risen up to 0.12ppm. At this point in time I decided to clean the canisters once again; plus replace the polyethylene [exit] lines that were visibly populated with lanthanum phosphate precipitate.... This thorough clean-out happened last Sunday....
Well last night (Wednesday) I tested the system water after only 3 days following this thorough clean-out and voila! the PO4 now measures 0.04ppm... thus proving the discussed theory that unexported precipitates will in fact adversely effect the efficacy of the system. Incidently, I did take a photo of the precipitate lined polyethylene line prior to replacing it, but that pic seemed to have escaped my blackberry somehow... Nonetheless, please enjoy the pics below:
New Measurement as of 8pm last night:
Can you tell which skimmer the LaCl3 Reactor Drains into?
Skimmer A:
Skimmer B:
How about some Macros...
Skimmer A:
Skimmer B:
Whatdoyahthink....:bounce3:
Regards,
Sheldon
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
I think
I think
you done good.
It makes total sense why my wet skimmate water changes during a LaCl3 dosing is extremely effective.
Good stuff. Definitely.
I think
you done good.
It makes total sense why my wet skimmate water changes during a LaCl3 dosing is extremely effective.
Good stuff. Definitely.
Similar threads
