tank over 4 years - tear it down
- Thread starter fishpoo
- Start date
- Status
Heavy metals in aquaria (long)
Heavy metals in aquaria (long)
I just had a VERY interesting conversation with Dr. Bradley Tebo, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Dr. Tebo is NOT an aquarist, but his background in heavy-metal environmental remediation can be found here: http://www.msi.ucsb.edu/msilinks/CRC/CRCtexts/Toxics/Tebo.html
I had called him to get his direction regarding locations of heavy metals in a reef system - caulerpa - sand - coral - rocks? I had found a corroded metal screen in my refugium (I had thought it was stainless) and so had begun to rip things apart.
His view of the heavy-metal theory was very, very interesting. First was his puzzlement as to why & how aquarists could have such high levels of heavy metals in the water. Even if they were being added via water changes & food, he felt it very likely that they would be tied up by the system itself - either with the carbonate system or, essentially irreversibly, in the sulfide of the deep sand bed. He had made the point that at low tide black salt marshes don't smell of hydrogen sulfide because metals are tying up the sulfur as sulfides. Thus a deep sand bed system would permanently be removing metals through the formation of metallic sulfides. The pH would then have to drop to catastrophic levels (6 or less) to release the metals from their sulfides.
As to why the hobbiest aquariums had such high levels of metals, he speculated from the air, just as one possibility off the top of his head (remember, he's not an aquarist). This leads to one very interesting concept: Could ambient dust ingested through protein skimming be bringing metals in at these levels? This would explain the higher levels despite the carbonate and sulfide removal mechanisms.
Heavy metals in aquaria (long)
I just had a VERY interesting conversation with Dr. Bradley Tebo, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Dr. Tebo is NOT an aquarist, but his background in heavy-metal environmental remediation can be found here: http://www.msi.ucsb.edu/msilinks/CRC/CRCtexts/Toxics/Tebo.html
I had called him to get his direction regarding locations of heavy metals in a reef system - caulerpa - sand - coral - rocks? I had found a corroded metal screen in my refugium (I had thought it was stainless) and so had begun to rip things apart.
His view of the heavy-metal theory was very, very interesting. First was his puzzlement as to why & how aquarists could have such high levels of heavy metals in the water. Even if they were being added via water changes & food, he felt it very likely that they would be tied up by the system itself - either with the carbonate system or, essentially irreversibly, in the sulfide of the deep sand bed. He had made the point that at low tide black salt marshes don't smell of hydrogen sulfide because metals are tying up the sulfur as sulfides. Thus a deep sand bed system would permanently be removing metals through the formation of metallic sulfides. The pH would then have to drop to catastrophic levels (6 or less) to release the metals from their sulfides.
As to why the hobbiest aquariums had such high levels of metals, he speculated from the air, just as one possibility off the top of his head (remember, he's not an aquarist). This leads to one very interesting concept: Could ambient dust ingested through protein skimming be bringing metals in at these levels? This would explain the higher levels despite the carbonate and sulfide removal mechanisms.
Hi,
I guess it depends on your salt marshes. Most of the ones in the mud flats I have worked with, and most subtidal sediments over 20% organic content by weight smell very strongly of hydrogen sulfide. I routinely take my students out to such places when I do field courses; I will doing such a course this coming summer, and one of the mudflats we are going to will bring tears to your eyes with the odor, when disturbed.
The metals, by and large, come in with the salt mixes. See the 1999 paper in the March issue of Aquarium Frontiers (available on line). The reason they are in salts is that they come in with salt components as impurities, and they accumulate in our tanks.
I guess it depends on your salt marshes. Most of the ones in the mud flats I have worked with, and most subtidal sediments over 20% organic content by weight smell very strongly of hydrogen sulfide. I routinely take my students out to such places when I do field courses; I will doing such a course this coming summer, and one of the mudflats we are going to will bring tears to your eyes with the odor, when disturbed.
The metals, by and large, come in with the salt mixes. See the 1999 paper in the March issue of Aquarium Frontiers (available on line). The reason they are in salts is that they come in with salt components as impurities, and they accumulate in our tanks.
Dr. Shimek:
Thanks for the quick response, and thanks for the reference to that paper. After reading the paper and doing some math, I am now even more confused. According to the 1999 paper, commercial salt mixes are much higher than NSW in heavy metals, and thus your concern over their toxicity due to heavy metal build up in our aquaria as a result of water changes (and feeding).
Initially the different units used in the two papers (yours and the Atkinson/Bingman paper) threw me a curve, but by comparing the ratios of metals in NSW to metals in salt mixes and the ratios of metals in NSW to metals found by testing aquarium water in the two papers, by my math I see an IMPROVEMENT in the water quality by NOT changing the water.
For example, using copper as an example, the 1999 paper showed an average copper concentration in salt mixes of 2400X that of NSW. (Table IV) Avg. copper conc. is 2.4 micromoles/kg in salt mixes, .001 in NSW). Then, in your paper, you cited average aquarium values of copper in aquarium water from analytical testing as being 96.03X that of NSW. Thus the copper concentration is REDUCED as a result of the aquarium environment.
From the above, it would appear that changing the water causes a serious deterioration of water quality (as far as copper and other heavy metals are concerned).
Maybe my math is wrong, but I can't find the error.
Thanks for the quick response, and thanks for the reference to that paper. After reading the paper and doing some math, I am now even more confused. According to the 1999 paper, commercial salt mixes are much higher than NSW in heavy metals, and thus your concern over their toxicity due to heavy metal build up in our aquaria as a result of water changes (and feeding).
Initially the different units used in the two papers (yours and the Atkinson/Bingman paper) threw me a curve, but by comparing the ratios of metals in NSW to metals in salt mixes and the ratios of metals in NSW to metals found by testing aquarium water in the two papers, by my math I see an IMPROVEMENT in the water quality by NOT changing the water.
For example, using copper as an example, the 1999 paper showed an average copper concentration in salt mixes of 2400X that of NSW. (Table IV) Avg. copper conc. is 2.4 micromoles/kg in salt mixes, .001 in NSW). Then, in your paper, you cited average aquarium values of copper in aquarium water from analytical testing as being 96.03X that of NSW. Thus the copper concentration is REDUCED as a result of the aquarium environment.
From the above, it would appear that changing the water causes a serious deterioration of water quality (as far as copper and other heavy metals are concerned).
Maybe my math is wrong, but I can't find the error.
Ridiculous Claims
Ridiculous Claims
Ron,
First of all, the meager sampling of a few tanks does not
statistically represent EVERY tank. That is like saying if 4 out of every 10 people get cancer from eating frog's legs, then everyone who eats frog's legs will get cancer. Statistics is governed by the law of large numbers.....if many many experiments are done and produce a certain consistent outcome with the exact same input parameters, then the outcome can be considered "typical" for that set of input parameters. Then you have to go back and "tweek" the input parameters and do another million or so experiments and so on.
In this study the results are statistically insignificant since only a small sampling of tanks was considered. And what about the input parameters:
-How many of these tanks are using RO/DI water?
-How many of these tanks import these "trace" elements by other means?
-How many of these tanks are overfed
-How many are over-stocked
-What additives were used in all of these tanks ?
-How many of these tanks are in "smoking" homes vs "non-smoking"
......and so on and so on.....I could think of an endless list of other things that probably were not controlled and documented.
Are u telling everyone that each of these tanks were run in the exact same way as far as what was input into the tank ? I doubt if the input variables were controlled enough to allow small measurement errors of the output observables.
Secondly, heavy metals are not soluble in the ph ranges in a typical reef aquarium. That is like saying coke "melts" the rust off of iron.....it does not !!!! The CO2 might break the bonds of the
rust compoud from the iron but it does not mean that the rust is in solution !!!!! Does anyone know how to liquify metals using carbon dioxide ? NO ! You need a strong acid, high temperatures, or high pressures to break metallic bonds.
The only possible way a fish, or organism can build up toxic metals is to ingest it from food. But this happens in natural seawater as well..... and it is only pronounced in the larger animals that are at the top of the food chain. Since are animals are at the bottom of the food chain the concentration of metals is not as large as the top tier predators. And these predators are not dying off too quickly....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning.
Thirdly, I have friends that have been keeping reef tanks for over
6 years and they have not had total die offs or "mysterious" deaths. Each death can be pretty much accounted for by the reef keeper if he keeps a log. Most of the time, the organism was in bad health when purchased, not quarantined properly, underfed, or died as a result of a quick change in the environment( temp, ph,etc.)
Fourthly, there are other things that will kill a fish quicker than
toxic metal poisoning:" larger temperture variations, disease,
bacterial infections, predation by mantis shrimp, anemone etc... to worry about before you tear down your tanks.
Fifth, I bet Ron partners with the next "Super Salt" company that
manufactures a "miracle" salt to solve this "non-problem". Come on Ron, are you that deperate for cash, that you have to try to get us all worried so that you can benefit from our fears ?
Chuck Spyropulos
Ridiculous Claims
Ron,
First of all, the meager sampling of a few tanks does not
statistically represent EVERY tank. That is like saying if 4 out of every 10 people get cancer from eating frog's legs, then everyone who eats frog's legs will get cancer. Statistics is governed by the law of large numbers.....if many many experiments are done and produce a certain consistent outcome with the exact same input parameters, then the outcome can be considered "typical" for that set of input parameters. Then you have to go back and "tweek" the input parameters and do another million or so experiments and so on.
In this study the results are statistically insignificant since only a small sampling of tanks was considered. And what about the input parameters:
-How many of these tanks are using RO/DI water?
-How many of these tanks import these "trace" elements by other means?
-How many of these tanks are overfed
-How many are over-stocked
-What additives were used in all of these tanks ?
-How many of these tanks are in "smoking" homes vs "non-smoking"
......and so on and so on.....I could think of an endless list of other things that probably were not controlled and documented.
Are u telling everyone that each of these tanks were run in the exact same way as far as what was input into the tank ? I doubt if the input variables were controlled enough to allow small measurement errors of the output observables.
Secondly, heavy metals are not soluble in the ph ranges in a typical reef aquarium. That is like saying coke "melts" the rust off of iron.....it does not !!!! The CO2 might break the bonds of the
rust compoud from the iron but it does not mean that the rust is in solution !!!!! Does anyone know how to liquify metals using carbon dioxide ? NO ! You need a strong acid, high temperatures, or high pressures to break metallic bonds.
The only possible way a fish, or organism can build up toxic metals is to ingest it from food. But this happens in natural seawater as well..... and it is only pronounced in the larger animals that are at the top of the food chain. Since are animals are at the bottom of the food chain the concentration of metals is not as large as the top tier predators. And these predators are not dying off too quickly....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning.
Thirdly, I have friends that have been keeping reef tanks for over
6 years and they have not had total die offs or "mysterious" deaths. Each death can be pretty much accounted for by the reef keeper if he keeps a log. Most of the time, the organism was in bad health when purchased, not quarantined properly, underfed, or died as a result of a quick change in the environment( temp, ph,etc.)
Fourthly, there are other things that will kill a fish quicker than
toxic metal poisoning:" larger temperture variations, disease,
bacterial infections, predation by mantis shrimp, anemone etc... to worry about before you tear down your tanks.
Fifth, I bet Ron partners with the next "Super Salt" company that
manufactures a "miracle" salt to solve this "non-problem". Come on Ron, are you that deperate for cash, that you have to try to get us all worried so that you can benefit from our fears ?
Chuck Spyropulos
Re: Ridiculous Claims
Re: Ridiculous Claims
Chuck,
First of all, the meager sampling of a few tanks does not
statistically represent EVERY tank
Never said it does. But, it represents an average of tanks from across North America. If you can come with a more representative sample do so.
In this study the results are statistically insignificant since only a small sampling of tanks was considered.
Bull!
......and so on and so on.....I could think of an endless list of other things that probably were not controlled and documented.
And they don't need to be. Try reading Zar, Biostatistical Analysis for a background in sampling.
Are u telling everyone that each of these tanks were run in the exact same way as far as what was input into the tank ?
Nope.
I doubt if the input variables were controlled enough to allow small measurement errors of the output observables.
Being "controlled" has nothing to do with the results. I simply reported what is in the tanks.
Secondly, heavy metals are not soluble in the ph ranges in a typical reef aquarium.
Oh, they most certainly are. I suggest you thumb through a few issues of Marine Pollution Bulletin for some background in this, and then you might wish to check out the results from environmental sampling from any industrial area that fronts on sea shore.
....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning.
Ah... in many areas they are. And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks.
Thirdly, I have friends that have been keeping reef tanks for over 6 years and they have not had total die offs or "mysterious" deaths.
Goody for them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fourthly, there are other things that will kill a fish quicker than
toxic metal poisoning:" larger temperture variations, disease,
bacterial infections, predation by mantis shrimp, anemone etc... to worry about before you tear down your tanks.
Sure. So what. It will still kill
Fifth, I bet Ron partners with the next "Super Salt" company that manufactures a "miracle" salt to solve this "non-problem". Come on Ron, are you that deperate for cash, that you have to try to get us all worried so that you can benefit from our fears ?
I have no intention nor desire to do anything with salt.
Either I get a public apology for that statement or I will ban you from Reef Central.
Re: Ridiculous Claims
Chuck,
First of all, the meager sampling of a few tanks does not
statistically represent EVERY tank
Never said it does. But, it represents an average of tanks from across North America. If you can come with a more representative sample do so.
In this study the results are statistically insignificant since only a small sampling of tanks was considered.
Bull!
......and so on and so on.....I could think of an endless list of other things that probably were not controlled and documented.
And they don't need to be. Try reading Zar, Biostatistical Analysis for a background in sampling.
Are u telling everyone that each of these tanks were run in the exact same way as far as what was input into the tank ?
Nope.
I doubt if the input variables were controlled enough to allow small measurement errors of the output observables.
Being "controlled" has nothing to do with the results. I simply reported what is in the tanks.
Secondly, heavy metals are not soluble in the ph ranges in a typical reef aquarium.
Oh, they most certainly are. I suggest you thumb through a few issues of Marine Pollution Bulletin for some background in this, and then you might wish to check out the results from environmental sampling from any industrial area that fronts on sea shore.
....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning.
Ah... in many areas they are. And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks.
Thirdly, I have friends that have been keeping reef tanks for over 6 years and they have not had total die offs or "mysterious" deaths.
Goody for them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fourthly, there are other things that will kill a fish quicker than
toxic metal poisoning:" larger temperture variations, disease,
bacterial infections, predation by mantis shrimp, anemone etc... to worry about before you tear down your tanks.
Sure. So what. It will still kill
Fifth, I bet Ron partners with the next "Super Salt" company that manufactures a "miracle" salt to solve this "non-problem". Come on Ron, are you that deperate for cash, that you have to try to get us all worried so that you can benefit from our fears ?
I have no intention nor desire to do anything with salt.
Either I get a public apology for that statement or I will ban you from Reef Central.
This thread is getting interesting!
"....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning. "
" Ah... in many areas they are. And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks. "
I've never heard of any of this either. Could you provide references and details about sharks dying from toxic metal poisoning?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "
This sounds good, but what does it really mean?? If there are seriously high levels of metals in all salt mixes and fish food, and if those high levels are causing tanks to die, then ALL tanks should die after time. If only SOME tanks die, then there's something very significantly different about the ones that do die from the 6+ year-old tanks that are thriving, and toxic metal levels is very possibly NOT the answer.
I'm also still awaiting a response to my earlier post, which said:
Initially the different units used in the two papers (yours and the Atkinson/Bingman paper) threw me a curve, but by comparing the ratios of metals in NSW to metals in salt mixes and the ratios of metals in NSW to metals found by testing aquarium water in the two papers, by my math I see an IMPROVEMENT in the water quality by NOT changing the water. For example, using copper as an example, the 1999 paper showed an average copper concentration in salt mixes of 2400X that of NSW. (Table IV) Avg. copper conc. is 2.4 micromoles/kg in salt mixes, .001 in NSW). Then, in your paper, you cited average aquarium values of copper in aquarium water from analytical testing as being 96.03X that of NSW. Thus the copper concentration is REDUCED as a result of the aquarium environment.
I have had a reef tank for 7+ years and it never really has thrived. Corals grew, xenia propagated, but it never looked "sparkly". (naturally I had tried everything $$$$$$$$$$ to solve the problem). I had taken out my 4" DSB about a year ago, but I still had one in the refugium. I totally bought into the "toxic metal" theory, and was in the process of tearing down my system based upon this concept. Then I talked with Dr. Bradley Tebo, who expressed severe scepticism about this concept. (please see my earlier post). I began to re-evaluate the concept. I was, literally, taking out live rock covered with macroalgae and wondering "what should I save, and what is toxic?"
Then I realized that my flow from sump to tank was grossly inadequate (2.5 x tank volume). As soon as I raised it to its' present level (10x tank volume) the brown goo essentially dissappeared, the water is crystal clear and the tank looks GREAT. I had also incorporated into the system the wet sand which I had taken out earlier when I removed the DSB and stored in a bucket (wet). If the problem were heavy metals, that DSB sand would have been a toxic dump. Instead, I believe the hydrogen sulfide present in DSB's ties up any metal in sulfides, which are NOT soluble at any pH's found in reef aquaria.
For the sake of others in the same position, contemplating throwing out perfectly good live rock and live sand, looking at those perfectly viable components as "toxic waste", I suggest further work defining the differences between "dying old tanks" and "thriving old tanks" before concluding that toxic metals are the answer.
"....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning. "
" Ah... in many areas they are. And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks. "
I've never heard of any of this either. Could you provide references and details about sharks dying from toxic metal poisoning?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "
This sounds good, but what does it really mean?? If there are seriously high levels of metals in all salt mixes and fish food, and if those high levels are causing tanks to die, then ALL tanks should die after time. If only SOME tanks die, then there's something very significantly different about the ones that do die from the 6+ year-old tanks that are thriving, and toxic metal levels is very possibly NOT the answer.
I'm also still awaiting a response to my earlier post, which said:
Initially the different units used in the two papers (yours and the Atkinson/Bingman paper) threw me a curve, but by comparing the ratios of metals in NSW to metals in salt mixes and the ratios of metals in NSW to metals found by testing aquarium water in the two papers, by my math I see an IMPROVEMENT in the water quality by NOT changing the water. For example, using copper as an example, the 1999 paper showed an average copper concentration in salt mixes of 2400X that of NSW. (Table IV) Avg. copper conc. is 2.4 micromoles/kg in salt mixes, .001 in NSW). Then, in your paper, you cited average aquarium values of copper in aquarium water from analytical testing as being 96.03X that of NSW. Thus the copper concentration is REDUCED as a result of the aquarium environment.
I have had a reef tank for 7+ years and it never really has thrived. Corals grew, xenia propagated, but it never looked "sparkly". (naturally I had tried everything $$$$$$$$$$ to solve the problem). I had taken out my 4" DSB about a year ago, but I still had one in the refugium. I totally bought into the "toxic metal" theory, and was in the process of tearing down my system based upon this concept. Then I talked with Dr. Bradley Tebo, who expressed severe scepticism about this concept. (please see my earlier post). I began to re-evaluate the concept. I was, literally, taking out live rock covered with macroalgae and wondering "what should I save, and what is toxic?"
Then I realized that my flow from sump to tank was grossly inadequate (2.5 x tank volume). As soon as I raised it to its' present level (10x tank volume) the brown goo essentially dissappeared, the water is crystal clear and the tank looks GREAT. I had also incorporated into the system the wet sand which I had taken out earlier when I removed the DSB and stored in a bucket (wet). If the problem were heavy metals, that DSB sand would have been a toxic dump. Instead, I believe the hydrogen sulfide present in DSB's ties up any metal in sulfides, which are NOT soluble at any pH's found in reef aquaria.
For the sake of others in the same position, contemplating throwing out perfectly good live rock and live sand, looking at those perfectly viable components as "toxic waste", I suggest further work defining the differences between "dying old tanks" and "thriving old tanks" before concluding that toxic metals are the answer.
randythereefer
New member
Buildup of heavy metals
Buildup of heavy metals
After reading the article from the august magazine and viewing this entire thread I've gotten the following information out of this:
1) This problem is not indicative of deep sand bed systems but all systems (live rock only with no substrate etc.).
2) The only additives that are required for healthy maintenance of coral are calcium to keep the levels at or slightly about NSW levels and buffers to help maintain the ph stability but no others.
3) Polyfilters, carbon, and iron help to keep heavy metals in check by absorbing them.
This leads me to two questions:
1) What affect does adding iron (that will oxidize) have on these metals?
2) What is the method of adding this iron into our closed reef systems?
3) I've been using the product purigen made by seachem off and on, what affect would heavy metals have on this media since its supposed to be rechargable. Would they just build up and be locked in it or leach back into the tank over time and cause further problems?
4) How can I test my own tanks substrate/rock for my levels of heavy metals? How much would it cost? Where can I send the samples to? If its in the 100-200 dollar range it would well be worth it for the shear cost of my coral alone
.
My last comment is that I really appreciate the scientific methodology that is used when Dr. Ron evaluates these issues and as someone who is in the technical support field I understand that troubleshooting any issue requires logical scientific methodology. In addition do you think there would be a way to accelerate this test like a continuous addition of new saltwater and food to an experimental tank with no corals/fish etc. to simulate the effects? Does volcunism play some part in maintaining the the low concentrations of heavy metals such as in NSW? I'm really curious as to what in nature keeps these metals in check.
Buildup of heavy metals
After reading the article from the august magazine and viewing this entire thread I've gotten the following information out of this:
1) This problem is not indicative of deep sand bed systems but all systems (live rock only with no substrate etc.).
2) The only additives that are required for healthy maintenance of coral are calcium to keep the levels at or slightly about NSW levels and buffers to help maintain the ph stability but no others.
3) Polyfilters, carbon, and iron help to keep heavy metals in check by absorbing them.
This leads me to two questions:
1) What affect does adding iron (that will oxidize) have on these metals?
2) What is the method of adding this iron into our closed reef systems?
3) I've been using the product purigen made by seachem off and on, what affect would heavy metals have on this media since its supposed to be rechargable. Would they just build up and be locked in it or leach back into the tank over time and cause further problems?
4) How can I test my own tanks substrate/rock for my levels of heavy metals? How much would it cost? Where can I send the samples to? If its in the 100-200 dollar range it would well be worth it for the shear cost of my coral alone
.My last comment is that I really appreciate the scientific methodology that is used when Dr. Ron evaluates these issues and as someone who is in the technical support field I understand that troubleshooting any issue requires logical scientific methodology
. In addition do you think there would be a way to accelerate this test like a continuous addition of new saltwater and food to an experimental tank with no corals/fish etc. to simulate the effects? Does volcunism play some part in maintaining the the low concentrations of heavy metals such as in NSW? I'm really curious as to what in nature keeps these metals in check.Re: Buildup of heavy metals
Re: Buildup of heavy metals
Hi,
[welcome]
This leads me to two questions:
1) What affect does adding iron (that will oxidize) have on these metals?
Hard telling in a tank. In some situations where heavy metals are released in a reef (primarily a volcanic hot vent), iron hydroxides bind the metals and precipitate them into the sediments.
Most of the iron added in tanks is probably immediately grabbed by bacteria, specifically cyanobacteria, or microalgae. This is also what happens in the real world. As with so many things, however, there are no quantitative data from reef tanks.
2) What is the method of adding this iron into our closed reef systems?
I don't know. Ask Randy H-F.
3) I've been using the product purigen made by seachem off and on, what affect would heavy metals have on this media since its supposed to be rechargable. Would they just build up and be locked in it or leach back into the tank over time and cause further problems?
Again, I don't know.
4) How can I test my own tanks substrate/rock for my levels of heavy metals?
You can contact the testing laboratory listed in my studies (I think the address is listed in the article in the February issue of [rk], if not, contact me and I will send it you). They will tell you how to "collect" the sediments, etc., and how much you would need.
How much would it cost?
It depends, ballpark about $220 more or less. I got by with less in the samples as I had volume discount.
Where can I send the samples to? If its in the 100-200 dollar range it would well be worth it for the shear cost of my coral alone.
Again the testing lab will provide the information on mailing, etc.
In addition do you think there would be a way to accelerate this test like a continuous addition of new saltwater and food to an experimental tank with no corals/fish etc. to simulate the effects?
Yes, there are lots of ways to do some of the tests, but the costs mount up in a hurry. The major limiting factor is simply money.
Does volcunism play some part in maintaining the the low concentrations of heavy metals such as in NSW? I'm really curious as to what in nature keeps these metals in check.
Subtidal and abyssal volcanoes erupt more-or-less continuously adding the metals to solution, and in these areas the metals loads may be quite high. However, the ocean is a REALLY big volume and they get diluted quite rapidly. There is no clear concensus about how the metal concentrations are maintained, and it may differ from metal to metal, as well as from ocean basin to ocean basin.
Re: Buildup of heavy metals
Hi,
[welcome]
This leads me to two questions:
1) What affect does adding iron (that will oxidize) have on these metals?
Hard telling in a tank. In some situations where heavy metals are released in a reef (primarily a volcanic hot vent), iron hydroxides bind the metals and precipitate them into the sediments.
Most of the iron added in tanks is probably immediately grabbed by bacteria, specifically cyanobacteria, or microalgae. This is also what happens in the real world. As with so many things, however, there are no quantitative data from reef tanks.
2) What is the method of adding this iron into our closed reef systems?
I don't know. Ask Randy H-F.
3) I've been using the product purigen made by seachem off and on, what affect would heavy metals have on this media since its supposed to be rechargable. Would they just build up and be locked in it or leach back into the tank over time and cause further problems?
Again, I don't know.
4) How can I test my own tanks substrate/rock for my levels of heavy metals?
You can contact the testing laboratory listed in my studies (I think the address is listed in the article in the February issue of [rk], if not, contact me and I will send it you). They will tell you how to "collect" the sediments, etc., and how much you would need.
How much would it cost?
It depends, ballpark about $220 more or less. I got by with less in the samples as I had volume discount.
Where can I send the samples to? If its in the 100-200 dollar range it would well be worth it for the shear cost of my coral alone
.Again the testing lab will provide the information on mailing, etc.
In addition do you think there would be a way to accelerate this test like a continuous addition of new saltwater and food to an experimental tank with no corals/fish etc. to simulate the effects?
Yes, there are lots of ways to do some of the tests, but the costs mount up in a hurry. The major limiting factor is simply money.
Does volcunism play some part in maintaining the the low concentrations of heavy metals such as in NSW? I'm really curious as to what in nature keeps these metals in check.
Subtidal and abyssal volcanoes erupt more-or-less continuously adding the metals to solution, and in these areas the metals loads may be quite high. However, the ocean is a REALLY big volume and they get diluted quite rapidly. There is no clear concensus about how the metal concentrations are maintained, and it may differ from metal to metal, as well as from ocean basin to ocean basin.
Dr. Shimek: Why aren't you responding to my posts? "Randythereefer" posts and literally 90 minutes after he posts you respond. I posted DAYS ago requesting documentation on "toxic metal shark deaths" and clarification of data which you have used in presenting your argument about toxic metals and I don't get a response. On the second topic I've asked twice.
Readers of this thread might start to form negative opinions regarding your thesis if you refuse to address legitimate inquiries on your data. It's not reasonable to present a concept with such far-reaching consequences and then simply ignore those who have legitimate concerns about the validity of the concept.
Readers of this thread might start to form negative opinions regarding your thesis if you refuse to address legitimate inquiries on your data. It's not reasonable to present a concept with such far-reaching consequences and then simply ignore those who have legitimate concerns about the validity of the concept.
Hi,
Dr. Shimek: Why aren't you responding to my posts?
Well, first I don't have to respond to any posts. But, the major reason is that I simply didn't get notification that a post was there. RC's server has been having problems lately and I presume it didn't send me notification of your post.
I posted DAYS ago requesting documentation on "toxic metal shark deaths"
There have been many documented fish kills, including sharks, due to heavy metal discharges near industrial areas. Not wanting to take the time necessary to pour through the literature, I would refer you to your local large university library and suggest you check out the AFTA (American Fisheries Transactions Abstracts) as well as back issues of Marine Pollution Bulletin. These reports are pretty common and you should find them without a problem. Unfortunately, my local cow college doesn't have these resources and I get them specifically for you.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "
This sounds good, but what does it really mean??
It means precisely what it says. If you don't have evidence of something occurring, it may mean that what you are looking for doesn't occur, or it may simply mean that you looked at the wrong time or in the wrong way. The statement is a phrasing of a principal stating that negative evidence is not good evidence.
If there are seriously high levels of metals in all salt mixes and fish food, and if those high levels are causing tanks to die, then ALL tanks should die after time.
No, it may mean that 1) that all tanks have metals loads that stress the organisms in them and that only organisms that can successfully detoxify the metals will persist, or that 2) that the metals are rendered temporarily or permanently non toxic by some factor in the tank.
If only SOME tanks die, then there's something very significantly different about the ones that do die from the 6+ year-old tanks that are thriving, and toxic metal levels is very possibly NOT the answer.
Sure, but it could also mean that only SOME tanks (to use your emphasis) create the conditions for the toxic build up to become lethal.
by my math I see an IMPROVEMENT in the water quality by NOT changing the water.
Sure... as long as there is some export, and that export doesn't involve much removal of salt, you are far better off not add new salt water, but simply to top off with good RO/DI water. More about this in the next article.
The problem comes when you have to replenish salt....
I was, literally, taking out live rock covered with macroalgae and wondering "what should I save, and what is toxic?"
Personally, I would remove it all.
Instead, I believe the hydrogen sulfide present in DSB's ties up any metal in sulfides, which are NOT soluble at any pH's found in reef aquaria.
As long as they remain anaerobic, this is the case. Once the sediments become aerobic the sulphides will go to sulfates and they will become soluble.
I suggest further work defining the differences between "dying old tanks" and "thriving old tanks" before concluding that toxic metals are the answer
Sho' 'nuff. All I have done is propose a testable hypothesis. All it needs now is money and time to test it.
Readers of this thread might start to form negative opinions regarding your thesis if you refuse to address legitimate inquiries on your data. It's not reasonable to present a concept with such far-reaching consequences and then simply ignore those who have legitimate concerns about the validity of the concept.
People should form their opinions by reading the articles and any published articles with counter proposals. These threads are a dubious source of information at best. Readers should do well to realize this, they also should not read into a lack of response anything more profound than perhaps a lack of time to respond, or any other unrelated event causing a lack of responce. This is a free forum, and the advice and information you get here is worth precisely the amount of money you pay for it. Don't expect any more than that.
Dr. Shimek:
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I also didn't get notification of your response from Reef Central. Yes, you get the service you pay for.
You're changing your presentation, and thus the meaning, of your statement regarding dying sharks. Earlier you had said:
"....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning. "
" Ah... in many areas they are. And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks. "
The key words are "And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks. "
In your response to my inquiry, you said "There have been many documented fish kills, including sharks, due to heavy metal discharges near industrial areas. "
You neglected to provide documentation of your earlier statement about shark deaths due to time constraints, and chose instead to suggest I use MY time to find what you were (possibly mistakenly) referring to. And then I guess if I failed to find any documentation after spending hours at various libraries, your probable response would then be "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And I suspect you aren't even trying to be funny, nor do you seem to care about my time.
Of course if a metal-plating facility has a sudden discharge into the ocean of unusually high magnitude it will kill fish. But to use such an instance to document an alleged chronic serious problem in hobbiest reef tanks is absurd and misleading.
Also, if you agree that the data indicates that there is some mechanism existing in reef tanks which does remove metals found in salt mixes from the water (otherwise, how could reef tank water data show an improvement over salt mix data?), then taking out old rock, algae and, I would assume, coral, be a good idea?? If a sudden low pH spike liberates high metal levels, then you're suggesting in some tanks pH's will drop to very, very low levels. These levels would immediately kill essentially all living creatures in the tank, not just liberate some metals. It also does not fit with your description of the problem, which is a continuing, gradual decline.
In most cases, not paying for advice from intelligent, experienced and concerned fellow hobbiests does not mean getting misled. On the other side of the coin, 6 million people paid "Miss Cleo" over $500 million for advice. I think I'd rather believe in the good intentions and honesty of most of the people on Reef Central.
This would be a very interesting cerebral exercise if it wasn't for the unfortunate hobbiest who is throwing away $$$$$$$$$ in livestock, materials and time to solve a problem which didn't exist in the first place.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I also didn't get notification of your response from Reef Central. Yes, you get the service you pay for.
You're changing your presentation, and thus the meaning, of your statement regarding dying sharks. Earlier you had said:
"....sharks have been around for millions of years at the top of the food chain and not dying from toxic metal poisoning. "
" Ah... in many areas they are. And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks. "
The key words are "And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks. "
In your response to my inquiry, you said "There have been many documented fish kills, including sharks, due to heavy metal discharges near industrial areas. "
You neglected to provide documentation of your earlier statement about shark deaths due to time constraints, and chose instead to suggest I use MY time to find what you were (possibly mistakenly) referring to. And then I guess if I failed to find any documentation after spending hours at various libraries, your probable response would then be "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And I suspect you aren't even trying to be funny, nor do you seem to care about my time.
Of course if a metal-plating facility has a sudden discharge into the ocean of unusually high magnitude it will kill fish. But to use such an instance to document an alleged chronic serious problem in hobbiest reef tanks is absurd and misleading.
Also, if you agree that the data indicates that there is some mechanism existing in reef tanks which does remove metals found in salt mixes from the water (otherwise, how could reef tank water data show an improvement over salt mix data?), then taking out old rock, algae and, I would assume, coral, be a good idea?? If a sudden low pH spike liberates high metal levels, then you're suggesting in some tanks pH's will drop to very, very low levels. These levels would immediately kill essentially all living creatures in the tank, not just liberate some metals. It also does not fit with your description of the problem, which is a continuing, gradual decline.
In most cases, not paying for advice from intelligent, experienced and concerned fellow hobbiests does not mean getting misled. On the other side of the coin, 6 million people paid "Miss Cleo" over $500 million for advice. I think I'd rather believe in the good intentions and honesty of most of the people on Reef Central.
This would be a very interesting cerebral exercise if it wasn't for the unfortunate hobbiest who is throwing away $$$$$$$$$ in livestock, materials and time to solve a problem which didn't exist in the first place.
First off, I think it is absurd to dismiss a discovery based on lab results, without providing one's own tests as counter point. The only valid point so far may be the small samples Dr. Ron had can not be statistically representative, consider the many successful old tanks. But there seems no doubt a small closed system will accumulate impurities, if sufficient means of export is non-existent.
But I think rather concentrating on searching for the ultimate salt mix, may be it will be more fruitful to find a way to remove the cause of metal accumulation.
If we agree that most metals are bond in the bottom layer of DSB sand bed, or somewhere deep in live rocks, by removing or alter DSB or rocks, it may be possible to prevent metal precipitation. As long as metals remain soluble, we then have effective means of exporting them through water change or other procedures. Yes salt and food will continue to add impurities but what we are trying to avoid is OTS remember? And if Dr. Ron is correct that accumulation of insoluble metal is the cuprit, then not allowing such accumulation may be the only solution. No matter how pure our salt and food are, they only delay the OTS time bomb, not eliminating it.
May be we should stop using live rock, and use thin layer of sand bed?
But I think rather concentrating on searching for the ultimate salt mix, may be it will be more fruitful to find a way to remove the cause of metal accumulation.
If we agree that most metals are bond in the bottom layer of DSB sand bed, or somewhere deep in live rocks, by removing or alter DSB or rocks, it may be possible to prevent metal precipitation. As long as metals remain soluble, we then have effective means of exporting them through water change or other procedures. Yes salt and food will continue to add impurities but what we are trying to avoid is OTS remember? And if Dr. Ron is correct that accumulation of insoluble metal is the cuprit, then not allowing such accumulation may be the only solution. No matter how pure our salt and food are, they only delay the OTS time bomb, not eliminating it.
May be we should stop using live rock, and use thin layer of sand bed?
viking30
New member
Funny how things never really change. Twenty years ago we knew that more than 2 inch of sand would eventually lead to a dead tank. We didnt know why, only that it did. I can only go by my own experiance here but using natural salt water for all water changes etc didnt give any better results. No DSB for me again. Never....
Cheers,
Viking.
visualscapes
Premium Member
Hello all,
I am currently in the planning stages of a 180 gal reef tank and am very disconcerted by this thread. I expect to have a thriving slice of reef in five years not a toxic system that needs to be torn down!
Perhaps Dr. Ron would know which macro algae species will fix the heavy metals, so by gowing copious amounts of them in a refugium or scrubber the metals could be exported and thereby kept to a minimum. I know the results of your study are still not complete however a little preliminary data would be much appreciated.
Thanks alot!
Chip
I am currently in the planning stages of a 180 gal reef tank and am very disconcerted by this thread. I expect to have a thriving slice of reef in five years not a toxic system that needs to be torn down!
Perhaps Dr. Ron would know which macro algae species will fix the heavy metals, so by gowing copious amounts of them in a refugium or scrubber the metals could be exported and thereby kept to a minimum. I know the results of your study are still not complete however a little preliminary data would be much appreciated.
Thanks alot!
Chip
The key words are "And from concentrations much lower than in our tanks. "
In your response to my inquiry, you said "There have been many documented fish kills, including sharks, due to heavy metal discharges near industrial areas. "
Yes, those heavy metal discharges result in concentrations lower than the copper, zinc, and nickel concentrations in our tanks.
chose instead to suggest I use MY time to find what you were (possibly mistakenly) referring to.
Yup.
nor do you seem to care about my time.
Well, you seem to think nothing of asking me to use my time to answer questions that you are too lazy to search out on your own.
Of course if a metal-plating facility has a sudden discharge into the ocean of unusually high magnitude it will kill fish. But to use such an instance to document an alleged chronic serious problem in hobbiest reef tanks is absurd and misleading.
The discharges come from standard point source discharges, but also from non-point source discharges, basically low levels of metals coming off of streets and from storm sewers in urban areas.
then taking out old rock, algae and, I would assume, coral, be a good idea??
Yes, and I have suggested just that.
If a sudden low pH spike liberates high metal levels, then you're suggesting in some tanks pH's will drop to very, very low levels.
No, not very low. Anything from about 6.5 or lower, and these levels will commonly occur if there is, for example, a malfunction of the regulator for a calcium reactor, or ....
These levels would immediately kill essentially all living creatures in the tank, not just liberate some metals.
No, such pH values will not kill all living things in the tanks, sorry. Most marine animals can tolerate them for some time.
It also does not fit with your description of the problem, which is a continuing, gradual decline.
The capacity of a tank to detoxify materials is finite, and after that point there will be a gradual increasing concentration of these materials which will effect, first, those animals whose own metal detox capabilities (metallothionein protein production mostly) are saturated, and then the next most susceptible, and so on.
Hi Chip,
[welcome]
I expect to have a thriving slice of reef in five years not a toxic system that needs to be torn down!
Well, if we can get some decent salt mixes that may be a possibility.
Perhaps Dr. Ron would know which macro algae species will fix the heavy metals, so by gowing copious amounts of them in a refugium or scrubber the metals could be exported and thereby kept to a minimum. I know the results of your study are still not complete however a little preliminary data would be much appreciated.
I am in the process of finishing an article on tank exports presenting data from the "tank export" study that some aquarists and I did last spring. The article is scheduled for the December issue of [rk]. You will find some data there, but I haven't finished the article yet, so you'll have to wait a few weeks.
visualscapes
Premium Member
Dr. Ron,
Thanks for the welcome and fast response! I will eagerly await the December article as will many others who have been following this thread.
I am fortunate enough to live on the Coast of California and do have access to NSW, both from a LFS ( Catalina filtered) and from the shore in my home town of Bolinas ( a pennisula surrounded by water on three sides ). I initially felt that it would be to much trouble to collect 180 gallons + for my tank but I am starting to think seriously about it now.
If you had the choice to purchase the water from a LFS or collect your own what would you choose? If collecting your own was the choice would you filter it in some manner, age it, or just add it to add it to the tank.
Thank you very much for your input,
Chip
Thanks for the welcome and fast response! I will eagerly await the December article as will many others who have been following this thread.
I am fortunate enough to live on the Coast of California and do have access to NSW, both from a LFS ( Catalina filtered) and from the shore in my home town of Bolinas ( a pennisula surrounded by water on three sides ). I initially felt that it would be to much trouble to collect 180 gallons + for my tank but I am starting to think seriously about it now.
If you had the choice to purchase the water from a LFS or collect your own what would you choose? If collecting your own was the choice would you filter it in some manner, age it, or just add it to add it to the tank.
Thank you very much for your input,
Chip
Hi Chip,
If you had the choice to purchase the water from a LFS or collect your own what would you choose?
Collecting it can be a real PITA, so being lazy, I would probably purchase it.
If collecting your own was the choice would you filter it in some manner, age it, or just add it to add it to the tank.
I would simply collect it and add it directly to the tank.
Collecting it involves some choices and decisions... You need to ensure the water is the correct salinity, and you need to ensure that there is no runnoff (= pollution) in it. Often this means collecting it from deeper areas and doing a bit of chemical analysis.
- Status
