Trace elements
- Thread starter timdam
- Start date
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
Trace elements are those that are present at very low concentrations. You get all of what you need from your salt mix through water changes. The calcium reactor adds some Sr I'm sure, but the amounts would be small.
There are tests out there for Sr, but that's about it on the trace side. And I don't have a huge amount of faith in those tests or the need to maintain any particular level of Sr.
There are tests out there for Sr, but that's about it on the trace side. And I don't have a huge amount of faith in those tests or the need to maintain any particular level of Sr.
They make great paper weights! It probably will not harm anything, but if you can return it I would.
FWIW,I don't use any trace element supplements.and haven't for many years. I agree there are plenty provided with water changes ;food too.
The calcium reactor will add whatever is in the media that dissolves at the reactor pH level( usually 6.3 to 6.9). If it's made from coral skeleton it will include whatever the coral stashed in it's skeletal mass like strontium,phosphate, as well as other salts and metals of various types.
I haven't used my calcium reactor in about 7 years either . I prefer the purity and pH effect of calcium hydroxide(kalk) for calcium and carbonate alkalinity supplementation
The calcium reactor will add whatever is in the media that dissolves at the reactor pH level( usually 6.3 to 6.9). If it's made from coral skeleton it will include whatever the coral stashed in it's skeletal mass like strontium,phosphate, as well as other salts and metals of various types.
I haven't used my calcium reactor in about 7 years either . I prefer the purity and pH effect of calcium hydroxide(kalk) for calcium and carbonate alkalinity supplementation
"The calcium reactor will add whatever is in the media that dissolves at the reactor pH level( usually 6.3 to 6.9)."
Does this mean my ph is only around 6.3 to 6.9? My friend set up my ca reactor, so not sure how it works. I just know it turns on when that number on the probe hits 6.59.
Does this mean my ph is only around 6.3 to 6.9? My friend set up my ca reactor, so not sure how it works. I just know it turns on when that number on the probe hits 6.59.
If you have a trace element supplement, and the tank is established, I'd suggest that you can add some and see if it does anything beneficial. It may not, in which case I wouldn't use it.
If you have a newish tank, it is unlikely to need any trace elements.
The only trace elements I add are iron and silicate. I've not found others to be useful.
This has more:
The “How To” Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners, Part 2: What Chemicals Must be Supplemented
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-04/rhf/index.php
from it:
Trace Element Mixtures
Trace elements are one of the most confusing areas of seawater chemistry, for hobbyists and chemical oceanographers alike. For oceanographers they are complicated because they are hard to measure at such low levels, and they are often bound to organics, making their bioavailability depend as much on how they are bound as on their concentration. For example, knowing the absolute concentration of copper does not necessarily say whether it is so bioavailable as to be toxic, or so tightly bound to chelating organics as to limit growth by unavailability.
Many hobbyists are confused about what trace elements even are, which is not surprising because manufacturers and hobbyists alike often use the term willy nilly. Trace elements are those that are present at very low levels, i.e., less than 50 nM (nanomolar; about 1-10 parts per billion or so, depending on the size of the ion). Most of the trace elements in seawater are heavy metals, and some can be nutritionally required, but most can also be toxic at higher than natural levels (copper, for example, fits that description).
Definitions aside, we need to address the utility of the ions that are put into such supplements, regardless of whether they are trace elements or something else. But there are important dosing differences that relate to whether something is a trace element or not. Notably, if something is normally present at very low concentrations, it takes only a tiny bit of it to bring a depleted aquarium up to seawater's concentration. That is not so for a major ion, which might require far larger doses to bring it to normal concentrations. To boost magnesium in natural seawater by 10% in a 100-gallon aquarium, for example, would take ¾ of a pound of the most potent solid dry supplement. By comparison, to boost iron by 10% in 100 gallons of natural seawater takes a dose so small that you might not see it if it were sitting in a spoon (far less than a milligram).
Perhaps the best way to discuss such mixtures is to dissect a typical commercial example. I’ve chosen one not because it is any better or worse than the others, but because it is widely sold and actually lists its ingredients - Kent Essential Elements. Kent claims, “Kent Marine Essential Elements replaces biologically important trace minerals which are removed by…” The ingredient list shows, “Contents: Inorganic mineral salts of aluminum, boron, bromine, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iodine, iron, lithium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, sulfur, strontium, tin, vanadium, and zinc in a base containing deionized water and EDTA.”
Which of those are actually trace elements in natural seawater? Many are not. Magnesium is the third most abundant ion in seawater. Sulfur (as sulfate) is fourth. Not calcium, or potassium, or boron, or bromine, or strontium - all of which are major ions. There is nothing wrong with major ions, but there is no reason to think that they all need to be supplemented, or that a teaspoon of this liquid could contain enough of each to even detect once diluted into a tank (the recommended dose is one teaspoon per 50 gallons per week). Even if this product contained as much magnesium as a typical commercial magnesium supplement (it likely has far less), that teaspoon could boost magnesium by only 1 ppm; not enough to write home about. When major ions need to be boosted, the amounts present in a trace element mixture such as this one may not be enough to be important. To Kent’s credit, the company states that on its website for at least some of the ions in this supplement, notably strontium, iodine and calcium, when users are directed to Kent's other products. Don’t be fooled into thinking, “Some is better than none, so I might as well dose it.” If you have a shortage of a major ion, which you confirmed by testing, you should look for a better way to solve that problem than a trace element mixture.
Working our way down the ingredient list for our prototypical trace element mixture, iodine, lithium and manganese are minor ions, not trace elements. I mentioned above that I don’t recommend supplementing iodine, but if you want to I definitely don’t recommend using an unknown form of iodine at an unknown concentration. According to the well-respected salt mix analysis by Atkinson and Bingman, lithium is elevated substantially above natural levels in every tested salt mix. According to a reef tank water study by Ron Shimek, the average lithium level was several-fold higher than natural levels. Because lithium offers little in the way of known nutritional benefits to marine organisms, it seems to be an undesirable ingredient. Manganese might well be a useful additive, because it is nutritionally important. But little useful data are available on its concentration in reef aquaria, so users cannot know whether the amount in the supplement is appropriate or not.
That leaves the true trace elements aluminum, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tin, vanadium and zinc. Of course, despite Kent's claims that the supplement “does not contain detrimental heavy metals,” some of these are potentially toxic heavy metals with no known positive biological function (nickel and tin, for example). Why put them into your aquarium? Others are clearly detrimental if “too much” is added (copper, for example). The company presumably does not add “too much” of these to its supplement.
So, we are left with a few trace elements that may have a benefit. Iron could be beneficial, if enough is there; of course, Kent does not say how much is there. Aluminum is very unlikely to be beneficial, as are nickel and tin. Some could be beneficial if the aquarium were depleted of them; zinc, for example. But what if their levels are already elevated in the aquarium? According to a reef aquarium water study by Ron Shimek, some of these are already elevated above natural levels in most reef aquaria. Admittedly, that does not mean that more could not be beneficial. But what is the evidence that more is good? Despite no intentional additions, my aquarium has levels of copper well above natural seawater. How does Kent know that my organisms would benefit from more? And how did Kent determine the relative amounts of different ions in this supplement? What are those amounts? If I did want one of these, how do I know I’m getting enough?
To me this seems like playing a chess game with every piece rigidly connected. They all move together, whether you want them to or not. Worse yet, you don’t know what the move actually is because Kent decided, but does not reveal it to you. It seems like a poor way to manage an aquarium.
In short, I do not recommend trace element mixtures. If you believe that you need (or want to experiment with) trace elements (such as iron or manganese), my suggestion is to use single additives of known concentrations.
If you have a newish tank, it is unlikely to need any trace elements.
The only trace elements I add are iron and silicate. I've not found others to be useful.
This has more:
The “How To” Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners, Part 2: What Chemicals Must be Supplemented
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-04/rhf/index.php
from it:
Trace Element Mixtures
Trace elements are one of the most confusing areas of seawater chemistry, for hobbyists and chemical oceanographers alike. For oceanographers they are complicated because they are hard to measure at such low levels, and they are often bound to organics, making their bioavailability depend as much on how they are bound as on their concentration. For example, knowing the absolute concentration of copper does not necessarily say whether it is so bioavailable as to be toxic, or so tightly bound to chelating organics as to limit growth by unavailability.
Many hobbyists are confused about what trace elements even are, which is not surprising because manufacturers and hobbyists alike often use the term willy nilly. Trace elements are those that are present at very low levels, i.e., less than 50 nM (nanomolar; about 1-10 parts per billion or so, depending on the size of the ion). Most of the trace elements in seawater are heavy metals, and some can be nutritionally required, but most can also be toxic at higher than natural levels (copper, for example, fits that description).
Definitions aside, we need to address the utility of the ions that are put into such supplements, regardless of whether they are trace elements or something else. But there are important dosing differences that relate to whether something is a trace element or not. Notably, if something is normally present at very low concentrations, it takes only a tiny bit of it to bring a depleted aquarium up to seawater's concentration. That is not so for a major ion, which might require far larger doses to bring it to normal concentrations. To boost magnesium in natural seawater by 10% in a 100-gallon aquarium, for example, would take ¾ of a pound of the most potent solid dry supplement. By comparison, to boost iron by 10% in 100 gallons of natural seawater takes a dose so small that you might not see it if it were sitting in a spoon (far less than a milligram).
Perhaps the best way to discuss such mixtures is to dissect a typical commercial example. I’ve chosen one not because it is any better or worse than the others, but because it is widely sold and actually lists its ingredients - Kent Essential Elements. Kent claims, “Kent Marine Essential Elements replaces biologically important trace minerals which are removed by…” The ingredient list shows, “Contents: Inorganic mineral salts of aluminum, boron, bromine, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iodine, iron, lithium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, sulfur, strontium, tin, vanadium, and zinc in a base containing deionized water and EDTA.”
Which of those are actually trace elements in natural seawater? Many are not. Magnesium is the third most abundant ion in seawater. Sulfur (as sulfate) is fourth. Not calcium, or potassium, or boron, or bromine, or strontium - all of which are major ions. There is nothing wrong with major ions, but there is no reason to think that they all need to be supplemented, or that a teaspoon of this liquid could contain enough of each to even detect once diluted into a tank (the recommended dose is one teaspoon per 50 gallons per week). Even if this product contained as much magnesium as a typical commercial magnesium supplement (it likely has far less), that teaspoon could boost magnesium by only 1 ppm; not enough to write home about. When major ions need to be boosted, the amounts present in a trace element mixture such as this one may not be enough to be important. To Kent’s credit, the company states that on its website for at least some of the ions in this supplement, notably strontium, iodine and calcium, when users are directed to Kent's other products. Don’t be fooled into thinking, “Some is better than none, so I might as well dose it.” If you have a shortage of a major ion, which you confirmed by testing, you should look for a better way to solve that problem than a trace element mixture.
Working our way down the ingredient list for our prototypical trace element mixture, iodine, lithium and manganese are minor ions, not trace elements. I mentioned above that I don’t recommend supplementing iodine, but if you want to I definitely don’t recommend using an unknown form of iodine at an unknown concentration. According to the well-respected salt mix analysis by Atkinson and Bingman, lithium is elevated substantially above natural levels in every tested salt mix. According to a reef tank water study by Ron Shimek, the average lithium level was several-fold higher than natural levels. Because lithium offers little in the way of known nutritional benefits to marine organisms, it seems to be an undesirable ingredient. Manganese might well be a useful additive, because it is nutritionally important. But little useful data are available on its concentration in reef aquaria, so users cannot know whether the amount in the supplement is appropriate or not.
That leaves the true trace elements aluminum, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tin, vanadium and zinc. Of course, despite Kent's claims that the supplement “does not contain detrimental heavy metals,” some of these are potentially toxic heavy metals with no known positive biological function (nickel and tin, for example). Why put them into your aquarium? Others are clearly detrimental if “too much” is added (copper, for example). The company presumably does not add “too much” of these to its supplement.
So, we are left with a few trace elements that may have a benefit. Iron could be beneficial, if enough is there; of course, Kent does not say how much is there. Aluminum is very unlikely to be beneficial, as are nickel and tin. Some could be beneficial if the aquarium were depleted of them; zinc, for example. But what if their levels are already elevated in the aquarium? According to a reef aquarium water study by Ron Shimek, some of these are already elevated above natural levels in most reef aquaria. Admittedly, that does not mean that more could not be beneficial. But what is the evidence that more is good? Despite no intentional additions, my aquarium has levels of copper well above natural seawater. How does Kent know that my organisms would benefit from more? And how did Kent determine the relative amounts of different ions in this supplement? What are those amounts? If I did want one of these, how do I know I’m getting enough?
To me this seems like playing a chess game with every piece rigidly connected. They all move together, whether you want them to or not. Worse yet, you don’t know what the move actually is because Kent decided, but does not reveal it to you. It seems like a poor way to manage an aquarium.
In short, I do not recommend trace element mixtures. If you believe that you need (or want to experiment with) trace elements (such as iron or manganese), my suggestion is to use single additives of known concentrations.
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
That's the pH in the reactor, not in the tank.
If I were you, I'd do a little reading and try to get a basic grasp on how a calcium reactor works. That's something you can really screw up if you don't understand it.
Thanks for the info, Randy.
So my tank is only a few months old. I guess I will scratch the TRACE ELEMENTS dosing.
Um, I also bought IODIDE. Supposedly, it's not hazardous like Iodine. Can anyone give me some insight on this? I just want my soft corals to strive and not lose color.
So my tank is only a few months old. I guess I will scratch the TRACE ELEMENTS dosing.
Um, I also bought IODIDE. Supposedly, it's not hazardous like Iodine. Can anyone give me some insight on this? I just want my soft corals to strive and not lose color.
honestly, if you do regular water changes, say 10% weekly or bi-weekly depending on who you ask, you shouldn't have to dose anything, if you have hard corals, lps and sps, the calcium reactor you set up should handle the major elements needed for them, if set up correctly. You haven't said if there are any coral in the tank yet, if there are none at this point, the reactor might take your aquarium to undesirable levels. I didn't have a reactor but i did weekly tests on mag, calcium, and alk, i let it go and tested for a week (daily at this point to make sure my levels didn't drop off significantly), determined the approximate dose, started dosing daily, monitored each week and corrected, and kept up with that same procedure. Theres less involved with reactors from what i hear, but i would still monitor it.
Um, I also bought IODIDE. Supposedly, it's not hazardous like Iodine. Can anyone give me some insight on this? I just want my soft corals to strive and not lose color.
It's fine to experiment with dosing it, but most of us find it does not help anything. I dosed it for years, stopped, and never saw any difference in anything, including the soft corals I have.
This has more:
Iodine in Marine Aquaria: Part I
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2003/chem.htm
Iodine in Reef Tanks 2: Effects on Macroalgae Growth
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/april2003/chem.htm
and from the article linked earlier:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-04/rhf/index.php#17
Supplementing Iodine
Many aquarists dose iodine, and claim that certain organisms need it to thrive. Often mentioned are shrimp, Xenia species of soft corals, mushroom corals, and more. However, no evidence for an iodine requirement by these organisms appears anywhere in the scientific literature. They also thrive quite well in many coral reef aquaria where iodine is not dosed. Of Reef Central’s Tanks of the Month for the past couple of years, the majority do not supplement with any form of iodine (or at least do not mention doing so), although some certainly do dose it.
I do not presently dose iodine to my aquarium, and I do not recommend that others do so, either. Iodine dosing is much more complicated than dosing other ions due to its substantial number of different naturally existing forms, the number of different forms that aquarists actually dose, the fact that all of these forms can interconvert in reef aquaria, and the fact that the available test kits detect only a subset of the total forms present. This complexity, coupled with the fact that no commonly kept reef aquarium species are known to require significant iodine, suggests that dosing is unnecessary and problematic. On the other hand, it is nevertheless possible that some organisms that we keep do actually benefit from iodine, and that in some aquaria there is not enough in the foods that we add so that supplements may possibly be beneficial in those aquaria.
I dosed iodine for several years when I first set up my aquarium. I dosed substantial amounts of iodide to try to maintain 0.02 to 0.04 ppm of iodide (which is a natural level). Iodide is rapidly depleted as algae and perhaps other organisms take it up and convert it into organic forms. After a few years of dosing iodide, I became frustrated with the complexities of testing for it, so at that point I stopped dosing any supplemental iodine. That was about seven years ago. I detected no changes in any organisms, and never dosed any again. If you are dosing iodine now, I suggest stopping for a month or two, and seeing if you can objectively detect any difference in any organism.
For these reasons, I especially advise aquarists NOT to try to maintain a specific iodine concentration using supplementation and test kits. For those who do supplement iodine, I suggest iodide as a more suitable form than certain other additives, such as Lugol’s iodine, which is unnatural and potentially more toxic. Iodide is also more readily used than iodate by some organisms, and iodide is detected by both currently available iodine test kits (Seachem and Salifert).
It's fine to experiment with dosing it, but most of us find it does not help anything. I dosed it for years, stopped, and never saw any difference in anything, including the soft corals I have.
This has more:
Iodine in Marine Aquaria: Part I
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2003/chem.htm
Iodine in Reef Tanks 2: Effects on Macroalgae Growth
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/april2003/chem.htm
and from the article linked earlier:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-04/rhf/index.php#17
Supplementing Iodine
Many aquarists dose iodine, and claim that certain organisms need it to thrive. Often mentioned are shrimp, Xenia species of soft corals, mushroom corals, and more. However, no evidence for an iodine requirement by these organisms appears anywhere in the scientific literature. They also thrive quite well in many coral reef aquaria where iodine is not dosed. Of Reef Central’s Tanks of the Month for the past couple of years, the majority do not supplement with any form of iodine (or at least do not mention doing so), although some certainly do dose it.
I do not presently dose iodine to my aquarium, and I do not recommend that others do so, either. Iodine dosing is much more complicated than dosing other ions due to its substantial number of different naturally existing forms, the number of different forms that aquarists actually dose, the fact that all of these forms can interconvert in reef aquaria, and the fact that the available test kits detect only a subset of the total forms present. This complexity, coupled with the fact that no commonly kept reef aquarium species are known to require significant iodine, suggests that dosing is unnecessary and problematic. On the other hand, it is nevertheless possible that some organisms that we keep do actually benefit from iodine, and that in some aquaria there is not enough in the foods that we add so that supplements may possibly be beneficial in those aquaria.
I dosed iodine for several years when I first set up my aquarium. I dosed substantial amounts of iodide to try to maintain 0.02 to 0.04 ppm of iodide (which is a natural level). Iodide is rapidly depleted as algae and perhaps other organisms take it up and convert it into organic forms. After a few years of dosing iodide, I became frustrated with the complexities of testing for it, so at that point I stopped dosing any supplemental iodine. That was about seven years ago. I detected no changes in any organisms, and never dosed any again. If you are dosing iodine now, I suggest stopping for a month or two, and seeing if you can objectively detect any difference in any organism.
For these reasons, I especially advise aquarists NOT to try to maintain a specific iodine concentration using supplementation and test kits. For those who do supplement iodine, I suggest iodide as a more suitable form than certain other additives, such as Lugol’s iodine, which is unnatural and potentially more toxic. Iodide is also more readily used than iodate by some organisms, and iodide is detected by both currently available iodine test kits (Seachem and Salifert).
"The calcium reactor will add whatever is in the media that dissolves at the reactor pH level( usually 6.3 to 6.9)."
Does this mean my ph is only around 6.3 to 6.9? My friend set up my ca reactor, so not sure how it works. I just know it turns on when that number on the probe hits 6.59.
That's inside the reactor not the tank itself; although passing 6.6 effluent into the tank will lower the tank pH somewhat. Many use them successfully at 6.6 or so.
A correction to my earlier post ; I have dosed iron within the last year or so ,mostly for macroalge and corals . I thought it was a minor element vs a trace element so I forgot to mention it . I stopped because it seemed to enhance nuisance algae a little and didn't really do much for the corals that I could tell.
Does this mean my ph is only around 6.3 to 6.9? My friend set up my ca reactor, so not sure how it works. I just know it turns on when that number on the probe hits 6.59.
That's inside the reactor not the tank itself; although passing 6.6 effluent into the tank will lower the tank pH somewhat. Many use them successfully at 6.6 or so.
A correction to my earlier post ; I have dosed iron within the last year or so ,mostly for macroalge and corals . I thought it was a minor element vs a trace element so I forgot to mention it . I stopped because it seemed to enhance nuisance algae a little and didn't really do much for the corals that I could tell.
Similar threads
