What you need to know about copper and coral

Hi,
I accidentally dropped a small filament of copper wire into my nano tank and I can not find it at all (about 1-2 inches in length) visually. It may have fallen inside the live rock crevices and I do not want to tear up the tank unless its absolutely necessary. I'm concerned that it might cause problems to the corals and anemone I have in there and any fish I may add in the future. Is it enough to cause problems?
 
It's a problem in my opinion and I would get it out. I'drun a little cprisorb too
The copper in tanks is bound to organics after a period of time but the wire will keep pushing out free CU which is toxic at ppb.
 
I am a beginner who is just reading up on things before starting. I have read alot of tank start up threads and a lot of people have problems with Cyno bacteria. I have read that one way to deter this is to use Ro/Di water only, to keep the trace metal elements down to a minimum. But I was reading a study by, The Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry. " Chemical Speciation of Trace Metals in Seawater: a Review"
Katsumi HIROSE

that said this:

"The Cu toxicity depends on the species
of marine microorganisms; cyanobacteria are one of the most
sensitive species to Cu toxicity in the laboratory."

so wouldnt a higher trace element of copper actually help prevent cyno bacteria ?
 
Yes, along with algae invertebrates like corals, snails,shrimp and so on too. At very low levels,ie. pp billion free copper can wipe out a flourishng reef tank. Fish are less sensitive and can tolerate low range parts per million.
 
Hobby grade test kits don't test low enough levels to be useful other than for monitoring levels of copper medication in a fish only treatment treatement tank where levels lethal to parasitic organisms but not lethal the fish are maintained and monitored ; levels showing up on a hobby grade test kit would likely have killed off many invertebrates by the time they registerd.

It' still possible to get enough free copper to do serious damage even when tds reads zero as zero means zeroppm tds(0 to 1ppm or somewhere in between if the meter is accurate). Frotunately, Most copper binds up with organics relatively quickly and is not toxic in that form ;it is as free copper in the meantime that does the damage. I run a little cuprisorb preventatively in my sump. I probably don't need it but I'm very wary of any heavy metal build up.
 
If I had some wiring above my sump, and it was corroded over time, enough corrosion that the wire was eaten thru, can the copper corrosion products become a problem for the tank if they were to fall into the sump? My guess is yes. Fish clam and corals seemed healthy enough until they were killed by an extended power outage due to a tripped gfci. Gfci tripped because of salt creep build up. I am restarting the tank and wonder if I should take any precautions as if it had been treated with copper. I may acid dip the live rock for phosphate removal, bit what about the sand. I was planning on just washing and reusing. Thanks.
 
Yes, they can.There is no way to know if enough free copper dropped in and hung around to be a continuing problem. In any case;copper or not , rinsing and reusing sand can be problematic; Personally, I'd just toss it. Wiping he interior of the tank down wit vinegar is a prucent step as well.
 
This is the result I referred to earlier in this thread about another meterial removing copper. So GFO might be usefully exporting some copper from our systems.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry

from it:

"GFO (at least the brand tested) has a high affinity for phosphorus and silica and rapidly removes ortho-phosphate and silicates. Copper in the free form is removed, while ferric iron is added, though in a particulate and not soluble form. Zinc, manganese, and cobalt are also removed though concentrations never fell to critical concentrations. It is possible that the testing process reported weakly-chelated metals."

Could there be any benifit to "filtering" newly mixed saltwater through GFO prior to performing a water change? The Cu would be in its "most free" form at this point (prior to being bound to any organics) and in teory be bound more readily to the GFO, correct?

And to take the thought one step further, could two part be dosed through GFO prior to addition? This method could even be more benificial if 2-part addition is one of the major sources for Cu. Does GFO function in these extreme saturations?
 
I am a beginner who is just reading up on things before starting. I have read alot of tank start up threads and a lot of people have problems with Cyno bacteria. I have read that one way to deter this is to use Ro/Di water only, to keep the trace metal elements down to a minimum. But I was reading a study by, The Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry. " Chemical Speciation of Trace Metals in Seawater: a Review"
Katsumi HIROSE

that said this:

"The Cu toxicity depends on the species
of marine microorganisms; cyanobacteria are one of the most
sensitive species to Cu toxicity in the laboratory."

so wouldnt a higher trace element of copper actually help prevent cyno bacteria ?


Cyano bacteria are way smarter than you give them credit for. They've already figured this out. 99% or more of the copper in the ocean is bound up in a non-toxic form via some interesting chelating molecules produced by... who else... the cyanobacteria. The cyanobacteria are actively stripping the ocean of toxic forms of copper in order to make it a nice home for themselves. They benefit everyone else in the ocean at the same time.
 
I don't think there would be much benefit, but I'm only guessing. I don't see many signs of copper poisoning in normal circumstances, though. Usually, the issue is a brass component added to a system, or something similar.
 
I think the anion resin in a di would be relatively effective at removing Cu++, free copper ,given it's positive charge. I can't see GFO doing any harm though and it might backstop any PO4 species that get through the resin. Overall I don't think it's necessary as an add on to an ro/di ,though.
 
Agreed, there would be little to gain by adding GFO to the RO/DI unit. But a canister at the outlet of the Calcium and Alk Dosing pumps? Just brainstorming.

After reading this thread my thoughts are primarily on not introducing free copper into the system. It seems that with food, copper piping, salt and 2-part additive being the sources:
Food: be aware, (limit the amount of lobster being fed) but don't stop feeding.
Copper piping: RO/DI.
Salt: Small, regular water changes.
2-part Dosing: ???? What can be done here especially when dosing is going to be dictated by Ca/Alk depletion not Copper input?
For folks using a Calcium Reactor maybe the GFO could be run on the outlet... I've never owned a reactor, just trying to be inclusive.

Again, just wondering about practical preventative measures.
 
Some salt mixes contain organics claimed to help insure binding of free metals.

Running gfo anywhere on the system will take some metals out along with PO4 .

Dosing calcium chloride and calcium through a for canister would likely lead to precipitation and/or clogging which could throw alk consistency off which is a significant concern..
Using calcium hydroxide (kalk) for calcium and akalinity ;kalkwassser is self purifying and doesn't add any metals unless you dose the slurry..
 
Question, if I used a reactor and pump in a fish only tank with copper in it, if I took it out rinsed it thoroughly and let it dry, would I be ok using it in a reef tank?
 
Back
Top