Element Toxicity

[MiNdErAsR]

So, what kind of water did Bingman use to mix the salt with? It isn't mentioned, but seems pretty darn important to me. Especially considering the relative ion concentrations compared to NSW. Several of the manufacturers seem to be precisely and cooperatively wrong.

I understand clearly what Dr.Shimek is grasping at, however I disagree. Artificial ecologies are very complicated. If it was possible to eliminate the variations due to the different locations and environments that the separate tanks are kept in, and what Bingman says about SSW is acurate, then what Dr. Shimek says might be one of several good possibilities.

Let me pose this one for you. Suppose 'old tank syndrome' is caused by toxic trace metal build up and that synthetic salt mix is perfectly ok. It is very possible that the trace metals are from the source water that is filtered for use in mixing SSW. It is understood that RO membranes reject fewer impurities as they age. Also, DI units can, and do, leach trapped ions back into the water flow after they resins are exhausted. If the units are serviced regularly, trace metal build up is not an issue as only sweet water is used. However, not every aquarist replaces membranes and resin beads on a schedule that allows for some margin of error. In fact, many people post here that they service once the output water reaches some threshold level of impurity. So, the aquarist learning curve dictates that if using 1 megOhm water makes the cyano breakout and the corals shrink, then water quality must never be allowed to drop to 1 megOhm. That's fine and great, but what if using 2 megOhm water for SSW mixing leads to long term trace metal build up? The aquarist has little external motivation to maintain pure water because the short term effect on livestock is not measurable, even though his habits are poisoning his tank.

So . . . now we have two competing theories.

I would like to see more studies on synthetic sea salt. I also would like to see DI units with options for resistivity lights more like 15-16 megOhms instead 1 or 2. Anyway.

I doubt Bingman used anything but the purest RO/DI water for the testing, or it would be kind of silly to bother wouldn't it? :roll:

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Shimek's test samples all had elevated levels of heavy metals, elevated to the point of being toxic to some reef creatures. Bingman showed that all the salt mixes tested had levels well in excess of NSW and well into the toxic threshold of some reef creatures.

That said, the question you pose is moot because the salts are already shown to not be acceptable. However salt isn't the only culprit here, just one of the contributing factors. Trace element additions are also to blame. Trace elements at any level other than trace are pollutants. Food also contributes trace elements (to a degree). The problem is the cumulative effect.

As for the RO membranes and DI cartridges, if you don't follow the basic guidelines mentioned in the instruction booklet that came with your unit, then I suggest you go back and re-read the portion on maintenance. Use a flush kit to rinse your membrane. Use a TDS meter to determine when your DI cartridge is in need of replacement. Contaminants are leached when the cartridge is spent AFAIK. If an aquarist is killing creatures because he/she can't follow simple maintenance procedures, then I suggest they find another hobby.

IMO

 

[ReefLion]

Will carbon pull metals out or just organics? It definitely sounds like running fresh, artificial SW through either carbon or a polyfilter would be adviseable. Just wondering which would work better (if not both), or whether either would be effective.

ReefLion

 

[SPC]

Posted by Fishfarmer:

I would like to know a little history, maintainance scheduals and biomass of the test aquariums.

-There were many aquariums used for this experiment (Danmhippo, me etc...). All of this data has been published by Dr Ron for anyone to see.

Posted by Reeflion:

Will carbon pull metals out or just organics?

-No, but it does appear that the polyfilter does a pretty good job of this. BTW, polyfilters are what is used for dialysis.

Posted by Reeflion:

If the author is saying water changes can't reduce the levels of toxins in the water, he's just wrong as a matter of algebra.

-The author is not saying that water changes cannot reduce the levels, he is saying that they are not enough due to the build up of toxins in the rock, substrate, equipment, etc... On top of this, the salt mixes we use are doing nothing to correct this problem, in fact they are only adding to it.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

spc-
i understand, accept, and agree with the point that the sw mixes' should be changed-if for nothing else,making them as close to nsw as possible.

i also accept and agree that some of the constituents of the mixes are poisons, or potential poisons-especially if they build up in a closed system.

my problem with dr. ron's hypothesis is the lack of a direct, and sole, link established to 'ots' in his article-plus the lack of data relating to absorption rates/amounts of these elements by the rock/substrate, or their release back into the system.

agreed, heavy metals are also not necessary in a salt mix, but i would like to see some detailed investigation regarding the continuous, long term concentrations/levels in long operating systems vs. the levels of these elements in mortality specimens before an article with such a large 'freakout' potential for hobbyists is presented.again, the contention of dr. ron would lead me to believe that all aquaria over five years old will eventually be death trap environs for fish and coral-my experience is that for many, such is not the case.

fwiw-i'm not a chemist(very far from it!) but my experience with freshwater tanks indicates that carbon will absorb metals (like iron) from the water, to varying degrees.(this is also a point of contention for me with some of the statements published by novalek for marineland).

is it the case that carbon does not remove metals from salt water? (meaning at all..)

p.s.- has anyone here experienced 'old tank syndrome'? (a genuine question-not trying to be a smarta** here :wink: )

 

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't you need to throw out all of yoor corals as well? It seems the heavy metals would bind to them just as easily as the sand and rock. So much for a sustainable hobby......

 

[JeremyR]

This is all a bunch of horse puckey. As reefland pointed out, there are plenty of people who have tanks well beyond this age with no problems (such as myself). I don't mean to be inflammatory and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but the authors area of expertise is NOT reef tanks and he is not nearly as experienced in this hobby as many people on this board, and this is one area he's completely off base. He always tends to take things to the extreme... whether it's protection of the amphipod or in this case scaring the crap out of everyone based on one set of water tests and an off base hypothesis.

Fwiw, I have a 7 year old rock/sand system that is showing no signs of getting worse... and I've always been a water changer. If any of you feel like dumpstering your live rock, just send it to me.

 

[SPC]

Vitz, I would also like to see more tests done, maybe now since this is being brought up someone will volunteer to do the test.

Jeremy posted:

This is all a bunch of horse puckey.

-Which part? All of it including the results of the tests?

As reefland pointed out, there are plenty of people who have tanks well beyond this age with no problems (such as myself).

-I don't think anyone would disagree with this. I also know I have read many times about experienced reefers who have had tanks go through "old tank syndrome".

I don't mean to be inflammatory and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but the authors area of expertise is NOT reef tanks and he is not nearly as experienced in this hobby as many people on this board, and this is one area he's completely off base.

-I don't think the author claims to be an expert on reef tanks nor does he need to be IMO. Would it have made a difference if an "expert" had gathered this same data and published it? What is so magical about gathering samples, sending them to a lab for analysis, and then publishing the results? Why haven't the reef tank experts already done this?

He always tends to take things to the extreme... whether it's protection of the amphipod or in this case scaring the crap out of everyone based on one set of water tests and an off base hypothesis.

-Why do you feel this is an off base hypothesis?
Steve

 

[JeremyR]

I guess from my experience, most of the people who run into OTS are people who do not do water changes... alot of "experienced" reefkeepers will tell you they rarely if ever do water changes, and it's my belief that lack of maintenance is more to blame than anything.. people see things running smooth and get lulled into a false sense of security. I will agree that it is certainly possible for people to overdose their tanks with trace elements as well.. something I don't use.. but saying doing water changes with prepared salt will make your tank a toxic zone is ludicrous (at least with the most popular salt mixes) and so is suggesting to people that they periodically break down their tanks and start fresh out of fear of possible OTS. I've never seen a tank that can't be brought around with major water changes and some TLC.

Water testing isn't bad for sure.. but drawing extreme conclusions I think is, and people talking about dumpstering rock before any further investigation is also a bit extreme.

 

[Anonymous]

steve-a question:
if dr. ron's (premature,imho) contention(as i percieve from the article) is correct, then shouldn't it be impossible for anyone who doesn't skim and chemically filter their tank to avoid 'old tank syndrome'?

i do not doubt the data, or the possible(or probable) contribution of the buildup of unnecessary elements to the demise of more delicate species and individuals of marine life.however, i truly believe there is no such thing as 'old tank syndrome'.maybe an 'a mistake was made i wasn't aware of' syndrome, or a 'missed external event' syndrome, but not 'ots'.

just had a thought-maybe the poor performance of goniopora has more to do with the accumulation of a heavy metal in closed aquaria, than with the absence of some essential element!!(hmmm-should a comparative analysis be made of the succesful keepers of goni's water with those who are unsuccesful for metals or unnecessary trace elements?) :idea:

also-aren't there areas in the ocean where the local concentration of some of these 'bad' elements are higher than the average, that still support reef flora and fauna?and what percentage of the mortalities contended to have been related to ots actually were found to contain elevated levels of these various elements in their tissues-just because a substance is shown to cause damage to an animal, doesn't guarantee that it's presence in the environment will automatically lead to it's absorption-especially in a marine tank, where alot of complex interactions between many chemical compounds continually occur.

i'm playing abit of devil's advocate, maybe-but i think that presently, there are too many unknowns and variables re: the chemistry of marine tanks to begin to present this in an alarmist fashion(even a well mannered one, like dr.ron's :wink: )

 

[Marcosreef]

Wouldn't you need to throw out all of yoor corals as well? It seems the heavy metals would bind to them just as easily as the sand and rock. So much for a sustainable hobby......

Not sure. Would corals "bind" these toxic elements into their skeletons?

OTOH, If the pH were allowed to drop to a very low level, would a mass quantity of these elements be unbinded from the sand and live rock?

Either way, this is shocking and very interesting too. I definetly would like to know if we need to do something ASAP, or just go along as usual?

What should we be doing?

Marco

 

[SPC]

First of all let me say that I am not backing Dr Ron's recommendations to start over after 4 years, throw all L/R away Etc... I don't think we have enough data yet to support this. I also have never seen any data that shows the safe levels of toxic metals as it applies to corals. What I do know is that the L/R in our tanks is like a sponge and could indeed soak up many undesirables including organics, phosphates heavy metals as well as others. If we are pouring these into our tanks, and they are being absorbed by the L/R and L/S, dosen't it make sense that they could
be released at some point in concentrations that might harm the animals? And if this is the case, then are we wise to continue to use a salt mix that contains ingriedients that could possibly speed up this process?

Posted by Vitz:

steve-a question:
if dr. ron's (premature,imho) contention(as i percieve from the article) is correct, then shouldn't it be impossible for anyone who doesn't skim and chemically filter their tank to avoid 'old tank syndrome'?

-Yes, and according to him even those who skim and chemically filter cannot avoid this.

i'm playing abit of devil's advocate, maybe-but i think that presently, there are too many unknowns and variables re: the chemistry of marine tanks to begin to present this in an alarmist fashion(even a well mannered one, like dr.ron's )

-You may be right, what I hope for however is more studies are done that try to refute his claims :wink: .
Steve

 

[JeremyR]

Steve,

There probably is also room for improvement in salt mixes, but the other problem is that formulas vary with time. I mean, if you had IO tested right now I bet it would be fairly different than the test people are looking at, because I've seen a difference in the salt in other ways. I don't have a problem with testing water, but I also know from experience that you don't have to break down your tank at x time if ever.. so there has to be more at play. Alot of people are trace element happy, adding a hodgepodge of this or that.. that and no water changes is probably more to blame than anything IMO. If I"m reading you right you are more interested in the truth than pushing shimek's doctrine, which is good, and maybe someday we'll have a concrete answer to these kinds of things.. problem is there is no standard to what people do to their tanks or what salt or trace element mix they use and how often they use them, so it makes it difficult.

 

[Anonymous]

I doubt Bingman used anything but the purest RO/DI water for the testing, or it would be kind of silly to bother wouldn't it? :roll:

Yes it would. And even worse form not to specify what he used. I don't know how familiar you are with scientific writing, so forgive me if this is beneath you, but you did notice that he went into exact detail on the test methods and equipment, right? IMHO, not specifying exactly what water he used entirely nullifies the study. Maybe he used tapwater. Maybe he used 18.2 megOhm water. Maybe he used water from a RO/DI unit that he didn't know was broken. We don't know that he tested its purity. Assuming that he did doesn't make it true.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. .
As for the RO membranes and DI cartridges, if you don't follow the basic guidelines mentioned in the instruction booklet that came with your unit, then I suggest you go back and re-read the portion on maintenance. Use a flush kit to rinse your membrane. Use a TDS meter to determine when your DI cartridge is in need of replacement. Contaminants are leached when the cartridge is spent AFAIK. If an aquarist is killing creatures because he/she can't follow simple maintenance procedures, then I suggest they find another hobby.
IMO

I'm more than willing to bet a paycheck that on this board of 7,000 people that we couldn't scrape up 10 that double check that they use 18.2 megOhm water every time that they add a drop to their tank. I've been reading their posts for almost a year and I know that they're not. I agree with Jeremy that a level of complacency exists that allows aquarists to use less that perfect practice. I don't think that is bad, either. Lets just raise the bar a little bit. The community should stop promoting 'bare bones' RO units and single pass and nonmixed bed DI units. You can get a basic double pass mixed bed DI unit with AC prefilter for $60. You can get a kick@$$ unit for $250.

Btw, I'll gladly accept any LR, LS, or other equipment anyone has that they fill is contaminated. Let me know in advance I'll even chip in for shipping. Heck, send me your nasty salt, too. :twisted:

 

[SPC]

Posted by Jeremy:

If I"m reading you right you are more interested in the truth than pushing shimek's doctrine, which is good, and maybe someday we'll have a concrete answer to these kinds of things..

-Exactly, the problem as I see it however is that we as a hobby don't utilize these labs enough for the purpose of testing. If we are trying to keep delicate reef creatures by relying on salt mixes that contain more than NSW levels of different elements, then shouldn't we be demanding this be brought in line? Why are we excepting anthying less from these salt manufactureres?

Posted by Ben:

Btw, I'll gladly accept any LR, LS, or other equipment anyone has that they fill is contaminated. Let me know in advance I'll even chip in for shipping. Heck, send me your nasty salt, too.

-So Ben, it appears you are happy with the salt mixes we use, do you have any data you can point us to that shows exactly what is in these salt mixes? Have you seen any independent tests run on different batches of salt, or are you satisified that the salt manufacturers would not sell a product that would harm your reef.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Why are we excepting anthying less from these salt manufactureres?
So, Ben, it appears you are happy with the salt mixes we use, do you have any data you can point us to that shows exactly what is in these salt mixes? Have you seen any independent tests run on different batches of salt, or are you satisified that the salt manufacturers would not sell a product that would harm your reef.
Steve

1. Ben is never actually happy. See 2.
2. There is always room for improvement.
3. The manufacturers know what is in the mix.
4. The manufacturers are profit driven.
5. Old tank syndrome is derived from a loose grouping of nonspecific anecdotal evidence.
6. Some people who 'should' experience old tank syndrome do not.
7. We do not know if anyone who uses NSW has experienced OTS.

Let us try the following:
1. Contact the manufacturers and get their data on mix ion concentrations.
2. Form a group, of reefers here and on other boards, and commission the several manufacturers to formulate a mix that resembles NSW at SG of 1.025 and Temp of 81*F within some value like 0.1-.05% from reagent grade materials. The first one to confirm it independantly sells a 5g bucket to everyone in the group.
3. Compile a list practices common to everyone that has an old tank that has not experienced OTS.
4. Standardize the definition of OTS.
5. Find someone that uses NSW that has had OTS.
6. Collect volunteers that currently have OTS, compile a list of common practices, divide them into treatment groups and begin adjusting environment variables and compile the results.

 

[Anonymous]

So, how about a good definition of OTS? How old should a tank be to qualify? Try to describe things in positive terms rather than negative, such 'LPS die off' rather than 'lack of LPS growth.'

 

[SPC]

Posted by Ben:

Let us try the following:
1. Contact the manufacturers and get their data on mix ion concentrations.

-Sounds good to me, do you think they would?

2. Form a group, of reefers here and on other boards, and commission the several manufacturers to formulate a mix that resembles NSW at SG of 1.025 and Temp of 81*F within some value like 0.1-.05% from reagent grade materials. The first one to confirm it independantly sells a 5g bucket to everyone in the group.

-Each member of the group would need the funds to get these tests done if I am following your point here.

3. Compile a list practices common to everyone that has an old tank that has not experienced OTS.
4. Standardize the definition of OTS.
5. Find someone that uses NSW that has had OTS.
6. Collect volunteers that currently have OTS, compile a list of common practices, divide them into treatment groups and begin adjusting environment variables and compile the results.

-Ok, when are you ready to start?
Steve

 

[Fredfish]

Hehehe....

I love it when someone stirs the pot the way Dr. Ron has.


If you read the article and Dr. Ron’s comments on the article forum, you should understand that metals - in the concentrations found in our aquariums - have detrimental effects on our corals.

What he has done is to document the levels of a number of metals in our aquariums (with the help of many volunteers) and looked to the scientific community for evidence of the effects of these metals at these concentrations.

Dr. Ron has come to his own conclusion regarding old tank syndrome and acknowledges (in the article forum) that no research has been done to definitively prove the connection.

Looking at the scientific literature, Dr. Ron suggests that we are creating a highly polluted environment from the very start, and it gets worse from there.

The effects of heavy metals on corals - at the levels found in aquariums - is well documented by the scientific community and its not good. No, not all of them lead to acute toxic effects (death), but they do have negative effects (most likely) on all the corals we keep.

I personally will not be throwing out my sand and rocks, but I will be using carbon and poly filters immediately, and will switch to a salt without the heavy metal impurities as soon as one is identified. The removal of any compounds with the potential to do serious damage to

I think it is kind of funny (well, very funny actually) that one of the few who has tried to apply scientific method and to do some research into things that may negatively effect the inverts in our tanks is criticized for lack of scientific rigor by those who neither posses the background to do similar work or have made the effort (or shelled out the bucks) to do so (well my tank is xx years old and I don't have old tank syndrome...).

To put this in another perspective, look at the people living in some very polluted parts of Russia, particularly where nuclear fuel was processed and nuclear weapons were produced.

People still live reproduce and do all the things people do in these areas, but there is no question that radioactive contaminants have seriously effected the health of many, many people leading to deaths, poor quality of life, extreme discomfort etc.

If you had similar evidence that there were compounds that affected the inverts in your thank the same way, wouldn't you do everything in your power to eliminate these compounds?

Fred

 

[Fredfish]

for arguments sake lets suppose dr.ron's theory proves true.
wouldn't it be possible to detoxify these tanks albeit slowly but permanently using water changes with new suitable trace element free water and skimming w/occasional GAC?

I would think that this would work. With no knowledge of how much heavy metal accumulation is in our rock and sand, or how quickly it will come back into solution, it is rather hard to come to any conclusions.

I think Dr. Ron mentioned he was going to do an analysis on his some of his old sand to see just what the accumulation of heavy metals is.

Fred.

 

[Anonymous]

Steve-

Were you at the Borneman meeting yesterday? I almost brought this up during the RTN "shut down" segment but it was 10:30 and I had to go. I would have been interested to hear his take on it.


I can hear the Salt manufacturer's licking their chops over this one. Imagine being the first one to have ":guaranteed not to cause OTS!!" on the package. I bet it's Marc Weiss.