Removing Copper from Tap water - Necessary?

[Anonymous]

There are a couple of easy ways to remove Copper from tap water and yet some do not feel the need, especially new hobbiests.

Does removing Copper from topoff water and water used for water changes make any difference?

I have used two methods for removing Copper from topoff water (and 1 for water changes);

1 - Reverse Osmosis filtration (RO or RO/DI)
2 - Using Calcium hydroxide (kalk) to precipitate heavy metals before toppoff (limewater)

My opinion;

Option 1 works very well but diligence is required when using an auto topoff system. If you run out of undissolved Calcium hydroxide in the limewater reactor then the heavy metals like copper, zinc and nickel will stop precipitating and could enter your reef system. I used this method for several years but found I had too many close calls. I have since switched back to using RO for all of my water requirements.

The copper content of my well water is 0.850ppm. I feel this is far too high to safely add to my reef system unfiltered so I believe it is imperative to filter the water before using it.

Please post your opinions and also please comment on my attempt at reasoning.

 

[Anonymous]

To answer Guy's question

unqualifiably yes. the copper in any tap water will be to high for corals and other inverts.

the question is not whether or not tap water copper kills inverts-- it does. The question is how to reduce copper to safe levels.

Guy's copper is more the three times the copper level at 90% of the houses in all the major US cities. that level is 250parts per billion.

Some old school methods to insure the tap water copper is at the lowest possible level
1) use cold water
2) from a frequently used faucet
3) let the water run for a minute before collecting.



the idea is to insure the water is at a low temperature and had minimul contact with the house plumbing.


Then use macro algaes to filter the water will rapidly bring copper down to unmeasureable levels.


Plant life like macros from my experience easily consume 30-40parts per million nitrates per week. As they suck in the nitrates (for consumption), copper and other ions are sucked in also and bioaccumulate in the algae cells. say 240ppb copper and 40 ppm nitrate. Therefore only 1 ion of copper needs to be sucked in for every 40ppm/240ppb=1ppm/6 ppb= 1000/6= 167 ions of nitrate to bioaccumulate all the copper in the water in a week time period. in say a 10 week period only 1 copper for every 1,667 ions of nitrate consumed.

Experiemtal data on bioaccumlation of copper by common macros used in aquariums is extremely limited. Dr. Ron Shimek studies do not provide that data. Caulerpas, ulvas and seaweeds up stream of power plants and cooper mines do show high conecntrations of copper well over several hundread ppm of copper. Controlled experiments have shown bioaccumulation factors of up to 27000 for copper. Plus one macro was observed to show an increase in copper from ~50ppm to ~1050ppm copper when exposed to a copper concentration of 250ppb for two weeks. The study also reported the rate of bioaccumulation was linearily porportional to the copper concentration in the environment and that steady state had not been reached.

Using those numbers to maintain 250ppb of copper in the solution with 1/10 pound of that macro in a 55g tank would require adding copper equilivant to a complete water changedin the two week period. a pound would have required the equilivang of 10 water changes.

So not having any better data it seems reasonable that a pound of macro for every 50g of water would bring down the copper level to unmeasureable levels in a month or so.

If anyone has data for our common macros that would be helpful. Dr. Shimek's study does not have that data.

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone has the concentration of copper in NSW?

PLB, is the ppm values you mentioned above dried weight, or wet weight of the macroalgae?

 

[Len]

But Bob, none of the limited data shows that macroalgae (and this is a really broad brush when we're referring to hundreds of species) can absorb Cu efficiently and effectively enough to lower copper levels below the LD50 of corals (another really broad brush). I'm curious how you're comfortable with your conclusion.

 

[Len]

Anyone has the concentration of copper in NSW?

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/ ... eature.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone has the concentration of copper in NSW?

PLB, is the ppm values you mentioned above dried weight, or wet weight of the macroalgae?

Actually don't know. I presume it was dried weight as mass spectrometry (or however that is spelled) used in other reports. It was a summary of a report not the actual report so hard to tell.

To me what is important is the copper in the resulting tank water. Although the input water is a huge input for that copper, it is not the only source of copper. Even the foods we add have small amounts. So under the idea that all that copper always remains in the system, copper will accumulate through those sources also. Partial water changes will lesson but not totally remove the copper.

But by considering things like plant action and even the ppb ion exchange of calcium carbonate, then the system has means of providing a copper level that is below acute and cronic levels for our livestock.

 

[Anonymous]

But Bob, none of the limited data shows that macroalgae (and this is a really broad brush when we're referring to hundreds of species) can absorb Cu efficiently and effectively enough to lower copper levels below the LD50 of corals (another really broad brush). I'm curious how you're comfortable with your conclusion.

Copper, and solutions which contain copper are commonly used as algaecides which would lead me to believe that at least some of the hundred of species of macro and micro algae you mentioned Len would be adversely effected and not "neutralize" copper.

Here is an exerpt: http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/cu_clearing ... _algae.htm

Copper Algaecides

Copper containing algaecides may be applied to waterbodies for control of nuisance rooted and planktonic aquatic plants. The majority of copper algaecides treatments to non-drinking water surface waters within the San Francisco Bay area are to lagoons and sloughs bordering San Francisco Bay. Since shoreline lagoons and sloughs generally release water directly to San Francisco Bay, all copper applied to these waterbodies could potentially reach the Bay. Actual releases are likely lower due to copper deposition in the treated water body and/or adsorption to benthic sediments.

 

[Anonymous]

But Bob, none of the limited data shows that macroalgae (and this is a really broad brush when we're referring to hundreds of species) can absorb Cu efficiently and effectively enough to lower copper levels below the LD50 of corals (another really broad brush). I'm curious how you're comfortable with your conclusion.

I would like to know what data you are referring to. And what is LD50?

I am totally comfortable with the data I presented above.

And yes it is a broad brush. But it is all that is available.

 

[Anonymous]

But Bob, none of the limited data shows that macroalgae (and this is a really broad brush when we're referring to hundreds of species) can absorb Cu efficiently and effectively enough to lower copper levels below the LD50 of corals (another really broad brush). I'm curious how you're comfortable with your conclusion.

Copper, and solutions which contain copper are commonly used as algaecides which would lead me to believe that at least some of the hundred of species of macro and micro algae you mentioned Len would be adversely effected and not "neutralize" copper.

Here is an exerpt: http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/cu_clearing ... _algae.htm

Copper Algaecides

Copper containing algaecides may be applied to waterbodies for control of nuisance rooted and planktonic aquatic plants. The majority of copper algaecides treatments to non-drinking water surface waters within the San Francisco Bay area are to lagoons and sloughs bordering San Francisco Bay. Since shoreline lagoons and sloughs generally release water directly to San Francisco Bay, all copper applied to these waterbodies could potentially reach the Bay. Actual releases are likely lower due to copper deposition in the treated water body and/or adsorption to benthic sediments.

Absolutely correct.

And also totally ignores the actual levels of copper. the copper levels used as algaecides are probably much higher than the levels in potable water.

Again say they were too high. then you would simply have macros die. remove them and try again. Until they lived.

So again thriving macros remove the copper.

But not a problem I have had in any of my tanks. None of my Fw plants or SW macros die from using tap water. So this is not an issue.

 

[Len]

LD50 (Lethal Dosage 50%) is the universal value given for toxicity. I'm actually not referring to any data, which is why I'm questioning how you've come to the conclusions you've arrived at.

 

[Anonymous]

[
And also totally ignores the actual levels of copper. the copper levels used as algaecides are probably much higher than the levels in potable water.

Again say they were too high. then you would simply have macros die. remove them and try again. Until they lived.
.

Just what do you think the inverts in the above hypothetical tank would be doing during that time, thriving? While the Macro dies?

:? Oh yeah. That does make sense.

 

[Anonymous]

My tank water was shown to have a copper level of 18 ppb as part of a study done in 2002. Sounds pretty low. NSW levels range from a low of 0.032ppb (please note the decimal point) up to 0.381ppb with an average of 0.254ppb (Pilson, M. E. Q. 1998. An Introduction to the Chemistry of the Sea. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ. 431 pp.)

Basically my tank water had a copper concentration over 70 times higher than average natural sea water... 70 times!

The Caulerpa Racemosa removed from my system was 420ppb copper after it was dehydrated, the skimmate from my skimmer was 2,000ppb after being dehydrated. These are the facts and interestingly my numbers seem to correspond to your numbers fairly closely. To give an idea of what dehydration does, 6 gallons of freshly harvested Caulerpa resulted in 8 ounces of test material. Picture an IO salt bucket nearly full of algae.

My conclusion is a lot different than yours. I believe that Caulerpa does sequester copper but not nearly enough to say that it will lower copper to a safe level in an aquarium. Even though I have a massive amount of Caulerpa in my system with a relatively low bio-load I still had far too high of a copper concentration (another plug against Coralife Salt).

 

[Anonymous]

LD50 (Lethal Dosage 50%) is the universal value given for toxicity. I'm actually not referring to any data, which is why I'm questioning how you've come to the conclusions you've arrived at.

Len I actually gave you the numbers but the "it seems reasonable" was speculation.

The reports I have seen gave acute levels in which short one time exposures resulted in the death of the coral. And cronic where long term exposure resulted in such things as slowed growth, reporduction, etc but not death.

I believe .2 ppb or some number with a 2 is considered theraputic to kill ich. So if someone can verify that actual number we could use 50% of that as being very detrimental to our inverts.

Then I could use the above data and do a simple spreadsheet simulation for more precision and realism.

I do feel confident macros can remove sufficient copper. After all hospital tanks must contain no macros or the copper medication is rendered ineffective. But doing the simulation would be interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

guy:

the problem with your tank as with all dr. ron's tanks measured, is you do not have any changes over time mesured.

For the data you posted you can not even tell if the copper came from your caulerpa to the water of vice versa. The data is just not there.

That is equilivant to saying you have a car at 60 miles per hour with 1/2 tanks of gas. Therefore, the motion of the car fills the gas tank. That makes no sense because we observe our gas guages go down over time.

You have no copper guage to watch with Dr. Ron's study. But the report I saw does.

Besides, I thought all your corals were doing just fine.

 

[Len]

LD50 (Lethal Dosage 50%) is the universal value given for toxicity. I'm actually not referring to any data, which is why I'm questioning how you've come to the conclusions you've arrived at.

Len I actually gave you the numbers but the "it seems reasonable" was speculation.

The reports I have seen gave acute levels in which short one time exposures resulted in the death of the coral. And cronic where long term exposure resulted in such things as slowed growth, reporduction, etc but not death.

I believe .2 ppb or some number with a 2 is considered theraputic to kill ich. So if someone can verify that actual number we could use 50% of that as being very detrimental to our inverts.

Then I could use the above data and do a simple spreadsheet simulation for more precision and realism.

I do feel confident macros can remove sufficient copper. After all hospital tanks must contain no macros or the copper medication is rendered ineffective. But doing the simulation would be interesting.

It's your last assertion (in the last paragraph) that I'm still questioning (both the conclusion and why you're confident with your conclusion despite the lack of data).

Porous rock isn't recommended for hospital tanks. By your rationale, rock is an effective accumulator of Cu and its usage could detoxify one's aquarium. Just as effective are crustaceans since they too aren't recommended for medicated tanks either. Do you see how dangerous it is to put causation where none can be established?

 

[Anonymous]

...
It's your last asseration (in the last paragraph) that I'm still questioning (both the conclusion and why you're confident with your conclusion despite the lack of data).

Porous rock isn't recommended for hospital tanks. By your rationale, rock is an effective accumulator of Cu and its usage could detoxify one's aquarium. Just as effective are crustaceans since they too aren't recommended for medicated tanks either. Do you see how dangerous it is to put causation where none can be established?

Well I do have data to back it up. Just need to run the numbers. So i'll pick some numbers tonight and run them.

Yes porus rock could accumulate copper. but we probably do not want to remove the rocks all the time for export. but as macros also lowered the copper and other toxins levels, the rocks would leach them back into the water column. And by harvesting the macro the toxins are removed. And the overall level of copper and other toxins would go down in the rocks and the water column.

After all macros grow fast and rock doesn't.

 

[Anonymous]

For the data you posted you can not even tell if the copper came from your caulerpa to the water of vice versa.

huh? How could the copper have come from the caulerpa? Please explain...

 

[Anonymous]

You have no copper guage to watch with Dr. Ron's study. But the report I saw does.

I grew Caulerpa racemosa in great quantity.
My water had too much Copper.

Conclusion: Growing Caulerpa racemosa in great quantity did not eliminate enough copper in my system.

The report you saw does nothing. The copper concentrations used are an order of magnitude above what we are dealing with.

Placing a dry sponge that can potentially hold a quart of water in the middle of the kitchen will not cause the relative humidity to drop to zero.

 

[Anonymous]

Besides, I thought all your corals were doing just fine.

My corals react negatively to Coralife Salt mix.

 

[Anonymous]

The data is just not there.

The data is there. You are not allowing yourself to see it.