I messed up!

[Scooterman]

I used some Seachem phosguard & seemed to of burned my Metallic trumpets. They look really bad but after doing two 30g water changes they still look alive just hurt. I started out with half the recommended dosage & two days later added the second half. It was in a sock that I put in a filter sock that the return drains into. Few days later they looked bad.
I tested Nitrites/Nitrates & ammonia with seachem test kits & on the highest reading I get all 0's still before the wc's & after a few days. The water is looking good still after a week & I plan on doing another 30g wc this weekend, the trumpets are partially extending but the damage looks done & that part isn't any different. I had removed the Phosguard after I noticed what was happening but not soon enough. No doubt they will recover but sad I did that. I was getting some algae & was going to run the remover to help clear things up, bad idea they were shocked. My other corals seem ok but polyps aren't extending out as much as before also, I think in time it will all perk up but it just sucks, those metallics were awesome.
On a good note I got an API calcium test kit, this is the simplest I've ever used & still feel confident of the results are close. I ran out of LeMott regents so I use that as a quickie, I may try comparing the two later.

 

[dnjan]

I don't remember which brand is which well enough - Is the Seachem one of the phosphate absorbers based on an aluminum compound?

 

[Boomer]

Yup Don

Aluminum and aluminum-based phosphate binders
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2003/chem.htm

 

[dnjan]

That aluminum can be nasty stuff. Some corals don't mind much, and others ...

 

[Scooterman]

Ahh I see where I got the wrong kind, I guess doing big wc's should help get that back down a safer level. Maybe next time I'll find Rowa available.

 

[soyadrink]

I only used it ones and my tank was cloudy for 3 days!

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

Gotta rinse it real, real, reaaaaaaallllll good. Then you avoid the brown cloud!

 

[Boomer]

Scoot.

I forgot about this statement

Aluminum is acutely toxic to fish {Aquatic Toxicology 31 (1995) 347-356} and invertebrates. Synthetic salts are notorious for containing elevated levels of this element due to impurities found in the chemicals which they are made from. Additionally, many kalkwasser mixes inherently contain substantial amounts of this undesirable component. Aluminum is very difficult to analyze at low levels in the "rich" matrix of seawater. No commercially available kits truly measure the total Aluminum concentration.

The biological effects of excess levels of Aluminum are unclear. Different lifeforms have different levels of tolerance to this potentially toxic component. If elevated levels are found, one can easily change salt mixes or, if possible use natural seawater which contains very low levels of Aluminum.

 

[Scooterman]

Well on a 4th 30g WC today, this stuff just ruined a perfectly great coral, I haven't seen any other side affects yet.

Yesterday I saw a new salt study! I think it doesn't help much in some ways because they went according to weight & we always go by 35ppt as a reference salinity, why does it matter if we add more salt than others, as Long as we get the 35ppt. Therefore I think it should of been tested at 35ppt instead of a determined weight. IMO I may be missing something completely!



http://reefsaltanalysis.googlepages.com/AWT_Salt_Analysis_0208.pdf

 

[Boomer]

Yesterday I saw a new salt study!

Yah, that is our RC chem forum study done by AWT. I was not impressed at all, as were many others but they did do it for free, so hats off to them for that. As Chris said " sloppy, sloppy " They also do not like to take any "real" advice. They completely blew my Bromide request, which they said they could do. They show almost zero in all salts which is nonsense. You would think, being "chemists", that one of them would have thought about spiking the sample, which is quite a common practice. And to throw in a side note AWT is in the same building and owned by AquaMedica who makes a salt but at at least did not test their own salt.

Therefore I think it should of been tested at 35ppt instead of a determined weight. IMO I may be missing something completely!

Yes you are, two thing missed.

1. Weight is done and should be done to see how much water is in the salt, i.e., 35 grams in 965 grams of water and the Salinity ** should = 35 ppt but you measure the salinity and it is only 31 ppt, thus there is 4 ppt water you are paying for

2. The assay they did was misunderstood by many from the way they wrote it. The actual ions measured where all done when all salts were actually at 35 ppt.

 

[Scooterman]

So that is where we get the PPT, 35 parts salt to 1000 parts water or the 965 makes sense.

 

[Boomer]

35 parts salt to 1000 parts water

No

965 parts water to 35 parts salt makes 1000 parts. Or fill up a container to the 965 ml mark and then and 35 grams of salt. BUT it is best to do it like this; fill to the 600 or 700 ml mark, or ??? mark, then add 35 grams of salt. When all the salt is dissolved then fill the the container the rest of the way to the 1000 ml mark with water.

35 / 1000 = 3.5 % = 35 ppt = 35,000 ppm

 

[Scooterman]

Ahh thanks, I forgot to include the salt

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

Therefore I think it should of been tested at 35ppt instead of a determined weight. IMO I may be missing something completely!

Yes you are, two thing missed.

1. Weight is done and should be done to see how much water is in the salt, i.e., 35 grams in 965 grams of water and the Salinity ** should = 35 ppt but you measure the salinity and it is only 31 ppt, thus there is 4 ppt water you are paying for

2. The assay they did was misunderstood by many from the way they wrote it. The actual ions measured where all done when all salts were actually at 35 ppt.

Sorry for the off-topic drift, but a quick question about (2) above...

I understand your comment in (1) and why they tested the way they did... so you could see how much water you were buying. And that's shown in their first chart showing salinity.

But nowhere in the study did I find them saying anything to even hint that the rest of the charts were done with all the samples at 35ppt. I can understand why it was "misunderstood by many..."! Am I missing something, or are you just aware of additional information that wasn't published?

 

[Boomer]

Kurt they dropped us (actually DR.) an e-mail to inform us of that, due to the posts on RC I would assume. It stated, in so many words, that the ion measurements where all done on salts that were normalized to 35 ppt. Only the Salinity and Conductivity gave different salinities due to the weighted 35 grams. At first we all thought as you as it was not stated anywhere, just as you posted. What bother me Chris and Randy is they really say nothing about their methods. And look at some of the odd ball ion levels like the Ca++ in IO I know of no one ever, in the history of IO, that has ever measure Ca++ that high in a sample test, i.e., + 500 ppm

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

Kurt they dropped us (actually DR.) an e-mail to inform us of that, due to the posts on RC I would assume. It stated, in so many words, that the ion measurements where all done on salts that were normalized to 35 ppt. Only the Salinity and Conductivity gave different salinities due to the weighted 35 grams. At first we all thought as you as it was not stated anywhere, just as you posted. What bother me Chris and Randy is they really say nothing about their methods. And look at some of the odd ball ion levels like the Ca++ in IO I know of no one ever, in the history of IO, that has ever measure Ca++ that high in a sample test, i.e., + 500 ppm

Thanks for the info Boomer. It's a shame the didn't put that info in the report - it's just so stinking obvious.

Yeah... there were some odd ball readings in there, and I just chalked it up to normal errors that happen. That's why you normally do more than two samples if you're going to average them.