# Slightly cloudy tank, particulates (I think) - better floss?



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

220G planted freshwater low tech tank with light stock. It's been cycled now since early september, fish are healthy, active, breeding, plants are growing, nitrates are hanging steady at about 5ppm with monthly water changes so there's a nice balance so far.

Substrate is black blasting sand, averaging about 3" thick. 

There are three canister filters running, two SunSun 404B and one Fluval 306 with spraybars, and a moderately strong water flow. 

One issue that doesn't seem to go away is a slight haze in the water. You can see it here near the top with the lights.










It is not a milky color like a bacterial bloom (I've had that early on), it looks more like particulates in the water. I thought it might be air stirred up in the spraybar, so last time I added water I put them completely under, and it didn't change. It also isn't related to doing plant maintenance; haven't dug up or planted anything lately.

I've cleaned the filters, added 200ml of puigen (100ml in each of two), replaced filter media, no change.

I'm using bulk filter media and none of it is really fine, but there's a lot of it (3 trays in each SunSun, about 3" thick in each, fluval with its standard stuff). 

I thought quantity might substitute for a really fine media, but I'm wondering if that is the issue -- do I need a very fine floss as well? 

Or any ideas what else this might be?


----------



## pferris (Aug 19, 2014)

Try purigen


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

pferris said:


> Try purigen


As I mentioned I am using purigen, I added it two weeks ago, no real change (maybe the water is a bit less tinted yellow, maybe not, but the white-ish cloudiness has no change).


----------



## discuspaul (Jul 27, 2010)

Try using filter floss in each of the filters for three weeks or so, replaced with new floss every week on an alternating basis with that in the other filters. 
If that doesn't clear it up, put fine mesh pre-filters on the filter intake tubes, rinsed well every 2nd or 3rd day (Suggest Fluval Edge pre-filters which should fit on the intakes). That in conjunction with the Purigen, should do the job.


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

You might try changing the floss in one filter to Walmart pillow stuffing.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

discuspaul said:


> Try using filter floss in each of the filters for three weeks or so, replaced with new floss every week on an alternating basis with that in the other filters.
> If that doesn't clear it up, put fine mesh pre-filters on the filter intake tubes, rinsed well every 2nd or 3rd day (Suggest Fluval Edge pre-filters which should fit on the intakes). That in conjunction with the Purigen, should do the job.


I have pre-filters now (course sponge pond filters). 

I guess filter floss has to be the answer if it's particulate matter. I have a lot of media but maybe it's not fine enough. Part of the issue may be that I have enough flow that the particulates never settle out in the main tank.



Raymond S. said:


> You might try changing the floss in one filter to Walmart pillow stuffing.


Interesting, I was looking for bulk media and ran across that in numerous places. I'll look into it (well, I'll try a hobby store -- I won't shop at WalMart, I think they are an awful place for so many reasons).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Got Flocculent?*

Hi,

You may wish to try a flocculent.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> You may wish to try a flocculent.


Interesting. That's the first time I ran across that for aquariums. A bit questionable for fish I guess. Will study a bit more. Thanks.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*First Time*

Hi,

Welcome to the hobby!

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## discuspaul (Jul 27, 2010)

Linwood said:


> I have pre-filters now (course sponge pond filters).
> 
> I guess filter floss has to be the answer if it's particulate matter. I have a lot of media but maybe it's not fine enough. Part of the issue may be that I have enough flow that the particulates never settle out in the main tank.
> 
> ...


 Make sure it has no chemical additives, like fire retardant, for example.


----------



## Squrl888 (Oct 3, 2014)

Aren't flocculents very harmful to fish gills? I would do more research before using a flocculent.
You could try getting a Magnum HOT in order to use the micron filter. You can even coat these in diatom powder for finer filtration. Maybe there are other micron/diatom filter options for the filters you already have.


----------



## Silly's_Planted (Nov 3, 2013)

Filter floss is polyfill; which is Wal-Mart pillow/quilt stuffing


----------



## AsSoulsDream (Sep 6, 2014)

Yup I use the pillow stuffing as well. It even cleared the dust out of my wife newly established SW sanded tanked and we didn't rinse the sand because it is live sand


----------



## LynneS22 (Oct 16, 2014)

Linwood said:


> 220G planted freshwater low tech tank with light stock. It's been cycled now since early september, fish are healthy, active, breeding, plants are growing, nitrates are hanging steady at about 5ppm with monthly water changes so there's a nice balance so far.
> 
> Substrate is black blasting sand, averaging about 3" thick.
> 
> ...


Excess phosphates will make your water cloudy too. Try the deep blue phosphate remover pads and see if it goes away. Works in my 100.


----------



## rick dale (Feb 26, 2014)

*haze*

I dont think its a haze. I think it is light , coming from your lights close to your water. If it was a haze it would be everywhere. Your tank looks great to me. I may be wrong though. You definatly need fine floss in at least one of the filters wether its a haze or not.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant (Jul 24, 2014)

Raymond S. said:


> You might try changing the floss in one filter to Walmart pillow stuffing.


+1, I recently started using pillow batting in my canister. Dollar store has pillows for $4, one pillow will last quite a long time


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

rick dale said:


> I dont think its a haze. I think it is light , coming from your lights close to your water. If it was a haze it would be everywhere. Your tank looks great to me. I may be wrong though. You definatly need fine floss in at least one of the filters wether its a haze or not.


Yeah, I'm going around and around on what it is, and have two theories: air in the water, just enough to be lit up near the lights. Maybe. I also think it could be precipitate from some of what I am dosing (iron glut, phosphates, excel). When I get some time I'm going to separate those, and not add them together, but separate in time, and see if it matters (there's a posting on Seachem's site about some of their products together can precipitate).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Like me, Cheap & Easy, but Also Effective*



Squrl888 said:


> Aren't flocculents very harmful to fish gills? I would do more research before using a flocculent.
> You could try getting a Magnum HOT in order to use the micron filter. You can even coat these in diatom powder for finer filtration. Maybe there are other micron/diatom filter options for the filters you already have.


 Hi Squrl888, All,

*{Sorry, about the delay in responding, real life intervened, but provided me some research time.}*

Whatever decision Linwood comes makes is fine, but all effective options, including the _simple_, the _cheap_, should be on the table.

Squrl888, while anything we add or remove can be overdone the use of a flocculent and/or coagulant, within the bounds of reason are cheap and effective… The use of common coagulants is cheaper, perhaps more effective and *less risk* :icon_eek: than the use of filters.

The limiting factor in most coagulants is pH change, beyond pH change, too much coagulant can form gels that could clog gills, but by then the pH change would do the damage.

I get that the retailers and manufacturers know the idea of neutralizing colloidal material so they stick together requires a level of thought. 

It is therefore; easy to develop dogma asserting that since colloidal particles have a negative charge and since fish gills, have a negative charge any attempt to neutralize colloidal particles must damage the fish gills, therefore only expensive devices can safely clear the haze. 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Squrl888, while anything we add or remove can be overdone the use of a flocculent and/or coagulant, within the bounds of reason are cheap and effective… The use of common coagulants is cheaper, perhaps more effective and *less risk* :icon_eek: than the use of filters.


Thanks for the comments, which ring nicely true, except... what risks do you see in a [canister in this case] filter? 

I might see leaks/floods, but risk to the stock? 

I'm cautious, not so much because I don't understand the chemistry (though I am sure I do not fully) or biology (I'm sure I do not much at all), but because my experience is that most problems do not stay the same - they either start to go away on their own, or they get worse. And once worse, it may become more clear what the root cause is. Fixing a problem by treating the symptoms is always less effective than treating the cause.

At the moment mine is still somewhat the same, maybe a bit better, but I'm still in observing mode to see if it changes as a result of any action (water change, water depth relative to spray bars, fertilizers, feeding, etc).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Smoke In the Water*

Hi Linwood,

Flooding and sucking up critters would be the primary risk.

I guess the point I was making is there is risk with everything, particularly if people do not follow basic instructions or use a little common sense.

I suspect in your case you have some “fines” from the blasting sand in the water, yes it could be reactions, it could be organic material what have you. 

In your case, I suspect a couple of cents worth of Alum (Potassium aluminum sulfate dodecahydrate) will solve the problem. You may have to repeat it a time or two, you will probably have to change out floss, I use cheesecloth.

The water will look “smoky” for a bit, by the next day all should be well.

4-grams of KAl(SO₄)₂*12H₂O (Potassium aluminum sulfate dodecahydrate) in 90-ml of distilled water, mix, it may take a few minutes, then add enough distilled water to make 100-ml of solution.

This is a 4% Alum solution in your tank dose about 70-ml of the solution by dribbling or spritzing across the entire tank. This will lower the pH 0.04, you could safely dose 5 times this amount, for your light haze, I doubt you need very much.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Thank you for the formula. I may do it, but still waiting a bit. I keep forgetting to space out the fert dosing, to see if combining them is related (per Seachem's site), though I hope not as that will be a pain.

The bad (or good) news is it seems a bit clearer over time, in which case it may remain a mystery.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Fines*

Hi Linwood,

The clearing is a good indication it is fines, odds are, given enough time it will clear, the fines are simply heavier than water, so between filtration and sedimentation they will settle out.

Use of a coagulant will simply remove the fines quicker and help speed the process that will keep them down. Occasionally fines or colloidal particles are light enough they can stay suspended forever.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

Not trying to argue here, more like thinking out loud. Sand fines are heavier than water. Why is the concentration at the top of the tank? Just showing up more in the higher light?


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Kubla said:


> Not trying to argue here, more like thinking out loud. Sand fines are heavier than water. Why is the concentration at the top of the tank? Just showing up more in the higher light?


Yes, regardless of the source (short of something in layers) it's going to show most under the strongest light.

I'm still unclear. I want to go through one more cycle of the water level dropping. When it does, the spray bars cause more agitation, and I still wonder if I'm seeing lots of air bubbles. There's a fairly strong water circulation to keep it in suspension.

The last couple days it has been getting better, with no change that I can see other than time (though the water was filled back up about a week ago, evaporation cycle takes about 10 days before I add water).


----------



## Squrl888 (Oct 3, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Squrl888, All,
> 
> *{Sorry, about the delay in responding, real life intervened, but provided me some research time.}*
> 
> ...


Hi Joe, thank you for the response. It is an interesting subject. Do you happen to have any proof that the flocculent you mentioned is safe for fish in the concentrations mentioned? I think I'll have to do some research.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Just Curious As to Why Sand Cannot Be In Suspension*



Kubla said:


> Not trying to argue here, more like thinking out loud. Sand fines are heavier than water. Why is the concentration at the top of the tank? Just showing up more in the higher light?


 Hi Kubla, All,

We define “fines” as smaller than 74-microns, still visible and frankly, a sand grain of 74-microns is likely to sink, but fines remain visible to the naked eye down to maybe 45-microns or so, depending on the composition of the sand.

My assumptions,:confused1: for the sake of discussion, based on original post is that the black blasting sand is coal slag. To avoid controversy I will pick a medium weight; which means the largest fines are going to weigh less than 0.9-mg, the density of water at 75°F is 0.997-mg/mm³. Therefore, I would guess that it might take a while for the fines to settle, particularly in an aquarium with reasonable circulation.

If Linwood can take small clean cloths of various colors and see the fines then they are larger than, say 45-microns. My best guess is the light naturally reflects off the particles making them appear to be greater in number toward the surface, though I tend to think they may be well distributed and if the fines are from the blasting sand, may well be in greater numbers deeper. Should there actually be more fines higher up; it simply means they are a lighter material and may have another source.

Under any circumstance, my recommendation remains a coagulant or a flocculent. Perhaps even an oxidizer. :icon_eek: 


Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Why Throw Bricks?*



Squrl888 said:


> Hi Joe, thank you for the response. It is an interesting subject. Do you happen to have any proof that the flocculent you mentioned is safe for fish in the concentrations mentioned? I think I'll have to do some research.


 Hi Squrl888, All,

To be honest you are the one making the charge that flocculants, coagulants, whatever, harm fish gills… Kinda seems to me you should be presenting the evidence… 

Fifty years of using Alum and/or clay to clarify water and I have no idea how long before that, my father and his father were doing this.


Here goes, not a thorough exhaustive search by any means...


Ionic Aluminum would be the most dangerous species of Alum, bioavailability and toxicity of aluminum is generally greatest in acid solutions and generally most toxic over the pH range 4.4 -5.4 Larcombe (1999) with a maximum toxicity around 5.0-5.2 (ANZECC 2000). Considered generally safe in freshwater pH range 6.5 to 9.0 since it is stable. Potassium aluminum sulfate dodecahydrate generally recognized as safe, US Code Title 21, Chapter I, Subchapter B Part 182.1129.

Another point to realize is that metals, Aluminum in this case are significantly less reactive when complexed effectively locked away. This is what happens as the suspended materials coalesce. 



It also is why I always advise starting at a low dosing level with a greater number of lessor applications being preferable to overdosing and allowing the species (Al+++ in this case) to be free.
 
Alum can lower pH, Spry and Weiner (1991) said greater bioaccumulation potential comes not only from the greater aqueous abundance of metals in such waters but also as a result of low concentrations of aqueous calcium increasing the permeability of biological membranes to metals. This emphasizes that the quality and character of the receiving water (e.g. its hardness) can have an important influence on toxicity potential. Part of my general advice on water parameters... Though the religious leaders disagree.


In fact, I find pH change the greatest risk, and the reason I recommend dosing a maximum 0.5-ml 4% Alum per liter of aquarium water.

This is pretty much, top of my head, stuff I can lay my hands on. I know if I spent some time I could find more information. Alum as coagulant has been in use since Roman times, while I am not quite that old the main thing I can say is this is something I have used a lot and honestly, have _never_ seen a problem.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Squrl888 (Oct 3, 2014)

*Proof*

Hi Joe, while I believe that your guidelines for flocculant addition seem to be safe at my glance (although I haven't gone through the math to compare). There is definite proof that flocculants are harmful to fish.



Beim&Beim 1993 said:


> The flocculants affected all water ecosystem components and, especially, protococcal algae, invertebrates and adult fish...Comparative biological activity studies for different types of flocculants (cationic, anionic and nonionic) showed that cationic ones had the most expressed acute and long‐term toxicity...The results indicate flocculants as a new micropoUutant class with high toxicity for water organisms. The control of their residual amounts in effluents discharged into receiving water‐bodies is needed.


http://www.tandfonline.com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/09593339409385420#.VHVfyovF-So



Albassam said:


> Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) of two age groups were exposed to a cationic acrylamide-based
> flocculant at various concentrations in static bioassay chambers. At lethal concentrations the flocculant produced
> severe gill alterations in all fish. The principal alterations were necrosis and separation of the respiratory epithelial
> cells covering secondary lamellae..... Clinicopathological alterations included marked
> ...


http://vet.sagepub.com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/content/24/1/34.full.pdf+html



Biesinger & Stokes said:


> ...the LC/50 of 15 cationic polyelectrolytes varied from 0.09 to greater than 100.00 mg/L.....In microcosms, a cationic polymer caused adverse effects to algae, daphnids, ostracods, and Hyallella. The gills of fathead minnows exposed to a cationic polymer showed a proliferation of the interlamellar cell masses until the lamellae were fused and a layer of epithelium covered the filament. The fish suffocated as a result of cellular response to the polymer.


http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...36&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104659448711


So, cationic flocculants are definitely harmful to all inhabitants of our tanks at certain concentrations. Anionic flocculants were less harmful in these studies.

Anyway, one point I would make with flocculants is that we should have a safe concentration that we can aim for, because over-dosing these can cause harm. You do mention that you think pH change is the bigger worry, but I have attached the table from the study by Albassam, Moore, and Sharma and as you can see there was a pH change of 0.6 between the concentrations of 1mg/L and 0.5mg/L. I wonder what your thoughts are on this. Remember that all the fish in the group that experienced 1mg/L died.
There is not a big enough difference between 0.5mg/L and 1mg/L to feel safe. Although I agree that the type of flocculent and other factors may have big mitigating effects on the toxicity.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Don’t Eat Fruits, Peaches Have Cyanide, Peaches Are a Fruit*

Hi Squrl888, All,


I give up; I was quite specific about the coagulants, specifically hydrolyzed metal ions for our purposes Aluminum and Iron are of interest.

I do not recall ever mentioning high molecular weight cationic polymer emulsion polyacrylamide based flocculent with 35% charge. Give me a break.

You win, you want to throw bricks and talk gibberish… Go ahead.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Squrl888 (Oct 3, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Squrl888, All,
> 
> 
> I give up; I was quite specific about the coagulants, specifically hydrolyzed metal ions for our purposes Aluminum and Iron are of interest.
> ...


Sorry Joe, I am not very well versed in these things. I just looked at cationic flocculants and thought that's what we were talking about.

Didn't want to start a fight. I just remember reading about flocculants being generally not safe from Walstad and another person (I believe a fellow who named himself Dusko on forums). 

I'm not sure how that Alum would work and whether it is generally safe, but I'll take your word for it.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Oh Well...*

Hi Squrl888, All,

Don’t worry about it, I know people have stuff to sell and folks giving simple (not to mention cheap) solutions to common problems is wrong.

Apparently, nothing I say is correct or of value, since I ask nothing for it, I will take my leave.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Apparently, nothing I say is correct or of value, since I ask nothing for it, I will take my leave.
> [/FONT]


Joe, it was educational and of value to me, and I asked the question.

Thank you.


----------



## biotex3 (Oct 1, 2014)

Anyone mention Seachem Clarity? Clarity solves all my hazy problems :hihi:


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*The Sky is Always Falling & I'll Take Your Money*

Hi,

Seachem Clarity Water Clarifier is a manmade polymer, related to the stuff Squrl888 was whining about but made for our aquarium pH ranges, my guess is equivalent to an Iron chloride sulfate, but not a hydrolyzed metal salt and likely more stable and predictable.

The problem here is that with thousands of coagulants and flocculants designed for different purposes it is easy to find something “dangerous,” it is just a stupid game. 

There are a fair number of water clarifiers on the market, they all work, some better for a particular water parameter, but the sky is always falling…

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Well, it cleared up nicely and I would say was completely gone. That despite two days ago a lot of pruning and planting, which added some haze, which was gone quickly.

Today I did a (getting frequent) h2o2 treatment for BBA, some fizz, but afterwards clear.

Then I added today's ferts, which was a busy day (in about 200G): 

20ml Excel Glut equivalent 
20ml Flourish iron
10ml Flourish Phosphate equivalent
(about 10 minutes while I did other things) 
20ml Flourish Potassium
20ml Flourish Comprehensive

And the haze is back. Since I normally do the first three daily, I don't think it is them alone, but some combination of the five things above appear to have created some haze. Reading at Seachem the only note I see is that their iron may cause haze when used with a "phosphate based buffer", I wouldn't think KH2PO4 qualifies.

Interestingly, I keep the 45G on the same schedule at about 1/4 the doses, and it did NOT show up there. The light is significantly lower, and the tank a completely different color (earth tones vs. black sand) so maybe I just do not see it. Water chemistry is about the same in both.

Anyone better at Chemistry than I want to speculate on which, so I can test?

I guess over the next week will see if it cleared up.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Linwood said:


> Well, it cleared up nicely and I would say was completely gone. That despite two days ago a lot of pruning and planting, which added some haze, which was gone quickly.
> 
> Today I did a (getting frequent) h2o2 treatment for BBA, some fizz, but afterwards clear.
> 
> ...



Which glut substitute do you use?.. Some contains surfactants


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Which glut substitute do you use?.. Some contains surfactants


Metrex Metricide (the standard not 28), I did not add the little bottle of stuff to it, and I'm mixing it about 50/50 with water.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Linwood said:


> Metrex Metricide (the standard not 28), I did not add the little bottle of stuff to it, and I'm mixing it about 50/50 with water.


Some Metricide has the surfactant already in it...like you know but.. 
the bottle is an "activator" apparently containing "inorganic phosphate"..
AFAICT this is generally not a surfactant..so there are 2 issues. Activator and surfactant..

That said the Met. 15 doesn't ordinarily contain surfactants..and you didn't use the activator..


----------



## waddo (Jan 24, 2013)

You are dosing a real cocktail of sechem products and worrying about flocculants. Personally I use the ADA step fertilisers which number two at any given time. Also, ADA Cleardash is a flocculant and kills nothing.

Cleardash will clear up your water. Your cocktail may bring it back.

Cheers

Waddo


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

waddo said:


> You are dosing a real cocktail of sechem products and worrying about flocculants. Personally I use the ADA step fertilisers which number two at any given time. Also, ADA Cleardash is a flocculant and kills nothing.
> 
> Cleardash will clear up your water. Your cocktail may bring it back.


Well, I considered dosing with an imaginary cocktail, but it was harder mix. 

More seriously, are you suggesting that I am putting inappropriate things in, or that they should not be dosed at the same time but spread out?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*I Do Not Get It, Alum is Bad, Biocide is Good*



jeffkrol said:


> Some Metricide has the surfactant already in it...like you know but..
> the bottle is an "activator" apparently containing "inorganic phosphate"..
> AFAICT this is generally not a surfactant..so there are 2 issues. Activator and surfactant..
> 
> That said the Met. 15 doesn't ordinarily contain surfactants..and you didn't use the activator..


 Hi jeffkrol, Linwood, All,

Certainly inorganic phosphates can be surfactants, commonly used in fact, I don’t get the silliness around surfactants or for that matter coagulants or flocculants or all kinds of things in our foods, personal care, vitamins and many aspects of our lives. Well, never mind that… Just information…

The “activator,” basically, surfactant and pH buffer to keep the glutaraldehyde an active and effective* ☣ *biocide/microcide after exposure to air, usually in open pans to sanitize/sterilize instruments (think dental tools).

While the exact product formula is proprietary, the activator probably is produced from Phosphoric Acid, disodium salt compound with N, N-Diethylethanamine and Potassium Hydroxide. 

While I do not recommend adding the activator, I doubt that used in the “Excel” dosing rates that the activator mixed in, is going to do any harm.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> While I do not recommend adding the activator, I doubt that used in the “Excel” dosing rates that the activator mixed in, is going to do any harm.
> [/FONT]


And I discarded it and did not add it regardless.

My water level got down below the spraybars today, and I definitely do get some cloudiness from air injection, but once I added water that amount went away, leaving a small amount that I think still came from the ferts. 

Going to see if it goes away over the week and then at the normal time add something separately (still hoping for a clue of the best candidates).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*KH2PO4 Counts*

Hi,

Seeing all the Seachem stuff, I should have asked about pH, temperature and so forth.

Adding Phosphates and iron at the same time can form precipitates. The Seachem warning regarding “phosphate buffers” is, well, clever, yes KH₂PO₄ counts in fact is almost 70% PO₄.

The fact you are treating with H₂O₂ for BBA tends indicates high total organic carbon, cut back on feeding. 

Add 70-ml of 4% Alum and 1.23-grams of KMnO₄, (10-grams KMnO₄ into 990-ml of distilled water, dose123-ml). The water should remain pink for 4-hours, if it turns brown or yellow or fails to remain pink for the full 4-hours, dose another 123-ml of the 1% KMnO₄ solution.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi,
> Seeing all the Seachem stuff, I should have asked about pH, temperature and so forth.
> [/FONT]


Temp is 78 degrees, ph is about 7.6 to 7.8, dKH runs around 6 and dGH runs around 9. 

Ammonia and nitrites are zero of course, nitrates are hanging 5-10 all the time (i.e. the plants seem to be consuming it as fast as it is produced).

Iron, despite heavy glut. FE additions, is undetectable except right after addition. Seachem says it is being absorbed unless there's a white precipitate falling to the bottom (yes I realize this says white, but nothing is falling to the bottom -- I have very black sand and it would be obvious).

As soon as the Seachem iron is gone I'm switching to DPTA 11% mixed to a similar concentration then will measure and aim for 0.1ppm. I realize at this ph the iron glut from Seachem is not lasting long in solution.

Phosphate as of a couple days ago was about 0.5ppm.

Water changes are infrequent, it's been about a month since the last (I usually do about 30% when I do it).

Water is RODI water mixed with acid/alkaline buffer plus equilibrium.



JoeRoun said:


> Adding Phosphates and iron at the same time can form precipitates. The Seachem warning regarding “phosphate buffers” is, well, clever, yes KH₂PO₄ counts in fact is almost 70% PO₄.


Well, I can separate those two, though I do them daily and it doesn't seem an issue, it was only when I also added the potassium and Flourish comprehensive, at least the one data point i have for it.



JoeRoun said:


> Hi,
> The fact you are treating with H₂O₂ for BBA tends indicates high total organic carbon, cut back on feeding.


Feeding fish? Hmmm... I'm pretty careful that very little food hits the bottom, and when it does I have some hungry snails and plecos that get it pretty quickly (what isn't picked up first by angles bottom feeding). In fact I've been adding algae pellets as my plecos looked a bit thin.

Or are you saying I'm feeding the fish too much in general? 



JoeRoun said:


> Hi,
> Add 70-ml of 4% Alum and 1.23-grams of KMnO₄, (10-grams KMnO₄ into 990-ml of distilled water, dose123-ml). The water should remain pink for 4-hours, if it turns brown or yellow or fails to remain pink for the full 4-hours, dose another 123-ml of the 1% KMnO₄ solution.
> [/FONT]


I really need to find some Pottassium Permanganate. I keep hearing it is available at hardware stores, but so far no luck. I may try one more time, then see if I can find a place that will ship. I wanted it as a dip.

But can you elaborate a bit -- what is this doing? Removing excess organics? 

So is this a test to learn something, or a fix for the problem (once), or...?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*My Apologies*



Squrl888 said:


> Sorry Joe, I am not very well versed in these things. I just looked at cationic flocculants and thought that's what we were talking about.
> 
> Didn't want to start a fight. I just remember reading about flocculants being generally not safe from Walstad and another person (I believe a fellow who named himself Dusko on forums).
> 
> I'm not sure how that Alum would work and whether it is generally safe, but I'll take your word for it.


 Hi Squrl888,

I need to apologize, I have really reacted badly, I am sorry.

I do know how confusing these things can be… I will try to do better in the future.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*BBA is Only Trying to Help; No Sustenance, No BBA*

Hi Linwood,

At your pH, iron chelated with DTPA is going to work much better. Iron gluconate essentially falls out within minutes at your pH and temperature. 

To be honest I am unimpressed with the liquid fertilizers anyway, especially when you factor in price. It is not complicated to concoct your own dosing and certainly much less expensive. The main rule is to keep macronutrients and micronutrients separate, dosing on different days is not a bad idea.

As to KMnO₄, Lowes carries Filter-Mate Potassium permanganate for regenerating greensand Iron filters, but you end up buying a couple of centuries supply. It is around $35.00 for 5-pounds, unless you have ponds or lakes, 5-pounds is a lot!

Jungle Clear Water is KMnO₄, though I do not think they list the ingredients, for years I have meant to buy a bottle to find the concentration, I figure it is probably a 3% solution, the recipe I gave you is a 1% solution. So, I think you would be safe using 41-ml Jungle Clear Water to dose your aquarium. Remember to distribute the dose over the entire aquarium. Essentially the KMnO₄ does in a gentler manner what H₂O₂ does, plus removing particulates, doses a little Potassium (~25% of total dose, so ~0.5-ppm K⁺) and provides a colorimetric indicator as to the effectiveness.

Should you overdose KMnO₄ or think you did add de-chlorinator or lemon juice (good de-chloinator) or sodium thiosulfate (good de-chloinator) or Hydrogen peroxide will neutralize it. PP will stain you, your clothes, kids and significant other. Again lemon juice, Hydrogen peroxide, sodium thiosulfate de-chlorinator are good for removing on from the skin or wait 12-24 hours.

Yes, I think you are likely overfeeding the fish it is amazingly easy to do; or somehow failing to remove vegetable matter or perhaps something has died and hasn’t been removed. Any missing pets or kids in the neighborhood? As your tank matures, year, 18-months or so these issues become somewhat less critical…

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> At your pH, iron chelated with DTPA is going to work much better. Iron gluconate essentially falls out within minutes at your pH and temperature.
> 
> To be honest I am unimpressed with the liquid fertilizers anyway, especially when you factor in price. It is not complicated to concoct your own dosing and certainly much less expensive. The main rule is to keep macronutrients and micronutrients separate, dosing on different days is not a bad idea.
> [/FONT]


Thanks, JoeRoun, 

Do you think it's even worth using up what I have? I already have a pound of DTPA ready to mix, but a quart or so of Seachem Iron.

Perhaps more relevant to the topic -- where does the iron gluconate go? Should I be seeing a precipitate visible on the bottom (I don't, not if it's supposed to be white); could that be what is in the water column? 

I've switched away from Seachem generally due to cost, and found dry replacements (+ Metricide) for everything except Comprehensive, and I use so little of that it seemed pointless. I just continue to think of them (and mix them into) the equivilent liquid form as it's easy, and when I tell someone "5ml Seachem Phosphate equivalent" they all know what I mean.



JoeRoun said:


> As to KMnO₄, Lowes carries Filter-Mate Potassium permanganate for regenerating greensand Iron filters, but you end up buying a couple of centuries supply. It is around $35.00 for 5-pounds, unless you have ponds or lakes, 5-pounds is a lot!
> [/FONT]


I had seen that on their web site, and a 2 pound one either there or Home Depot, but no store ever seems to have it, and when I tried to get them to order it they couldn't find it in their system. Sigh.

I see a few places to order online, will try one more hardware store locally then just do that.



JoeRoun said:


> Essentially the KMnO₄ does in a gentler manner what H₂O₂ does, plus removing particulates, doses a little Potassium (~25% of total dose, so ~0.5-ppm K⁺) and provides a colorimetric indicator as to the effectiveness.
> 
> Should you overdose KMnO₄ or think you did add de-chlorinator or lemon juice (good de-chloinator) or sodium thiosulfate (good de-chloinator) or Hydrogen peroxide will neutralize it. PP will stain you, your clothes, kids and significant other. Again lemon juice, Hydrogen peroxide, sodium thiosulfate de-chlorinator are good for removing on from the skin or wait 12-24 hours.
> [/FONT]


Interesting. And in that dose it won't stain things like driftwood or plants or plumbing? 



JoeRoun said:


> Yes, I think you are likely overfeeding the fish it is amazingly easy to do; or somehow failing to remove vegetable matter or perhaps something has died and hasn’t been removed. Any missing pets or kids in the neighborhood? As your tank matures, year, 18-months or so these issues become somewhat less critical…
> [/FONT]


No, unfortunately all pets and kids are (loudly) accounted for. As are all fish. And all the plants are very healthy and growing rapidly (I trim regularly and get handfulls of discards), so no rotting vegetation. 

The one thing that makes me question that I am over-feeding is the snails -- I have a LOT of snails from early in the setup (I actually bred some ramshorns in a separate QT so I'd have some for this tank), but they are not increasing significantly in population, and the small ones are growing very slowly (some contemporaneous ones went to a QT to keep it clean and they got huge in comparison from over-abundant food given to fry). I added a have dozen or so adult MTS and haven't seen one baby (even looking in the middle of the night on the glass). And nitrates are low (almost to the point of needing to add some).

Maybe I'm over-feeding, but the other symptoms aren't there.


----------



## Kathyy (Feb 22, 2010)

When I set up a tank with mostly new stuff the tank water isn't ever perfectly clear. I get whitish water that usually ends up being green water and it is very hard to get rid of. Once the filter media and substrate are mature than I can mess around in the tank as much as I like and the water is crystal clear inside 1/2 hour. Something about a mature bacterial load naturally flocculates the water apparently and I haven't had green water in this tank since I was able to use the same filter, same unwashed substrate and it was quite well planted from day one. The long 180 had serious GW until I increased biological filtration by adding sponges to the sump. I don't know if simply adding the sponges would have gotten rid of GW but it hasn't come back again.

I would assume this is actually green water in its earliest state. I'd be keeping the lighting down, leaving all healthy plant growth in the tank, fertilizing judiciously making sure the plants have what they need and be extremely careful with your filter media.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

I don't think I have green water, as it arose last time almost immediately after dosing; that's too fast for biologic growth I think. Not sure about "new", the tank completed its cycle on 9/12, so it's almost 3 months now. New or old depends on the viewpoint, but I went through the bacterial blooms and diatoms covering everything long ago.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*PP in My Tank, Reduce TOC*

Hi Linwood,

At your pH, I think the Seachem Iron is useless, effectively you are adding a little bit of sugar (dextrose) a little acid and some un-complexed iron that is of little use to your plants, in the near term anyway. I suppose it might be possible to see something on the substrate, but I suspect most ends up in your filter.

As for the Seachem Flourish (Comprehensive), I think CSM+B is a much better and less expensive. Also, the Iron is still Ferrous gluconate.

Some care needs to be taken in mixing things up, phosphates in particular. I know this can be confusing at first. Given your general hardness (GH), you are unlikely to require Calcium or Magnesium; most micronutrients have a little Magnesium, which is plenty anyway. A number of ingredients do not work and play well together (or maybe get along to well) in concentrated form, our dosing mixtures, (technically these are concentrations greater than 0.1M), but do just fine in our aquariums (less than 0.1M). We tend to divide our dosing between macronutrients, Nitrates (NO₃⁻), Potassium (K⁺), Calcium (Ca⁺⁺) Sulfates (SO₄). While Magnesium (Mg⁺⁺) is a macronutrient we include it in the micronutrients to avoid problems. Phosphates (PO₄), are also macronutrients but generally dosed separately (in liquid form).

I really recommend CSM+B as the micronutrients, though I add Iron. Iron is generally the proxy for dosing micronutrients. 0.1-ppm Iron dosed as CSM+B is usually plenty of everything except Iron.

Are you using reverse osmosis deionized (RODI) water exclusively?

Directly into the aquarium the Flourish and comprehensive should not be a problem that less than 0.1M thing.

Feeding fish is a tough and touchy subject. To be completely honest I am an over feeder and a bit of an advocate for it. I would rather deal with a little excess waste than hungry critters or excess predation based on hunger. Now some of this depends on needs and critter compatibility. An indication of excess feeding, assuming no pets or kids are missing, a various forms of undesirable algae (yes, Virginia, there are desirable alga), blooming snail populations and so forth. 

Part of your situation is you have a young tank; partly you are going through a normal phase. The people that sell stuff try (have) convinced folks that the tank cycles once in 4-6 weeks and anything bad happens only ‘cause you are a bad person and need to buy more stuff. There are in fact a number of “cycles” going on and they actually happen in waves, seriously, few systems are truly stable in less than 6-months to a year.

Potassium permanganate (KMnO₄), PP for short is a gift from the heavens, especially for those that do not like to do water changes. I am still an advocate of frequent water changes, but with a little care and PP I have maintain a couple of tanks for years on quarterly water changes, one I went almost 18-months without a major water change (that really was to long).

PP is both a test (measurement) and a fix. 

A little survey I did indicates PP, Filter-Mate Potassium Permanganate, 5-pound is available around here anyway, cheapest at farms supply stores, $26-28, big box $33-38, hardware $38, auto parts $55-57.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> At your pH, I think the Seachem Iron is useless, effectively you are adding a little bit of sugar (dextrose) a little acid and some un-complexed iron that is of little use to your plants, in the near term anyway. I suppose it might be possible to see something on the substrate, but I suspect most ends up in your filter.
> 
> As for the Seachem Flourish (Comprehensive), I think CSM+B is a much better and less expensive. Also, the Iron is still Ferrous gluconate.


Thanks!

OK, I'll go ahead and switch. 

The Seachem did do something - at least in a smaller tank. I was having very transparent jungle val, slow crypt growth, and the swords were growing in almost yellow (darker veins). After I started daily dosing they greened up nicely. But that said I am adding a LOT of iron, so I don't think it can all be used. Can't hurt to give it a try. I'll start dosing with the DPTA and test occasionally and adjust.



JoeRoun said:


> As for the Seachem Flourish (Comprehensive), I think CSM+B is a much better and less expensive. Also, the Iron is still Ferrous gluconate.


Well, better is good. 

At 25ml per week, though Flourish Comprehensive is awfully cheap (I'm using about $0.35). And I also have about a 2 year supply, so is it really that much better to throw it away?:confused1:



JoeRoun said:


> I really recommend CSM+B as the micronutrients, though I add Iron. Iron is generally the proxy for dosing micronutrients. 0.1-ppm Iron dosed as CSM+B is usually plenty of everything except Iron.





JoeRoun said:


> Are you using reverse osmosis deionized (RODI) water exclusively?


Yes. Our local water is very unpredicable, PH is anywhere from about 8.2 to off the scale high, and it has a lot of particulates, something very red (I assume iron, but the local water is RO water also from brackish deep wells, and no clay here... maybe old pipes). 

Anyway, seemed safer to use RODI and know what's in it at any given time. 



JoeRoun said:


> Feeding fish is a tough and touchy subject. To be completely honest I am an over feeder and a bit of an advocate for it. I would rather deal with a little excess waste than hungry critters or excess predation based on hunger. Now some of this depends on needs and critter compatibility. An indication of excess feeding, assuming no pets or kids are missing, a various forms of undesirable algae (yes, Virginia, there are desirable alga), blooming snail populations and so forth.


Yeah, I figure snails and pleco stomachs are a decent indicator. My small tank (with only one pleco, one raphael cat and few snails) are fat, and snails growing fairly rapidly (I have ghost shrimp there who eat the eggs, so there's no population explosion). In the big tank (5 plecos, no (other) catfish, maybe 100 snails mostly small) the plecos are a bit thin, the snails are not growing much at all, and go nuts when I drop in an algae tab. 

But I find feeding extremely confusing. If you read reasonably respectable recommendations, what I understand is: 

- You should definitely feed your fish (near 100%) agreement
- You should feed them somewhere between 2-3 times a day, and 2-3 times a week.
- You should either feed them lots of fresh/live food, or only occasionally, or not at all.

My own plan is watch the secondary indicators (e.g. snails) but over the short term feed them until I see a behavior change, i.e. if there is a mass charge on the food and frantic feeding frenzy, they are hungry. If I find they are more lackadaisical about eating, they are not as hungry -- and I back off a bit. Over a longer term, I want to see them a bit plump but not badly so (well, other than algae eaters, who I think should look visibly a bit fat). 



JoeRoun said:


> Part of your situation is you have a young tank; partly you are going through a normal phase. The people that sell stuff try (have) convinced folks that the tank cycles once in 4-6 weeks and anything bad happens only ‘cause you are a bad person and need to buy more stuff. There are in fact a number of “cycles” going on and they actually happen in waves, seriously, few systems are truly stable in less than 6-months to a year.


I would love to read more about that. My small tank (cycled in July) has started producing far more nitrates over the last month or so than it was before that, despite a reduction of about 30% in number of fish. My gut tells me something happened, and despite more plants and less fish am not absorbing nitrates as fast. 

Any pointers or key words about these ongoing cycles/processes? 



JoeRoun said:


> Potassium permanganate (KMnO₄), PP for short is a gift from the heavens, especially for those that do not like to do water changes. I am still an advocate of frequent water changes, but with a little care and PP I have maintain a couple of tanks for years on quarterly water changes, one I went almost 18-months without a major water change (that really was to long).
> 
> PP is both a test (measurement) and a fix.
> 
> A little survey I did indicates PP, Filter-Mate Potassium Permanganate, 5-pound is available around here anyway, cheapest at farms supply stores, $26-28, big box $33-38, hardware $38, auto parts $55-57.


Fascinating. With all the bad water in Florida you'd think it would be easier. I wonder if the presumption Floridians can't be trusted with it (if you watch the news there's cause for concern :hihi. 

But inspired by your success, I found it at a local water filter place - 5 pounds for $40, not quite as cheap, but no shipping. Local farm supply store (only one) doesn't carry it at all, and the ma and pa hardware stores do not either. Auto parts. Interesting. Not the two chains we have here. I never checked the LFS locally, also sent a note off to them.

But the easiest thing is probably order online. Found one with free shipping for $13/pound.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*RODI Is Just Fine*

Hi Linwood,

Nothing wrong with RO/DI water, I use it myself, I was simply trying to calculate your water parameters, and how you got there. The main thing with RODI, is the need to aerate and add everything yourself; GH and KH seem very good. What are you dosing for KH? Seems you are doing well.:icon_smil

I would definitely add Iron, especially with Cryptocoryne and Echinodorus, they really like Iron and both are root feeders so while they foliar feed, they really like stuff in the substrate. Consider Osmocote Plus or root tabs. I also recommend dosing for 0.3-ppm Iron, maybe higher with the plants you have.:icon_surp

Increasing Nitrates, not dosed, is direct evidence of increased organic material in the water especially in a planted tank where the plants and BBA are consuming ammonium means it is much greater than the increased Nitrates indicate. 



Among the dangers at your pH is that toxic (at least harmful) levels of total ammonia as ammonia could exist below the level hobbyist-test kits can measure (0.16-ppm total ammonia in your case). With Ammonia, there is the acute toxicity everyone fears, but there are long term consequences often subtle, to even low-level chronic exposure.

No, PP at the dosed levels (2-ppm) will not color, will not stain anything, the 20-ppm level for sanitizing nets and stuff, yes, white nets tend to turn brown. :confused1:

Your feeding may be just fine, my only recommendation is variety, par boiled romaine, various greens, zucchini and squashes (raw), peas, raw and par boiled (easy on these they are a laxative. Depending on your fish, a culture or two of Daphnia, Rotifers and some Blackworms. Greenwater can be a real treat as well as food for some of the cultures. Dry food flake and pelletized can be a recipe for constipation.

Anyway, PP is a good idea and significantly reduces the need for water changes.:icon_smil

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Nothing wrong with RO/DI water, I use it myself, I was simply trying to calculate your water parameters, and how you got there. The main thing with RODI, is the need to aerate and add everything yourself; GH and KH seem very good. What are you dosing for KH? Seems you are doing well.:icon_smil
> [/FONT]


Alkaline buffer. For each 5G of water I add 1.25 tsp of Equilibrium, 3/4 tsp of alkaline buffer, and 3/8 tsp acid buffer. Supposedly that hits a 7.0 ph, but I'm finding I run a bit over that consistently once it gets in the tank.

The equilibrium gives me potassium also, so after water changes I skip dosing that for a week.

And of course I don't add anything to top off water.



JoeRoun said:


> I would definitely add Iron, especially with Cryptocoryne and Echinodorus, they really like Iron and both are root feeders so while they foliar feed, they really like stuff in the substrate. Consider Osmocote Plus or root tabs. I also recommend dosing for 0.3-ppm Iron, maybe higher with the plants you have.:icon_surp


I should have mentioned I am using Osmocote+ in gelcaps as root tabs (started with Seachem, moved a few months ago). I also sprinkled a bit of Osmcote under 250# of blasting sand, though I suspect that is long gone.



JoeRoun said:


> Increasing Nitrates, not dosed, is direct evidence of increased organic material in the water especially in a planted tank where the plants and BBA are consuming ammonium means it is much greater than the increased Nitrates indicate.


I don't want to confuse two tanks. The big tank that I originally asked about is low on nitrates, and has always been, measuring about 5ppm, last time maybe 10ppm (hard to read).

It was an older (by 2-3 months) smaller (45G) tank that has had an increase in the rate of growth of nitrates that is a bit curious, and perhaps fodder for a different discussion. It isn't that they increase that surprises me, it's the increase in production rate (despite less stock and more plants) that makes me think something is happening, e.g. as though something were absorbing nitrates that is now "full". But again... not the current subject.



JoeRoun said:


> Among the dangers at your pH is that toxic (at least harmful) levels of total ammonia as ammonia could exist below the level hobbyist-test kits can measure (0.16-ppm total ammonia in your case). With Ammonia, there is the acute toxicity everyone fears, but there are long term consequences often subtle, to even low-level chronic exposure.


I had not heard that. Interesting. But in both tanks I've got lots of filtration media, lots of substrate and plants, and very little stock for the amount of water. I guess I can't prove something I can't test for, but my gut tells me that I've got plenty of ammonia/nitrite processing capacity. And while the nitrate growth rate in the small tank is interesting, it still goes about 3 weeks before it adds 10-15ppm, which I then take out with a WC, so the growth rate is not exactly high.



JoeRoun said:


> No, PP at the dosed levels (2-ppm) will not color, will not stain anything, the 20-ppm level for sanitizing nets and stuff, yes, white nets tend to turn brown. :confused1:





JoeRoun said:


> Your feeding may be just fine, my only recommendation is variety, par boiled romaine, various greens, zucchini and squashes (raw), peas, raw and par boiled (easy on these they are a laxative. Depending on your fish, a culture or two of Daphnia, Rotifers and some Blackworms. Greenwater can be a real treat as well as food for some of the cultures. Dry food flake and pelletized can be a recipe for constipation.


If I cooked all that my wife might think I was becoming a healthy eater myself. :wink:

I've been feeding frozen shrimp and bloodworms as variety which the angels and congo tetras love. I use New Life pelletsm which I hear as pellets go are good. But I take your point in more vegies - especially for the plecos. I tend to forget about them. 

I guess one good indication is the congos and angels are growing well, and the congo color is outstanding, a bright orange on the large ones. So something agrees with them.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Thanks for Humoring Me*

Hi Linwood,

It sounds as though you are doing well; I like to be able to calculate things to make sure nothing is amiss, thanks for humoring me. :hihi:


The thing with food, and yes I know things have come a long way with flake and pelletized foods, is a bit of variety also keeps everyone happy. It is also true the yummy treats cause a little more work the maintenance end as well. :icon_smil


It seems odd the lack of PP in a place that must have rust. In humid places, I would think PP a necessity. :confused1:

The thing to keep in mind about Nitrates resulting from anything other than the addition of salts is that for Nitrate to be produced there had to be at least 22.6% of that existing as ammonium/ammonia (NH₄⁻/NH₃). 

Meaning that 15-ppm NO₃ represents a minimum of 3.39-ppm NH₄⁻/NH₃ and at your pH and temperature that means as much as 0.11-ppm NH₃, granted that is over a period of time, but there is no way to know if it spiked at some point or was absolutely evenly derived. 

Especially given that it is tank with plants and algae that readily consume ammonium, NH₄⁻ so the total ammonia probably was greater than the amount implied by the Nitrate test.

The problem with NH₃ is that it is toxic down to 0.05-ppm (50-part-per-billion), thankfully in freshwater under pH 8.0, under 86F NH₃ is never more than 7.5% of total ammonia.

While acute NH₃ toxicity is relatively easy to spot, even in the crudest post mortem, the long-term effects of NH₃ can be a little more difficult to spot.

If you spend any time on any aquarium discussion website, one cannot help but notice hundreds of desperation posts begging for help in the diagnosing and treating various ailments. 

Excluding posts from Second and Third World posters, easily ⅝ maybe even ⅞ of them are secondary infections, something had to weaken the immune systems of the critters before the ailment could take hold. 

In cases of no physical injury, pH swings and NH₃ are the best candidates and remember the relationship between pH and NH₃ along the NH₄⁻ continuum.

All of that said I still think an occasional dosing, 2-4 times a year, or as needed of a 4% solution of (Potassium) Alum will help keep things clear. The 2-ppm dosing of PP (that is dose until it stays pink for 4-hours) every month to 6-weeks or as needed can help avoid the extra water changes.

I think most of what you are experiencing now really is just the system stabilizing and growing.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Meaning that 15-ppm NO₃ represents a minimum of 3.39-ppm NH₄⁻/NH₃ and at your pH and temperature that means as much as 0.11-ppm NH₃, granted that is over a period of time, but there is no way to know if it spiked at some point or was absolutely evenly derived.
> [/FONT]


I test regularly, but infrequently, for ammonia and nitrites, and never see any detectable on the API liquid tests. My best reason to assume no spike in the middle is that nothing really changes in that tank. But I take your point. Just not sure where to go to find the culprit. If I had to guess, I would say that organics have been building up in the substrate in some fashion, and early the smaller production was more quickly consumed, and now it isn't. I have no clue how long poop and/or food takes to decay completely (gravel + ecco complete). I would have thought days or weeks, not months though. I did not have any substrate-diggers in the tank, and it is hard to vacuum due to all the plants, so I am sure there's a bit of a poop-soup down in the gravel.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Good Practices*

Hi Linwood,

As time goes by the decomposers will become more and more efficient, one of those cycles or waves I mentioned earlier, the system is still developing, still growing. 

The roots of your plants require bacteria and fungus to develop, just as your body requires 10-cells foreign cells for every cell in your body to live, so a similar dynamic is taking place in your tank to allow your plants and critters to survive. 



Among the reasons, we need to be careful about letting the hucksters sell us a toxin for every problem.
 
I really would not mess with the substrate, your system is doing well, a helping hand now and again, water change, PP, cleaning, good fertilizers, good food and in a few months it will seem to need nothing, which itself is a trap. 



When things seem to be taking care of themselves you need to keep the routine, the good practices.
Be in the habit sanitize, sterilize or quarantine,
why growing and/or preparing your own live food is a good idea.

 
Testing with even the most sophisticated methods is only a snapshot or series of snapshots, 



from these snapshots we can infer,
since everything comes from somewhere and ends up somewhere.
 Nothing comes from nothing;
we live in a universe governed by the conservation of energy and matter,
much to the consternation of hucksters and religious leaders.

 
I think hobbyist test kits are great for giving us a feel for what is happening but by the time you register ammonia or nitrites at a level they can detect, damage is done. It is just that life is complex and ultimately it is good practice and maybe a bit of good fortune that makes our systems successful.

As with everything, there is more than one way to be successful.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> [*]Among the reasons, we need to be careful about letting the hucksters sell us a toxin for every problem.


Absolutely. It is one reason I have a medium and large tank, as then things happen slower, and there's time to evaluate if you need something (incidentally why I was reluctant and questioning on the subject of floculants; I'm reluctant and questioning on ANY change.)



JoeRoun said:


> [*]since everything comes from somewhere and ends up somewhere.
> [*] Nothing comes from nothing;
> [*]we live in a universe governed by the conservation of energy and matter,


I guess, though Hawking radiation, and certain types of snails, appear to violate those principles. 



JoeRoun said:


> I think hobbyist test kits are great for giving us a feel for what is happening but by the time you register ammonia or nitrites at a level they can detect, damage is done. It is just that life is complex and ultimately it is good practice and maybe a bit of good fortune that makes our systems successful.


This is the most distressing part of our discussion; I had always been very reassured by the yellow/blue when testing for ammonia and nitrites, felt like "well, at least that part is working". But I guess what I can't fix I need to not worry about.

Incidentally, I ran a full battery of tests and was surprised to find my alkaline buffer lower than expected, it is about 3, half the target; the ph though is still around 7.4-7.6. So my carbonates are going somewhere over time, as the RODI water (which I also tested some already made) is a solid 6.

The RODI water (I had some made) is a solid 6. So speaking of something going somewhere -- is that plant uptake? Should I try in some fashion to replace it? (Increase the hardness of the RODI water on water changes)? interestingly this is true only in the big tank -- the smaller tank is a good solid 6 in the tank.

Or as long as my PH is stable just not worry about the low KH? 

PS. Waiting for PP delivery; switched for last 3 days to DTPA iron vs gluconate but still not registering on the test kit (low range), so will keep dosing daily. Also I am finding out what I was calling BBA may be Staghorn or hair (I started a different thread on that in algae). 

PPS. But as to the original issue of cloudiness, it is going away slowly and almost clear again, so will see what happens when I dose micros. I'm actually thinking I will do it all together again just to make sure that is the cause -- one data point, from the last, does not a trend make.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*First of a Series of Minor Rants Then On to An Observation Or 2*



Linwood said:


> Absolutely. It is one reason I have a medium and large tank, as then things happen slower, and there's time to evaluate if you need something (incidentally why I was reluctant and questioning on the subject of floculants; I'm reluctant and questioning on ANY change.)


 Hi Linwood,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when talking toxins, and folks worrying about them I guess I think a little common sense is in order. 

The difference between food supplements, things we might find in our kitchen cabinets as opposed to organophosphates (pesticides), pharmaceuticals, neurotoxins and medical grade sterilants, sanitizers, biocides is all. 

There is nothing wrong with learning and experimenting, which is why God made mason jars, but gee-whiz, sometimes we start with what we might reasonably understand and infer from every day use.

Alum, can anyone imagine in our litigious, over-regulated society that in the milligram per kilogram (part per million, ppm) range that anything lethal, to any creature, would not come with warnings? 

Grocery stores all over the place sell Alum in the seasoning isle. I cannot find a single listed warning. 

Frankly pH in just about every case tells the tale and turns out to be our limiting factors, even then the pH 0.25 or 0.3 change is conservative since most of our captive bred community fish are sturdy sorts.

So a little perspective, obviously, if it comes with a *☠* or *☣* we wish to take special precautions but pantry items, please, of course, anything can be misused or overused…

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*2nd Mini Rant*



Linwood said:


> I guess, though Hawking radiation, and certain types of snails, appear to violate those principles.


 Hi,

As far as snails and some other common critters often labeled pests, for the most part they are helpers and at the very least useful indicators of water quality. If all of a sudden, we see a snail bloom, or annelids and arthropods for that matter, we usually infer less than desirable water quality, but not toxic conditions. 


I simply do not understand; :confused1: why as first recourse anyone would wish to use toxins, organophosphates or pharmaceuticals, killing who knows what other beneficial creatures may be present, when simple adjustments, non-toxic to water maintenance can control the “pests?” :confused1:

Folks not only introduce toxins or in some cases even dubious courses of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals which may or may not be appropriate to the target, they do so with little consideration for the other beneficial (though often unappreciated) life forms and in the case of the indiscriminately used antibiotics, strengthen some really bad actors. 


To top of all of this, many times while killing certain pests, no consideration is given to the toxins that may be released by the targets, defending themselves or on there demise, many cyanobacteria, come to mind, some of the deadliest neurotoxins 
*☠* on the planet. Sometime just all the dead bacteria are enough to cause water pollution or put a proverbial brick in the guts of our fish.

Could cyanobacteria be made an ally, seen as an indicator and helper, who will happily leave when the threat has passed? :icon_surp

One cannot spend much time on these various forums without noting how many pleas for help are from people that go from one disaster to another… While buying the miracle cures with the reassuring labels.

Most folks do not need to buy the critters, but if I am “hawking” things, okay, household items, low cost/no cost, substitutions, common sense… Guilty, I am, though I make a point to sell or trade nothing, sometimes I give stuff away, but I do not charge for anything. :hihi:

I am not sure what you mean about the radiation, :confused1: but yes, I have written elsewhere about UV-sterilization, as with many things I think UV-light has a role. I am not opposed to the use of toxins or pharmaceuticals, just the spurious use when other simpler, often more effective methods are at hand.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Thanks, JoeRoun, but...



JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but when talking toxins, and folks worrying about them I guess I think a little common sense is in order.
> 
> ...


I hope I did not give offense, but appears I certainly got you charged up. One person's "everyday use" is another person's black magic. I had no idea what Alum was used for until I did some reading; and I knew only enough about PP to recall once having used it in a Chemistry class. 

There are times when haste is required. But when it is not, I think we all benefit from doing our homework, rather than blindly following instructions, no matter whether those instructions come from a stranger or a trusted friend. With a bit of homework the coral snake and the king snake are quite different; without that homework they are not. 

I remember staff at a department I took over once, finally, saying to me "you keep insulting us by asking why we did things the way we did". I was taken aback, as to me understanding the reasons helped me understand the systems and people. I am to this day still unsure why people hate explaining "why", as though it implies "you may be wrong". Maybe it comes from the 3 year old who can ask nothing but "why" for hours at a time having prejudiced us against the question.

Maybe I never got beyond the 3 year old mindset. :icon_twis

I meant no disrespect in saying I like taking the time to do so.



JoeRoun said:


> Grocery stores all over the place sell Alum in the seasoning isle. I cannot find a single listed warning.


Well, I may have to order that online also. I have tried three so far to no avail, including one organic/natural type place that I thought would encourage canning, etc. There's a farmers' market later this week I may find it at also. 

For a state where firearms are almost available in vending machines, they sure seem to keep the chemicals out of reach. 


JoeRoun said:


> So a little perspective, obviously, if it comes with a *☠* or *☣* we wish to take special precautions but pantry items, please, of course, anything can be misused or overused…


Indeed, because a fool once picked up a small push mower and tried to use it as a hedge trimmer, lawn mowers now have so many safety devices they can barely cut grass, and a book of warnings bigger than the engine.



JoeRoun said:


> Hi,
> 
> As far as snails and some other common critters often labeled pests, for the most part they are helpers and at the very least useful indicators of water quality. If all of a sudden, we see a snail bloom, or annelids and arthropods for that matter, we usually infer less than desirable water quality, but not toxic conditions.
> 
> ...


But... but... I haven't. 


JoeRoun said:


> I am not sure what you mean about the radiation, :confused1: but yes, I have written elsewhere about UV-sterilization, as with many things I think UV-light has a role. I am not opposed to the use of toxins or pharmaceuticals, just the spurious use when other simpler, often more effective methods are at hand.


I'm sorry, it was a poorly aimed physics pun with aquarium flavor.

You had mentioned conservation of matter and energy, as well as something like "everything comes from something". 

Hawking radiation is somewhat counter example. The idea is that virtual particles and their anti-particle are being created all the time, e.g. a +1 and -1 so net zero, and indeed they immediately cancel each other out. No violation of conservation. But if such a particle pair comes into being at the event horizon of a black hole, only one half may fall into the gravity well, leaving the un-canceled pair to escape, seeming to create a particle out of nothing (since in a sense the black hole is not actually in this universe, or at least can't inter-operate with it). 

So in a sense it creates something from nothing. (Hawking then goes on to show how it actually comes from the mass of the black hole, which will slowly evaporate due to it). 

As I sad, bad and obscure joke. The snails were similar -- so often people swear "there is no where this snail could come from but it's here".


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Ammonia is the #1 Killer of Our Critters*

Hi Linwood, 
I apologize for running my rants in your thread; they are actually a general sense I have. I have been encouraged to leave TPT, so when I have finished a few odds-and-ends, this is one, I shall depart… Just kind of giving my point of view. :confused1:

I actually appreciate your questions, generalizing is my part, add a in a little feeling bad and I miss some obvious humor, sorry. :redface:

Though your example of a small push mower used as a hedge trimmer, is rather my point, the mower is and was inherently dangerous, especially when used for a purpose not intended by the maker. This could be analogous to the use of 
☣ glutaraldehyde; we can and do, use it for a purpose not foreseen by the makers, but as we do, we have to be aware that it is inherently dangerous not just to the critters, but to the user as well.



Linwood said:


> This is the most distressing part of our discussion; I had always been very reassured by the yellow/blue when testing for ammonia and nitrites, felt like "well, at least that part is working". But I guess what I can't fix I need to not worry about.


 
Indeed Ammonia is brutal, it is my sense :icon_surp and I think there is reasonable research that says ammonia is the number one, without a close second, killer of aquatic critters in closed environments.

We are fortunate that at our pH ranges Ammonia (NH₃) the toxic part of total Ammonia is a small fraction. We are also lucky that our plants (and dare I say, algae) mitigate total Ammonia. 

Most Ammonia is present in our water simply because of life, part of the normal degrading (putrefaction) of nitrogenous organic matter, the un-ionized ammonia NH₃, the ionized ammonia, ammonium NH₄⁻ and OH⁻ exist in a chemical equilibrium dependent on temperature. 

Another way of looking at is NH₄⁻/NH₃ are a conjugate pair with the un-ionized percentage being a function of pH and temperature. 

Since you mention yellow and green, I will assume you are using Sodium salicylate test for total ammonia with something like an API Ammonia test kit. Salicylate test means no interference from products such as AmQuel type products hydroxymethanesulfonic acid, CH₄O₄S (HSMA). 

Harmless Sodium thiosulfate, Na₂S₂O₃, de-chlorinators, as Seachem Prime are the only real interference, giving a possible false positive. Since a 0.1% Sodium thiosulfate requires only about .05-ml per 0.3-ppm chlorine, Sodium thiosulfate is usually grossly overdosed so we should wait 24-hours after its use to test the water.

The need hobbyist test kits have to be safe, means they sacrifice accuracy particularly on the low end, though we still need to be careful as they still require a caustic, usually Sodium hydroxide, NaOH (lye) or Potassium hydroxide, KOH.

For those folk with a single bottle or a tablet, yielding an amber solution, this is Nessler's reagent, 0.09 mol/L solution of Potassium tetraiodomercurate(II) (K ₂[HgI₄]) in 2.5 mol/L Potassium hydroxide, KOH, with a spectrometer we can read down to 0.02-ppm Ammonia with reasonable confidence. HSMA and Sodium thiosulfate as well as iron are interferences. 

As with any of our basic tests water should never be taken from the surface ¼ to ½ way down is good, in an area of good flow. Rinse the test tubes in distilled water then rinse 2-or-3-times in the water to be tested. Anyone testing Phosphates this is critical. 

Bottom line is any ammonia detected by a hobbyist test kits are usually an indication of something gone amiss.

Pure water and pH up next… :hihi:

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> I apologize for running my rants in your thread; they are actually a general sense I have. I have been encouraged to leave TPT, so when I have finished a few odds-and-ends, this is one, I shall depart… Just kind of giving my point of view. :confused1:
> 
> I actually appreciate your questions, generalizing is my part, add a in a little feeling bad and I miss some obvious humor, sorry. :redface:


Well, I for one hope you do not, or at least leave a pointer as to where you'll hang out, as you have what appear to be real chemistry understanding to contribute as opposed to rehashed postings from other forums.



JoeRoun said:


> Since you mention yellow and green, I will assume you are using Sodium salicylate test for total ammonia with something like an API Ammonia test kit. Salicylate test means no interference from products such as AmQuel type products hydroxymethanesulfonic acid, CH₄O₄S (HSMA).
> ....
> The need hobbyist test kits have to be safe, means they sacrifice accuracy particularly on the low end, though we still need to be careful as they still require a caustic, usually Sodium hydroxide, NaOH (lye) or Potassium hydroxide, KOH.
> ...
> For those folk with a single bottle or a tablet, yielding an amber solution, this is Nessler's reagent, 0.09 mol/L solution of Potassium tetraiodomercurate(II) (K ₂[HgI₄]) in 2.5 mol/L Potassium hydroxide, KOH, with a spectrometer we can read down to 0.02-ppm Ammonia with reasonable confidence. HSMA and Sodium thiosulfate as well as iron are interferences.


I am using RODI water so am not using anything like prime
Do you have any idea how low of a reading one with decent eyes (but no electronics) can detect ammonia using the API test?

This actually brings up an unrelated question (well, related in the sense of knowing about available tests)... I want to test for very low levels of chlorine, much lower than in tap water.

Rather than blindly change carbon at 6 months, which may be either too long or too brief, I'd like to compare input water to waste water and when I start seeing chlorine then switch. I assume that means down in the small fraction of a ppm? 

All the chlorine tests in stores seem to be accurate maybe to 0.5, or 1.0.

Anything (reasonably cheap) that would do it? Or a way to enhance the existing tests?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Read & Follow Instuctions*

Hi Linwood,

I was going to say that hobbyist ammonia kits, Salicylate test (API style) are good to about 0.2-ppm, but I just realized I cannot remember why I think that :redface: so I will have to do a little research. :icon_roll

Generally, the limitation on most of these test kits (hobbyist) are there general nature and unwillingness to allow caustic or acidic enough materials to give a complete answer.

*I am also going to say as a guy who has spent a fortune on test equipment, calibration and training to use and possibly understand the results… 
*
*I am absolutely convinced that test kits are generally unnecessary. 
*​*With the exception of pH and temperature, most do not really do anything observation, including sense of smell and touch cannot tell us.*

I think the real value of test kits for the beginner or person who has decided to get serious is in learning routine and coming to understand what it is they are seeing, smelling and feeling (touching).

The most important part of any testing process is doing it *correctly and precisely* every time. 

Understanding what it is you are testing, understanding and following the test procedures, each step. 



Cleaning the test equipment, wash and rinse, _*then*_ rinse with distilled water (RO, RODI is fine).
 It may sound strange, but where you collect the water to be tested is important, it may be important to collect samples from multiple locations.
Keeping a journal is a good idea, especially when testing multiple locations.
Rinse the container several times in the water to be tested.
Many of these tests are some variation on titration, which means precision in the volumes tested and reagents added are important.
If you are using a marked container, test tube for instance fill to the indicated level until the liquid is flat with the lines, ignore the little bit up or down the side (meniscus).

Take care adding drops,
center the bottle, dropper or pipette in the test tube
so the drops do not role down the sides,
this helps keep the volume of the drops consistent.

Add exactly the amount required. :confused1: :hihi:
If the instructions say invert, the contents a number of times
make sure the test tube is covered,
make sure you follow that exactly,
similarly if it says shake or
invert the test tube (or for that matter the reagent bottle) for a certain amount of time make sure you do that as well.
There may be granules you cannot see that must be broken down and/or dispersed.

Obey all times. :wink:
 
As you do these test be aware of how your water aquarium looks, smells, feels (rub a little between your thumb and forefinger). Most people can come to understand within a reasonable range pH by feel, hint,:smile: higher pH is slicker, lower is stickier. Organics and overall water quality by smell. Observation of plants and critters can and if you let it, tell you just about everything you need to know about your system.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Excellent advice, brings back chemistry class memories (I remember more of the lab than the theory by far).

I'd add to the "invert" section "Don't cover with your thumb as it may change the result". 



JoeRoun said:


> I am absolutely convinced that test kits are generally unnecessary.


Yeah, but I'm an engineer, and if I can't measure it I am never quite sure if it exists. :confused1:

I think there are two ways to use testing. One is to think you can test everything and let the results determine your next step. So test PH, it's gone up two points, so buy "PH Down" or something similar and add it. 

The other is to use it as an extension of your eyes, nose and fingers. Your examples are perfect - using testing allows one to validate what we are seeing and smelling. It can confirm for example, if we think something changed. 

I'll give an example from my other hobby, photography. When doing post processing on images, assuming a quality, calibrated monitor, one should be able to get the right white balance by eye. But sometimes -- especially after staring at images for hours -- you need some feedback. You need to see "real" white in a shot, so you shoot a grey (i.e. white) card. Or maybe (though I don't have one) you use a color meter.

The more you do it, the better you get, the less "test" with a calibrated color card. 

But our senses are sensors just like any other -- they need periodic calibration and feedback.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Well, I'm back to square one. I was a bit late adding micro nutrients, but I added all the ferts today at one time as I did last time and.... nothing. Stayed nice and clear.

So I'm not sure what is periodically causing the cloudiness. At the moment it's fine (maybe a touch of yellow that seems to be from the switching from gluconate iron to dtpa iron, but clear).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Chlorine Stuff*

Hi Linwood,

I do not know that I can be much help with the Chlorine; again, I depend on Hach photometric, the stuff, DPD (N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine) in phosphate buffer, I use is reliable for total chlorine to 0.02, I am pretty sure they can do better than that. 



In the olden days, the days of my misspent youth in various 3rd-world “resorts,” I used starch & Iodide, it is a wonder we survived! (A bigger wonder people left it to me to figure the breakpoint to keep the water safe.) 

Actually, you may be surprised what the folks at Hach or Cole-Palmer can do for you in the $55.00-$70.00 range. If you are looking to protect membranes, it may be worth it. I would advise you simply call Hach they are very helpful. The other thing I really like about Hach is that if you are patient and persistent they put a lot of information out there.

Current Technology of Chlorine Analysis for Water and Wastewater Technical Information Series — Booklet No.17 by Danial L. Harp http://www.hach.com/cms-portals/hach_com/cms/documents/pdf/LIT/L7019-ChlorineAnalysis.pdf from Hach may give you more than you ever wanted to know.

Same goes for CHLORINATION, CHLORAMINATION AND CHLORINE MEASUREMENT By Terry L. Engelhardt, Application Development Manager, Drinking Water Vadim B. Malkov, PhD, Product Applications Manager, Process Instrumentation, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=oIPRw8GQk4AjPSudme_aKQ&bvm=bv.81456516,d.cGU 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Square One Give Me A Break--Now For A Little pH Work*

Hi Linwood,

I do not think you are back at square one I think much has been learned, the system is maturing and I think we are, I am anyway, close to understanding your system.

Just to be sure, I understand, you use reverse osmosis then deionized water (RODI) that you filter from your tap that comes from the city RO plant; is that correct? 

I also gather you run the water to your home through an activated charcoal filter; is that correct? It is also a good idea since in tropical areas they run maximum residual chlorine.

How do you determine pH? 

Now for some measuring, 



three containers of approximately the same volume,
two need clean, inert lids, pint mason jars are nice for this,
but volume and type are not critical.
 
Mark the containers 1, 2 and 3; container 3 does not require a lid.
Fill the containers ~½ full with RODI directly from the filter.
Measure and note the pH and temperature immediately.
If you normally check TDS, resistance or conductance do so and note.
 
Let all three containers sit for 30-minutes, undisturbed.
Measure and note the pH and temperature.
 
With as little disturbance as possible cap container 1 and
place it in a refrigerator
(the idea is to store for 24-hours with the temperature under 6°C (43°F) and
as little disturbance as possible.
 
Place the cap on container 2 and shake vigorously for 30-seconds,
remove the cap and swirl for 10-seconds,
replace the cap and shake vigorously for 30-seconds,
remove the cap, swirl for 10-seconds,
 
let container 2 set uncapped for 30 minutes.
Measure and note the pH and temperature of container 2 and 3.
If you normally check TDS, resistance or conductance do so and note.
 
Set containers 2 (uncapped) and 3 where they will be undisturbed for 24-hours.
23-hours later gently remove container 1 from the refrigerator.
Let stand capped for 1-hour.
 
After an hour place the cap on container 2 and
shake vigorously for 30-seconds,
remove the cap and swirl for 10-seconds,
replace the cap and shake vigorously for 30-seconds,
remove the cap, swirl for 10-seconds,
 
let container 2 set uncapped for 30 minutes.
Uncap container 1,
For all 3 containers
measure and note the pH and temperature.
If you normally check TDS, resistance or conductance do so and note.
 
 
If you wish to be thorough, the same test for tap water, if your tap water is through a water softener, then also water that is not through the water softener as well. With tap water run the tap for a few minutes before filling the containers.

Be so kind as to report your results.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Just to be sure, I understand, you use reverse osmosis then deionized water (RODI) that you filter from your tap that comes from the city RO plant; is that correct?
> 
> I also gather you run the water to your home through an activated charcoal filter; is that correct? It is also a good idea since in tropical areas they run maximum residual chlorine.
> 
> How do you determine pH?


Ah... an experiment. A blind experiment as I have no idea what you're after.

Yes, RODI water. I have a sediment filter first, then a 5u carbon block, then a 1u carbon block, then a 75gpd membrane, then a DI filter using Spectrapure media (the overall set is a no-brand-name). 

I take tap water directly from the city water, there is no water softener. 

I am using the API Master liquid test kit for PH. 



JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> [*]Fill the containers ~½ full with RODI directly from the filter.
> [*]Measure and note the pH and temperature immediately.


So... you mean before any remineralization. I know I generally get wacky ph readings using that kit on RODI water, at least when it is fresh. I always assumed it was lack of any buffering and/or not having reached equilibrium with the air's CO2, but never really worried about it.

But I can do as you suggest; just let me know if I should do it in any special way.



JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> If you wish to be thorough, the same test for tap water, if your tap water is through a water softener, then also water that is not through the water softener as well. With tap water run the tap for a few minutes before filling the containers.


I can do that as well, though am curious - I thought to some extent (at least as regards things affecting ph) that once through the RODI process there was essentially nothing left in the tap water that mattered, so not quite sure what the tap water will tell us. But I have a bunch of unused mason jars, and I think I can afford an extra pint of water expense.

Anyway... I'm accumulating water now for a water change, so it's a good time. I'll go get started.

It's either that or keep painting the stand, and I'm tired of painting.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Pure Water at 25C, 77F is pH 7.0*

Hi Linwood,

I took the liberty of checking on your tap water and suffice it to say, filtering the water into the house is in my opinion, a very good idea.:hihi: Actually, I think it is a good idea for just about everyone. 

Definitely do not add anything to the water. I do not understand your pH and disappearing carbonates, I can think of three possibilities and it may be overkill but this gets the possibilities out of the way.

I like Spectrapure a great Arizona company, just on the other side of the valley from me.:wink:

You are correct there should be RODI should remove just about everything from the water, which is at least part of the reason for my confusion. :confused1:



Do you happen to know your water pressure?
Are you using a booster pump to feed the filter?
Do you have inline TDS meter(s)?
If so can you tell me what it/they read?

:icon_smil
Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I took the liberty of checking on your tap water and suffice it to say, filtering the water into the house is in my opinion, a very good idea.:hihi: Actually, I think it is a good idea for just about everyone.


Yeah... our water is safe, clean, pure... according to the politicians. And I trust them completely.



JoeRoun said:


> Do you happen to know your water pressure?
> Are you using a booster pump to feed the filter?
> Do you have inline TDS meter(s)?
> If so can you tell me what it/they read?





When I bought the no-name RODI filter I modified it to have pressure guages before and after the first 3 filters (sediment + 2xcarbon). Input water pressure runs from 60-75 psi, and pressure drop (as of this morning) is about 5psi when the waste water is wide open flushing (which is when it should be the biggest drop). 

No booster with that pressure.

I also have a tap where I can measure TDS with a handheld meter (HM Digital AP-1 AquaPro), which was calibrated on receipt to a 342ppm solution. It reads zero on distilled water (bought some to check) as well as RODI water. I wanted handheld as opposed to the common in-line which were not temperature corrected, as far as I can tell.

My first DI media was color changing; just as it had faded mostly out the TDS meter began to read 1 then 2, so as a loose indicator it does seem to appropriately indicate increasing TDS, though exactly how accurate it is in the 0-2ppm range I have no way to tell.

The current media is new, non-color changing (which I find lasts longer), changed just before I started this accumulation run, and reads a steady 0 on the meter.

TDS of input water is about 370ppm, TDS after the RO membrane is 9-13ppm.

Note I set this up for manual flush -- the way I use it is as follows (In case you have advice): 

- Open waste line and flush for about 10 minutes (DI output closed, RO output open), 

- Close waste line to approximate 4:1 flow - wait another 5-10 minutes

- Measure RO output water TDS, it starts around 30 immediately after flush and works its way down to the low teens, then...

- Close RO output, open DI output.

When I changed media I waited a while dumping the output, but most times I just immediately use the DI output, which consistently tests zero (or if not I change something). 

My DI water goes into buckets or a 65G storage tank where I mix with Equilibrium, Acid Buffer and Alkaline buffer. There's always some Equilibrium that won't dissolve, but I mix it for anywhere from 5 minutes to a few hours (for the storage tank) with a pond pump dropped into the water.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Safe*

Hi Linwood,

I understand legally safe drinking water…:icon_roll But, disinfection by products (DBP)…:icon_eek: I wonder what happens to free chlorine in hot water… Shower, bath, anyone…

Your process seems sound.:smile:

I am a pressure gauge type, I figure all this in and out TDS is simply because TDS meters are cheap. 

Good water pressure, to be honest anything under 60-psi (4.1-bar) is inefficient, I know everyone claims there membranes are good down to 45-psi (2.1-bar) or so, but if you are not close to 4.1-bar, well… :confused1:

I am curious about the Acid Buffer and Alkaline buffer ratio you are using. Do you know which one is not fully dissolving? My guess is the acid buffer (how can an acid be a “buffer”) is potassium or sodium bisulfates or some such, keep meaning to buy some and see if I can figure it out. 

The Alkaline buffer (that is a “buffer”), based on the label information, available online is fancy baking soda, mostly sodium bicarbonate, some potassium bicarbonate, a little magnesium bicarbonate, and no doubt a number of other “trace” bicarbonates. The advantage over baking soda is probably little less Sodium ions and some beneficial ions.

I always advise at least an hour of mixing (aeration) RO water prior to use.

The pump in the storage container is a good idea. Just to be clear you are not using any air stones or other device, aside from the pond pump.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I am curious about the Acid Buffer and Alkaline buffer ratio you are using. Do you know which one is not fully dissolving? My guess is the acid buffer (how can an acid be a “buffer”) is potassium or sodium bisulfates or some such, keep meaning to buy some and see if I can figure it out.


I must have not been clear -- it's Equilibrium that won't dissolve. The Acid and Alkaline buffers dissolve almost immediately. The Equilibrium leaves a paste which can be stirred manually and mostly goes away but there's always some bit that remains, plus something from it that looks a bit like charcoal. Seachem on their site acknowledges it and just says ignore it.  

http://www.seachem.com/support/forums/showthread.php?t=7146



JoeRoun said:


> The pump in the storage container is a good idea. Just to be clear you are not using any air stones or other device, aside from the pond pump.


Correct. I don't use air pumps except once when I was trying to raise angel fry; spraybars on canister output is nice and quiet more subtle.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Gh & kh*

Hi Linwood,

You were clear enough about the Equilibrium, sometimes what passes for my brain just misses a bit. :hihi:


I am still interested in the ratio and amounts of the acid and alkaline buffers as well as the Equilibrium.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I am still interested in the ratio and amounts of the acid and alkaline buffers as well as the Equilibrium.


I've tried to interpret their instructions (and asked them once also) and think I have it right, and built it into a spreadsheet. 

I aim for a 7.0 ph, dJH=6, dGH=5

For 5 gallons this translates into:

Alkaline buffer: 0.86 tsp
Acid buffer: 0.43 tsp
Equilibrium: 1.25 tsp 

They say that the ratio for acid/alkaline is 1:2 (for ph=7) by volume, not by weight. And indeed when I first mixed a large quantity I did it by weight thinking it was more accurate, and came up way off.

They also say that the Acid buffer reduces dKH slightly (0.6 degrees for each "dose") so the calculation is built to increase alkalinity more than dKH=6 from their instructions to offset the acid being added (should you try doing the math).

For conversion I'm using 7 grams of Alkalinity for 1 tsp, and 2 grams for 0.25 tsp for acid, taken from their documentation. One day when I get some time I need to weigh it out and see how close it is -- in fact I'll try to do it today before I mix the 65G storage container. The math is driven from the weight of alkalinity to the volume of it to the volume of acid, so if the densities are off it won't work.

The Equilibrium is calculated in isolation, I am assuming it is not affecting the dKH and vice versa, probably not completely correct, but consistent with Seachem's documentation also.

I've taken readings after mixing, and the ph is not very stable, I get from 6.8 to about 7.6 from similarly mixed batches (usually 5G at a time), my presumption it varies based on temp and aeration, as I rarely let it sit a long time. Both tanks however settle down at 7.4-7.6 so it is landing a bit higher than intended, whether from bad math or affected by something in the tank (the substrate and stone is pretty inert in both, and both have big pieces of driftwood, so I would expect it to fall not increase over time from both wood and biology).

The small tank lands about dead on for dKH and a bit high on dGH probably from dosing and miscellaneous stuff. The large tank's dKH actually falls over time, so this time I plan to add a bit more dKH, maybe aim for 9 instead of 5 in what I'm mixing up (about 1/3rd WC).

More than you wanted to know.

Will post the results of the overnight water dance in a couple hours.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Interestingly I measured the density of the Seachem chemicals, by taking 1/2 cup level (not packed) and weighing it, and got a bit different from their instructions, e.g. .189 tsp/g for alkaline vs 0.1429, and .150 vs .125 for acid.

This leads to substantially more alkaline buffer than I had been using (1.13 tsp/5 gal vs. 0.86), which may account for the lower dKH in the big tank (though why the difference in the small tank I don't know). 

Again, since it was confusing (to me), Seachem told me to do the Alkalinity by weight not volume, but then do the ratio to get the right ph by volume of both not weight. I guess making it easier for most consumers to get the ratio since most won't have scales (or take the time for them).

Anyway... 

Hopefully this will be readable, I've attached a screen shot of the spreadsheet with the results from your test. I'm not quite sure what you expected to see, so you'll have to tell me if it tracked. From my read it appears #2 absorbed more CO2 and was more acidic (though not significant on the API chart, but visually so) after shaking, and all 3 absorbed enough to be pretty firmly more acidic (6.0) after 24 hours. 

Maybe there's more useful info there in your read of them?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Highly Classified Method to the Madness*

Hi Linwood,

The volume and weight thing is because the dosing is based on molar mass, grams per mole (6.0022 X 10²³; of anything is a mole). For instance, 84.01 grams of baking soda molecules is a mole of NaHCO₃, so if a neighbor comes to your door and asks to borrow a mole of baking soda,  well you know that is crazy; and throw the 6.2-moles of water left in your cup, in their face and tell ‘em to get lost. :eek5: 

Now since you are interested in raising the KH, you are wanting the HCO₃⁻ portion. Since the “*strength*” of water is great enough to separate Sodium from its ionic bond with Hydrogen carbonate. 

We subtract the Sodium (Na⁺) portion 22.99-g/mol, leaving us with 61.02-g/mol HCO₃⁻. In other words, baking soda contains about 72.6% of what we want. 

Now to confuse us a little more, we state KH in terms of Calcium carbonate, Ca CO₃. Oh my!

Seachem goes to some lengths to avoid telling folks what they are actually putting in the water, but since it is confusing to begin with, confusing folks is not difficult.

*Now forget all of that.*  

You did well, interpreting the instructions, I was trying to include some “what ifs” so we did not have to keep repeating essentially the same tests. Since your RO filter is working well and your process is good we can move along. :bounce: 

The stand out result is still the pH and disappearing KH. 

The disappearing KH is consistent with your reported pH and I certainly have come to find your observations and attention to detail reliable. :icon_cool

Let me also repeat something I know I have said a couple of times, what is going on with your aquarium and/or water is an _*interesting anomaly*_, interesting enough that it keeps what passes for my brain engaged. I appreciate this. :smile:

At the same time, I want to say I do not think you have anything that even rises to the level of a problem, the *fuzzy* water, a small bit of _disappearing_ bicarbonates will certainly right themselves in time and neither are pose a threat in a well-maintained aquarium. :smile:

The pH anomaly would be nice to explain and may have a little potential to be a problem, though I doubt it.

I know I get a little; shall we say over focused sometimes.:confused1: Soooo… If I become too big a pain, let me know.

Real life keeps interrupting… :icon_frow I’ll be back after shock therapy… :icon_redf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Joe, I haven't read carefully the above (was out yesterday most of today and busy this morning) but as part of changing the large tank water today, I did careful tests of the new RODI water I mixed up.

I aimed at getting about dKH of 9 just to give a jump start and get back to 5-6 overall. Strangely I ended up at 12, and I do not see how if Seachem's forumla is right; I used 7 tablespoons of Alkaline buffer in 65 Gallons of water. I did the dKH test twice and got 12 (maybe 11.5).

But that still won't be a problem with the tank at 3, aiming to come up to 6 with a 30% change +/-. I'll add it slow.

I did end up pretty close to a 7.0 PH with a 2:1 ratio as expected of Alkaline: Acid buffers, with a 24 hour mix.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Acid as Acid Buffer?*

Hi Linwood,

When setting the level of anything, Alkalinity for instance, we need to sneak up on it. 

As a rule starting with half to three quarters of the calculated amounts and then allowing time for the solution to find equilibrium before adding more, and then, once again half to three quarters of the estimated amounts and so on. Depending on your need for accuracy and precision, this can be tedious. See Hofstadter's law. 


I do not know the formula of Alkalinity buffer, but another factor when dealing with baking soda or any hygroscopic compound, is the humidity, how long the stuff is sitting around, how quickly recapped after use and so no. 

With baking soda (bicarbonates in general), you can spread them out on a nonreactive surface and put them in the oven for an hour or so at 65°C (150°F), be careful not to get beyond 75°C as you will drive off the CO2 and end up with washing soda.

I will also confess I have not gotten my mind around the use of an acid buffer (full disclosure: truthfully, I may be missing something here) and an Alkalinity buffer. 

I do not even understand the term “buffer” as applied to Seachem Acid Buffer that seems, based on Sachem’s information, to be a weak (though still ≥1M) sulfuric acid, I suppose it could be hydrochloric, if you happen to have a little Barium chloride on hand you could find out in minutes. 

The other thing we need to account for is keeping the pH change in the tank under 0.3, that is about 3-dKH. 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Sorry, been on the run all day doing the water change, and at the same time doing a badly needed prune, making and putting in new root tabs (Osmocote+) and a few other things, and now have to leave for the evening. A quick update then tomorrow will review what you said more carefully.

The water added at about 7.0 ph and 12 dKH shouldn't be too huge of a change at about 30%. At least I hope not. I'll test the water tomorrow after it mixes and aerates well, but my guess is I'll end up about 7.5 or so (since it's a log decrease) and dKH of about 5-7 again (I assume it's a proportional decrease). 

Guess. I'll measure and find out tomorrow. 

The Seachem forumla as best I can tell is as follows: 

- Pick a target dKH first
- Add alkaline buffer to reach the dKH (by weight)
- Pick a ph, and look up the ratio (2:1 for ph=7)
- Add acid in the indicated ratio by volume
- EXCEPT the acid buffer reduces dKH by 0.6 per "dose", so adjust accordingly by increasing Alkaline buffer.

It's from cranking those numbers that I got the figures I did, though I may not have done it correctly, and they are not all that clear about the weight vs volume aspect (but they in email explicitly told me the ratio is by volume).

I don't have any Barium Chloride around unless it's in household stuff under another name. I'm still waiting on PP, and have only found Alum in little 1.9 oz spice sizes, but will get that when the PP comes in. Haven't forgotten that test, its somewhere in transit.

Though at this point with all the disturbances the tank needs a couple days to settle and clear back up anyway.

And to the .-2 post yes, I realize there is no problem that must be solved, but it's part of education, so I'm enjoying the research if you are.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Need to Work This Out...*

Hi Linwood,

I kinda thought you might not have Barium chloride, :icon_eek: handy stuff for finding negative anions or x-raying your innards, but definitely not a kitchen pantry item, :icon_redf Barium nitrate would work… :icon_cool


Your arithmetic seems correct from the Seachem point of view, I am just taking a bit of time because I realized I do not understand their rationale or chemistry. :icon_redf



Calculating the milliequivalents of solute per liter isn’t difficult it is figuring out why… The whole acid “buffer” that is an acid alludes me… 

Could be the Thorazine drip after the multiple shock therapy I suppose… If only I could undo the straps and get the IV out of my arm… 


Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Your arithmetic seems correct from the Seachem point of view, I am just taking a bit of time because I realized I do not understand their rationale or chemistry. :icon_redf
> 
> Calculating the milliequivalents of solute per liter isn’t difficult it is figuring out why… The whole acid “buffer” that is an acid alludes me…
> 
> Could be the Thorazine drip after the multiple shock therapy I suppose… If only I could undo the straps and get the IV out of my arm…


Well, Joe, it baffles me even more now.

First - you are making this much too hard. Get a fertilizer dosing machine to dispense the Thorazine (and I think you can get a dry form and mix it yourself), and just get rid of any GFCI breaker and scrape off some insulation on your heater. No need of all this brand name stuff for some good old ECT. 

But back to the tank -- to refresh - my water was about dKH 3 (maybe edging toward 2), and ph of about 7.6-. 

I added 65G of water (to 220 less "stuff" so maybe 200G) which I measured after 24 hours of stiring (with minimal air -- just a 6" diameter opening in the tank top) at slightly under 7.0 PH and dKH of about 11.

And.... (drum roll...) after about 16 hours of circulation I have dKH of 7. That's a bit higher than I aimed, but darn close especially since I was higher than intended on the new water.

And... ph is reading 8.0. What the heck... 

Which brings me back to this whole Acid Buffer concept. I added a lot of Alkaline buffer, so not surprising it went up in that sense, but the "acid buffer" pulled it back in the water-to-mix. So by adding lower PH water to higher PH water, I get higher still.

Makes me wonder if the Acid Buffer is really a lot like that PH Down or adding acids - a temporary reduction that later goes back into equilibrium (not the product) back at the higher PH anyway. 

Which would, of course, explain why over these past few months I keep adding water near ph of 7, and my tank keeps staying at mid 7's. Now by adding more alkaline buffer I end up even higher (hopefully to come down).

That's actually a pretty scary jump in terms of the stock in the tank, but they are all looking happy this morning. I guess I could have found some dead fish from a .5 ph change.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Big 7, Little 2*

Hi Linwood,

A single pH swing moderately greater than 0.3 is not usually lethal to community critters, in particularly those that have been captive bred.

I may be getting a bit technical here so, please forgive me, my email is telling me others are reading this and I am attempting to incorporate some answers to questions raised.

The general practice to maintain pH swings below 0.25-0.3 is based on our ability to observe weaknesses induced in critters, the closed system. As with anything, that makes our critters (or systems) weaker the results depend on other factors that may not be observed for some time. 

In a healthy, well-maintained system, I would not expect a single pH swing of 0.5 to cause any significant problem(s). As with lethality studies, the results, usually mitigated, though sometimes exacerbated by the real life circumstance, and are rarely precise models.

Another point to keep in mind is that pH is a _notational unit_ used to give a sense of the acid-base relationship, pH and the relative neutral point is a function of temperature. The results are always in terms of dynamic equilibrium (an oxymoron in other contexts). The results are based on the “big 7” ions (Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, Na⁺ (the cations),HCO₃⁻, Cl⁻ and SO₄²⁻ (the anions)) and being an aqueous solution the “little 2” (H⁺ and OH⁻), due to the dissociation of water. Not simply concerned with “the thing” in which, we are interested.

I do not wish to become too involved with this here, I will write more on this wherever (whoever is unfortunate enough and willing, to allow me to post after my surgery.

For what it is worth I think I get the Seachem acid, alkaline buffer thing, I will break down and purchase some of each to confirm or refute my understanding.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Surgery - wow, hope all goes well.

I just checked the ph and it's still 8.0 or a bit more. Sigh. Seachem is not my friend!


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Dilution is the Solution to Pollution*

Hi Linwood,

I think I will be able to give you simple, cheap alternatives to Seachem, I understand they have to make products for a general audience, but gee whiz…

At this point, I recommend a 20-gallon water change using well aerated RODI water (no additives).

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I think I will be able to give you simple, cheap alternatives to Seachem, I understand they have to make products for a general audience, but gee whiz…
> 
> At this point, I recommend a 20-gallon water change using well aerated RODI water (no additives).


Well, these last a long time actually, but what I want is to know the right forumlae.

20 gallons? Just 10%? 

That's easy, obviously. You expect that to affect the ph significantly? I don't think I have an actual problem with the PH, everything is alive and happy - but it's higher than I wanted.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*It Is A Dynamic Equilibrium Thing*

Hi Linwood,

I am not so concerned about pH 8 as I am about the climb. 

I think ultimately the buffering is what is important and I think replacing somewhere on the 20-40 gallons of aquarium water with RODI water will even things out for now. 

20-gallons is the maximum I would do at any time, actually I would do it 10-gallons at a time with at least 12-hours between changes.

I am rather conservative, perhaps overly so.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I am not so concerned about pH 8 as I am about the climb.
> 
> I think ultimately the buffering is what is important and I think replacing somewhere on the 20-40 gallons of aquarium water with RODI water will even things out for now.
> 
> ...


Well, the climb has happened, I doubt it will do more harm staying there. But I can do 20 at a time, twice, easily. When I get a few-- it's been a perfect storm of all sorts of other distractions lately.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Well I Now Know More About Coal Slag Blasting Sanding*

Hi Linwood,

While I am not sure, exactly what your “black blasting sand” is, and I had speculated the black blasting sand was coal slag. I had used coal slag some years ago and thought I might have some around I was wrong. 

A couple weeks ago, I bought a bag of black diamond blasting abrasive, $8 for 50-pounds, not bad. I thought I had purchased “medium mesh,” turned out it was “fine mesh,” which had I properly read the bag I would have seen. 

Anyway, I was amazed by how clean it was and by how hard the granules, the bag says >6-Mohs. Apparently, fine mesh means 0.25 to 0.5-millimeter granule size, my #60 mesh (0.5-mm) retained much of it and everything went through my #30 mesh (~<0.6-mm). As a note, I only have”+” #18, 30, 60, 200, 270 and 400 mesh sieves.

I had estimated that a 74-µm coal slag particle, the largest size we call a “fine,” also the size to pass through a +#200 mesh would weigh something like 0.9-mg ⁱ, that should have read something like 6.6-µg. This is based on calculation using ASTM E1861-97ⁱⁱ, using average density of medium–density, low free-crystalline silica (<0.1%), coal slag.

I smashed granules with a hammer to simulate dust and stuff.

I then sieved them with a +#200 mesh and kept anything retained by the +#270 mesh sieve so I had particles from about 53-µm to 74-µm. I then dumped small quantities into containers with a variety water ranging from RODI to kind of crappy. 

All waters containers cleared within a couple of hours. I was also able to observe what appeared to be all of the fines (nice thing about coal slag) at the bottom of the containers. To be honest this is pretty much as expected with the easily visible fines.

I really wish I had a sieve between #270 and #400 mesh.

Anyway, I did a dozen samples with various water quality with stuff that passed through the +#270 mesh and stayed in the +#400 mesh. 

Now a moment of honesty, getting stuff through the #400 mesh is a serious pain, and I did not really try that hard. All I can say in this try, is really fines 52-µm and smaller with some 36µm and smaller stuff filtered out, I probably should not have bothered with the #400 mesh at all.

What I can say is that visible particles fell out of suspension quite quickly (hours); I estimate them to be down to 45-µm, or so. 

What was quite interestingⁱⁱⁱ, the gradient that began forming in most of the containers. 

The bottom line is that 15-days a 700-ml of RODI water in a liter container is still hazy, I wish I had thought to cover it, as 220-ml or so has evaporated (it has by our standards been humid here).

It is obvious that water from aquariums seem to retain more stuff in suspension. That low dose 4% Alum and low dose 4% Ferric sulfate nonahydrate clear the particles quickly. Also, make it obvious the particles are in suspension.

Interestingly I found that ferrous gluconate had the same effect. Confession my ferrous gluconate is homemade, but when dosed at 0.25 to 1-ppm it reacted to form a haze. Dosed as a 4% solution it was only a bit less effective than 4% Ferric sulfate nonahydrate as a coagulant in water pH 7.2 or higher. 

The amount of organic carbon in the water seems to lessen haziness from the suspended material and quicken the removal from suspension, that sort of surprised me.

The use of Potassium permanganate removed the particles in suspension as a function of organic carbon in the water. PP was totally ineffective in RODI and sediment/carbon filtered water, marginally effective in high quality aquarium water and as the water became crappier the effectiveness of PP increased.

I guess this is a long way of saying my best guess is you did not thoroughly rinse the blasting sand. :hihi:

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB 
ⁱI am not sure what 0.9-mg, even means, must be the drugs…
ⁱⁱ ASTM E1861-97. Standard Guide for Use of Coal Combustion By-Products in Structural Fills, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Out-of-date, I know, but what I have available, and I seriously doubt there has been a major change in density characteristics. 
ⁱⁱⁱInteresting to me anyway, though this is probably only indicative of my lack of a life.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I guess this is a long way of saying my best guess is you did not thoroughly rinse the blasting sand. :hihi:


Will re-read this a few times but... maybe.

I did try hard, however, but not so scientifically. 

I did buy a bag of fine the first time, and found it much too fine and did not use it. I bought medium.

What I did was extremely high tech; I'm not sure I can explain it here without tensor calculus, but I'll try. :hihi:










All 300 pounds went into a plastic swimming pool with a hose, the whole thing at about a 10 degree angle +/-. Water running full blast I just let it wash, moving the hose around and turning it over and over with the shovel. 

This went on all afternoon until what came out of it ran clean. 

I'm sure some remained, but....










That's testing the filters the same day I was filling the tank, and...










While hardly crystal clear, it really didn't put any haze in.

However, a few days later, struggling with high ammonia levels (in a fishless cycle, I somehow got too much in), I tried putting some ammo chips into a spare HOB filter, started it up, and....










Instant cloud. This eventually settled out somewhere, but whatever dust was on those chips are in the tank, I guess. Somewhere.

All that said -- when I do pruning or moving things around, I do get some cloudiness. I expect that. It goes away pretty rapidly (at least within a day). I did a lot of work recently, disturbed a lot of sand, and the next day crystal clear. in fact I haven't had the cloudiness I originally started this about, lately.

I haven't had enough contiguous time to change out the 20 G of water either. Maybe this evening if not tomorrow (was photographing a swim meet most of the day). 

I did receive the Potassium permanganate yesterday, still waiting on a pound of alum I also ordered, so have yet to try your experiment of o-so-many notes ago. But I also need it to get the original cloudiness back first! (Why am I wishing that.  )



JoeRoun said:


> The bottom line is that 15-days a 700-ml of RODI water in a liter container is still hazy


That's really surprising. And you're sure it is from the blasting sand? And I got lost somewhere in there -- is that from all portions of the sand, or some you filtered out (only)?

I still have about 30-50# of the sand left in a container, after I washed it, that I didn't put in the tank (in case I needed to fill in some valleys). So to test this I would just get a liter or so in a glass jar, pour in a couple inches, and let it stand? I think I'd find in a day or two it would be totally clear, though (do you just measure turbidity by eye, or are you doing something more fancy)?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*I Think You Have Done Well, That Is Why God Made Alum*

Hi Linwood,

I do have a turbidity meter, but I didn’t use it.

In this case I was looking at this more from a relative (subjective) standard, so my attempts to see the particles was by use of lighting and coagulants.

I have been surprised with the amount of rinsing that some materials require. Honestly, it surprised me, how clean the blasting sand seemed compared to other sands I use. 

There is also an inherent unfairness with this test in that I used a hammer and anvil to crush the granules, then added much more per liter, gallon whatever than you would.

The point is that the “haze” you are seeing, assuming I am right (and I have that bad habit), is caused by less than 0.000141-ounce of material out of what, 250 to 270-pounds of sand.

My principle measuring “tool” was 4% Alum; I figure the remaining particulates in suspension amount to perhaps 4-ppm maximum, meaning maybe 2.83-mg. Of course it is also possible other things, the bricks, what-have-you could be adding some particulates.

The pictures you provide fairly closely match what I saw from the 52-µm and smaller try.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> My principle measuring “tool” was 4% Alum; I figure the remaining particulates in suspension amount to perhaps 4-ppm maximum, meaning maybe 2.83-mg. Of course it is also possible other things, the bricks, what-have-you could be adding some particulates.


The "bricks" are cut quartz/quartzite, pressure washed hard, and tested with HCl to make sure it has no carbonates.

But there's plenty of other possibilities.

So you'are still suggesting the alum + pp from a ways back?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Vitrified Glass Matrix Alumina-silicate*

Hi Linwood,

I think the Alum in this case, I really do not think organic material is playing much of a part in this.

I am only trying to reproduce the perceived problem from the original post. I really thought it was going to be multi faceted, the blasting sand rather surprised me, I think it is quite straight forward, unlike the pH thing.:icon_surp 

It is normal over time for well-maintained aquarium water to become clearer and overcome, settle out, particulate matter. Folks that use ferrous gluconate (hydrolyzed metal ions) tend to coagulate colloidal material, including vitrified glass matrix alumina-silicate.

Among the wonderful attributes of coal slag is that even when busted up the vitrified glass matrix alumina-silicate is an exceptional silica free sand (less diatom, brown algae problems). On top of it all, you are using a recycled material.:icon_smil

The other part to understand is that just because you cannot see the particulates, does not mean they are not there. 

Sometimes when people use hydrolyzed metal ions, like Seachem iron, they suddenly see smoke or haze. Simply particulates coagulating.

One reason people, _who do not know about Alum_, use diatomaceous earth filters and are amazed that even nice looking water seems polished is because they are removing particles too small to see, but in numbers so large, they seem to “thicken” the water.:confused1:

Overtime, particularly with the use of coagulants, particulates, whatever their source tend to settle and become less easily disturbed.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Haze or No Haze That is the... Well...*



Linwood said:


> T
> But there's plenty of other possibilities.


 Hi Linwood,

Ultimately, the source doesn’t matter. I confess that until I started messing with the blasting sand I thought it a lot more complex situation. If there are particulates causing a haze and you do not want the haze, filtering beyond the ability of floss, or coagulant/flocculants are going to be the reasonable answers. I prefer doing things on the cheap with minimum complexity I like Alum for this. 

All kidding aside, leaving it alone is an option, eventually I think it will go away, but if you look at enough aquariums or pictures of aquariums you will see a lot of haze, many do not mind it. 

The next option is my favorite, I like clear, polished looking water, that is just me, Alum, the potassium variety, but in our quantities, I doubt the grocery store ammonium version is harmful.

The next is micron level filtration and there are a number of options, heck, you have an RODI filter that with a pump would do just fine. The realistic option for most with less than a few thousand gallons is a diatomaceous earth filter as that which Magnum makes, I have had them and like them.

I think it overkill and an extra level of complexity, expense and potential problems, but these days they really are not that expensive.

On to the pH thing… :hihi:


Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*I Still Enjoyed Finding Out About Coal Slag*

Hi Linwood,

Well… I know I said onto pH… However…

Okay, I didn’t know about the Ammo Chips… I have never used them but I assume they are primarily zeolite, aluminosilicates.

I have Zeolite; crushed some up and got particulates in solution. Zeolite is a lot lighter than coal slag. 

Okay, could be zeolite, no change in the recommended mitigation.
:hihi:
Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Okay, I didn’t know about the Ammo Chips… I have never used them but I assume they are primarily zeolite, aluminosilicates.
> 
> I have Zeolite; crushed some up and got particulates in solution. Zeolite is a lot lighter than coal slag.
> 
> ...


Well, the chips are gone. Tried them for two days, no change in ammonia, got rid of them. I had them inside a HOB, but the dust from them obviously went into the tank. That was in the very, very early days when dosing ammonia. 

Could be still dust there.

However, I think I'm going to be on a side tangent for a while. I just found out BOTH tanks have Camallanus worms. I noticed it in a pleco, did some reading, and now see it in two angel fish, and found one more pleco with a pretty bloated stomach (could be gravid I guess, but the angels are for certain). 

So off to find de-worming. Waiting for the Alum. I may do the PP treatment anyway when it comes in, with separate timing, as the oxidizing from the PP might actually help with the other lifecycle stages in the water.

There's just no end to the excitement.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Bloat ⇒ Constipation ⇒ Got Poop?*

HI Linwood,

Are you sure, it is Camillanus worms as they can be difficult to detect? Significantly, you did not use the magic words that most associate with them. Direct visualization is the only way to diagnose Camillanus worms

If it is Camillanus worms then fenbendazole, levamisole, and praziquantel are your only choices, technically there is no treatment; these drugs or combination thereof actually paralyze the worms so they release the fish and 12-24 hours later you vacuum them up from the substrate. Requires three treatments a week apart.

Bloated stomachs can be a number of things with the most likely being constipation. Your fish have been stressed and I advise caution on these toxic or pharmaceutical treatments until you are sure of the diagnosis.

For the moment, I would discontinue any dried food (flakes, pellets, freeze dried). 

Feed them peas (fresh or frozen), some par boiled, some raw (smashed). Unless you are growing algae, Nori (海苔) (sushi red algae), from the grocery store, soaked, well hydrated. Par boiled and raw spinach, romaine, and curly lettuces. 

If you can get them, live Daphnia, copepods and rotifers (you really should be culturing these), if not then frozen, soaked in water first. 

40-teaspoons of Epsom salts to start, wait a day and if you are not noticing, healthy poops and reduction in bloat another 40-teaspoon in 24-hours.

To the zeolite, anything that got into the aquarium is still there, whether that or some combination is the cause of the haziness I really do not know. It will take me another couple of weeks to test the possibilities, bit ultimately, the three options are still the same, I suppose the forth is in play but I recommend the PP anyway. Remember the haze requires very little of whatever.

Good luck.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Are you sure, it is Camillanus worms as they can be difficult to detect? Significantly, you did not use the magic words that most associate with them. Direct visualization is the only way to diagnose Camillanus worms
> 
> If it is Camillanus worms then fenbendazole, levamisole, and praziquantel are your only choices, technically there is no treatment; these drugs or combination thereof actually paralyze the worms so they release the fish and 12-24 hours later you vacuum them up from the substrate. Requires three treatments a week apart.



Pretty sure. I put some photos in the tank thread of three different fish: 

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?p=7121042&postcount=155

What I read (here) was twice three weeks apart as opposed to three times one week apart? Though that was specific to levamisole hcl, but in reading that seemed most successful, followed by Fenbendazole except that requires getting it to be eaten and I have a bunch of algae eaters. Something to dose in water seems much more likely to get a consistent dosing.

The vacuum and water change is going to be tough - lots of plants and i can't make and store 200G of water. I'm hoping that much like ich with heat the vacuum part is something of a feel good aspect.

Been reading about all the failures at treating. It's bad enough to make me think about just sterilizing the tanks and starting all over. Of course since, due to the long time before infestation and visibility I have no idea where they came from, so it could all just happen again.

I guess in the future prophylactic dewormer may be a good idea in QT.

So not worrying about the cloudiness right now, going out to see if any local stores have something, and order online at the same time to see which I can get sooner. It's not exactly farm country here but going to hit a couple of feed stores as levamisole hcl appears available (and cheaper) in livestock anthelmintics.

Love advice on the subject of course (though maybe over in the other thread so not to derail this chemistry one too much).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*That Would Be Direct Visualization*

Hi Linwood,

Yeah, that would be the direct visualization that is the only way to diagnose Camillanus worms, most folks use the magic words in the description was the only reason I mentioned the other. Many of these parasites are about and 

I have successfully treated Camillanus worms with fenbendazole mixed in gelatin and food. There may be better treatments available.

Follow the directions given, I guess, I will look further, my books and experience are what they are.

Certainly buying from livestock or avian stores is going to be less expensive and probably better availability.

I apologize for not knowing about the other thread; I get my confusion about what you had or didn’t have, you probably thought I was smart enough to look around the site.

I am fading out of TPT, I promised not to get involved in other areas, and I have made a couple of minor exceptions, for “quick answers.”

Good luck.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Yeah, that would be the direct visualization that is the only way to diagnose Camillanus worms, most folks use the magic words in the description was the only reason I mentioned the other. Many of these parasites are about and
> 
> I have successfully treated Camillanus worms with fenbendazole mixed in gelatin and food. There may be better treatments available.
> 
> ...


Joe, I keep hoping you'll reconsider or tell me where you make your new conversational home.

I went to the best LFS locally and they gave me PraziPro, but now on reading I see it is not effective against any nematodes. I've got levamisole hcl on order but my guess is Monday at best. I have been looking for fenbendazole but haven't seen any, heading to another site that has more foods (there's a Jungle variety of medicated with it in it already I think). but concerned about getting that dosed well as I have so many different eaters in the tank - from congo tetras to four different types of catfish. 

Off now to see also if I can find the levamisole hcl at a feed store. Can't really check over the phone as they don't know the chemical name, and apparently it's available as many different brands.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Panacur or Safe-Guard puppy de-wormer*

Hi Linwood,

Look for fenbendazole in dog de-wormers, I am pretty sure Safe-Guard, I am sure it is available under a number of different labels, farm animals, this is a staple, I have Panacur. I think they are all 22.2% fenbendazole.

I have used praziquantel, an extremely safe medicine, but I do not think it is very effective against Camillanus worms. D-Worm Combo (Pyrantel Pamoate/Praziquantel), though I have heard otherwise from reputable folk.

One of the things I like about fenbendazole is that very little is actually absorbed in the critters system. The same may be true for Levamisole, which I know is effective against Camillanus worms.

The down side to all of them are they do not actually kill the adult (what you see hanging out are the adults, it also does nothing to the eggs, so even if it seems as though everyone is better, three treatments. 

Fenbendazole and Levamisole paralyze the worms, I think they both act in the same way, then most of the worms die off, though vacuuming the substrate thoroughly is a good (I think required) idea within 24-hours.

I do not think the critters you have will have a hard time with the fenbendazole in gelatin with their food.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Joe, trying to get back to the chemistry. Was pulling apart filters to remote purigen and while there I went ahead and removed 20G of water and am filling with RODI. 

Before I did, I redid the tests, and .... (that's a drum roll)... 

PH was down to 7.8 (it was pretty firmly 8.0 or a tad more before, and may be a tad under 7.8 now). Not sure it matters but this was with the lights off for a siesta. 

The dKH was down to 6, maybe 6.5 (it wasn't bright at 6 drops but was definitely turned), having been firmly 7 eight days ago. dGH was about 8, which is the same as 8 days ago.

So the dKH is dropping slightly, the ph is dropping slightly, so the trends are right. 

I'll go ahead and replace the 20G removed (plus about 5-10 it needs for evaporation) and see where it lands in a day or two.

This is all presuming the dewormers are not affecting any of this, which I assume but do not know.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*NaSO₄⦁H₂O*

Hi Linwood,

No the de-wormer stuff should not affect pH.

With the pH declining, in spite of evaporative loss, if you haven’t added the RODI water yet just add 10-gallons plus evaporative loss. If you already added the 20-gallons, I do not think it should be a problem.

I would advise you to stop using the Seachem Acid Buffer (what a misleading name:confused1.

Seachem Acid Buffer is as I thought, simply bisulfates. No fancy chemistry, says so on the label.:hihi: I have not had much time to mess with it. There may be some combination of bisulfate salts, but it looks to be principally sodium bisulfate, and seems to be a monohydrate. Based on a quick flame test, did not see any potassium, only Sodium. 

It appears 9⅓-grams Seachem Acid Buffer equals 1-ml of 32% muriatic acid (32% HCl). I cannot see any buffering quality at all. 

9⅓-grams Seachem Acid Buffer adds ~6.5-grams sulfate (SO₄²⁻) and ~1.6-grams Sodium (Na⁺), as opposed to 1-ml 32% muriatic acid that adds 0.3-gram chloride (Cl ⁻).

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> With the pH declining, in spite of evaporative loss, if you haven’t added the RODI water yet just add 10-gallons plus evaporative loss. If you already added the 20-gallons, I do not think it should be a problem.


Too late.

Though this is really tweaking I think not significant.



JoeRoun said:


> I would advise you to stop using the Seachem Acid Buffer (what a misleading name:confused1.
> 
> Seachem Acid Buffer is as I thought, simply bisulfates. No fancy chemistry, says so on the label.:hihi: I have not had much time to mess with it. There may be some combination of bisulfate salts, but it looks to be principally sodium bisulfate, and seems to be a monohydrate. Based on a quick flame test, did not see any potassium, only Sodium.
> 
> ...


So... this is where I wish I had paid more attention in chemistry... 

Let me start with the goal - to get adequate dKH while maintaining a reasonably low ph.

What I've read about most acid treatments for too-high ph is a mixed bag. Some seem to be just temporary, some (hcl). I had previously poured over this article and after a bit of experimentation with both hcl and vinegar with mixed results ... well, that's when I switched to RODI water, thinking Seachem and a bit of math (because they promised) would fix me.

So in a low tech tank (which I presume as an estimate co2 saturation is somewhere near atmosphere -- I have a lot of agitation at the surface).. is there a fixed relationship between ph and dKH? 

Or, asked another way... how do I mix my RODI to target a specific ph? 

Which brings around in a full circle almost: I am targeting a specific dKH (5-6 range) because reading a lot led me to think that was a good range for community fish and snails, with a dGH a bit higher. But I don't have a good feel for how important that particular dKH, especially for things like snails.

And... do you think then that Seachem is selling snake oil, but selling the Alkaline+Acid buffer combination in ratio to target a specific ph? That's very clearly how they position it -- pick you dKA, then add acid "buffer" to hit a ph.

Bump: [Postscript] should google first -- I see charts (e.g. here) for dKH and ph, so there does appear to be a fixed relationship. Just need to look up atmosphere equilibrium and see where that comes. Working... (well, after breakfast).


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

OK, so let me see if I have this right. 

There's a mathematical relationship between ph, dKH and co2 (and temperature I think) though I've yet to find anything but some calculators. The relationship varies based on the chemistry (e.g. calcium vs phosphates, etc.). I found this calculator (though I have no idea if it is correct), however it seems consistent with this table  at 68 degrees (by trial and error). 

So... if I take the calculator as gospel, then, my readings last night (ph=7.8, dKH=6, T=78F) I get co2 of 2.4ppm. I don't have a test kit to confirm, but using that as an indication of the agitation/etc in my tank and keeping it constant, it would appear that all other things being equal to get a ph of 7.4 I would need to be down about dKJ=2.5.

I assume one can tweak this chart with different chemistry, but I'm am after a particular dKH and PH only in the sense of finding a healthy middle ground for the community tank. 

So maybe the answer to that is at ph=7.8 and dKH=6, and just use alkaline buffer to keep it there, with no acid "buffer"?

And keep the general hardness up around 6-9 so the snails and shrimp have a good environment for their health? 

The alternative would appear to involve CO2 injection (absent other chemistry variations).

Am I on the right track?

PS. I should add that I'm using excel (well, glut equivalent) and assume that is not contributing to ph change at all despite introducing carbon.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Kh as a Part of Alkalinity*

Hi Linwood,

RODI waters advantage is that you have (for practical purposes) absolute control of your water parameters.

RODI waters disadvantage is that you have (for practical purposes) absolute control of your water parameters.

I have to say I do not understand Seachem’s reason for the combination of Acid Buffer(?) and Alkaline Buffer. This would be no different than telling you to use sulfuric acid (bisulfate is ‘dry’ sulfuric acid) and baking soda (Alkaline Buffer is baking soda).

Carbonate hardness (KH) is a subset of Alkalinity. 

The CO₂ chart you reference is from CO₂ = 3 X dKH X 10^(7-pH) and is derived from the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation, existing under Brønsted-Lowry theory of acids and bases . 

This has led many to think they can raise the CO₂ level and magically hold it by adding hydrochloric acid (HCl). 

The chart is accurate for 25℃ (77℉) Alkalinity, 100% carbonate hardness, from 1-20-dKH, TDS under 477-ppm. For practical purposes, the chart is reasonably accurate for normal freshwater aquarium 15℃ to 35℃ Alkalinity, 90% carbonate hardness, under 20-dKH.

For practical purposes consider atmospheric CO₂ to keep your dissolved CO₂ at 3-ppm.

With a little algebraic manipulation CO₂ = 3 X dKH X 10^(7-pH) becomes
dKH = 1 ÷ ((3 ÷ CO₂) X 10^(7-pH) and 
pH = log ((3 X dKH) ÷ CO₂) + 7.

More in a bit… Real life…:confused1:

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> More in a bit… Real life…:confused1:


None of this is urgent, and I'm in the middle of rearranging my office to move the QT tank out of my kid's room as he may be moving home, so I understand real life intrusions all too well.

:angryfire


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*pH of Pure Water 2H₂O(l) ⇔ H₃O⁺(aq) + OH⁻(aq)*

Hi Linwood,

The relationship between temperature and pH is the ionic product constant of water, and as with any equilibrium product Kᴡ is temperature dependent. Water, even the purist water is always able to conduct some electricity, proving it is ionic and dissociates.

Now a brief time out, for our purposes here we will define an acid as a compound that donates an H⁺ and a base can accept an H⁺. Now back to the post.

Water can and does function as both an acid and a base.

2H₂O(liquid) ⇔ H₃O⁺(aqueous) + OH⁻(aqueous). Now the hydroxonium ion is a very strong acid, and the hydroxide ion is a very strong base. As quickly as they form, they react to produce water again.
This is often reduced to H₂O ⇔ H⁺ + OH⁻. Remember whenever you see H⁺ in these circumstance it is actually H₃O⁺.
At any given time, there are small, incredibly small, numbers of hydroxonium ions and hydroxide ions.

Kᴡ = ([H₃O⁺]-mol dm³ ([OH⁻]-mol dm³
At 25℃ (77℉) we define Kᴡ = 1.00 X 10⁻¹⁴-mol² dm⁶ 
The relationship between pKᴡ and Kᴡ is the same as [H⁺] and pH:
pKᴡ = -log₁₀Kᴡ
Since we know at 25℃, Kᴡ = 1.00 X 10⁻¹⁴-mol² dm⁶ and in pure water hydroxonium ions and hydroxide ions must be equal
[H⁺][ OH⁻] = = 1.00 X 10⁻¹⁴-mol² dm⁶
Since we know that in pure water for every hydroxonium ion formed there must be an hydroxide ion formed, we can substitute [OH⁻] term in Kᴡ with an [H⁺]
[H⁺]² = 1.00 X 10⁻¹⁴-mol² dm⁶
Taking the square root of each side:
[H⁺] = 1.00 X 10⁻⁷-mol dm³
To pH:
pH = -log₁₀[H⁺]
pH = 7

Creating hydroxonium ions and hydroxide ions is endothermic so the forward process absorbs heat and since Le Chatelier's Principle, says that if you change the conditions of a reaction in dynamic equilibrium, the position of equilibrium moves to counter the change made.

So as the temperature increases Kᴡ increases so the pH must be calculated for each temperature…

Or you can do what I do and go to http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physica...Temperature_Dependent_of_the_pH_of_pure_Water. 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*4 & 4*

Hi Linwood,

In my-ever-humble-opinion something like 4-dKH that will leave you around pH 7.6, possibly a little higher at the lower end of the tropical temperature range. Add 9-grams (just shy of 2-teaspoons) of baking soda for each 20-gallons of RODI water. Given that you live in a humid location, I would go with 2-teaspoons baking soda per 20-gallons RODI.

Perhaps look at something from 4-8-dGH, something like 6 to 12-grams of Calcium chloride dihydrate (CaCl₂⦁2H₂O) and 4 to 8-grams Epsom salt (MgSO₄⦁7H₂O) per 20-gallons RODI water.

The general hardness is more about the kind of critters, it is not overly important, beyond 0.5-dGH anyway for plants. Substantial fish, snails, mollusks and so forth can in my experience, really benefit from harder water. 

Generally, I like, minimum 4-dKH, enough buffering that leaves room for mistakes, the only time I go with less is for plants or critters that really do not like carbonates. I like 4-8-dGH as I think it is safe, I like critters with shells and I suspect the Magnesium helps keep fish a little more regular.

I can give the chemistry if you wish. :hihi:

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

I'll digest this tomorrow, been a busy day. I recognize some from very old memories. I actually did take chemistry long ago, just didn't consider it relevant at the time (as compared to physics and electronics and math). Over time it may come back. Maybe.

It does raise one question: did you decide the Alkalinity Buffer is basically baking soda? 

I ask because I have about a kilo of the stuff. 

Their instructions match yours - for dKH=2 for 20g I get 1.89 tsp or 10 grams, so I'm guessing it is the same stuff. <<< Note typo here, should be dKH=4, but left for context.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Baking Soda, NaHCO₃ is 72.63% HCO₃⁻*

Hi Linwood,

Yeah, Seachem Alkaline Buffer is fancy baking soda, principally standard Sodium bicarbonate, but also Potassium bicarbonate, Calcium bicarbonate and Magnesium bicarbonate, though it has traces of some good stuff, not enough to make a difference. I would use what you have; there is nothing wrong with it.

Unless 9-grams in 20-gallons yields only 2-dKH, then there are some fillers involved.

9-grams of baking soda NaHCO₃, ought to raise the KH in 20-gallons by over 4-dKH. Leaves a little room for impurities or moisture.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Yeah, Seachem Alkaline Buffer is fancy baking soda, principally standard Sodium bicarbonate, but also Potassium bicarbonate, Calcium bicarbonate and Magnesium bicarbonate, though it has traces of some good stuff, not enough to make a difference. I would use what you have; there is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Unless 9-grams in 20-gallons yields only 2-dKH, then there are some fillers involved.
> 
> 9-grams of baking soda NaHCO₃, ought to raise the KH in 20-gallons by over 4-dKH. Leaves a little room for impurities or moisture.


Joe, thanks... where are you seeing the 9 grams. Is that from testing it? When I look at their instructions it comes out at 7 grams for 20 gallons (that's explicit) which would seem to be 4 dKH as 10 grams. (if you got an email version of this saying I had a math error I did not; I was not awake when I read this at first, the actual error was a few replies above when I said 10 grams for dKH=2 and meant dKH=4).

Curiosity: Any idea why they are putting in the Potassium, Calcium and Magnesium when the product is designed to also be used with something like Equilibrium which has lots of each of those? As carbonates are they doing different than whatever form they are in Equilibrium?

Or do you think it's just so they can say "this is is a lot more than just baking soda"?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Fancy Baking Soda*

Hi Linwood,

Actually the 10-grams that Seachem recommends is in line as I mentioned in an earlier post, since you live in a humid place the little extra saves you drying it in the oven before use. 

10-grams of baking soda is also handy since it is an even 2-teaspoons and with increasing carbonate hardness a little bit one way or another is not likely to cause any significant problems. 

In addition, people using hobbyist test kits for KH are not picking up all of the bicarbonates since they do not take the test solution down to pH 4.4, so having a little extra bicarbonate in the water stops the complaints from folks testing after mixing a batch.

I do not use anyone’s directions for this stuff I calculate it myself, a little awkward to show here, much easier on a white board.

As it happens using baking soda to raise KH is a common question, so I know off hand that 120-mg per liter raises the carbonate hardness by 4-dKH, remembering that KH is stated in terms of CaCO₃.People tend to use 20-gallon increments so the amounts of baking soda are easy to measure.

Since 20-gallons are about 76-liters, 120-mg X 76 = 9120-mg ~9-grams.

I found this Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_hardness, it uses a bit different method than I use for calculations, but gets the same result and explains it quite well. I will write mine out on paper, scan, and post it later.

I think the reason Seachem uses other types of baking soda is to avoid disclosing the ingredients, I suspect maybe they think people might just by baking soda at the grocery store. They can then can also claim trace amounts of all kinds of good stuff, like Potassium.

I received an email the other day reminding me that once-upon-a-time, Seachem dyed their Acid Buffer pink, in an attempt to deceive everyone into thinking it was some mysterious new concoction that the cutting edge development team had come up with to reduce carbonate hardness. I had forgotten that.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*CaCl₂⦁H₂O & Epsom salt*

Hi Linwood,

Looked at Seachem Equilibrium, I have used this in the past; I guess I figured it was a lot of money for water, I wish I had analyzed it. Oh well… 

Based on Seachem’s information Equilibrium seems to be primarily Potassium sulfate, gypsum, Epsom salt, with a little Iron(II) sulfate, probably ferrous sulfate heptahydrate and a tiny amount of Manganese(II) sulfate, probably manganese sulfate tetrahydrate.

The Potassium sulfate K₂SO₄ is particularly interesting since K⁺ does not play a role in general hardness, in fact many water softeners trade two K⁺ ions for each GH ion, usually Ca²⁺ or Mg²⁺. There seems a long time ago to have been a misunderstanding about water hardness in the aquarium community. Anyway K⁺ makes up 19.5%, 195000-ppm of Seachem’s Equilibrium.

Gypsum, Calcium sulfate dihydrate, CaSO₄⦁2H₂O, this is likely the white stuff you mentioned seeing earlier, as gypsum is essentially insoluble, it works in our systems, since no salt is totally insoluble, so at 20℃ about 2.4-grams per liter. The Calcium ion, Ca²⁺ makes up 8.06%, 80,600-ppm and definitely adds to the general hardness.

Epsom salt, Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate, MgSO₄⦁7H₂O. The Magnesium ion, Mg²⁺ makes up 2.41%, 24,100-ppm. This is in the typical proportions we see in general hardness. 

Ferrous sulfate heptahydrate, FeSO₄⦁7H₂O. Iron(II), Fe²⁺makes up 0.11%, 1,100-ppm.

Manganese sulfate tetrahydrate, MnSO₄⦁4H₂O. Manganese(II), Mn²⁺ makes up 0.06%, 600-ppm.

The big winner though seems to be sulfate, SO₄²⁻ coming in at 53.14%, 531,400-ppm. While a little sulfate is necessary, this seems excessive 

Honestly I think Calcium chloride and Epsom salt are sufficient, the K⁺, Fe²⁺ and Mn²⁺ you will dose anyway and K⁺ does not add to hardness. The Epsom salt provides plenty of sulfate and sulfate does not add to water hardness.

Since I have not tested Seachem Equilibrium myself, I base my calculation on information provided by Seachem. As to the specific hydrates, I guessed based on availability and cost. 

Total sulfate levels could be somewhat higher or lower based on hydrates used. Unless Seachem chooses to change its policy and be forthcoming about its ingredients. This the best I can do without actually buying a bottle.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> This is often reduced to H₂O ⇔ H⁺ + OH⁻. Remember whenever you see H⁺ in these circumstance it is actually H₃O⁺.


I had not realized that, and that jogged enough memory to know at least in high school chemistry they taught the above, and not the unreduced form. I loosely followed logic in the rest though not some of the notation (the unbalanced parens), and when I get some time will go read through the other stuff at that link. 

So... today I'm mixing water to replace a lot of the tank's contents due to the medicines in it. 



JoeRoun said:


> In my-ever-humble-opinion something like 4-dKH that will leave you around pH 7.6, possibly a little higher at the lower end of the tropical temperature range.
> .....
> 
> The general hardness is more about the kind of critters, it is not overly important, beyond 0.5-dGH anyway for plants. Substantial fish, snails, mollusks and so forth can in my experience, really benefit from harder water.
> ...


I want to keep easy community fish (tetras, cats, plecos) but I also actually like snails and shrimp (to the extent they don't get eaten), so I want a healthy environment for ramshorns, MTS and ghost shrimp (maybe others later). 

I was aiming at dGH=6 to get a bit hard for their benefit.

But as to the dKH=4 - in an infrequently changed tank, is that going to drift too much lower over time. Should I am a bit higher so that the normal downward drift that seems to occur (plant consumption? nitrification consumption?) is offset by higher replacement water? 

So aim for dKH=6 and figure with 30% replaced every 30-45 days (that's a loose target), the tank overall will hover around dKH=4?


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Stop the Seachem iron. I believe that is your cloudy water problem. I went through a similar experience in a non co2 tank. It would cloud the water no matter what, even dosed on separate days than anything else. Just switch to a different source of Fe.

Sorry if already mentioned. I didnt read all the Tolstoy chemistry :red_mouth


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

burr740 said:


> Stop the Seachem iron. I believe that is your cloudy water problem. I went through a similar experience in a non co2 tank. It would cloud the water no matter what, even dosed on separate days than anything else. Just switch to a different source of Fe.
> 
> Sorry if already mentioned. I didnt read all the Tolstoy chemistry :red_mouth


I did, I am now using mixed DTPA solution from dry powder. I've had so many tangents (as you've seen here) I'm not thinking too much about the cloudy water; right now fighting camallanus worms, but I will get back to it.

Of course the DTPA solution turns the water yellow. :hihi:


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Tolstoy? I Am Honored!*

Hi Linwood,


I think 4-dKH is enough but if you prefer 6-dKh also works.

For infrequent water changes, using PP once a month or six weeks can reduce your water changes to once or twice a year.

The pH thing is possibly the greater problem, though the change in making up your water may have changed that. Unfortunately, that is a chemistry thing and I think the wisdom of my departure is evident. 

The TPT folks are with burr740 and prefer two or three word commands rather than rational explanation, hence the mindless products for sale for the mindless boobs of the world.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

I mixed the first container up targetting 6, and the second targetting 4. 

The test kit showed 7+ and 5+ (meaning the color change was not complete at 7 and 5). So something about what I'm doing is a bit off, either the test kit or the alkaline buffer (still on Seachem). But it's close enough. 

This is after aerating for 24 hours with a pond pump, though it's in a semi-closed container (e.g. about half a square foot of opening in both cases). 

These (55G and 65G) are not enough, so I have buckets for another 20G or so that I'll just use as pure RODI to cut this a bit as I add it to the tanks.

This is a water change to dilute the levamisole hcl, so I'm a bit torn as to whether to try to do a massive change in the 220G and build up water again for the 45G, or split it between the two. Still doing the christmas morning thing, so will decide later.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Joe, is the does you gave (123ml of 1% PP solution) effective to treat early bacterial infections as well? Or is a stronger solution needed?

I ask because I think one of the angels is getting something (slimy skin with some white gelatenous globs) that might be bacterial after the treatment for camallanus. I'm not going to try various anti-biotics yet as I'm unsure what it is, and am concerned that two many competing treatments is worse than most of the diseases. 

So I'm going to try your cocktail from way back in the thread just to see how it goes, hoping it also may treat nascent bacterial infections on the skin, as I've read that is effective, but nothing about the strength needed.

Incidentally -- the PP resulted in an incredible purple tank. I guess you could call it pink, but I'd call it purple.


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

Search" Potassium permanganate british discus keepers"
Some of the best mixing and dosing instructions I have found.
I find the PP an excellent treatment for bacterial issues and water maintenance.
Even very well maintained water sparkles after a pp treatment!
Just need to be confident/accurate with mixing it.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Coralbandit said:


> Search" Potassium permanganate british discus keepers"
> Some of the best mixing and dosing instructions I have found.
> I find the PP an excellent treatment for bacterial issues and water maintenance.
> Even very well maintained water sparkles after a pp treatment!
> Just need to be confident/accurate with mixing it.


Done, as well as a few others. Most seem to have concerns in a planted tank. Some implied something like driftwood, which presumably has a large organic surface, reduce the effectiveness. I have both a huge stump and lots of plants.

If I did the math right I think the dose Joe gave me would be 1.5ppm in 220gallons, but with all the stuff in the tank it's probably 180-200G, which would put it between 1.6 and 1.8 ppm.

I had a nice purple tank that turned pink and then yellow in under an hour.

Which would indicate too heavy an organic load, and (presumably) I should dose further. However... this is right after a water change of about 120 gallons, over 50%. Kind of hard to believe I've got that many bad organics in the water. Can this just be all the "stuff" in the tank, like the stump?

I'm a bit cautious of doing another dose for fear of the beneficial bacteria, would hate to lose the filters. When it turns yellow has all the impact abated, so it is as though there were none in the tank, and adding another 1.5ppm does no (additional) harm? 

That seems to be the sense of these articles, though a couple say things like "for a maxiumum of 6ppm" -- so why is there a maximum if the change in color implies it is all used up?


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

I believe there are more nutrients in our water then do or can test for.Nitrates are only part of the story.The stump or other orgasnics certainly could have some impact but I lean on" true water quality" being more of an explanation.I'm a huge water changer and was as shocked as you first time my water turned yellow in less then 2 hours!
I think it is safe to redose,I have done it several times.
You have some H2o2 around incase you need it right?
My MTS even survived the double treatments!
Skepital aquarist has great link on PP and in their article is a link to another article on using PP for maintenance(good reading) by Dr. Roddy Conrad.
It is nalmost at the end of the link.
I hope things work out with your levimisole HC.Did you get from Charles Harrison?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Pp*

Hi Linwood,

Yes 123-ml 1% KMNO₄ is the light side, probably closer to 1.75-ppm, but I am not there and do not know exactly how much water you have in the tank, I am assuming about 185-gallons, actual, assuming that is correct you could safely use up to a140-ml 1% PP.

It is important to stay at or under 2-ppm at a time, but keep applying another dose until the water stays pink for 4-hours, it may be faint, but the water will be very clear. Brown, yellow, muddy, indicates another dose is required. Most tanks that require treatment actually need about 3-doses; 6-ppm is an average, but never more than 2-ppm and a time.

Actually, at that rate the standard 2-ppm rate it may help other infections. Never for use in the tank but various baths of 4, 6 or 10-ppm are used as treatment or prophylactically, but these are specific and short duration. 10, 15, and 20-ppm soaks are used to sanitize plants. 20 to 25-ppm dips are used to sanitize nets and various equipment between uses. Kept covered away from light and the dips will are good until they turn brown, yellow or muddy. 

As a warning PP will discolor nets and skin. Lemon juice or sodium thiosulfate (the stuff most de-chlorinators use) will wash it away fairly quickly. Stains are roughly equivalent to blueberry stains.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*PP Will Provide A Good Indication of Total Organic Carbon*

Hi Linwood,

My guess is and was that you had more organic (carbon) material than you realized.

I know all the hype suggests that tanks are “cycled” after 6-weeks or so, but really, they are not; in addition, I figured that driftwood probably is the main culprit in the missing KH. The PP treatment(s) will speed that situation along. For future reference treating/processing driftwood with chlorine, PP, boiling and/or time in the sun will go a long way toward avoiding the problems.

The yellow after an hour is a good indication that you will require something like 10 or 12-ppm PP total. Dr. Roddy Conrad recommends no more than 6-ppm a day, in 2-ppm doses and that is fine, but I have certainly exceeded that many times without incident.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Thank you Joe. Before I saw this (for some reason I didn't get an email), I had read enough to decide that when it came clear/brown that it was spent, and adding more was OK. So a second dose is already in.

At the moment I'm treating only the big tank, to see how it develops, especially to see if it kills the plants (I've read some places that it melts vals for example). But am hopeful that spacing treatments out and staying low in dose each time it won't. 

I'm also hopeful that it will serve to destroy remaining dewormers (fenbendazole and levamisole hcl). The former in particular appears to just be a precipitate and I can find no info on its persistence, so maybe the PP will deactivate it, as I have quite a few bottom feeders.  Either Fenbendazole or Levamisole has really impacted the angel fish, 3 of 6 are simply not eating, though all other fish are back to normal. Two of those three had no signs of worms initially, and all are free of visible signs now. But they won't eat. The water change probably dropped the concentration by 2/3rds or so, but I hope this will remove it entirely and see if they recover.

As to water in the tank -- I wish I knew. The irregular shape of the root, and a good deal of sand, means I am only guessing as to volume. It's pretty easy to tell for the first 80G or so how much I take out by depth, as there's little displaced up high, but beyond that... who knows. If I were doing it all again I'd keep better track when I filled it, but much of this was directly off the RODI filter with no measurement.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Update: took about 45 minutes to turn muddy brown. Think I'll wait another day again, going a bit slow and see how things react seems best.

By the way, the stump is much too big to boil (at least with anything I had). It was bought used, supposedly had spent years in freshwater before. I probably could have bought a big enough tub to use chlorine but I didn't (I thought about just tossing into the pool but I was afraid a lot of stuff would come off -- in retrospect nothing did in the tank so that might have been a good idea).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Maybe the Stump Is Not the Prime Suspect*

Hi Linwood,

At 2-ppm PP Vallisneria or for that matter Cryptocoryne should not be affected unless they were rotting (melting). Vallisneria are far more sensitive to the use of glutaraldehyde and even the slightest overdosing can destroy them. I know many reputable folks claim Vallisneria never thrive when glutaraldehyde is dosed. 

I suppose dosing glutaraldehyde with Vallisneria could be the source of the excess organic carbon. I had seen this with Dwarf Sag, Sagittaria subulata, the glutaraldehyde, did not completely kill them, but they were definitely reduced and never did thrive. Mainly I noted a real jump in organic material in the water.

Years in fresh water should have cured the stump, unless there is some rot. I still like at minimum chlorine and sunlight.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Vallisneria are far more sensitive to the use of glutaraldehyde and even the slightest overdosing can destroy them. I know many reputable folks claim Vallisneria never thrive when glutaraldehyde is dosed.
> 
> I suppose dosing glutaraldehyde with Vallisneria could be the source of the excess organic carbon. I had seen this with Dwarf Sag, Sagittaria subulata, the glutaraldehyde, did not completely kill them, but they were definitely reduced and never did thrive. Mainly I noted a real jump in organic material in the water.
> [/FONT]


Thanks, Joe. 

I've had no issue with Vallisneria growing with Excel/glut. I'm dosing 20ml Excel strength daily in the 200+/- G, and 5ml in the 45G, and both have Val's growing and spreading like mad, I've pruned 4-5' off of them in the big tank at times, and they just start growing again. I've had some issues with GSA on them but increasing phosphate helped that substantially. 

It's also possible I have a lot of excess organics from the levamisole; I suspect that killed a lot of worms and similar in the tank, maybe some of the snails (though most survived). 

Do you have an opinion on whether the PP treatments will remove/degrade fenbendazole and levamisole hcl?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Vacuum the Substrate*

Hi Linwood,

Most of the drug stuff is from The Merck Veterinary Manual, 10th Edition.

The fenbendazole, Benzimidazoles generally are insoluble in water (your percipitates) and do not enter the systems of our critters (exceptions albendazole, oxfendazole and triclabendazole) but stay in the gut (the reason we have to get them to eat it) so in the case of the Camillanus worms paralyze them so the fish can excrete them. The worms must be vacuumed up within 24-hours and the treatment needs to be repeated twice more a week apart.

Levamisole is highly soluble and its time in water depends on the release mechanism, since it hydrolyzes in alkaline (or neutral) solutions I assume it does not last long. 

As long as you did not dose above the recommended dosing I do not think there is a problem, but I have no experience with using the drugs at the same time.

Since the worms are not killed by the treatment I do not think they are the reason for the excess organic material.

I also have not had any problems with Vallisneria and glutaraldehyde, though I used that to point out that as long as these things glutaraldehyde, PP and so on are used at conservative dosing levels I really do not think there is a problem. Or, the perceived problem has a reasonable (simpler) alternative explanation.

At the same time, I know people of good reputation that have commented so it is worth noting.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> The fenbendazole, Benzimidazoles generally are insoluble in water (your percipitates) and do not enter the systems of our critters (exceptions albendazole, oxfendazole and triclabendazole) but stay in the gut (the reason we have to get them to eat it) so in the case of the Camillanus worms paralyze them so the fish can excrete them. The worms must be vacuumed up within 24-hours and the treatment needs to be repeated twice more a week apart.


Wisely or not I used fenbendazole so I could get some treatment started since it took almost a week to get the levamisole. My concern is that sitting on (soon in) the substrate it will damage the ecosystem down there over time, and sitting on it that it will get continually mixed in food on the bottom and anything picking up food from there will get an ongoing dose. So I was somewhat hoping it would be degraded (safely) by something, e.g. PP. But it is what it is. I vacuumed out what I could, will next time also. I don't plan another dose of it, rather I plan to follow the levamisole re-dosing in 3 weeks, as most of what I read says it is more effective, and it is certainly easier. 



JoeRoun said:


> Levamisole is highly soluble and its time in water depends on the release mechanism, since it hydrolyzes in alkaline (or neutral) solutions I assume it does not last long.
> 
> As long as you did not dose above the recommended dosing I do not think there is a problem, but I have no experience with using the drugs at the same time.
> 
> Since the worms are not killed by the treatment I do not think they are the reason for the excess organic material.


I'm still confused by how these work. I've been told that it indeed paralyzes the worms, but not what happens next. Or conflicting info on it - I've been told variously they die, unable to eat. Or that they are paralyzed only while the medicine is in the water, and could become un-paralyzed and then infect fish again. 

The advice to vacuum seems at times predicated on the idea they are still infectious, but others say it is to reduce the levamisole content. There's one article here that says Levamisole hcl is stable in water for 90 days (it is the non-hcl variant that degrades rapidly in alkaline water BTW). 

The vendor of this (Dr. Charles Harrison) wrote me when I asked about hefty water changes that "The water changes only remove the Levamisole but Charcoal would do that if you want". 

I can tell you that based on the behavior of the Congo tetras, it absolutely stayed active for three days -- they were making frantic circles down in the sand while the levamisole was in the tank and not eating, and as soon as it got diluted in the water change they went back to normal.

In either case, however, I doubt that the camallanus worms are significantly adding to the organics, as the tank is very lightly stocked for its size, and worms were visible only in 1 fish in the large tank (though undoubtedly present in more). On the other hand if it's killing detritus worms, or other things living in the substrate (e.g. MTS), that could be a substantial dieoff in a short period of time. I have seen detritus worms on the surface agitated after treatment, not sure if they died, but even less sure what's happening under the sand. Though in theory detritus worms are segmented, and so not as affected by levamisole as nematodes are.

Another possibility is that the PP treatment is right in line with the levamisole concentration. If it is affected, and consumes the PP, that could account for some PP consumption alone if it's consumed in similar ppm.

Regardless, I'll keep doing the PP treatments for a couple days, see what develops in one tank, and leave the other un-treated.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Beware Haters of (Verifiable) Information*

Hi Linwood,

I think there are at least nine classes of anthelmintic compounds of them I am familiar with Benzimidazoles (albendazole, fenbendazole, oxfendazole and triclabendazole), Imidazothiazoles (tetramisole and Levamisole, actually Levamisole is the active levorotation form of tetramisole) and Hexahydropyrazines (Praziquantel and Piperazine). 

Of these, the three that are readily available to hobbyists are the Benzimidazole, fenbendazole, the Imidazothiazole, Levamisole and the Hexahydropyrazine, Praziquantel, each has a separate mechanism for paralyzing the Camillanus worm, and none kills the worm.

My understanding and indirect experience is that the worms can and will re-infect the fish, best guess on my part is they are either eaten by the fish or their eggs. I believe the reason I have only indirect experience with re-infection is the cases I have been involved with we treated 3-times, 1-week apart, vacuuming the substrate 12-24 hours after each treatment. Beyond my experience and my (I hope it is regarded as) assistance provided to others, I believe treating 3-times, 1-week apart, vacuuming the substrate 12-24 hours after each treatment is (was) the key. 

I am not an expert, nor have I specifically studied the Camillanus worm, I have no doubt there are different strains and so there may be differences in situations.

My direct experience has been with Praziquantel and fenbendazole, I happen to prefer fenbendazole; I know Levamisole HCl has been around longer, but was not available immediately in the cases I was involved with, I know others have used it successfully. As far as I know, the only drugs available to hobbyists anyway are Praziquantel, Piperazine, Levamisole and fenbendazole and Piperazine is toxic to fish.

In my experience, fenbendazole and Praziquantel have not been a problem; praziquantel is classified as not dangerous, though I have a habit of large water changes. From my reading, I understand Levamisole can linger for up to 60-days (depending on delivery formulations) but is removed by activated charcoal and of course water changes.

Given that, all of the drugs are organic carbon, I assume PP degrades them, though I have not studied that either, though I just noticed in one of my drug books Praziquantel is not compatible with strong oxidizer while no such entry exists for Fenbendazole or Levamisole. For what that is worth.

I had better stop now, as I know how much TPT and burr740 hate information.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Did a third treatment, turned brown/yellow about the same speed. Am making water to change out 70% or so again. I did a large WC (2nd one) in my smaller tank and the fish perked up, especially the angels. I think the angels are somehow stunned by even a lower concentration of the Levamisole HCL. In the small tank, with two approx 70-80% changes, the angels are eating again. The ones in the big tank are not eating at all, though other fish are. 

Anyway... I dose a fair amount of iron (20ml of 10,000ppm DTPA per day). I read that PP reacts to remove iron in water. Could I just be replacing what it's taking out and this isn't organic matter at all that's causing it to change so quickly?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Stop Dosing Iron*

Hi Linwood,

Well the easiest way to tell with the iron is to stop dosing it until you are done with the PP treatments, but the short answer is no, I do not think the iron is the reason.

Based on your descriptions, something is going on. Between the large water changes and the PP you will get to a point where we will figure it out, or the tank will simply have grown past it.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Don't Worry About The Chemistry*

Hi Linwood,

Sorry I was in a bit of a hurry earlier and left out the chemistry.

PP has a devastating effect on ferrous iron Fe⁺⁺, 1-molecule of KMnO₄ removes (oxidizes) 5-moleciules of Fe⁺⁺. 

So at most the iron would account for a little less than 0.06-ppm of PP. Putting it another way, based on approximately 185-gallons of water the 200-mg of iron reduced the 1230-mg of PP by 40-mg reducing the mg/L (ppm) by 0.06. (I originally had reduced the 1230-mg by 0.06-mg. Sorry for any confusion.)

The overall reaction is:
KMnO₄ + 5Fe⁺⁺ + 8H⁺ → K⁺ + Mn⁺⁺ + 5Fe⁺⁺⁺ + 4H₂O

Anyway do not worry about it, just do not dose iron for now.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> 
> Well the easiest way to tell with the iron is to stop dosing it until you are done with the PP treatments, but the short answer is no, I do not think the iron is the reason.
> 
> ...


 I have read the following post also(the one after this quote) and just want to say ;
"I respectfully dis agree Joe".
I can't even come close to your math(perhaps older and lazier I am?),BUT the reason hardware stores sell this is "to convert dissolved iron and/or manganese to insoluble oxides to be removed by filtration"(Right off the bottle!).
So when you try to account for why color change occurred in X time I think this is more then a .o??? difference.Possibly even to credited for 1/2 life?
I still like the way you think, but don't grasp all that math yet.
And I think the iron does make a difference!
I am a huge watwerchanger(you all will get this) but even my 40B only took 2 doses to last 4 hours.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Well, an experiment is in order. 

I just took two jars with 250ml of water RODI water mixed with my remineralization stuff.

I dosed one with iron.

Then I put in 4ppm of PP (because 4ppm is one drop of my 1% solution and I couldn't do a half drop and was too lazy to dilute, and I'm assuming about 20 drops per ml). 

After about 10 minutes one is light pink, the other is brown/clear (this really isn't enough water to see clear color, but I can see a clear difference). 

Now... I cheated... ok, I made a mistake and decided to keep going... I put in 1ml of a 1000ppm iron instead of 1 drop, so I ended up with about a 4ppm iron mix, which is really heavy.

I'm going to do it again after dinner with less iron. I don't know why I was thinking ml instead of drop... I htink Coralbandit somehow telepathically tried to influence the test!


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*No Magic Here*



Coralbandit said:


> I have read the following post also(the one after this quote) and just want to say ;
> "I respectfully dis agree Joe".
> I can't even come close to your math(perhaps older and lazier I am?),BUT the reason hardware stores sell this is "to convert dissolved iron and/or manganese to insoluble oxides to be removed by filtration"(Right off the bottle!).
> So when you try to account for why color change occurred in X time I think this is more then a .o??? difference.Possibly even to credited for 1/2 life?
> ...


 Hi Coralbandit, All,

I am not exactly sure what Coralbandit is disagreeing with, but disagreeing Coralbandit is, so let me try this. 

First, we are not removing anything from the tank; in fact, we are adding stuff. I like to leave the filters running, though experts usually say otherwise. I like the filters on precisely because they remove stuff. I have been using PP since the 1950’s, though seriously and routinely in aquariums for the last 7 or 8 years. I have found little or no degradation of established biological filters when PP is dosed at 2-ppm or less.

What the label Coralbandit references is correct. The iron does not simply disappear (no magic here). The permanganate part of the PP causes the iron (and Manganese) to “fall out,” it is no longer part of the water solution.

Understanding that it is a colorimetric system and in this system (protocol), we use 4-hours, as the time the solution most stay pink to determine the total amounts of organic material and metals such as iron and manganese are under a level we deem acceptable. Many in areas not dealing with aquariums demand 10 or 12 hours. In our aquariums, a little organic carbon is desirable.

The only reason I reference the time it took to change colors is that Linwood had suggested the reason was the 200-mg of iron he was introducing, in solution 200-mg of iron will “consume” 40-mgs of permanganate, so actually we can say 53-mg of the PP (since 24.24% is K⁺) so I was wrong, hmmm. That still leaves 1177-mg of PP, which tells me there is more material that is organic.

I have no idea what an “a .o??? difference” is but I hope I cleared that bit up.

The “math” was actually chemistry; Linwood says he likes that so I include some of the math for him and my critics. I included only the overall reaction, permanganate actually works through oxidation and reduction.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Coralbandit, All,
> 
> I am not exactly sure what Coralbandit is disagreeing with, but disagreeing Coralbandit is, so let me try this.
> 
> ...


 I have no doubt your math is correct so I guess the rest of this will sound hypocritical ?
I just think in plain English(I appreciate all the info you supply and strive to understand it for real) that iron does have an impact on the duration of pp "activeness".
Hopefully Linwoods experiment will shed some light on this.
You mentioned Dr roddy Conrads link yesterday?
Have I read and found good info myself? I have not been using PP very long but do think it is a valuable tool in the aquarium.
Thank you for the info Joe!


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Titration Anyone*

Hi Linwood,

PP titration is a time-honored method of determining the amount of iron in solution.

Since you have 1% solutions that makes it easy since each milliliter has 10-mg of whatever in it.

So if you were to take 1-ml of 1% pp and but that in 9-ml of RODI you will now have a 1-mg/ml solution.

Placing 1-ml of 1% iron in a test tube or container and add 0.5-ml of 0.1% pp at a time to the 1% iron and it should take 4 or 5 doses (10 or 11-doses is what I posted) to turn the solution pink.

Now don’t get carried away this is only approximate, you mixed the stuff yourself (no offense intended) and you did not filter or normalize the PP. It should be close though.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Permanganometry*

Hi Coralbandit,

The whole thing with PP is quantitative it is actually an area of known as Permanganometry.

I have spent the last several years studying organic material in our aquariums. While I am a fan of large water changes, 50% being the minimum I have also been looking at the use of various oxidizers to take the place of water changes. I settled on PP for a number of reasons and have several tanks that I dose PP at the 2-ppm rate either once a month or every 6-weeks. 

I have decided that when it takes more than 3-doses, 6-ppm to stay pink a major water change is in order. In the tanks I have been running this would seem to be 2 or 3-times a year.

I will have to look for my links, I just noticed my University of Florida link no longer works, or rather says, “the document has not yet been released.” Dr. Roddy Conrad is with Koi Fish, though there are dozens.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Out of Date Links...*

Hi Coralbandit,

I found the article written by Dr. Roddy Conrad reprinted http://www.jackmcneary.com/html/potassium_permanganate_.htm, all of my links seem to be out of date.

I hope this helps, my style, my science, whatever is why the TPT people have encouraged me to leave, and I apologize to all offended by the science. I know it is difficult to realize complexity may underlie much of what we do.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> The “math” was actually chemistry....


Darn right it is. I was a math major (one degree); I'd be real disappointed if I wasn't following math. Chemistry was a necessary evil, avoided in favor of more interesting stuff, said avoidance I now regret. :redface:



JoeRoun said:


> Hi Coralbandit,
> 
> The whole thing with PP is quantitative it is actually an area of known as Permanganometry.


OK, I'm not going to even Google that, I am just going to assume you made that up, and no amount of inconvenient facts will dissuade me. :icon_eek:

I ate too much dinner and have some other chores but I hope to try it again with representative concentrations of iron in a bit.

The plain water I dosed is still pink from earlier. 

And this thread is by FAR the most interesting thing I've done on the internet in ages. :bounce:


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

If I count as a TPT person then you are wrong;
It is people like you , with info like you that I come here for!
I may not get it all,education takes time, but I do want to learn and understand.
Linwood;YEA! this is a good thread!


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

OK, I give up. Math = theory = we don't need no stinking experiments.

I filled 3 jars nearly full (400ml), two with RODI-mixed water, one with tank water.

The tank has had no ferts today.

I added iron to about .1 ppm in the second jar, leaving the first with just the RODI mix. 

I added 1 drop of 1% PP to each of the three jars. That was about 10 minutes ago. 

The one with the RODI-mix is now clear. 

The one with the RODI-mix + iron is almost clear, maybe a tiny bit pink, maybe a bit brown.

The one from the tank is nicely, clearly, brightly pink. 

Completely the opposite of what I expected. Now, before you assume I mixed them up (and maybe I could have, as I didn't label), I got out my handy TDS meter and I can clearly see the tank water is the pink one based on TDS readings (about 400 vs 200). I can't be sure from TDS alone of the other two.

About the same time I dosed the tank with about 130ml of 1% PP solution again (this the fourth time). It's also still pink but fading fast. It's hard to compare in that depth, so I filled a fourth jar with tank water and photographed all four.










These are left to right, with the photo taken about 10-15 minutes after all this: 

1) RODI-mix, no iron
2) RODI-mix + 0.1ppm iron
3) Tank water treated with PP in glass
4) Tank water treated with PP in tank, and put into glass just before photo

The only way I can make sense out of this is that the tank water itself, at this point (4th treatment) is just fine, based on jar #3. 

However, the tank with all the circulation going, is able to neutralize the PP quickly - circulation through the (organically clogged) media, circulation in general through the plants, etc. Circulation with the lights shining on it (it was this time at least). 

Why the left two jars turned yellow (they are visibly more yellow than either tank water) I don't understand -- something in Equilibrium which is reacting with the PP? 

Basically I'm more lost now than I was before. 

PS. As I post this I am at about 40 minutes since I started this. The tank itself is a murky yellow, no trace of pink. The jars sitting on my desk look just like the photo (which was taken at about 10-15 minutes). In particular I have a very distinct pink in the tank water treated in the glass.

PPS. The tank gets a major water change in the morning, I didn't have enough RODI water made today to do as much of a change as I wanted.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

And.... crap.... 

On a whim I tested the big tank for ammonia. That tank has been cycled for a long time, and never shows a hint of ammonia.

Ammonia is now at 2ppm.

So absolutely PP can kill beneficial bacteria, even though I was very careful to do only about 120-130ml of 1% each time, which should be well under 2ppm.

I have no nitrites, I don't know if that means those survived, or just that all ammonia converting are dead (not just some) and all the waste is stuck at ammonia.

I'm wondering now if I should swap half the media in one filter with my small tank (which has not been treated at all with PP). I'll cut this in half or a bit more tomorrow with a water change, but this is not good.

No dead fish yet, but if it has to do a full cycle there will be, as I can't produce nearly enough water to keep it clean of ammonia. 

I guess I could try re-homing some of the fish to the small tank but I quite literally cannot catch most of them - too many hiding places for the plecos, the SAW are too darn fast.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Well, decided would rather screw up doing something than doing nothing. With the main tank mostly yellow/clear, I swapped the tray holding the bio media with my small tank. That small tank has a 4 tray filter but I swapped all the bio media, figuring that the various sponge and floss and tank surfaces themselves have enough BB. At least I hope.

Whether that one tray is enough to handle that huge tank I have no idea -- it's about 2L of Seachem Matrix. 

I'll test ammonia in the morning before the water change, see if it's going up or down.

Oh, the four jars -- #2 (RODI+Iron) looks a bit darker than #1, but might be my imagination. #3 (tank treated in glass) is more clear than anything else, distant possible shade of pink, the tank glass unchanged. 










I give up on chemistry. I'm going to design a virtual aquarium with virtual fish and simple chemistry. Ph will be controlled with a slider, and will not impact any other aspect. Who needs reality when we can build our own that's much simpler!


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*More Ramblings on PP*

Hi All,

Thank you for the kind comments and the nice pm s and emails, but I did promise to leave when I have some surgery, I had expected that to be last week but have been put off until sometime in January.

Anyway, since we mentioned math, one other small detail about PP and math. For those calculating stoichiometrically (relationship between the relative quantities of substances taking part in a reaction or forming a compound, typically a ratio of whole integers) may have noticed that it is 3Fe ⁺⁺ rather than 5Fe ⁺⁺, this difference is generally attributed to the catalytic influence of MnO₂ (O’Connell, 1978, best I can find).

You may also have noted a consumption of Alkalinity, among the reason I was concerned about the Seachem Alkalinity Buffer along with the so-called Acid Buffer. This would have been even more important if Linwood were also dosing Alum. PP and Alum are in tandem for water treatment, pretty-much everywhere except, TPT.

The other thing to keep in mind is that my assumption is that any dosing I do is in cycled aquariums, at normal aquarium water conditions, unless otherwise noted, in Linwood’s case I assume the information provided is reasonably accurate as permanganate as with most things we put in the water acts based on temperature and pH.

Being aware that water provides the extra H⁺, the other thing to note is that H⁺ is never naked, it is simply a shorthand for H₃O⁺, I think this may be why I was declared “autistic” (though I am thankful they decided I am not a “troll,” whatever that is). 

As always, when figuring something added to an aquarium we have to take at minimum the big 7 and little 2 ions into account.

The only thing that should consume the PP in tap water would be chlorine and a number of chlorines byproducts, in tap water the pink should remain at least 12-hours. Most places in the US it will last indefinitely if kept out of the light and reasonably cool.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*A Little Much, at Least I Know Why It Was So Purple*

Hi Linwood,

The 123-ppm 1% PP was for the 220-gallon tank assuming 185-gallons of water actual.

For the 45-gallon tank, I would assume 38-gallons of water and recommend 28-ml of 1% PP.

123-ml of 1% PP would make about an 8.5-ppm solution, enough to kill the bacteria, certainly.

I think I messed up; I thought I was advising you on the 220-gallon tank. The fish should be fine as long as the tank and water were not super clean.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> The other thing to keep in mind is that my assumption is that any dosing I do is in cycled aquariums, at normal aquarium water conditions, unless otherwise noted, in Linwood’s case I assume the information provided is reasonably accurate as permanganate as with most things we put in the water acts based on temperature and pH.


This aquarium has been cycled for a few months, I'm sure there is still "settling" to be done, but it certainly stopped having any ammonia or nitrites on the conventional API tests.

Note I did does Alum in the first time I used PP, but not subsequent. Wasn't sure if it built up in some way.



JoeRoun said:


> The only thing that should consume the PP in tap water would be chlorine and a number of chlorines byproducts, in tap water the pink should remain at least 12-hours. Most places in the US it will last indefinitely if kept out of the light and reasonably cool.


Nothing I'm doing contains tap water or any chlorine. I'm quite confident the RODI water is pretty darn pure, and our community uses chlorine not chloramines (as best I can tell - their 2013 report says they do). 

The testing I did in the jars had 1.89 teaspoons Seachem Alkalinity and t teaspoons Equilibrium mixed in (some of the latter precipitates out, but wasn't in the test jars as I took it from near the top of an accumulation tank). That targets dKH=4 and dGH=6.

Bump:


JoeRoun said:


> The 123-ppm 1% PP was for the 220-gallon tank assuming 185-gallons of water actual.
> 
> For the 45-gallon tank, I would assume 38-gallons of water and recommend 28-ml of 1% PP.
> 
> ...


No no no... you had it right.

I have NOT added any PP to the small tank.

All the Alum (once) and PP (four times) has been added to the 220G tank, and 185 gallons is probably a very good estimate.

All treatments should have been (individually) well under 2ppm, I did that math myself as well before doing it.

I see nothing wrong with what was done, though in retrospect I should perhaps have followed the hints in a few postings that said to stop filtration while treating until the PP color is gone.

But... all that said... I have ammonia. So either I did something wrong, we both did the math wrong, (at least repeated) treatments under 2ppm can kill bacteria, or I have a huge ammonia spike from something else.

I'm not discounting alien invasion.:eek5:

Sorry I keep bringing up the small tank, it became relevant tonight in swapping out the bio media to try to accelerate the large tank's new cycle.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*A little Messing About*

Hi Linwood,

I am not sure which glass is which. Never worry when experimenting that they may not be as expected, not the results, we worry about explain the result later pictures are good.

How accurately can you measure? I do not mind converting systems as necessary.

Assuming those are pint jars, mark each jar with a permanent marker, if you can start again with 1-cup exactly in each jar, if you are able to measure in milliliters 250-ml would be good, let me know the % accuracy noted, if noted.

Make up a solution of 0.1% and maybe even 0.001% PP solution; this gives the ability to work in 1-mg or 0.1-mg units. Place your 1%, 0.1% and/or 0.001% solutions in marked lightproof containers, old Hydrogen peroxide bottles (well washed and rinsed) are great. Mark them!

What kind of dropper do you have? If you have an empty API test bottle, they are great. If you just happen to have pipettes even better. Figure a quantity, somehow, that represents each drop in whatever unit that is most convenient. 

Do not sweat exact amounts, as it will not matter too much after a bit since I will have you mix some things in a particular manner that will give me a reasonable conversion.

Clean (wash) the jars and measuring cup, rinse them in RODI water. If it is aquarium water rinse the jar and the measuring cup in the aquarium water (3 or 4 times), take the aquarium water from ⅕ deep. 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

I've got a decent kitchen scale that seems precise (repeatable) to about a gram, not sure how accurate it is; it wasn't a cheap one. I've got syringes marked off in 2/10ths of a ml, though as usual there's some inaccuracy in very small amounts. No pipettes. 

I'm about 99% sure I know which jar is which, and 100% sure I know what's in #3 and #4. In retrospect the darker color of #2, which should have had iron in it, is also consistent.

I'm 100% sure that the tank water treated in the tank changed color much faster than the tank water treated separately. The biggest variable in my testing is likely the size of the drop I used - I can say the drops were pretty darn consistent in jars 1-3, but I can't say that the drop was 1/20th ml, I didn't try to calibrate them, though that would be quite easy to do. It's also easier to make a more dilute solution of course; that's what I did for the iron, but figured I was close enough on the PP as I wanted mostly to compare between jars and not in an absolute sense.

I don't want to test any more right now, it's late. Tomorrow I'll spend half a day or so changing water and get the tank settled in and then consider it. But I think until things stabilize and I get through the next Levamisole treatment I will not do any more PP treatments of the actual tank. Too many moving parts. 

Hoping ammonia is down tomorrow!


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Permanganometry*

Hi Linwood,

PP dosen’t lie. 

My suspicion is we are seeing the basic problem. It really is not uncommon in young tanks and in particular, with tanks that are on that edge of large, it isn’t a character flaw, just experience. 

Once upon time, a sergeant told me, “good judgment comes with experience, experience comes from bad judgment.” 

It sounds as though you have things under control.

I will write more later, or tomorrow (real-life again!) 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB 

Bump:


Linwood said:


> I've got a decent kitchen scale that seems precise (repeatable) to about a gram, not sure how accurate it is; it wasn't a cheap one. I've got syringes marked off in 2/10ths of a ml, though as usual there's some inaccuracy in very small amounts. No pipettes.
> 
> I'm about 99% sure I know which jar is which, and 100% sure I know what's in #3 and #4. In retrospect the darker color of #2, which should have had iron in it, is also consistent.
> 
> ...


Hi Linwood,

That is rather consistent.

Actually more important than accuracy is repeatability, we will be able to calculate the exact amounts later.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> PP dosen’t lie.
> ...
> My suspicion is we are seeing the basic problem. It really is not uncommon in young tanks and in particular, with tanks that are on that edge of large, it isn’t a character flaw, just experience.


Well, PP may be like an Oracle however (the original, not the guy with the boat), in that interpretation is usually best done with hindsight.

I still don't quite know what happened. I really don't think I have some massive influx of ammonia so large the BB couldn't handle it; I think the ammonia spike is from death of a lot of BB. It was 2ppm this morning also, not sure if that's encouraging (no worse) or discouraging (as one large tray should have been able to remove it). 

But anyway, swapped out about 130 gallons of water (well, 110 Gallons, then another 20 or so -- I misunderestimated how much to take out) [That is officially a word now, right?]

My GUESS Is that the "2ppm doesn't hurt it" is not true, but is mostly true -- it probably hurts some of the BB. If it only knocked out 25% each time, I'd be down to 30% -- tank wide, not just the filter. But that's a guess. 

Why the four times -- gain my GUESS Is that there's a lot of organics in my (big) canister filters, which are about mid-way through their time before I would clean them. My GUESS Is that when the water circulated PP through them all that organics ate it up, much moreso than the tank water. So when I dosed the tank water outside the tank -- it acted more normally and stayed pink a long time. But in the tank (circulating) it takes no time at all. I have no data to support this other than the single glass jar test. 

That guess doesn't seem consistent with others' experiences through.

For now I'm off the PP route, going to get the tank cycling again and then do the Levamisole again and then two hefty water changes and... that's almost February. 

Both tanks have now had two very heavy water changes after the Levamisole. The inhabitants look much more lively and normal - all Angels in the small tank are eating (not so the large but it's only been a few hours). 

Now just waiting... (well, and doing all those chores I put off lately - that real life part).

Thanks again, best wishes for the New Year.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*The Numbers Do Not Lie, I Am Sorry*

Hi Linwood,

Science can be ego bruising, I meant no insult or offense.

Based on the original posts, this result accounts for the pH, KH reductions.

Organic material located anywhere in the system is part of the total organic carbon of the system, if the bio-filters were not oxidizing the organic matter, result of biotic decomposition, the dissolved organic carbon is in the system.

Sorry, I offended you. 

Have a happy and prosperous new year.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Sorry, I offended you.


We appear separated by a common language somewhere, you have done absolutely nothing that offended me. This thread has been nothing but educational, interesting and fun.

I'm not sure what I said to imply that, but my apologies for whatever miscommunication. 

If it's that I'm just letting it sit for a while -- I'm just a believer in not having too many things going at one time. Now that I have a cycling problem I want to get that sorted.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

OK, New theory. I think the potassium permanganate is exonerated. On a whim I checked my small tank, which has not been dosed with it -- ammonia and nitrites (both 0.25, but definite). Just to make sure my test kit wasn't going wacky I tested RODI water and a definite 0/0.

And while I did swap bio media between tanks (to put thought-to-be-good media in the big tank which I thought the PP had killed), the small tank is heavily planted and also had a lot of other filter media besides the tray of matrix. No way the removal of that one tray sent it into ammonia and nitrites.

So my new theory is - either the fenbendazole (less likely as not water soluable) or levamisole hcl has affected the bacteria in both tanks. 

I periodically test both tanks, and up until now, from the day they finished their cycle, they have never had a detectable (with API liquid kit) level of either ammonia or nitrites. Now suddenly both tanks have significant amounts, after each has had two large water changes as well. 

I don't see how it could be anything but the drugs?


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

I suspected as much and even thought depending on how bad the infestation was that the expelled worms could have caused ammonia?
A few dead worms ,a little dead bacteria= ammonia?


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Coralbandit said:


> I suspected as much and even thought depending on how bad the infestation was that the expelled worms could have caused ammonia?
> A few dead worms ,a little dead bacteria= ammonia?


I never saw any worms on the bottom, though certainly I had two fish that had worms showing and now do not (the third that had them visible is dead and removed).

The problem with assuming the BB is healthy and that this is a big ammonia spike is that it doesn't pass the gut-feel check. Which admittedly is not an accurate instrument, but still. 

The large tank in particular has a lot of processing capacity. I know that as I've had fish die and go unnoticed for a long time without detectable ammonia, and it picks up a lot of poop and food and... etc. The sheer volume in comparison to a few worms just doesn't make sense, if the BB were still normally processing. 

It also doesn't really make sense that it did not go down. I measured it about 20 hours apart - no change. 

But I really have no good way to know. I'll start monitoring it daily and see what happens.

But at least on the face of it the most consistent hypothesis I can think of is that the BB was substantially reduced by something, and the only thing in both tanks was the two dewormers.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Madness Looms*

Hi Linwood,

I misunderstood, English is a problem for me and I seem to offend, oh well… 

I am not sure I know what “BB” means, for the purposes of this post, I am assuming it is something to do with biological filtration. 

I guess what I was trying to say is the PP revealed a looming problem (my better half is a weaver, so we know about looming madness). Actually the reason I was urging PP and maybe Alum early on. Sudden and quick consumption of PP, what you are seeing when it goes to yellow, brown and muddy, is a strong indicator (at aquarium pH) of organic material. 

Levamisole HCl, HCl when seen with a salt simply means they made it water-soluble, Levamisole is the active levorotation form of tetramisole therefor non-toxic at rates many times therapeutic dosing. The long way of saying Levamisole HCl did not kill your filter. 

Levamisole HCl, affects the neurotransmitters and paralyzes the Camillanus worm, the fish then expel them. Part of the problem is that by the time you see the Camillanus worm they have likely done a lot of damage. Part of the really good news, I didn’t know until now, is that Levamisole HCl, also is an immunomodulator that seems to restore depressed immune systems.

The lowest therapeutic dose of PP I can find is 2.65-ppm (I think the doctor (MD) made a math error and meant the bath at 4.65-ppm). The literature I have suggests that at 3-ppm without organic material or metals to be the lowest to affect nitrifying bacteria with 4.5 to 5-ppm before significant damage. The heterotrophic bacteria were closer to 7-ppm, though I suppose that could be they just grow significantly faster than nitrifying bacteria.

I think you are still looking for your KH thief. 

You are also experiencing the downside of that vaunted large aquarium water stability “advantage.”

I also think you need to continue dosing PP; something is going on.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

BB = an abbreviation I've seen for Beneficial Bacteria aka nitrifying bacteria, which I guess is actually mostly nitrifying archaea, but anyway... 

So I don't understand what it is you think happened.

For clarity a synopsis: 

- Small (45G) and large (220G) tanks, very similar stock and same water mixture, moderately planted, low tech, strong flow and filtration. 

- Neither tank has shown detectable ammonia or nitrite (using API Liquid) since their cycle completed, 7/24/2014 (small) and 9/11/2014 (large).

- Camallanus worms showed up in both tanks. Treated with fenbendazole soaked food for three days 12/20, 21, 22. 

- After obtaining Levamisole, treated with 5g/100g dosage on 12/22 in both tanks

- 12/25 - 70-80% water change in large tank

- 12/26 - 70-80% water change in small tank (no PP), 1.75ppm +/- PP plus alum added to large tank

- 12/27 - 1.75ppm +/- pp added to large tank (no alum) 

- 12/28 - 80% water change in small tank, 1.75ppm PP added to large tank

- 12/29 - 1.75ppm PP added to large tank (4th treatment), tested water and got 2 ppm ammonia, 0 nitrites

- 12/30 - Ammonia still 2.0ppm, then 135G water change in large tank

- 12/31 - Small tank 0.25 ppm ammonia and 0.25 ppm nitrite, large tank 0.25 ppm ammonia, zero nitrites

- 1/1 - Small tank 0.5 ammonia, 1.0 nitrites, large tank 0.5ppm ammonia, zero nitrites

I just don't see where all ammonia and nitrite is coming from, unless something killed the beneficial bacteria. Or more precisely, even if it's being produced a bit more heavily, why isn't it processing through? 

Neither tank, even when fish have died and started rotting, have never shown any trace - now they are showing a lot of un-processed or partially processed ammonia. And rising fairly rapidly. 

You seem to imply there was something incipient looming at the core of this; can you speculate, or at least give me an example of something that would account for the above? Other than a massive dieoff of the nitrifying bacteria/archaea? 

My first reaction of blaming the PP was just because it was an unusual (for me) thing and just done -- but I did absolutely none of that in the small tank, so I now think that's a distraction (in terms of cause, maybe not in terms of symptom). 

My presumption it is not the fenbendazole is that it's not water soluable and so less likely to thoroughly encounter the BB. But I also know everyone says Levamisole won't harm it either. But those two drugs are the only other common factor.

Which would appear to leave either the drugs themselves, or something they did. Kill all the ditritus worms or something hidden (snails?) causing a massive ammonia spike? Possibly. Though I would think I might see them - coming to the top as they die. And I don't. A few dead snails in the large tank, but there's hundreds there alive, and there's always a few dying.

I've done a complete inventory (less snails) of the small tank and no dead fish, and an almost complete inventory of the large (plecos are always in hiding so not certain, but no other fish are dead). So no big rotting catfish or something similar, to cause a spike.

I'm starting to accumulate water again for more big changes to try to keep things alive as it cycles. But I really am puzzled as to the cause.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Detours Perhaps, But the Same Destination*

Hi Linwood,

My suspicion is and has been that somewhere along the way organic material is in your tank, after eliminating missing children, dead critters, bad practices, having found you to be reliable and observant, 


I started to think it might be, in fact thought it was likely to be the driftwood.
The stump seems to have been cleared based on its years underwater.
 Now adding to the problem is similar conditions in the smaller tank. That of course suggests something about the water itself. Set this aside for now.

I based my assumptions on experience and the fact I can calculate the amounts of organic material likely involved based on your reported KH and pH losses. 


However, I cannot account for (all of) your pH that bothers me and
 is the reason I persisted particularly with the PP.
I used this time to become comfortable with your process and observations, my sense is they are accurate (that does not happen very often).

It was not simply my knowledge of fenbendazole, Levamisole HCl and PP it was the KH and pH readings were (are) consistent with this outcome. 

I also had to stop and research a bit because I have never been involved with the use of fenbendazole and Levamisole HCl on top of each other. It appears there should be little problem, though probably not a good idea. For the fish that ate the fenbendazole the Levamisole HCl should have had little or no affect. 

I would add that even if your large tank was on the verge an ammonia spike that is to say was carrying its maximum load beneficial bacteria (and fungus) could handle your ammonia spike would require at least 2-grams, dry weight, dead (not paralyzed) worms, I have got to believe an observant chap would have noticed while vacuuming. 

Additionally that 2-grams dead, dry weight would have to be broken down, dissolved, a time-consuming task, requiring an army of helpers.

Some of the chemistry here is complicated, at least for me to explain, but I will give it my best shot.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I would add that even if your large tank was on the verge an ammonia spike that is to say was carrying its maximum load beneficial bacteria (and fungus) could handle your ammonia spike would require at least 2-grams, dry weight, dead (not paralyzed) worms, I have got to believe an observant chap would have noticed while vacuuming.
> 
> Additionally that 2-grams dead, dry weight would have to be broken down, dissolved, a time-consuming task, requiring an army of helpers.


I don't think I'll have enough water for the small tank water change until morning (I don't want it to be a small %), so I'll get another ammonia reading on it, and probably two more days in the large tank.

There is a coincidence factor in all this as well, that I was building (after months of zeros) to an ammonia spike, and that it would come just when I'm treating for worms. 

In both tanks.

Though to be fair... 2 grams.... So want to speculate how much material it would take with a normal rate of decomposition? 

I know there's a dead nerite in the small tank (though not sure any other dead snails at all), and there are quite a few dead ramshorns in the large tank -- but that's pretty normal, as there are a LOT of ramshorns in there. 

I'll see if i can find that Nerite. Looked once, pulled a lot of rocks up - nada. ANd yes I looked on the floor.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Maybe...*

Hi Linwood,

Not trying to sound like too much of a nag, but dose PP, with or without water changes is the quickest way to rid yourself of the underlying organic material, whatever the source..

Coincidence, not really I look at the dates from advice to action and I will say what was going to happen happened. Wait long enough and you will have a real crash, oddly enough though if you tough it out even that works for an eventually gorgeous tank.

Proverbial cat and the many ways to skin it… 19 according to the CIA consultants.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Days? Maybe*

Hi Linwood,

Also meant to add when using PP if you wish to bypass the filters just make sure there is plenty of circulation and aeration.

Time of decomposition is temperature and microbial critter, fungi and stramenopiles dependent. 

Assuming the beneficial bacteria were killed by the treatments we would have to assume the same would apply to the beneficial decomposers added to the fact the worms (detritivores and such) were killed, my guess would be days for enough decomposers to come together to decompose (and dissolve) that many worms.

One method of preservation is to eliminate decomposers.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

Although the strength you used is within reason PP is a known killer of snails.
Combine that with a large water change before its use(not recommended) and I can't say what went wrong but it didn't work out well.
Although MY favorite link said PP didn't NOT cause an ammonia spike at your level of dose, it also said at slightly higher levels it didn't care what bacteria it killed(re read the skeptical aquarist link).
The ammonia really could be from the snails/or the water change.
If nitrAtes are good(20 or less) but the PP changes color to soon then we clearly are not able to measure the organics by nitrAtes!
So how do we know?
TDS?
PH/KH? Their drop?
Conductivity?
I change water and have seen the same(2 hours and yellow brown).
I always deactivate my PP with h202,before re dosing.
Did you ?
Is it necessary?


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Coincidence, not really I look at the dates from advice to action and I will say what was going to happen happened.


Mea culpa. I ordered PP and didn't pay for expedited shipping. I was sure I could get alum locally, then couldn't, and ordered it separately. But to be honest, to me (and I'm sorry if this seems unfair) this is more about learning what is happening than achieving a specific result. And sometimes that takes time and trial and error.



JoeRoun said:


> Also meant to add when using PP if you wish to bypass the filters just make sure there is plenty of circulation and aeration.


At the very least I'll turn off 2 of the 3 in the big tank, and probably put an air stone in the small. 



Coralbandit said:


> Although the strength you used is within reason PP is a known killer of snails.


Remember that for the ammonia spike I'm dealing with two tanks that got it simultaneously, and only one was dosed with PP. 

I just did a pretty careful, pick up everything, feel through all the leaves inventory in the small tank. One dead snail (it was stuck under a piece of driftwood i moved last water change, and so I suspect I killed it). I cannot find the nerite -- he's in there somewhere, probably dead. But certainly no dieoff in the small tank from anything visible. Something invisible, like detritus worms? Possible. Haven't seen a bunch floating to the top, and in the small tank I vacuumed about half the tank pretty well and think I would have seen them coming up. 




Coralbandit said:


> The ammonia really could be from the snails/or the water change.
> If nitrAtes are good(20 or less) but the PP changes color to soon then we clearly are not able to measure the organics by nitrAtes!
> So how do we know?
> TDS?
> ...


I did not. I keep h2o2 around and use it frequently but didn't know I needed to neutralize if it turned yellow/brown. (Actually haven't used it much since I got a bunch of SAE - dynamite little guys). 

Tomorrow I'll get fresh numbers, and will start checking nitrates also, though the water changes and the poor distinction in the 20-40 range on the kit make it hard to tell if anything interesting there. 

Joe, I apologize if this seems ungrateful, but at least for a while I'm going to monitor it without any intervention beyond water changes and see if I can tell what's happening. It's not that I don't believe in PP or what you are saying, I just think there is something going on I do not understand yet, and I just feel more comfortable with fewer moving parts.

Incidentally, as I was looking back over my notes, when I removed the purigen from the filters prior to the levamisole, I cleaned two of the three filters on the large tank (only 2 had purigen), and the only one on the small tank. So I went into the medicine regime without some huge load of junk in the filters. 

And clean = wash in tank water, nothing aggressive that can hurt the biological good stuff. 

I also perhaps ought not to assume it's the same thing in both tanks (especially since one is producing nitrites and the other not). My small tank is quite different from the large in terms of nitrates -- it steadily increases in nitrates, and I'm having to change water there normally more frequently. By that I mean the rate of increase was going up over the last month or two before this all started. 

Oh well, enough speculating until I get at least another day's worth of data. I've only accumulated about 25 gallons so far, so I'll do a bit water change in the morning, and then accumulate overnight tomorrow for the big tank. 

Thanks for the help guys, I hope my lack of cooperation doesn't offend - we each need to find our own path, ultimately.


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

Linwood said:


> Thanks for the help guys, I hope my lack of cooperation doesn't offend - we each need to find our own path, ultimately.


 
All good!
Only trying to help and lend a different view or ask the question that leads to positive results!
KISS!(you know what this means right!?)
Keep It Simple Stupid!
Less is more,get back to even before experimenting more!


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Biological Oxidation Versus Chemical Oxidation*

Hi Coralbandit, All,

As far as killing bacteria, it is not hard to set up for yourself, generally looking at 3-ppm for damage, 5 to 7-ppm PP to kill and that is without other organic materials or metals.

No particular reason to deactivate PP that has been expended, especially with hydrogen peroxide as hydrogen peroxide is itself an aggressive oxidant, I know that for whatever reasons hydrogen peroxide is considered harmless but is in fact far more aggressive than PP, or chlorine for that matter. 

I am not sure what more anyone could want with a built in colorimetric indicator.

PP or hydrogen peroxide or chlorine or any of the other oxidants you can name will not cause ammonia in fact all of them have the net effect of oxidizing those things, which cause ammonia.

Of course, you cannot directly measure the organic material by measuring Nitrates as the Nitrates are themselves the end-product of an oxidation process that is what our biological filters accomplish.

The Nitrates that are not the result of added (dosed) salts are the result of dissolved organic (nitrogenous) materials in the recirculating aquaculture systems (aquariums) the process we call nitrification is a successive oxidation of ammonia (Nitrosomonas, Nitrosococcus, Nitrosospira, Nitrosolobus, and Nitrosovibrio) to nitrite then on to (Nitrobacter, Nitrococcus, Nitrospira, and Nitrospina) nitrate. 

Of course, among the difficulties of figuring the amount of dissolved organic materials is the amount of ammonium consumed by the plants. We can of course calculate the amounts by determining the use of certain compounds, reduction of Alkalinity would be the most obvious.

While we can approximate the amount of organic material using PP or other oxidants, PP has the advantage of requiring the addition of colorants. 

The only certain way of knowing total organic carbon (TOC) is testing for biological oxygen demand (BOD), which is a serious pain.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

If you are curious to follow: 

Large tank: 
Ammonia at 1ppm (up from 0.25 -> 0.5 -> 1.0 daily)
Nitrites still zero 
Nitrates 5ppm or lower (more yellow than key, but not zero) 

Small tank: 
Ammonia: 0.5ppm (0.25 -> 0.5 -> 0.5 daily) 
Nitrites: 2ppm (or higher) (0.25 -> 1.0 -> 2.0+ daily) 
Nitrates: 40ppm (+/- likely inaccurate given nitrites)

In the small tank I would read this as though it is processing some of the ammonia through to a huge spike in nitrites. My experience has been the nitrate test is inaccurate when nitrites are high, so I don't know for sure if it's processing through there. This would seem consistent with a large ammonia spike a bit ago that is either dying down, or the BB is catching up (at least on the ammonia side).

In the large tank I don't know what to make of the lack of nitrites short of no processing yet. The nitrates being under 5ppm is consistent with water changes pulling it down, as it has always been very slow to rise. 

The small tank is obviously pretty deadly, have plenty of water now so changing it shortly as much as I can pull out without making the fish too nuts.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Chemosynthetic Versus Heterotrophic; Both BB*

Hi All,

I got to thinking (always painful and often dangerous) the whole BB (beneficial bacteria) sounds kind of marketing ploy and as with Seachem maybe a touch misleading. It occurred to me that one of the misunderstandings might be a basic biology issue.

I should have glommed on to it when Linwood mentioned all the organic material in the filter.

In our bio-filters, chemosynthetic (consuming inorganic material for energy) nitrifying bacteria, certainly beneficial, live with heterotrophic microorganisms such as heterotrophic (consuming organic material for energy) bacteria (also BB), micrometazoa, and protozoa and so forth, which are also beneficial, just not bacteria.

For the most part nitrifying bacteria are obligate autotrophs; they consume CO₂ for most of their carbon needs and are obligate aerobes, meaning they require oxygen to grow. 

The problem is that heterotrophic microbes are the ones that break down the organic materials, dissolve them if you will; grow much, much faster than nitrifying bacteria. 

When the water is heavily-ladened with organic material the heterotrophic microbes tend to displace the nitrifying bacteria. This is why it is so important to keep the bio-filters relatively clean.

At any rate especially in young systems, nitrifying bacteria are often displaced and we tend to see a spike in ammonia. Were the bacteria killed off, you would be seeing more stuff laying around, since the decomposers would also be dead.

The use of an oxidant (PP leaps to mind) and/or large water changes are a method to keep total organic carbon in check while the nitrifying bacteria rebuild themselves.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Is the net of the above that perhaps my filters are not being kept clean enough?

The bottom of my filters, after a month or two, are invariably filled with brown sludge; I've never know if they were diatoms or something else. The actual bio media (Seachem Matrix) is pretty far up in the filter stack so not much of this sludge gets up there, but there's quite a bit at the bottom when I clean.

All that said, in a tank with a lot of rocks, substrate, plants, etc... isn't a great deal of the nitrifying bacteria in the tank itself? 

I guess what I'm saying is, other than perhaps a recommendation to use PP again, is there an action other than water changes you are recommending?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Sludge Maybe*

Hi Linwood,

It could be the sludge, I am not sure, and to be honest I thought and still tend to think there is some source to cause the buildup. 

I really thought the stump would end up being the source. The sludge doesn’t have to be in the media, technically it does not even have to be in the filter, though increased organic particulate matter is the ultimate problem. 

Remember that in this context “particulates” can be incredible small, even colloidal.

While keeping organic material out of the filter is important, be careful not to over clean. The bulk of sludge would be a good explanation as to why the PP was expended so quickly.

In our aquaculture (tasty critters) where we overstock to a ridiculous level, we make a point of mechanically filtering the water for the most part we “protect” the bio-filters with vortex and glass bead filters that allow us to recover most fish wastes, which have value. The net effect is to keep particulates larger than 0.5-µm or so out of the bio-filters without having to clean or replace filters continuously. I happen to like the vortex filters anyway, but that is a whole different can of worms.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Magic always comes with a price, Rumpelstiltskin/Mr. Gold, Once Upon A Time*

Hi Linwood,

Yes indeed the tank is a wonderful place for all the various beneficial bacteria, fungus and stramenopiles (heterokonts) and so on. In any location, the nitrifying bacteria simply need considerably more time and a little (lot?) less competition from the heterotrophic bacteria and microbes. The principle method of disadvantaging the heterotrophic microbes is keeping the organic matter low.

I know the marketers and religious elite like to tell everyone there is a cycle (Nitrogen) and it is definite and self-contained, such is regrettably not the case. The Nitrogen cycle is a process and actually happens in waves. Young tanks tend to go through one form or another of what you are experiencing, it is simply to be managed.

I will go a step farther and say that healthy well-established planted tanks say 18-months or more generally do not require canister filters at least for biological filtration. Canister filters are a convenience in the early going no doubt but are serious competitors for system resources. 

Magic always comes with a price, Rumpelstiltskin/Mr. Gold, Once Upon A Time.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> It could be the sludge, I am not sure, and to be honest I thought and still tend to think there is some source to cause the buildup.
> 
> I really thought the stump would end up being the source. The sludge doesn’t have to be in the media, technically it does not even have to be in the filter, though increased organic particulate matter is the ultimate problem.
> 
> ...


'Morning Joe. 

I don't know how to judge the stump. By touch it is nicely hard, and there's no sign of decay. But it has a huge surface area as there's a ton of cracks and crevices. 

The tank is consistent with the oddity I noticed in testing the PP in jars - tank water stayed purple a lot longer in the jar than it did in the tank. Yes, I could have been substantially off in the dosing of PP, so it's not exactly definitive.

I think today I may go clean those filters again well. I'm waiting on water to make (I think the new pre-filters have slowed down my RODI), so I have time.



JoeRoun said:


> I know the marketers and religious elite like to tell everyone there is a cycle (Nitrogen) and it is definite and self-contained, such is regrettably not the case. The Nitrogen cycle is a process and actually happens in waves. Young tanks tend to go through one form or another of what you are experiencing, it is simply to be managed.


Well, it makes sense. Almost no process in nature (or mechanics) is perfectly damped; even well damped processes tend to oscillate. And with me helping it along, there's no reason to think it is even stable. :icon_twis



JoeRoun said:


> Magic always comes with a price, Rumpelstiltskin/Mr. Gold, Once Upon A Time.


I prefer Clark - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic. 

I'm just clearly not advanced enough in the technology area yet. :confused1:

Ah... data... 

Large tank - 

Ammonia: 1.0 ( daily 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.0). May even be a bit under 1.
Nitrites: 0.25 - first time they appeared, but definitely there now
Nitrates: 5.0 (no change) 

Small tank (70% water change yesterday)-

Ammonia: 0.25 (0.25 -> 0.50 -> 0.50 (then 70% WC) -> 0.25
Nitrites: 1.0 (0.25 -> 1 -> 2 (then 70% WC) -> 1
Nitates: 10 (40 (then 70% WC) -> 10

No real surprise in any of that to me. Seeing nitrites in the large tank makes me feel like it's starting to process again. The high Nitrites in the small tank is consistent with it processing ammonia. 

I'm still not sure how I can distinguish whether all this means I've had a sudden increase in ammonia production, or a sudden decrease in ammonia processing from death of beneficial stuff. 

Yesterday when I changed water in the tank, I took a stick and stirred up the substrate quite a bit. I didn't see a single ditritus worm. Not one. In the past I know I would have seen dozens start swimming. I didn't notice any dead ones either, though (though dead is harder to see, and I suspect they decay pretty fast). Not sure what volume they would have represented. 

The large tank is pretty new, I've seen a few worms there, but I can't say how prevalent they were. When I change water I'll make a bit of a mess somewhere and see if I see any there.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Nitrobacter, Nitrococcus, Nitrospira, and Nitrospina...*

Hi Linwood,

My best guess at this point is that your nitrifying bacteria were overwhelmed by the heterotrophic bacteria (well microbes anyway), since ammonia is still being produced. 

The fact you are seeing Nitrite supports this as well.

Ammonia to Nitrite is the higher energy process, something like 84kcal/mol ammonia, Nitrite to Nitarte is only (maybe) 17kcal/mol Nitrite and the reason we usually do not see Nitrites when everything is working as it should.

The PP in aquarium water removed from the tank versus in the tank is a very good indicator something in the tank is responsible.

Thoroughly cleaning the filter is a good idea try not to over clean the media, simply rid it of particulate (loose) matter.

More later… Real life…

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> The PP in aquarium water removed from the tank versus in the tank is a very good indicator something in the tank is responsible.
> 
> Thoroughly cleaning the filter is a good idea try not to over clean the media, simply rid it of particulate (loose) matter.


Do you mean something in the filter is responsible? 

I have just cleaned all three in the large tank. When I clean them I rinse the mechanical media in the water that's in the canister, squeezing it numerous times. It comes out whiter but nowhere near white. I've got one heavy sponge and six 1" medium pads in each of the large filters, and I usually change out one or two of them each time if they look like they won't fluff back up well (in this case I changed 2 in one, one in the other). The sponge I've never changed. 

The filters this time did not look unusually dirty -- often I cannot rinse all media in the water in the canister and have to get another bucket full of tank water. This time it was clean enough to rinse them all.

The one thing I did notice however is a coating of something paste like on some components, and the plastic side of the canister would not rinse clean. Usually the brown junk is silt-like, and becomes suspended in water easily and so rinses off easily. There was a slimy/pasty layer on the plastic this time, and in a couple places it was visible and looked whitish. I am wondering if the fenbendazole, which was a white paste, accumulated in the filters. But I think you said it wouldn't react regardless, right? But that's what this looks and feels like, the paste I used (note I followed instructions that said after soaking the food, to put the food AND the water it was suspended in, into the tank). 

Anyway, nice clean filters on the large tank. haven't done the small, debating whether to leave it alone as something more of a control.


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

Linwood said:


> The filters this time did not look unusually dirty -- often I cannot rinse all media in the water in the canister and have to get another bucket full of tank water. This time it was clean enough to rinse them all.


 IMO this is from the PP.
For clarification I re-read Dr Roddys link and he does NOT use H2O2 inbetween treatments(if multiple are needed), but does dose H2O2 when he is done to make the water crystal clear.
He mentioned something about the magnesium and the H2O2,but I'm not Joe?


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Coralbandit said:


> IMO this is from the PP.
> For clarification I re-read Dr Roddys link and he does NOT use H2O2 inbetween treatments(if multiple are needed), but does dose H2O2 when he is done to make the water crystal clear.
> He mentioned something about the magnesium and the H2O2,but I'm not Joe?


I went ahead and cleaned the small tank also, and it was similar. 

I don't think it was from the PP, but rather that this cleaning comes quickly on the heals of another (about 2 weeks). I had cleaned them lightly when I removed the purigen to do the levamisole treatment. There was a smaller filter that was cleaned 11/30, so still not "due" from my usual routine, and it was more dirty but not bad at all. My comment was aimed more at my expectations of "dirty filter" rather than indicating something unusual. Maybe I'm letting them get too dirty, normally; maybe not. But over times when everything was working nicely (at least no ammonia traces), the filters have been MUCH more dirty than they are now. 

And I don't think I over-cleaned. Generally I don't touch the bio-media, if it's really got crud on it I'll pour some tank water (if somewhat clean) or RODI water over it to rinse. Never been quite sure if it was safe to douse it in RODI water that's not remineralized, so I usually avoid that, but sometimes I pour it over it as it's the only de-chlorinated water handy. 

Anyway... the pasty stuff worried me a bit, so I cleaned them all. In fact in one, there was a gap above the impeller and there was about a half square inch of white paste accumulated there. Vaseline-like texture. I can't imagine what that is if not the fenbendazole; it didn't look or feel organic (as in living matter, not as in chemistry). I doubt it is doing any harm there, but the more I can get rid of the better I'll feel. I think that was a mistake, is there's no sign it ever goes away naturally.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Lucky You*



Coralbandit said:


> ...but I'm not Joe?


 Hi Coralbandit, All,

No need to brag… So, you have much to be thankful for this New Year!

I cannot think why Dr. Conrad would use the hydrogen peroxide in this context. If it is Manganese, he is trying to clear, well Manganese dioxide (spent permanganate) catalysis hydrogen peroxide to water, oxygen and heat with no effect on the Manganese dioxide.

I suppose the idea could be to remove some Magnesium by reacting the hydrogen peroxide with Magnesium ions to form a precipitate, magnesium peroxide that seems pointless with the amount that would be required to remove a significant amount of Magnesium.

At the rate Linwood is dosing there should be a little less than 0.68-gram Magnesium dioxide each time. Certainly, it looks brown and so forth; I would expect a certain amount in the filter. I guess I do not know Linwood’s definition of a lot of sludge… If it is only Magnesium dioxide then there is no problem.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

I'm not sure it makes any chemical difference in the water to be honest ,but I figured since the title of thread mentioned cloudy water that sparkling clear water might be a good thing.
Every time I use pp to "treat" organics I follow up with a "neutralizing" dose of H2O2
and the water sparkles.
This won't help a lot with Linwoods issues now (I don't think?),but thought it worth mention?
http://www.jackmcneary.com/html/potassium_permanganate_.htm
section 9.a "technical reference"


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I would expect a certain amount in the filter. I guess I do not know Linwood’s definition of a lot of sludge… If it is only Magnesium dioxide then there is no problem.


I went back and looked at some of the media I had. I don't have a microscope (starting to think that's a mistake) but in looking closely with a magnifier, and at some dried media from the cleaning, I think the vast, vast majority of what's there is diatoms.

I say that because it dies to a fine powder, it doesn't stink (the media that's been out now for 6 hours or so doesn't smell bad at all - not even very earthy), and the color is the same as the diatom bloom that came early in the tank's history. 

I would expect poop or decaying matter to stink. I am not saying there is none in the filter -- just that I think it's a tiny minority.

I'm not sure this information is useful, but your comment made me go take a better look. As to how much... my guess is drained and dried - ounces, maybe 1 or 2 ounces per filter. It's a lot. 

But I don't think it is something that is rotting. I think it's diatom skeletons more than anything. That's a guess based on macro appearance though. Is it likely?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*MnO₂ + 2H₂O₂ ⇒ MnO₂ + 2H₂O + O₂ + Heat*



Coralbandit said:


> I'm not sure it makes any chemical difference in the water to be honest ,but I figured since the title of thread mentioned cloudy water that sparkling clear water might be a good thing.
> Every time I use pp to "treat" organics I follow up with a "neutralizing" dose of H2O2
> and the water sparkles.
> This won't help a lot with Linwoods issues now (I don't think?),but thought it worth mention?
> ...


 Hi Coralbandit, 

After PP the water sparkles for me without the hydrogen peroxide, though I am not arguing, I just do not understand the upside to the hydrogen peroxide.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*85 PP Treatments*

Hi Linwood,

I guess anything is possible if diatoms causing the spike it is a new one for me… It sounds like diatom shells to me. I do think the lack of smell is significant.

I still think it is something in the tank, cleaning the filters is a good idea anyway, eliminating another possibility. I should have thought of that earlier.

For the material to be spent permanganate would have required you to do 85 PP treatments minimum.

More a little later…

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Okay So I Had to Look It Up*

Hi Coralbandit, All,

Just reviewed Dr. Conrad’s A Protocol for Using Potassium Permanganate in the Treatment of Koi and Goldfish, special attention to 9. Technical References, a. Potassium and Manganese, 

While Hydrogen peroxide will neutralize permanganate:
2MnO₄⁻ + 6H⁺ + 5H₂O₂ → 2Mn⁺⁺ + 8H₂O + 5O₂ 
further reaction in alkaline (essentially neutral) conditions:
Mn⁺⁺ + 2O₂ → MnO₄⁻; a precipitate.ⁱ

I humbly submit that Dr. Conrad is mistaken, Manganese dioxide will clear on its own, being a precipitate, it will either be mechanically filtered or settle out. Additional H₂O₂ will be catalyzed by the precipitated MnO₄⁻:
MnO₄⁻ + 2H₂O₂ → MnO₄⁻ + 2H₂O + O₂ + Heat; with no effect on the catalyst, MnO₄⁻.ⁱ

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB
ⁱCRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics 86th Edition


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Like PP, Hate PP; Moving On*

Hi Linwood,

The “Vaseline-like texture” stuff is probably a polymer created from organic material, polymer coacervation I suppose. It is of no particular consequence, simply another indication of excess organic material.

Now what I really wanted to get to ammonia to Nitrate:
Our Nitrosomonas friends;
4NH₄⁺ + 6O₂ → 4NO₂⁻ + 4H⁺ + 4H₂O + 84-kcal/mol ammonia (1)
Then our Nitrobacter friends:
4NO₂⁻ + 2O₂ → 4NO₃⁻ + 17.8-kcal/mol nitrite (2)

I will get to the point later…

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Of Interest?*

Hi Linwood, All,

I changed my mind a bit on the explanation after reading about nitrification as marketers present it to aquarists, until I gagged.

If you are not interested in technical information, do not bother reading.

For those who are interested please bear with me as I attempt to explain recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), managing the decomposition of nitrogenous compounds because of the toxicity of ammonia.

I understand that Linwood has a degree in math, some interest and background in chemistry, I decided to include some basic explanations because I know there are some reading this who may not share the background.

Fish via urine, feces, gill cation exchange and gill diffusion expel nitrogenous waste products, then there are organic materials from dead organisms and plants; most of us in the freshwater aquarium community manage the decomposition of these wastes through a process called "nitrification." An opposite method of control is denitrification, primarily used in saltwater systems There is also a zero-exchange management system used by high intensity aquaculture. 

I am dealing with nitrification and best management practices (BMP). We in the planted tank community also get some vegetative filtration as well.

Let me explain that the canister filters, most sumps and hang on back filters are “fixed-film” systems. 

Terms that go with these are: 

“Specific surface area,” media surface area per unit volume.
“Hydraulic loading rate,” water through the biofilter per cross-sectional area per unit of time.
“Void space/porosity,” ratio of the volume not occupied by media, the “void ratio” is the void ratio divided by total volume.
“Cross-sectional area” is the area of the filter bed.
 
More later if there is any interest.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> More later if there is any interest.


Interest: Yes please.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

As followup on my cycle induced by.... well, who knows... 

The small tank seems to be following a classic if somewhat accelerated cycle -- ammonia has now dropped to zero, nitrites continue to rise, nitrates -- hard to tell as they are in that hazy range 10-30. Water change today as nitrites are up around 2.0. 

The large tank may be doing the same though perhaps slower -- it is getting nitrites but still showing ammonia and after appearing to level off (1.0 three days in a row) today it is 0.5 after a >50% water change - not precise enough to say for sure, but I had certainly hoped for 0.25 or 0 as it dropped. 

I still don't know how to tell if this is a result of an increase in ammonia production, or a decrease in the rate at which it was being processed. The coincidence factor -- both tanks having a sudden increase in production about the same time as each other, and the same time as medication, still points to medication as a cause. Whether it's a cause because it killed good bacteria, or a cause by killing something else which overwhelmed it (for a while) with more ammonia... not sure. 

Anyway, one other thing, harkening back to the beginning topic ... the equilibrium is definitely contributing to the cloudiness, at least for a while. Not sure how much stays stirred up.

Here's a photo from yesterday. Because of the storage tanks and how I use them, I changed out about 110 gallons, but only could put 55G at a time in. I had to mix the RODI water in between. After the first 55Gallons, I noticed the below. See the top of the water and how clear it is. Obviously something not dissolving well that is staying for a while in the water column, clearly not air bubbles. This is after maybe an hour or so in the tank, but the water added was mixed with a 400gph pond pump in the storage tank for about 24 hours.










Anyway... off to change water...


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Alum?*

Hi Linwood,

The ammonia and nitrite levels indicate the biofilter is coming back; the nitrite oxidizing bacteria always are behind the ammonia oxidizing bacteria by a week or so. 

To help protect the critters from the nitrite, add at least 60-grams of CaCl₂*H₂O or 50-grams NaCl.

Have you used the Alum?

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> The ammonia and nitrite levels indicate the biofilter is coming back; the nitrite oxidizing bacteria always are behind the ammonia oxidizing bacteria by a week or so.
> 
> To help protect the critters from the nitrite, add at least 60-grams of CaCl₂*H₂O or 50-grams NaCl.
> 
> Have you used the Alum?


Once, with the first PP treatment long ago. I've gotten so side tracked by first worms now cycle that I am not really thinking much about the cloudy water.

As to salt - I've been told (not sure how authoritatively) that even such low amounts can harm the plants? (Jungle val, Anubias, Ludwigga, Crypt Wendtii, Sword, Java Fern, and a few stem plants I collected and don't know the names of)? 

Is that not a risk?

Bump: I should have added -- do you have either opinion, or an idea how to tell, if the issue was that I (somehow) killed the nitrifying bacteria, or that I somehow had a large dieoff of other "stuff" which overwhelmed it? 

The reason I ask is another treatment is coming up. The treatment regime suggested by the seller is a 3 day treatment, too long to leave the filters turned off. 

If the medicine is what killed the bacteria, then I'm in for yet another cycle. 

And if the medicine killed other "stuff" that caused this cycle, then maybe not -- I doubt in the 3 weeks in between (recommended interval) that whatever "stuff" that was came fully back.

If I was pretty sure it was that the medicine killed the nitrifying bacteria, I may try to figure out some way to preserve the filter, at least the bio media. Maybe take out a whole canister, fill it with three trays of bio media from both tanks, and run it in isolation in a bucket adding a bit of ammonia for three days. Difficult but not impossible. Won't protect the general surface in the tank of course -- but it may at least provide some protection. Just not sure if it's either needed, or likely to work.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Never Paid Any Attention*

Hi Linwood,

50-grams of table salt, NaCl will add about 28-ppm Na. I am not sure how much sodium from your Seachem Alkaline buffer, should have looked it up what you are using, multiply the Seachem Alkalinine Buffer dosed, in grams, by 0.2737 and divide by 708 will give you Sodium in ppm added to your large tank, add that to the 28-ppm above and decide. I have no idea how much Sodium is dangerous to freshwater plants. Best number for Sodium’s harm to plants (assuming glycophytes) I can find would make the water brackish anyway [FONT=&quot](fit for halophytes)[/FONT].

60-grams of CaCl*H2O from your hardware store will add 30-ppm Ca⁺⁺ about 4.2-dGH, but no Sodium.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB

Bump: Probably not worth my saying, so this is the last time I will mention it, but the de-wormers didn’t kill the filter and had they done so we would be seeing different results on the ammonia and nitrites.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> 50-grams of table salt, NaCl will add about 28-ppm Na. ....
> 
> 60-grams of CaCl*H2O from your hardware store will add 30-ppm Ca⁺⁺ about 4.2-dGH, but no Sodium.


Let me do some reading, see whether I can understand if the recommendation was specific to sodium, or any chloride salt, or just urban legend. 

The good news is the stock don't seem in any distress. So far.



JoeRoun said:


> Probably not worth my saying, so this is the last time I will mention it, but the de-wormers didn’t kill the filter and had they done so we would be seeing different results on the ammonia and nitrites.


You've probably said it clearly, but perhaps I am obtuse... 

Could you elaborate on how it would be different? This is exactly the puzzle I've been having, how to distinguish more-Ammonia vs less-Processing.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Trying to Avoid Nitrite Poisoning*

Hi Linwood,

You are in realms I do not understand regarding the salt, since it is Na⁺ interfering with the transport of K⁺ that would be the issue.

The chloride is the point of the exercise to mitigate the effects of Nitrite on your critters. Calcium chloride and table salt are simply the sources most readily available.

As with the de-wormer, I suspect I have nothing more worth adding.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> 
> You are in realms I do not understand regarding the salt, since it is Na⁺ interfering with the transport of K⁺ that would be the issue.
> 
> ...


I've finally had time to read a bit more on salt and plants with mixed success. From what I've read it is the chlorine ion that is beneficial, but I've read that NaCL can be "ruinous" to plants, and in other places that keeping under 1000ppm is safe (the same place quotes catfish at safe only under 500ppm). 

The most thorough explanation I found was the Skeptical Aquarist who recommends 5:1 chloride:nitrite levels, but then goes on to say to use Potassium Chloride or Calcium Chloride ("proved in trials more than twice as effective"). (He is also the one who used "ruinous".)

But the amount you recommend looks like I'm almost two orders of magnitude under the dangerous level for the plants or the catfish. I'll see if I can dig up some CaCL2 at a hardware store today. 

Though I need to make sure it doesn't lull me into not changing the water. :icon_frow

As to the cause. I apologize that I am dense, and will understand if you choose not to answer further, but... 

I am truly still confused about the conclusion you draw. Or rather perhaps the path that leads to it.

Are you saying the dewormer (combination) did not kill the beneficial bacteria because... 

- It is documented that it doesn't, so there. Or

- There is something in the symptoms I see that leads you to the conclusion? 

And if it is the latter, my guess (sorry, just trying to cut down on back and forth) is that you saw an unreasonably high organic constituent to my water after the treatment based on the PP treatment, and because of that high organic component you anticipate an ammonia spike on the way, and indeed that's what we are seeing? 

In short -- is it the results of the PP itself that is leading you to conclude the dewormer did not kill the bacteria?

Or something else?


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Where Is the KH?*

Hi Linwood,

I did not mean to come across quite as irritated as I did. Apologies.

Table salt is not my preferred method for increasing chloride, Calcium chloride, or Potassium chloride is great and readily available, I just didn’t think of it. Potassium chloride would have the advantage of not boosting GH.

I calculated the amounts to keep from injuring anybody, but give you some room for a bit of a spike in Nitrites. 

Part of what bothers me about all of these experts giving precise levels of what is dangerous and not is first with some the science is questionable. They rarely bother to mention the combination and limits that simply have to do with ionic strength or for that matter simply total dissolved solids. As with the median lethal dose, LC₅₀ that are often virtually without meaning in our aquariums or for that matter the “real world.”

For our purposes any combination of any salts that take us over 500-ppm (0.5-ppt) is going to present difficulties. 

As to the Levamisole HCl, at you would have had to exceed the standard dose at least 15-times over to get in the range that could be hazardous to bacteria. It is doubtful you could damage the biological filter at any dosing rate with fenbendazole.

The PP served to confirm what I assumed was happening; your comparison treating aquarium water (with PP) in jar compared to the aquarium was simply confirmation. The principal indicator is (was) the consumption of KH.

It gives you an opportunity to manage a problem that soon your biofilter will mask.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

JoeRoun said:


> Respectfully,
> Joe
> FBTB
> 
> Bump: Probably not worth my saying, so this is the last time I will mention it, but the de-wormers didn’t kill the filter and had they done so we would be seeing different results on the ammonia and nitrites.


 I have done further research on the meds also and agree!

You have something else going on?


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> It gives you an opportunity to manage a problem that soon your biofilter will mask.


Unless the unexpected bio-load spike came as a result of the deworming (perhaps detritus worms, or snails possibly I can't see), the problem with this hypothesis is it requires both tanks to have almost to the day (certainly to the week) have the same problem. One tank almost twice as old as the other.

Not impossible, just hard to believe. 

Now I will say, I haven't seen a moving MTS in the large tank since the treatment. And I know all (well, 3 of 4 visible, and one MIA) Nerites are dead in the small tank. The ramshorns are in both tanks and numerous and healthy - no mass dieoff. But maybe MTS and Nerites make up some of the issue. I've certainly seen people say their snails died with levamisole hcl.

I need to go dig a bit in the big tank, see if the MTS are alive.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*This Is a Management Issue, Not a Character Issue*

Hi Linwood,

I can only speak to the numbers and information you provided. If as I think I recall you say the small tank is being done as the large tank, then the harmony may not be so strange. 

The numbers are what they are and you are my only source for those numbers.

Since I have not seen or tested your tank, I am totally at the mercy of the accuracy and completeness of your descriptions/narrative.

 In low, my many years of managing people and enterprises, I have found it remarkably easy to spot the work or management of individual by their results. Why should it seem so mystical or magical that systems managed by the same person should yield remarkably similar results?

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I can only speak to the numbers and information you provided. If as I think I recall you say the small tank is being done as the large tank, then the harmony may not be so strange.
> 
> ....
> Why should it seem so mystical or magical that systems managed by the same person should yield remarkably similar results?
> [/FONT]


Because one completed its cycle 7/14, and one 9/11, so I guess not twice as old, but older.

I do use the same water recipe and temperature for both, and dose the same ferts. 

They have similar plants, but a lot more active growth in the large than the small (some different plants - wisteria in particular, but also I think more light). Before all this started, the small tank was producing more nitrates than it consumed the large was near equilibrium or maybe consuming more.

I wish I could say that "oh, right, I started doing X on both tanks and maybe that caused this". I just don't see it. 

It may not be worth a lot of energy. It is what it is at present, and I need to get it back processing ammonia adequately through. My continued curiosity is mostly to know whether there's light at the end of the tunnel and I can go back toward monthly rather than every-three-day water changes. But I'll find out soon enough. 

If worse comes to worst, maybe I can fill the whole thing with acrylic and freeze it in a moment in time. I can program the lights to change so it looks like the fish are moving. :hihi:


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*An Event! Gave a Big Edge to the Heterotrophs...*

Hi Linwood, 

It is never simple, but the fact of the difference in set up time suggests an event.

First, you are getting back to processing ammonia that is what the Nitrite readings tell us. 

More in a bit, call I have to take.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*The Trend Is Our Friend*

Hi Linwood,

Of course there is light at the end of tunnel; the real question is it daylight or an oncoming train? Seriously, the only way you lose is by quitting.

It would be nice if you can figure out what happened, then you could kick yourself when you did it again. Right now is correcting the problem.

PP can of course, lessen the water changes and maybe even provide an insight or two, the Alum won’t hurt either.

My guess based on experience is that whatever “happened,” happened in mid-November, best bet would be involving a water change, may have been successive water changes. The upside of RODI water is you control what is in it; the downside is you control what is in it.

Were you to have kept a log including water testing; it would probably jump off the page at you. This is not a criticism as much as it is experience.

The problems can be quite subtle to begin with; a small pH swing here or there might be the only indicator. Then you are dealing with a young system, I know the marketers like to give a one-and-done view of the world, as most of water chemistry and biology, it just ‘taint that simple.

Light drives the system, absolutely, but do not underestimate the substantial differences in the volume of water. 

The upside is the larger volumes of water are more stable, the downside is that stability can act as a mask as well, it is one of the reasons I like the large tank, small tank tandem. 

The small tank, reacting quicker can give us the opportunity to get out ahead of the trends. In finance and aquariums, the trend is our friend.

The excess Nitrates are always a big clue. 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> My guess based on experience is that whatever “happened,” happened in mid-November, best bet would be involving a water change, may have been successive water changes. The upside of RODI water is you control what is in it; the downside is you control what is in it.
> 
> Were you to have kept a log including water testing; it would probably jump off the page at you. This is not a criticism as much as it is experience.


Shouldn't assume. I've got a contemporaneous daily log in excel of everything done to both tanks, and water tests when I did them. Unfortunately as things (appeared to) stabilize, I didn't do water tests very often. I sure wish someone would invent an affordable recording sensor; then I could have a continuous log of water chemistry recorded by the tank's computer (which right now just controls the lights -- each tank as a Raspberry Pi on it). 

Most of the focus on these tests and notes were fertilizer oriented, trying to reach a desired point of phosphates (for GSA) and iron (switching to DTPA helped), and tracking nitrate trends. Over the Sep-Nov time frame I noticed the nitrates hanging around 5-10 in the large tank, and the rate of increase increasing in the small tank so I was doing water changes about every 2 weeks instead of 4. 

Unfortunately I did not measure ammonia on a regular basis, though on 12/5 I did a whole set of tests on both tanks and found nothing unusual (0 ammonia, 0 nitrites, 7.4-7.6 ph) other than slightly lower dKH in the large tank (the small tank was slightly high at 7.0 vs my target of 6.0). Over all this time the large tank stayed low in nitrates, though it did hit 20 on that date (I removed some stock and did a water change shortly after).

So I have a log -- I just don't have continuity of data, and nothing jumps off the page for me.

I generally would not do water changes at the same time just because of needing to make and mix water (I can generate about 50-70 GPD only).



JoeRoun said:


> The upside is the larger volumes of water are more stable, the downside is that stability can act as a mask as well, it is one of the reasons I like the large tank, small tank tandem.
> 
> The small tank, reacting quicker can give us the opportunity to get out ahead of the trends. In finance and aquariums, the trend is our friend.
> 
> The excess Nitrates are always a big clue.


But exactly... that's really what puzzles me here, and why I keep coming back to the dewormer(s) being the instigating factor if not direct cause. The small tank should have been well ahead of the large (smaller and older), yet both developed an ammonia spike around the same time. 

I say that with a grain of caution since, lacking daily readings, I cannot say for sure there wasn't ammonia in both tanks earlier -- except not before 12/5, as both were dead zero then and looking normal otherwise.

Incidentally, I dug around quite a bit in the large tank with a stick. Recognizing I really saw a small volume (it's average of about 2.5" thick sand, much 4-5"), I saw not a single MTS nor detritus worm. The health of the ramshorns made me worry less about snails and the dewormers, but I think it may have wiped out two of the species, with the ramshorns not being too impacted (though I think I have a somewhat higher proportion of empty shells now). 

Somewhat more interesting is in the small tank I can now not find a single ghost shrimp. I only had about 8, but 7 of them were great big females that had been there from day one - too big I think for anything in that tank to eat them, at least alive. I need to disassemble some rocks and look more closely. Maybe they were impacted and died later (they were definitely alive after the water change after the medicine). And while "shrimp" sounds small, they were actually pretty big at this point; if they rotted in there it's significant.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*It Is All Okay*

Hi Linwood,

Dad didn’t die from smoking for 70 years, it was the treatment that killed him. Let’s sue the doctor.

Not one point that cannot be explained by increasing organic material, in fact it is textbook.

If it makes you feel better to say anything that happened had to have an immediate causation that was out of your control, go for it. 

One of the popular religious leaders here told me the one thing you can never do is explain that problems may have something to with actions taking place weeks or months before. We have to find an alternate explanation.

There has to be an event bias.

As I said before there is really, nothing I can add regarding Levamisole HCl and fenbendazole, it is a hobby, if you are happy calling that the cause, fine. 

I have no way to continue.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> 50-grams of table salt, NaCl will add about 28-ppm Na.


Tried to buy CaCL2 today, couldn't find any. Problem in an area with no snow. Tried hardware and grocery stores. Ice Cream salt may have been right, but it wasn't labeled as to content.

So am going to dose NaCL instead, but am a bit confused as to your dosage. From what I read you want about 5:1 ratio of chloride to nitrite. If I'm seeing 1-2 of nitrite, I want 10 ppm of Chloride. For 180 gallons at 78 degrees assuming pure salt (minimal water) I get only 7 grams.

The 50 grams would look more like 75 ppm if I trust the online calculators.

I think 75 ppm is a safe level but I wanted to confirm if I am doing the math right (well, if the calculator or hamzasreef is doing it right with the buttons I push).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*My Numbers Are What They Are, Smarter People Abound*

Hi Linwood,

Use whatever figure you wish, but use something. The idea is protecting the critters.

In my world we like 20:1 Cl:NO₂ but obviously 5:1 is better than nothing. Ultimately, even without NO₂, a minimum 40-ppm Cl is good for our plants and fish. 

Also, remember the NO₂ may rise before the biofilter is operational.

Since I have not seen your tank or measured the water content, I use:


220-gal – (220 X 0.15) X (3.785L/gal) = 707.795-L ~ 708-L
 50-grams of table salt will yield 43-ppm Cl:


50-g NaCl X ((35.45-g/mol Cl)/(58.44-g/mol NaCl)) = 30.33-g Cl
30.33-g Cl / 708-L = 0.043-g Cl / L
(0.043-g Cl / L) X (1000-mg / g) = 43-mg Cl/L
43-mg Cl / L X (1-ppm / (1-mg / L)) = 43-ppm Cl
 You can also use 60-grams KCl, used for water softeners that will yield ~40-ppm Cl:


60-g KCl X (35.45-g/mol Cl) / (74.55-g/mol KCl) ~ 28.53-g Cl
28.53-g Cl / 708-L = 0.40-g Cl / L
(0.040-g Cl/ L) X (1000-mg/g) = 40-mg / L
40-mg Cl / L X (1-ppm / (1-mg /L)) = 40-ppm
 Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> 
> Use whatever figure you wish, but use something. The idea is protecting the critters.
> 
> In my world we like 20:1 Cl:NO₂ but obviously 5:1 is better than nothing. Ultimately, even without NO₂, a minimum 40-ppm Cl is good for our plants and fish.


I didn't know how the calculations worked so I wanted to understand the dosage; I wasn't even sure if the (salt water) calculator I used was accurate in the fractional parts-per-thousand it used as input.

Before I saw this I went ahead and added enough for 20ppm, sort of a split-the-difference. I'll add a bit more in tomorrow's water change.

Yes, I realize NO2 will rise; I'm testing daily and changing water about every 3 days, which is about as fast as I can make it. I just need to stagger them so I can do the new treatment (which is a 3 day treatment according to the supplier so that works out).

I assume the NaCL (which I'm using at the moment, but whichever flavor chloride) wont' affect the API Nitrite test? 

Thanks for the math. 

The really interesting thing will be to see if anything changes with the treatment, which I'll start Monday.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Opps*

Hi Linwood,

sorry a misread

The Nitrite test should not be effected.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

While I wait for the tank to fill a brief update. 

The "cycle" continues, still not sure if this is building up more capacity, or rebuilding after it died. I continue to change water about every 3-4 days in both tanks. Both tanks have stopped showing ammonia, but now show increasingly heavy nitrites, which I'm treating by the water changes and salt. The fish so far appear fine.

I continue to find no visible source of increased organics, by that I mean to be able to see anything that has changed. I also did a pretty thorough cleaning of all filters earlier.

Today I'm starting Levamisole on the large tank, and tomorrow on the small, to stagger so I can build up time to make water. I'm starting each treatment with a fresh water change first. 

On a whim I've tried two treatments of Potassium permanganate with in the small tank, the first alone, the second accompanied by alum. I'm using 25ml of 1% PP in the tank, which is probably 35-40g actual water. 

Both times the pink was gone in about 90 minutes. It's a bit hard for me to tell when the pink is really gone in favor of yellow/brown (especially since that's a very yellow tank with lots of slate and gravel). But I'm sure it makes it nowhere near 4 hours. 

The first time I did it, it was only a few hours after a 80% water change, certainly removing a lot of organics that were in the water. Both times I did it, I turned off the filter, and used a power head to circulate water in the thank. 

I'm not quite sure what I should learn from this -- I'm in particular not sure whether the iron is playing a role. 

I am going to do the small tank with Levamisole tomorrow, so will stop experimenting until the treatments are done. After I do one or two water changes to clear out the Levamisole, I'll see where this cycle stands and perhaps do some more experimentation. in particular I want to stop dosing iron and treat and see if it lasts longer. And then I'll put in the usual dose of iron for a couple days and treat and see if it shortens. 

Regardless, my day job has become squeezing junk out of water to have enough to keep changing water. The good thing is all the stock are surprisingly unfazed by such hefty water changes, and the plants are surviving as well, despite some of them (wisteria in particular) being flattened from about 25" to 4" and floating back up.


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

Ok I waited for the clinical explanation from Joe but have limited ability.
I change water!
I don't say this to please people.
What works for one may not for another?
You may be happy with your moped while I desire a Z1R1000!
The fact how fast the PP went bad in tanks I know were "good" by my API test led me to wonder and ask?(WTF?)
Nitrates really have so little to do with the dissolved organics, that water changes seem like they may not be enough!(they are not)
Dr.Roddy did pp instead of Waterchanges for his indoor pool(can't imagine why).
I wonder why more discus sites aren't on to PP?
We only test and know about,
well what we know about!
How can I test for what we don't comprehend?
Wait for a pH/Kh change to signal emminet doom! 
I don't know the real answer,but for now 
I'LL CHANGE WATER!
And endorse the use of PP by those who understand.
It does work.
MAGIC IS REALLY AN ILLUSION!
Open your eyes and stop being distracted.


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

The dose for NaCl for nitrite is 1 teaspoon per 20 gallons as long as you can keep the NO2 under 1 ppm. This is a low dose, well tolerated by salt sensitive fish and plants.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Pp*

Hi Linwood,

The rate you dosed your 45-gallon tank, based on 38-gallons of water is 1.74-ppm KMnO₄.

Take a clear glass or jar dip it in the aquarium, the yellows and browns tend to be distinctive; if after 4-hours the water looks pink it is good enough. If you are not sure, then a reduced dose, say half or a quarter, at under 1-ppm you are not going to do any harm. Seriously, PP is not particularly hazardous.

In a freshwater, planted community tank, there really are not many sensitive critters. 

African cichlids, specifically from Lake Malawi in particular seem rather sensitive I keep their PP dosing at 1-ppm. 

The Discus react a bit at 2-ppm, but I have not seem them do more than clamp for a few minutes, they do not stop eating if food is available or fail to defend their territory. Even so, I tend to dose at 1.8-ppm or so. The Discus often require multiple dosing, they tend to be messy fish.

Remember water change is rather a normal thing for fish; as long as temperature and pH do not vary too much you can do multiple 70-80% water changes in an established tank and all you are likely to find are happy critters.

I am not sure I understand the “iron” reference; iron should be dosed after PP treatment is done. Trace, fertz for that matter after major water changes. I also do not understand the flattened plants, care with water changes.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Best Management Practices*



Diana said:


> The dose for NaCl for nitrite is 1 teaspoon per 20 gallons as long as you can keep the NO2 under 1 ppm. This is a low dose, well tolerated by salt sensitive fish and plants.


 Hi All,

I am happy the religious leaders approve Chloride for the prevention of Nitrite poisoning.

With the caveat in my signature I will respectfully disagree as long as the chloride is something like 6 times the Nitrite the fish should survive.ⁱ 

In the aquaculture community 20:1, Cl:NO₂ tends to be favored, as a result we often prefer something other than Sodium chloride to dose the tanks. I believe the maintenance of 40-ppm chloride falls within best management practices.

1-Teaspoon table salt per 20-gallons of water is 48-ppm Cl and 31.2-ppm Na.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB
ⁱThe Merck Veterinary Manual, 10th Edition (pg. 1621).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*I Am Not Sure I Understand*



Coralbandit said:


> Ok I waited for the clinical explanation from Joe but have limited ability.
> I change water!
> I don't say this to please people.
> What works for one may not for another?
> ...


 Hi Coralbandit, All,

I am not sure what clinical explanation you are waiting for and I apologize for my failure.

I had been doing a bit on nitrification, but Linwood is sure I am wrong about biofilters, it cannot be anything other than the things to cure the problems, caused the problems, so there is no problem. 

I probably should have continued in a separate thread. I may do that, Wednesday will likely be my last day here since Thursday is my scheduled surgery (postponed twice) and I promised not to continue to post on TPT. 

PP I think I explained, as best I understand it anyway, though I have been asked to put it all together in one thread, I may do that as well.

Not to be disagreeable (or autistic), but Nitrates that cannot be accounted for by dosing of salts (fertz) are a great indicator of dissolved organic carbon. 


In a planted tank, we need to keep in mind that at least our plants consume some of the ammonia, nitrites and nitrates, including algae and cyanobacteria (indicators of dissolved carbon).
 However, it is actually a function of protein; a rule-of-thumb is each gram of 35% protein fish food (25℃, pH 7.6)produces 


38-mg NH₃/NH₄.
Each milligram of NH₃/NH₄ produces 


4.42-mg of NO₃⁻,
5.93-mg CO₂ and
0.17-mg cell mass.
While consuming 


4.57-mg Oxygen and
7.14-mg Alkalinity.
 In addition, dead plant material, fish dead anything, broken down by bacteria into ammonia through the process of decay often referred to as nitrogen mineralization.

Many folks use PP to supplement or avoid water changes. I live in a desert, water is precious, and I do what I can to limit water use. I am an advocate of water change, but I think conservation is also important, I certainly hope people are using there changed out water or rejected water in the case of reverse osmosis for some good purpose.

Presumably learning and gaining information is the reason we read and study, I know the religious leaders here disagree (vehemently apparently), but I hope the communication here helps understanding to some degree.

Of course there is no magic; as whatever appears magic simply needs to be understood, cost and all.

I am not sure I answered your post, if not, my apologies.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> I had been doing a bit on nitrification, but Linwood is sure I am wrong about biofilters, it cannot be anything other than the things to cure the problems, caused the problems, so there is no problem.


Not at all. You have added greatly to my knowledge and understanding of many things, you have gotten me away from "acid buffer" and I have come to understand the somewhat oxymoronic label, and I far better understand PH. You've gotten me thinking about the chemistry of what I do (even if I may not always understand it, but I'm getting further along).

If there is any failing at all, it is that I have not been able to understand your view on this cause.

When I realized I had a second tank going into a (for want of a better word) cycle, one untreated with PP (I assume that's the cure you reference) I very quickly said I realized PP was not any cause of my issues.

I remain with a mystery as to why both tanks are going into a cycle - more ammonia production, or less ammonia processing (realizing it could be a bit of both).

But I remain convinced that the coincidence of timing should not be discounted. If either tank had done it alone, or if both had done it at some random separate time, I'd believe this was just some symptom of a maturing tank.

But for two tanks, neither of which had shown any signs of ammonia just prior, to suddenly go deep into ammonia production (or more precisely excess production of what is processed), and not only at the same time but shortly after treatment for worms... I realize it COULD be a coincidence, but it seems reasonable to try to associate correlation with cause in this case, realizing they are not always linked.

However, I have no causal mechanism identified. All literature as well as yourself say that the two dewormers separately should not have affected the nitrifying bacteria, and no one I've asked seems to find any synergy between the two together that would be different from each separately.

I've also searched endlessly (tearing out every rock in the small tank) for unexpected die-offs to account for it. Maybe they are there and microscopic, but they are not macroscopic (at least in the small tank).

Now this is curiosity at this point as I can't think of anything I would change - I need water changes (and salt) to minimize the nitrite impacts, and I need the second treatment to minimize the chance of camallanus recurrence. So I'm going to do the same things regardless of understanding cause.

But I am still curious, and if that desire to understand (what I presume would be common) cause has offended, I apologize. There is nothing in what I've understood of your comments I disagreed with, though there may be much I've misunderstood.

Similarly I realize I have given offence by being slow to accept your directives, and I apologize for the offense, but not the reluctance - I want to understand thoroughly and do confirming research first. You have proven knowledgeable and correct-- but you are still just a person on the internet, and accepting blind advice there makes Nigerian princes far too happy.

As to PP and that I for a time stopped using/testing... I assumed the 80% water changes every three days were pretty much obviating any benefit it would give. I was surprised to see when I tried it the same day as a water change it quickly turned brown -- not sure what could be the source of organics so heavy that after a 80% water change (with no flow through the filter) it converts in an hour or so. But I won't find out this week... right or wrong, I don't want to put PP in the tank with Levamisole HCL, and possibly lessen its effects. So I want to get through their second treatment with fresh water and minimal other impact, then will go back to a bit of testing.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*No Worries! Rock After Rock…*

Hi Linwood,

No problem, I know from experience that there is no use speaking of (in this case) of biofilters and the process while you want an alternative universe explanation. When you conclude that, Levamisole HCL or fenbendazole did not cause the ammonia spike I will continue with the explanations. If I am still around, if you wish, I will continue.

The major hurtle is explaining the mechanism the Levamisole HCL and/or fenbendazole used to kill the bacteria and even better yet only particular bacteria ensconced in biofilm,  leaving other (bacteria) free to continue the catabolism of protein so the free amino and hydrogen can form ammonia.

While I cannot speak to what the smaller tank did or did not show, the description from the beginning, provided by you, indicated absolutely increasing dissolved organic material, hence the PP recommendations. At the time I assumed from something like driftwood, I suspect it could be any of three possibilities or a combination thereof. (I love “thereof.”)

Actually suspecting PP was better (at least a mechanism exists), since 4-6-ppm PP in clean water will degrade or (given enough time) destroy microbes. Due to the nature of biofilms (remembering your biofilter is “fixed film”), and such it would take much higher dosing while maintaining the concentration for considerable amounts of time.

I see no “coincidence” in the timing… I went through that awhile back… No problem, your tanks, your hobby. 

This is a lot like the little boy tossing rocks into the rowboat. Hour-after-hour, day-after-day, the little boy ran out on to the dock and dropped rocks in the rowboat. When it sank, the little boy insisting it could not have been the rocks, since he had been putting them in for days without the boat sinking.​ As I said earlier, these are minor bumps in the long term as long as it was not something like the driftwood, everything else will work out, the biofilter will return, you will have learned some important management lessons and the tank(s) will be spectacular.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*We Learn More from Our Mistakes than Our Successes*

Hi Linwood,

Based on the numbers you provided, I can state with certainty that assuming the accuracy of your numbers (I think them accurate) that your dissolved organic carbon levels were high and rising. 

Just to be clear, I do not know with certainty the source of the elevated dissolved organic carbon. My original thought was that it was the driftwood/stump, its history made that unlikely.

Then I found out you had a second tank… Coincidence, I think not. Really, there are three possibilities that do not include space aliens, the NSA or CIA…

The most likely is an error in the water mixture, possibly more than one that involved a spike or abrupt change in pH. While Nitrifying bacteria are quite adaptable to a surprisingly wide range of pH, they are pH change averse. 

As the Nitrifying bacteria (autotrophs), struggled the heterotrophic bacteria started to take over, best guess based on your statements the filters clogged or were full of sludge, meaning particulate matter may have entered the media. As organic material breached the media, the heterotrophic bacteria began to take over.

Essentially, at some point the tanks began to “cycle” again.

Since you chose not to continue the PP treatments, we could not get an estimate of the total organic carbon. No big deal just that it deprives us of information with which to use some basic arithmetic.

It is not a character flaw; it is a learning opportunity.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Then I found out you had a second tank… Coincidence, I think not. Really, there are three possibilities that do not include space aliens, the NSA or CIA…
> 
> The most likely is an error in the water mixture, possibly more than one that involved a spike or abrupt change in pH. While Nitrifying bacteria are quite adaptable to a surprisingly wide range of pH, they are pH change averse.


Thank you that helps, but what are the other two? 

This one, by the way, is certainly possible. Distractions are endless when real life is involved and one is dealing with multi-hour processes (pumping out, transferring from one staging tank to another, mixing, pumping in... ).

The only caveat is I (of necessity because of the amounts of water) always mix for the two tanks separately. So I'd have to screw up twice.

I'm sure that's also possible but not as probable.

So what are the other two?

(Or were you counting NSA and CIA, as I'm not ruling those out at all, they have to be doing something with all our money).


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*Me, I Suspect the NSA*

Hi Linwood,


Actually, the fact that you mix the water separately makes the other options less likely.

My guess is that given the Seachem instructions you miscalculated a bit, the problem with this “Acid/Alkaline Buffer” is that small miscalculations can throw the pH off quite a bit. 

The change in pH is the problem, compounded by the age (young) of the system, compounded by the dirty filter, maybe a bit of over feeding here and there... 

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> My guess is that given the Seachem instructions you miscalculated a bit, the problem with this “Acid/Alkaline Buffer” is that small miscalculations can throw the pH off quite a bit.
> [/FONT]


Quite possible. I certainly had issues with PH changes there. It seems more stable now using just Alkaline buffer (and I have a big baking soda bag for when I run out of that).

Still a bit of a stretch this happened at the same time I got worms, but it does provide a common cause between the two tanks, even if the timing is strange.

Anyway, the plan is to clear the levamisole promptly after three days with a water change, then a second one as soon as I can (my experience before was the angles took 2-3 water changes before they started eating -- whether that was just time, or they were reacting to the highly diluted amounts, not sure, but that's safest and also matches the nitrite reduction). 

Both tanks are in treatment now. Only the plecos are eating -- everyone else just stops, goes to the bottom and acts crazy -- like mating crazy, swimming in circles. Weird. 

And once I get that done will experiment a bit with the PP, see what I can learn.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

It's been a few days so a brief update.

Both tanks treated with Levamisole HCL, the large one day ahead of the small. Both had a 80% (+/-) water change before, and 3 days after. All the fish survived; all the fish except algae eaters went strange again - congos into a tizzy, angels, serpae and rainbows into a stupor, and stopped eating. All came normal within hours of the second water change, and started eating.

The cycle continues. The small tank somewhat faster than the large, it is almost clear of nitrites now, though not quite; the large builds up to about 0.5 maybe 1.0 over 3 days between water changes, but its rate of increase is clearly on the decline.

One minor aspect that bothers me is this morning the large tank had a trace of ammonia in it. It had been clear of detectable (with API liquid) ammonia for 7 days in a row, showing only nitrites, now that trace concerns me a bit. Will see tomorrow.

I plan another set of water changes at 3 day intervals mostly to clear out more of the Levamisole, but also to keep up with what nitrites remain. I'm interested to see if that ammonia is gone, or higher, tomorrow.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Just an update since there was so much discussion. 

The cycle continues. Ammonia remains gone (occasionally I see a tiny hint of green). Nitrites in the large tank seem to have leveled off, they are staying about 0.25ppm, but are not going away. I have been doing 3 day water changes but am letting it go for a while to see what happens (on day 5 now and still 0.25ppm).

The small tank, despite earlier seeming to be clearing up of nitrites, continues to build up. I am letting it get to about 1ppm, then changing, and that takes only about 3 days. 

Both of these are now almost a month into this cycle. I'm seeing some light at the end for the large tank, the small not so much yet.

Fish are healthy, no sign of more worms, and I'm holding off on further PP experiments until I get this stabilized.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

*Eureka!!

*

Maybe.

While I wait for these tanks to cycle, I decided to try an experiment. I dosed the storage tank in which I mix new RODI water with PP at the 1.75ppm dosage, more or less. In about 5-10 minutes it was brown. Really brown. This water had only had added to it Equilibrium and Alkaline Buffer, and was ready for a water change.

Just to make sure either my color sense, or chemicals were not bad, I took a 5 gallon bucket, made up new RODI water with the same Equilibrium and Alkaline buffer proportions. Added PP in the same proportions (now maybe 20 minutes later). Nicely purple. I'm going on a bit over an hour now, and took a photo:










That tank of water has been sitting inside, was mixed a day before, nothing external to contaminate it other than the tank itself. 

Now rewind in history -- this tank came about because with the deworming medicine I needed a much larger water capacity, so I bought this at a feed store. This tank came into use, in other words, at about the same time as my ammonia spikes. For both tanks.

Given the almost instantaneous (5-10 minutes) conversion to brown, I assume that is a sign of something reactive - organic? -- that is pretty strong. This despite a lot of use and cleaning.

Aside: when I got it, it was already washed (they said, and looked clean). I washed with hose pressure a lot, then floated it for several days in a swimming pool (higher chlorine than tap to thoroughly steralize), drained and rinsed, air/sun dried to get rid of chlorine. And now have run maybe 8-12 full tanks of RODI water through it, and it still turned PP brown almost instantly.

So... here's my leap to a possible theory -- there's something leaching from that tank that is sufficiently organic to decay and produce ammonia (or itself is leaching ammonia), and was the common cause for both of my tanks to react as they did.

One additional data point -- my large tank now appears to be processing nitrites fast enough. It is on day 6 since the last water change, and 0/0, so I tested nitrates and got somewhere between 10-20. That doesn't sound bad, but this tank historically has enough plants that nitrates after a month rarely show even 10. This leads me to think I'm processing more, rather than bacteria damage causing it to process slower. Maybe.

But that brown/purple in the picture is certainly a concern, and reason to stop using that tank. I guess I could keep adding PP until it didn't show up as brown for hours -- but even if I could, having no idea what was really in that tank to cause it, not sure it's safe to use (though sadly been using it for a month!)

Thoughts? Joe, you still around?

Postscript: I guess I should be a bit more careful in the conclusion. I do not know that this is organic matter that 's browning the PP -- but I do believe that whatever is causing it here, is the cause of it browning so quickly in my main tank when we did that test before. Conceivably it could be something unrelated to ammonia production that just reacts with PP. But back to that coincidence thing again -- that it happened at the same time as the ammonia spike points to common cause somewhere. I'm thinking it is this tank.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*More PP!*

Hi Linwood,

I am still about, all surgeryfied, off the drugs and aside from sore feeling good…

I suppose I will just wait to be thrown off TPT; I have already posted a couple of times (sorry:confused1::redface.

I wanted to post in response to post #220 that it sure seemed like something in the water change.

For the PP to react that way it is an oxidizer (unlikely), either organic material or metals (iron, manganese). Remember in spite of the dramatic reactions you are talking parts per million, incredibly small amounts, so a number of things are possible.

My obvious question is what was the container in a previous life? I would not use any of that water until the PP no longer reacts. Since there are no fish, dose 20-ppm, see what happens.

Your fresh mix (stuff added) of water should hold pink for 24-plus hours at 1.75-ppm PP (put a blanket over the container to keep light out).

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

JoeRoun said:


> Hi Linwood,
> 
> I am still about, all surgeryfied, off the drugs and aside from sore feeling good…
> 
> I suppose I will just wait to be thrown off TPT; I have already posted a couple of times (sorry:confused1::redface.


Glad you are OK, welcome back. Keep some drugs just in case I ask really innane questions. :confused1:



JoeRoun said:


> For the PP to react that way it is an oxidizer (unlikely), either organic material or metals (iron, manganese). Remember in spite of the dramatic reactions you are talking parts per million, incredibly small amounts, so a number of things are possible.
> 
> My obvious question is what was the container in a previous life? I would not use any of that water until the PP no longer reacts. Since there are no fish, dose 20-ppm, see what happens.
> 
> Your fresh mix (stuff added) of water should hold pink for 24-plus hours at 1.75-ppm PP (put a blanket over the container to keep light out).


Yeah, shortly afterwards I dumped in about 4ppm more PP to that tank to see what happened. It stayed slightly purple, but it become so dark it was hard to tell (I mean both the time of day and also the water). I had also added some Alum in the dose you suggested to try to precipitate out whatever the reacting compounds were, and there is a lot of brown junk (that's the technical term of course) in the bottom.

The 5G with fresh mix is still purple, now after 7+ hours; strongly purple, very little precipitate (and that I think is from the Equilibrium which never dissolves fully).

So it is definitely something from the drum.

The container came from a feed-and-seed store who sold it as "food grade plastic" and "contained food stuff before" (unspecified). Down here all of these kind of containers seem to be from a prior use, from food to cosmetics to detergents, etc. I thought this one sounded safe, though recognized I looked like a non-native and he probably felt no obligation to tell me the truth. 



JoeRoun said:


> Your fresh mix (stuff added) of water should hold pink for 24-plus hours at 1.75-ppm PP (put a blanket over the container to keep light out).


Yeah, and while I'm only part way through that, the 5G bucket shows that is true.

The fact that my tank (way back about 3-4 weeks ago) changed color about the speed of this storage tank water, fresh after a water change using this storage tank, also speaks volumes. Especially since my practice is to mix water for 24 hours or so in it before use.

I could try to redeem the tank I guess. The fact that with about 8ppm (+/-) it stayed a bit purple says it can consume what is in the water, but... 

The fact that the tank has been filled and emptied a dozen times says to me it is still leaching from the tank (or from deposits on the inside I can't see) says it may be moot.... it's not obvious I can make this problem go away easily. 

My inclination is, as the person who has hit his head against a wall and keeps asking why it hurts... is to just stop doing that. Trash the tank. I already know the other tank is fine -- at least the 5G bucket took water from it, and shows no sign of browning at all.

One thing I intend to try that someone else suggested is test the problem tank to see if it shows ammonia or nitrites directly, e.g. if perhaps it had fertilizer inside. I don't know how that would show up now, but it is an interesting question, and I haven't tried it yet. I was going to dump it all out, add some RODI water, let it sit over night, and see if it shows up.

Any other tests of interest? That I might have available?

One thing I should add (and maybe is a clue) is that tank has a distinct smell, even now. It's one I can't identify but is familiar. it is a bit sweet, not exactly citrus but in that direction. I did the horse farm thing for many years, and it doesn't smell like pesticides or fertilizer, more like some kind of feed variant. But remember -- it's been sprayed and flooded and soaked in chlorine, and is visibly perfectly clean. Which makes me think whatever it is, is now part of the plastic surface, not just residue.


----------



## JoeRoun (Dec 21, 2009)

*PPDoes Not Lie*

Hi Linwood,

Keep the container covered, light and temperature so only the stuff in the container is reducing the PP. If the 8-ppm PP hasn’t been consumed (reduced) in three days, I think you are pretty safe. 

The big difference in outcome is the chlorine had no way of telling you it had been expended (reduced) before the job was done.

Otherwise do not be a cheapskate (like me :redface and buy a Rubbermaid container.

Respectfully,
Joe
FBTB


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

With daylight I decided I was going to try to clean it and do some experimentation. 

I ended up deciding to just trash it. The brown precipitate, whatever it was, made a sticky mess on all the surfaces. It was heaviest on horizontal surfaces, but also pretty bad on vertical. I took it outside and with a water hose and nozzle tried to clean it, and it is really stuck on. It has to be scrubbed off. There was a LOT of it, not a inconspicuous film, which makes me think some of the reaction was occuring at the surface of the plastic as well as just in the water. But that's a guess.

Regardless, considering this tank had been through a chlorine pool soak for days (right after adding shock to the pool), numerous washings, and a dozen or so refills and still had such a reaction, I think it's time for it to go. 

I wish I knew what was in it, but I'm ill equipped for that kind of determination.

So yes, going to try to find a big rubbermaid something. My other 65G tank (which I bought new about 30 years ago) was only used for water, and works fine. I just need something big I can put on a dolly and move water around inside. Or... thinking about just getting really long vinyl hose and pumping it from outside -- except in the summer that puts the water temps at about 85 or more. I really like being able to stick it in a corner inside to reach room temp.

Going to go out looking again today, biggest I found yesterday was about 28 gallons, except some larger ones with wheels (I don't really want wheels, want something with a flat bottom). 

I still might not understand everything that happened, but at least I now understand where the quick-reaction to the PP came in my main tank, so soon after a water change. And I'd like to think that somehow, some way directly or indirectly caused the two tanks to go into a deep cycle as they did. At least that would explain all the coincidences nicely. 

Oh... the 5 gallon bucket I tested with PP at the same time, this morning, is still nicely purple, no real change at all. So it's not the water or associated chemicals I use to mix it up.

And finally I am realizing that whatever it was in the water I have it filled in three tanks (counting a QT that's cycling), so I really want to do some deep water changes now to clear that out. Maybe it's moot -- maybe it's being metabolized and ending up as nitrates; maybe I could completely remove it with PP. But since I don't know what "it" is, I do not really know that it doesn't also contain something bad that neither the PP nor nitrification process will remove. And what you don't know sometimes can hurt you.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

I found two Rubbermaid Brute 44Gs, and while I was out I got some 5" non-marking wheels (which should be big enough to move over carpet), and made a dolly for them. With these two and the 65G I can make about 130 gallons or so easily (without them being totally full), plenty to change the large tank, and one of them will nicely do either small tank.

I pumped both full of tap water and put about 4ppm PP into them, both to disinfect and also to see what happened. After 4 hours no change - zero precipitate that I could see anywhere, bright purple just like it should be. I'm sure it will now stay that way. Making water to fill them up and will start getting whatever this mess was out of the tanks tomorrow.


----------



## Coralbandit (Feb 25, 2013)

I hope you found the issue!
from the info you give I think you stand a good chance of resolving your issues.
I use rubbermaids also(44,and [email protected]) without issue.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

Well, so far so good. Just finishing day 3 since the first known-clean water for the small tank, and 2 for the big tank (and QT). 

But had cycled -- they were starting to show zero or near zero nitrites as I did the last water change, and since zero ammonia, zero nitrites, and low nitrates so far. dKH and dGH are about right (1 point higher than I aimed on both), and ph on track at 7.8. The water is crystal clear in both.

It's still early, but at least for right now just going to watch the chemistry and make sure this state "sticks". When I feel like I don't have a (at least quickly) moving target I'll try dosing one with 1.75ppm PP (plus some Alum) just to see how it reacts, but I'm pretty confident this is on the right track now. 

I spent yesterday calibrating some buckets and eventually marking off gallons on the rubbermaids. 

I expect to know in a week or so if I'm seeing substantially higher nitrate production rates than before.


----------



## Linwood (Jun 19, 2014)

It's been a while. The tanks appear mostly back to normal now. The fish seem healthy.

The large tank looks very normal, nitrates hang very low, around 5ppm and are not growing. I'm going to do another water change in a day or two just to get any other of the mystery crud out of it, but it's looking good.

The small tank is back to normal -- but late normal. As all this was starting it was producing nitrate a bit faster than I expected, and it's right about at that rate -- in a week it went from about 10 to 40. I just changed the water, going to see if that keeps up. One day when I'm going to be around for 4-6 hours will put in some PP and see how it reacts. But it's still "normal" compared to when all this mess started. 

I guess there are arcane possibilities, but to me it appears that when the parasites struck I bought that new tank to do bigger water changes -- the big tank had mystery gunk in it that made a mess -- I kept using the mystery tank more and more as the nitrites required rapid water changes, which likely just kept making it worse.

Bad tank good, good trash cans in use -- things are back to normal.

Now I just need to go figure out what "normal" means I need to do next. 

By the way -- precipitates (or whatever the original problem was) has not come back. Only change from when that was happening to now that I think isn't back to normal is DPTA iron vs. Seachem (I'm dosing at the same time and combinations).

Thanks for all the help everyone, especially Joe. Comments welcomed of course if I'm missing something.


----------

