# Ry's Mad Lab - Test for N,P,K,Ca,Mg, Fe, Zn & Cu using the Hanna HI83200 Photometer



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

OK Time to get this done! I would like to apologize first and foremost for those who sent me their water samples from 2 weeks ago. I have yet to get them tested and I finally have today to process them. I will need to confirm if one of the sample yields the expected values so I'll be posting one result first then after the user confirms if the results look like what they expect then we can move on with all the samples. 

*Either way I will offer everyone who sent their water a chance to resend their samples again since the water has been sitting for 2 weeks. If you'd like to get your water tested again please PM me and send me the sample using the same procedures.*

*About this post:*
This is a water parameter testing using a lab grade photometer from Hanna Instruments. I purchased this photometer for personal use but I do have access to at least 50 tests. I wanted more precision when it comes to reading water nutrient levels to be able to play/experiment with them. I offered free testing of water samples from other users in order to get experience using this piece of equipment and get some ideas about what parameters other people are running with.

*The Equipment:*








*Hannah HI3200 Benchtop Multiparameter Photometer*
Photometer can measure 44 different water parameters (as long as you buy the reagents) and features result logging and a digital readout. This is the big daddy of test kits =) 

The parameters to test:








N,P,K,Ca,Mg,K,Fe,Cu and Zinc. Test reagents are all from Hanna Instruments.


*Misc Equipment:*








Hanna Sample preparation kit - came with the photometer
8 x Testing cuvettes (individually marked) - I use one cuvette for each test except for Iron/Copper and Ca/K since I don't have enough cuvettes. 
Digital Timer
N95 particle mask - for safety and used when dealing with powdered reagents
UVEX Safety Goggles - for safety
DynaPlus II Nitrile gloves - for safety
MagicFiber lint free - reusable wipes for wiping the outside of cuvettes
Kimtech Disposable lint free wipes - for wiping the inside of the cuvettes to dry them out
Germ Guardian Air purifier - for sucking out the little reagent blown from the packets and keeping our dining table clean from them
Black plastic tray - for keeping reagents powder from being blown around the table.
Disposable pipettes - used for Ca/Mg testing. 
Wash bottles - contains RO water for washing cuvettes

*Testing procedures followed to keep reading accurate:*
All syringes and equipment for holding water samples are cleaned with RO water after switching samples. 
All cuvettes are washed 3-4 times with RO water when being cleaned
All cuvettes are dryed inside using the kimtech disposable wipes
All cuvettes are pre-washed and dumped empty with sample water before filling the cuvette with the required sample volume - this allows no other liquid source to be in the cuvette to lessen contamination from RO or other water.
All cuvettes are cleaned after reading of the results - this prevents any tinting of the cuvette by the test reagents which can throw off the readings.
Each test is logged into the machine.

*Disclaimer:*
This device is not 100% accurate. You can check the manual here to see the accuracy parameters for each test to give you a better idea of the +/-% when it comes to the accuracy. Also I am not a chemist nor do I work in a lab but I do try to follow the test procedures best I can to ensure accuracy of the results.

Bump: Processing Solcielo lawrencia 09/27 Water sample...

*Solcielo lawrencia 09/27 Water sample test results*
Something is wrong with the Ca test. I am trying to figure out how I can end up with 0 ppm Ca. Could be the new reagent kit that I got. 









*bsantucci tank water results (charging my phone to take pictures of readouts =)*








Nitrate - 43.2 ppm
Phosphate - 14.7
K - 46 ppm
MG - 20 ppm
Ca - 10 ppm (could be bad reagent - going to test with my other photometer)
*Fe - 3.47 ppm
Cu - 0.088 ppm*

The Zinc test is still resulting in 0 so I'm skipping that for now.


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

Oooh, fancy, it comes with what looks like a P1000.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

The 9/27 sample was taken after a 75% water change. I added ~12ppm of K (from K2SO4), and ~.2ppm of PO4 (KH2PO4) so the ranges should be around these levels. NO3 should be very low, under 5ppm.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The 9/27 sample was taken after a 75% water change. I added ~12ppm of K (from K2SO4), and ~.2ppm of PO4 (KH2PO4) so the ranges should be around these levels. NO3 should be very low, under 5ppm.


Everything looks OK except your Cu. The copper registered at 50 ppb or 0.05 ppm which is very high. I am going to test the Zinc and if it is low the you have copper leaking into your water. Btw the Fe tested @ .4 ppm which is OK so I don't know how you ended up with 0.05 ppm Copper. 

You were close on the other parameters. The nitrate registered at 8.8 ppm, K was 34 ppm and Phosphates at 2.0 ppm. 

I am taking some pictures of the results screen but I'll be posting all the parameters soon.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Really? The Cu is 0.05ppm? Even after a 75% WC? So I'm overdosing CSM+B. I added some FeDTPA as well so I can probably reduce micros dosing. That also explains a lot of things in terms of growth of certain plants such as the Rotala's with twisting leaves.

Calculating for K, if there was almost no uptake, then 34ppm sounds reasonable. 50ppm/2 (50%wc) +12ppm = 37ppm.

The end of week sample should show what the K uptake rate is.

The Cu levels would explain some RCS deaths.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Really? The Cu is 0.05ppm? Even after a 75% WC? So I'm overdosing CSM+B. I added some FeDTPA as well so I can probably reduce micros dosing. That also explains a lot of things in terms of growth of certain plants such as the Rotala's with twisting leaves.
> 
> Calculating for K, if there was almost no uptake, then 34ppm sounds reasonable. 50ppm/2 (50%wc) +12ppm = 37ppm.
> 
> ...


Yep. I used the Cu test once on my tank and it tested .034 ppm or 34 ppb and that was prior to water change. So .05 ppm Cu is very high. 

The Zinc test yielded 0.0. It looks like the level we are testing are too small to detect. I will test it with my water after I complete testing your water and see if the machine can't handle the small amounts we are trying to test for.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

Results posted with a screenshot of the meter readings. The only thing that is weird is the calcium. I don't know how I ended up with 0 ppm. I am going to retest with my other photometer. I'm worried that the new reagent kit that I got is bad. The last one I ended up contaminating the reagent B so I purchased a this new one but it is an older kit with the expiration date for 2018.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Calcium shouldn't be 0 because I dose 4ppm extra each week from Ca(NO3)2.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

Testing my water from 2 tanks and see if I get 0 results.

My 40B resulted in 30 PPM Ca and my 20L resulted in 70 PPM Ca.

I'm going to restest the sample again. Maybe I missed adding the reagent from the dropper.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Hey Ry just saw this posting. Do you think the water sitting as long as it did will affect the results? I don't mind shipping two more bottles if so. Let me know! I'm excited to see what my tap water is to see if my suspicions are correct. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

bsantucci said:


> Hey Ry just saw this posting. Do you think the water sitting as long as it did will affect the results? I don't mind shipping two more bottles if so. Let me know! I'm excited to see what my tap water is to see if my suspicions are correct.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I will test your water but feel free to ship a new batch so we can be more accurate with the results. 

The water containers were kept in a dark cool box and if the containers are doing their job then no contamination/reaction should happen that should affect the results.

I am refilling my wash bottles with new RO water then I'm going to continue testing. I'm almost out since I had to wash the zinc cuvettes 6 times. The Zinc test was scary because the reagent was *Potassium Cyanide* which is a deadly poison. I'm thinking if I can't get a Zinc reading from my tank that I might drop that test for safety concerns.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

@bsantucci: I posted your test results. I'll take pictures of the readouts after my phone is charged.

Btw I did test my tank water after your copper readout since it was very high and my tank after 10 days without water change was resulting in 0.029 ppm Copper so your Cu is very high.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

I was dosing EI daily, adding .1ppm of Fe from CSM+B. So it seems the Cu (and other micros) accumulates to pretty high levels over the weeks, even after large water changes. Something doesn't seem right. Why would it accumulate so high? Are we dosing way too much? Is the suggested EI levels for micros excessive? Are the online calculators we use inaccurate?


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

PortalMasteryRy said:


> @bsantucci: I posted your test results. I'll take pictures of the readouts after my phone is charged.
> 
> Btw I did test my tank water after your copper readout since it was very high and my tank after 10 days without water change was resulting in 0.029 ppm Copper so your Cu is very high.


This is wild and not what I expected. I expected little magnesium and higher calcium but I have the reverse now. So that I'm guessing is affecting my leaves and causing the curling and perhaps the stunting. 

Now I need to go and completely rethink my dosing. I've been using standard EI dosing per the calculators but thats juat way too much it seems. Maybe I'll bring it down and dose for a 40g tank versus my 48g and see if that changes anything. I thinking I almost don't have to dose nitrates. I only feed every other day too so I'm wondering where the high Phosphates are coming from. Perhaps the calculators and weighing the ferts is too high and I should go back to just using spoons per the sticky on this site. 

The copper is crazy too. I guess my pipes leak copper too. My Amanos and snails all do fine though. 

I'm literally blown away. It seems my tank just isn't taking in any nutrients. I only have gsa but I guess that is from these numbers. Any thoughts or ideas from you all? 

I don't think my tap has high nitrates. Water report I believe said no more than 2ppm was ever measures. Zero Phosphates. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I was dosing EI daily, adding .1ppm of Fe from CSM+B. So it seems the Cu (and other micros) accumulates to pretty high levels over the weeks, even after large water changes. Something doesn't seem right. Why would it accumulate so high? Are we dosing way too much? Is the suggested EI levels for micros excessive? Are the online calculators we use inaccurate?


That's what I'm wondering. I got a scale and measure specifically to be more accurate. I did notice when switching to weighing that the csm+b measured was much more than the spooning I was doing. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

I have been keeping my micros fairly low now even before I got my photometer plus we have to take into account that the tap might have small amounts of copper which is what we are testing for. I'm actually going to run some test with bsantucci tap and my tap water to see if copper shows up.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Curious if the tap results. Maybe something changed in my water from last year. 

My tank though really seems like its not using any ferts I'm putting in. 

*edit*

so I just did a check on micro dosing calculator versus the sticky. The calculator calls for 1.39g 3 times a week of CSM+B while the sticky for a 40-60g tank calls for 1/8tsp which is a dash spoon. A dash spoon ends up weighing .576g. So that is a considerable difference in dosing of micros from one recipe to another. 1.728g versus 4.17 per week of micros. 

KNO3 is the same roughly spooned or measured. 

Phostphate is the same oh the sticky, 1/8tsp which is .576g. The calculator calls for less, .338g. I'm guessing that is correct since they match. So this has me wondering if there is a micro toxicity in my tank causing less uptake of other nutrients. I'll dose micros at the sticky level since it's much lower and go with that for a few weeks to see how things progress in the tank. 

Thoughts on this?



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

I never used the spoons for my micros. They are inaccurate. I actually own a milligram scale so I use precise amounts based on the fert calculator values.

I'm doing the test on the tap now. If copper shows up then we can't use it as a proxy to determine micro nutrient levels unless you are running purely on RO water. 

I will do a test on a 5 gallon DI/RO water and see if the calculator values are accurate.
@bsantucci: your results photo has been posted.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

PortalMasteryRy said:


> I never used the spoons for my micros. They are inaccurate. I actually own a milligram scale so I use precise amounts based on the fert calculator values.
> 
> I'm doing the test on the tap now. If copper shows up then we can't use it as a proxy to determine micro nutrient levels unless you are running purely on RO water.
> 
> ...


I switched to a milligram scale as well for accuracy, but like I said there is a HUGE differnece between the calculator and the sticky's micro amount. Which is the correct one now I am wondering? 

Can you compare your calculator numbers for micro versus the sticky for your tank size out of curiosity?

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/21944-_dosing-regimes_.html


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

As suspected our taps have copper in them. 

My Tap was at 37 ppb or 0.037 ppm and bsantucci tap was at 44 ppm or 0.044 ppm. 

Mine went lower from 0.037 to 0.029 ppm but his went from .044 to .088 ppm

If we do the math then you dosed 0.044 ppm Cu for that week assuming you did the water change. My results means I need more micros LOL since I my levels have gone down lower than the tap.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

These are the negative growth patterns I've observed with my plants:

Rotala sp. "Green" has stunted for the past few months. It grows very, very slowly, slower than it has ever grew, and new growth is small and some are twisted/deformed. It's the typical complaint that you see in a lot of threads around the web.

Rotala sp. "H'ra" has recently, in the past couple of months, stunted with similar growth patterns. It used to grow much better.

Only Rotala sp. "Ceylon" displays mostly normal growth. Sometimes, the leaves grow crinkly, but mostly it grows normally.

Rotala wallichii and Ammannia pedicellata are stunted. New growth turns black and dies back. I've not been able to propagate these plants at all, still with the one original stems in the tank. R. wallichii used to grow amazingly well in another tank with almost no dosing.

Eleocharis parvula grows very slowly, almost as slowly as Lilaeopsis sps. BBA grows on its tips.

H. pinnatifida has had chronic pinholes, symptoms of K deficiency that it seemed like no amount of added K prevented. I hypothesized that the amount of micros were damaging the K+ uptake channels, inducing K deficiency.

Edit:
Ludwigia ovalis and L. repens X L. arcuata both recently had slight curling, deformed new growth. I can confirm this had nothing to do with CO2, macros, light or anything else other than an increase in micros and a decrease in Ca and Mg.

-----
The slow growth is very much a conundrum as plants used to grow much faster, requiring near weekly trimming over a year ago. The major dosing change is that I've increased micros, while reducing macros.

The plants that seem to do fine: Bolbitis, Anubias, Taiwan moss - seem to grow faster than before so these plants may be much more tolerant of trace elements.
Limnophila aromatica, Glosso, and some others don't seem to be affected.

About the animals, I've noticed that every time after a water change, fish and shrimp are much more active. They progressively get more sluggish as the week goes on. I suspect that the high levels of certain metals have induced chronic health issues.

I've added some of the aquarium water to my daphnia cups. This amounted to less than 1% of the total volume. However, the water caused the daphnia to produce egg sacs, a sign that the water quality is high in metals, which they are sensitive to. I've been able to consistently repeat this a couple of times so the micros definitely cause health issues.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

I've had the same issues in rotala colorata which should grow easily. I think you and I are both into a micro toxicity from the dosing. I'm switching to the spoon measurement as I mentioned above for micros since that is the only difference and that is the only thing I too have changed in the last few months. 

My tank is showing stunting and slow growth in rotala colorata, Ludwigia red, Ludwigia Cuba. 

The copper in my water is a bit upsetting. Not much I can do about it though. I don't have the space or time to do ro di. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

bsantucci said:


> so I just did a check on micro dosing calculator versus the sticky. The calculator calls for 1.39g 3 times a week of CSM+B while the sticky for a 40-60g tank calls for 1/8tsp which is a dash spoon. A dash spoon ends up weighing .576g. So that is a considerable difference in dosing of micros from one recipe to another. 1.728g versus 4.17 per week of micros.


Which calculator did you use? If it's RotalaButterfly, there was an issue with the output of CSM+B and some other nutrients giving nearly double the suggested amounts. So use the old YANC for the output which is correct.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Which calculator did you use? If it's RotalaButterfly, there was an issue with the output of CSM+B and some other nutrients giving nearly double the suggested amounts. So use the old YANC for the output which is correct.


Yeah I was using rotala butterfly. I checked yanc on that site and it does say to use 1g versus 1.39g. That's still a long ways off from 1/8 tsp though. So I'm still wondering which is right? 

Is there another yanc I should be using? 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Which calculator did you use? If it's RotalaButterfly, there was an issue with the output of CSM+B and some other nutrients giving nearly double the suggested amounts. So use the old YANC for the output which is correct.


I try to follow the recommended EI dosing for micros but I was dosing on a daily basis. I get the amount based on the total micro dose for the week then I divide it by 7. 

I do however use the calculator to find out an estimate of the nutrient I dosed and tweak accordingly. I am a bit disappointed the fert calculators could be giving incorrect results or values since I use it a lot. Well the reason I bought the photometer was I wanted to use the calculator as a guide and let the water tell me exactly what I have in terms of nutrients. The Cu results was not unexpected but it does cause some concern regarding pushing the micro nutrient dose. I'm going to bump my dose until I see the same amount of Cu from the start of the week until the end of the week to see if this helps. 

I'm also going back to high K and Ca. I remember during the first 6 weeks when my plants where all having good growth until I decided to scale down the K,Ca and Micros.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

bsantucci said:


> Yeah I was using rotala butterfly. I checked yanc on that site and it does say to use 1g versus 1.39g. That's still a long ways off from 1/8 tsp though. So I'm still wondering which is right?
> 
> Is there another yanc I should be using?


The output is different from what i'm getting.

If I selecte EI for 60 gallons:
YANC=1.0g
RB=1.74g

But if I select EI Daily, it's the same:
YANC=695mg
RB=696mg

But, if you dose 3.0 grams for EI, EI daily should be 3.0g/7days=428mg/day, not 695mg/day.

Okay, so there's a calculation error in YANC. If you select "the result of my dose" and input 1 gram, it gives a different output, Fe=.29ppm, than if you selected EI which indicates 1 gram=.5ppm Fe. So 1 gram is calculated differently in YANC. I'll need to check if this error is repeated in RB.

Update: RB doesn't allow this option yet. We'll have to wait until the program is updated to figure it out.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

I know the dosage is different for the tank but what nutrient levels is it suppose to yield. AKA the B, Fe, Mn, Cu, etc??? Or what nutrient levels do you go for? 

I guess to keep it simple and rule out dosing amounts is what is the total micro nutrient levels you guys try to dose for the entire week?

This is the one I was running before:

B	0.0779
Cu	0.0088
Fe	0.6355
Mg	0.1363
Mn	0.1820
Mo	0.0049
Zn	0.0360
dGH	0.0312


This is the one that I ran with for the last two weeks. With extra .1 ppm from Fe Gluconate every day (Seachem iron)

Element	ppm/degree
B	0.0306
Cu	0.0034
Fe	0.2497
Mg	0.0535
Mn	0.0715
Mo	0.0019
Zn	0.0141
dGH	0.0123

This is a total of 550 mg with 200 mg added after water change for my tank of 40 gallons(w/ 38 as my total tank volume). The rest of the 350 mg is dosed everyday using a dosing pump. 

This one still did not solve my issues with my H.sunset. The leaves still curl upward. 

I do remember adding more Manganese to the CSM+B mix to replicate the Tropica grow micro (from another thread). Maybe I added too much LOL.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

With all these questions on the calcs I'm going to dose by spoons for a few weeks as noted in the sticky here. I'm positive my micros are overdosed as Ry shows from the results. 

That being said I'm going to also dose my tank for 20-40g levels even though I have a 48g. I'm sure with substrate and rocks my water is closer to 40g. So we'll see how that works out over the next few weeks. 

I'd like to keep updating here though since we all seem to be in a similar boat. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

I aimed for 0.10-0.12ppm of Fe daily. At the end of the week, total Fe is under 0.9ppm so all other metals are relative to this. After 50% WC, that drops to 0.4ppm. Add another 0.9ppm for the week and that results in 1.3ppm total. 50% WC=0.6ppm. +0.9=1.5ppm. 75% WC=0.4ppm, which is close to the tested water sample. If the concentration is accurate, then that means plants use a lot less iron than EI levels indicate. Almost none. It also indicates that the iron chelator (EDTA) lasts a lot longer than 3 days, since you tested my water after a couple of weeks. Does the test also detect precipitated iron?

Also, my substrate is Floramax/Ecocomplete, unlike Aquasoil which quickly adsorbs ions, so these metals probably stay in solution a lot longer.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

bsantucci said:


> With all these questions on the calcs I'm going to dose by spoons for a few weeks as noted in the sticky here. I'm positive my micros are overdosed as Ry shows from the results.
> 
> That being said I'm going to also dose my tank for 20-40g levels even though I have a 48g. I'm sure with substrate and rocks my water is closer to 40g. So we'll see how that works out over the next few weeks.
> 
> ...



Yeah your photos look very close to what I had in my tank but I knew I overdosed my micros because my iron hit 3.5 ppm before the WC and I kept a .1 ppm Fe to a .01 Boron ratio so my boron was at .35ppm. 




Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I aimed for 0.10-0.12ppm of Fe daily. At the end of the week, total Fe is under 0.9ppm so all other metals are relative to this. After 50% WC, that drops to 0.4ppm. Add another 0.9ppm for the week and that results in 1.3ppm total. 50% WC=0.6ppm. +0.9=1.5ppm. 75% WC=0.4ppm, which is close to the tested water sample. If the concentration is accurate, then that means plants use a lot less iron than EI levels indicate. Almost none. It also indicates that the iron chelator (EDTA) lasts a lot longer than 3 days, since you tested my water after a couple of weeks. Does the test also detect precipitated iron?
> 
> Also, my substrate is Floramax/Ecocomplete, unlike Aquasoil which quickly adsorbs ions, so these metals probably stay in solution a lot longer.



I'm not sure if it will detect precipated iron. I'll dose some phosphate and DTPA iron in a 5 gallon container and set it to 9 ppm iron and 9 ppm phosphate and see if the iron levels are still readable in the test. I still have some small amount of sample water from your 9/27 sample. I'll test the iron again after a week and if the iron level goes down it means the test does not detect the iron after it "degrades"??? Is that even the term for it. That should also give us a clue how stable the metal is in the water column.

I was dosing pretty close to your levels except my Micro has additional Manganese Sulfate and 10% DTPA iron. I set my mix to yield .1 ppm Fe to .01 Boron so it was easy to determine an estimate of my Boron levels that I dosed.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Looks like the calculators don't quite have the right percentages for CSM+B (now Nutritrace CSM+B), although the differences are negligible. edit: And the addition of B probably accounts for the differences.

https://msds.plantprod.com/document/1280

The maths is very easy.

(( Amount added in grams * 1000 ) / tank volume in liters ) * percentage of mineral in trace.

So Fe in CSM is 7% of the total volume of the product. 48 gallons = 182 liters. Lets add 1.3 grams as per the calcs.

1.3 * 1000 = 1300
1300 / 182 = 7.14
7.14 * 7% = 0.5ppm Fe.

*---------------------------------*

edit: If you want to calculate things like phosphate, the maths is still easy, but you need to know the molar mass of the chemicals. Lets do phosphate.

First we find the concentration of the solution in the water. This is exactly the same as above, minus the percentage part at the end.

( Amount added in grams * 1000 ) / tank volume in liters

Lets add 1 gram of KH2PO4 to 48 gallons.

1 * 1000 = 1000
1000 / 182 = 5.49

So the concentration of everything in KH2PO4 = 5.49ppm.

To find the concentration of PO4 we need to know the molar mass of KH2PO4 and PO4. Molar Mass, Molecular Weight and Elemental Composition Calculator - Chemistry Online Education

KH2PO4 = 136.0855
PO4 = 94.9714

Total concentration of solution * ( molar mass PO4 / molar mass KH2PO4 )

94.9714 / 136.0855 = 0.698
5.49 * 0.698 = 3.83

PO4 = 3.83ppm.

*--------------------------------*

If we do the maths for copper.

1.3 * 1000 = 1300
1300 / 182 = 7.14
7.14 * 0.1% = 0.007ppm Cu.

Then plug that into @Zorfox nutrient accumulation calculator: Zorfox's Planted Tank Calculator


----------



## catskin (May 26, 2004)

Hey, that calculator is not in the current version of the program. (0.1.4)


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Audionut said:


> Looks like the calculators don't quite have the right percentages for CSM+B (now Nutritrace CSM+B), although the differences are negligible. edit: And the addition of B probably accounts for the differences.
> 
> https://msds.plantprod.com/document/1280


That's a significant change in Plantex's composition! Yes the changes are small but I was not aware of these. Below are what YANC as well as my calculator have been using compared to the new composition.


```
[B]Old		New[/B]
Fe - 6.53%	7.0%
Mn - 1.87%	2.0%
Mg - 1.4%	1.5%
Zn - 0.37%	0.4%
Cu - 0.09%	0.1%
Mo - 0.05%	0.06%
B - 1.18%	Added by distributor
```
I will update my calculator to reflect the changes. Thanks Audionut for the post.

If anyone has any question about the output from my calculator PLEASE feel free to contact me.

Bump:


catskin said:


> Hey, that calculator is not in the current version of the program. (0.1.4)


Lol. It will be VERY soon now.

He's a beta tester privy to test versions :wink2:

Bump:


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Zorfox said:


> That's a significant change in Plantex's composition! Yes the changes are small but I was not aware of these.


The PDF doesn't list the B that distributors add though, which will push down the concentration of the other elements. And probably brings the percentages down to what you currently have.



Zorfox said:


> Lol. It will be VERY soon now.


Hmm, that link above (edit: the zip file) is giving me version 1.0.0 of the program, with the nutrient calc. It doesn't have the other beta changes though.

I've got my kids with me this week, so will probably be slow on bug reports and feature requests until next week. :grin2:


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Audionut said:


> The PDF doesn't list the B that distributors add though, which will push down the concentration of the other elements. And probably brings the percentages down to what you currently have.


Good point! In fact, that idea has NEVER been addressed by YANC or myself lol



Audionut said:


> Hmm, that link above is giving me version 1.0.0 of the program, with the nutrient calc. It doesn't have the other beta changes though.
> 
> I've got my kids with me this week, so will probably be slow on bug reports and feature requests until next week. :grin2:


The most recent beta is there. With the new one you can toggle between 3D and 2D in the accumulation calculator.

Enjoy your kids first! Trust me, it goes by too fast. :wink2:

Sorry to hijack your thread PortalMasteryRy. Any further issues about my calculator please start a new thread or PM me.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

LOL No worries. I was shocked to read the post. I thought the forum was buggy and I was seeing another post.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

There was a lot of talk about measurements, teaspoons, calcs giving different results, what's right, what's not.

So I thought I'd throw some maths at the problem. :tongue:

Hopefully that rules out those issues, allowing you guys to concentrate on other things, rather then second guessing.


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Audionut said:


> There was a lot of talk about measurements, teaspoons, calcs giving different results, what's right, what's not.
> 
> So I thought I'd throw some maths at the problem. :tongue:
> 
> Hopefully that rules out those issues, allowing you guys to concentrate on other things, rather then second guessing.


Correctly so in my opinion. It certainly got my attention. Nothing can beat calculations using pencil and paper as far as I'm concerned.

I just didn't want PortalMasteryRy's generous offer to test water to turn into a calculator error thread. It's not often we have the opportunity to have access to such advanced equipment. Many thanks to PortalMasteryRy for the offer and insight into his professional observations.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Thanks for the math. It certainly confirms the calculators are correct. 

I'm curious though why then the spoon dosing in the stocky varies so much on the csm+b as I noted. 

I'm clearly in toxic levels dosing per the calculator amounts and weighing with my scale. Granted I've been dosing for 48g of water and my tank I'm sure is closer to 40 or less accounting for displacement. 

I am dosing less this week and will test here. I made calibrated tests for nitrate now and will test as the week goes on to have a more accurate idea. It just seems everything accumulated in my tank and wasn't used. I'm just going to dose significantly less nitrate and phosphate. Guess my food covers most of that from fish food. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

bsantucci said:


> I'm curious though why then the spoon dosing in the stocky varies so much on the csm+b as I noted.


The dosing in the sticky has problems. I crunched the numbers to show you why I say this. Teaspoons aren't a very accurate measure but it's close enough. 


```
[B]Fert		Calc. 40g	Calc. 60g	Sticky 40-60g[/B]
KNO3		1/4 tsp.	1/2 tsp.	1/2 tsp.
KH2PO4		1/16 tsp.	1/16 tsp.	1/8 tsp.
GH Booster	3 1/2 tsp.	5 1/16 tsp.	3/4 tsp.
Plantex		1/4 tsp.	1/2 tsp.	1/8 tsp.
```

KNO3 is fine.
KH2PO4 is high 40g: 3.2ppm PO4 60g: 2.2ppm PO4 (EI dose is 1.3ppm)
GH Booster WAY too low! 40g: 0.4dGH 60g: 0.3dGH (EI dose is 2 dGH)
Plantex is low 40g: 0.23ppm Fe 60g: 0.15ppm Fe (EI dose is 0.5ppm)



bsantucci said:


> I'm clearly in toxic levels dosing per the calculator amounts and weighing with my scale. Granted I've been dosing for 48g of water and my tank I'm sure is closer to 40 or less accounting for displacement.


I think your problem is with your tap water not the dosing. I would be curious how much iron is in your tap water as well.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Zorfox said:


> The dosing in the sticky has problems. I crunched the numbers to show you why I say this. Teaspoons aren't a very accurate measure but it's close enough.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Thanks for doing that and clarifying again! 

My water report does not state iron unfortunately. Ry does have my tap water sample. I believe it just has not been tested yet. If it is high in iron how do I then handle dosing? I really don't want to go with RO water. My water be the week end that Ry tested showed high in everything. Like I said though I dosed by tank size not actual water volume. I plan to dose less and am this week. Hopefully that fixes things up to an extent. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

My water is typically low in most metals except copper (which comes from the pipes.) Any iron is from dosing, not the tap water. So 1.6ppm of Fe is strictly from dosing, which means almost no uptake.

Does anyone know the rationale for dosing so much iron? Is it because it's assumed to precipitate? If so, then it indicates that EDTA is able to prevent iron from precipitating for a long time, not just three days. That also explains why FeDTPA continues to stain the water, because plants aren't using it up.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

PortalMasteryRy said:


> "degrades"??? Is that even the term for it.


The reaction is precipitation which forms precipitate.

Precipitate is the solid that forms in a solution from the reaction of various elements. This solid does not dissolve, so it's serves no purpose.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If so, then it indicates that EDTA is able to prevent iron from precipitating for a long time, not just three days.


Precipitation isn't an instant process. It's controlled by at least three things that I am aware of. The concentration of the elements in question (Fe and P (mainly) in this case), pH, and the strength of the chelator.

We really need a clear understanding of what forms of Fe the test kit is measuring.

I had a quick look in the test kit manual and couldn't see anything obvious. Probably need to contact Hanna directly.


----------



## Zorfox (Jun 24, 2012)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Does anyone know the rationale for dosing so much iron? Is it because it's assumed to precipitate? If so, then it indicates that EDTA is able to prevent iron from precipitating for a long time, not just three days. That also explains why FeDTPA continues to stain the water, because plants aren't using it up.


My assumption is that Fe does not remain available for plants more than a few days depending on the chelate and PH. As far as the reading the tester is getting, I agree with Audionut that we aren't sure what it's testing for, Fe++, Fe+++, hydrolyzed etc.

Iron is a discipline among itself in chemistry. It's not as simple as saying it oxidizes and falls to the substrate. I wish I understood more about the process. Here is a good article about iron in the aquarium, Iron Transformations.

If it does transform into many other compounds and settle in the substrate then how much is recycled? Are we measuring this? I'm sure some is freed by bacteria but how much?

Sorry. More answers than questions from me on this one. It's just one of those things I doubt any one person could explain in exacting detail.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

This makes me happier to think I may not be at toxic levels based on dosing. I'm going to continue with the lower dosing for less water level and work on prefecting flow in my tank. Maybe it is lack of proper flow causing my issues. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Zorfox said:


> Iron is a discipline among itself in chemistry. It's not as simple as saying it oxidizes and falls to the substrate. I wish I understood more about the process. Here is a good article about iron in the aquarium, Iron Transformations.


I've read a few articles there, but missed that one on Fe. Added some insights, thanks.

What it seemed to reinforce for me, was that once it precipitates, if the water chemistry doesn't change (much), then it's likely to stay precipitated for some time. Sure, there is bacteria and what not that will break it down, but I expect this to be a somewhat slow process.

He mentions a couple of times regarding adding Fe, measuring the next day and getting a result of zero. But I'm not certain that all test kits will behave this way.

I have a Nutrafin Fe test kit that measures chelated and free (non-chelated) forms depending on how you perform the test.

https://usa.hagen.com/File/f541b54c-e548-4b5c-b944-f56ea0074701

I'd have to run some more tests to be sure, but I recall being able to measure 0ppm on the free Fe test, with clear signs of Fe precipitation. Which suggests that it only measures Fe during the partial phase where it's not chelated, or precipitated. But I'm not sure.

I've significantly reduced Fe dosing in my tank, mainly because I was pushing levels so high that I was seeing precipitated Fe everywhere. Reading that article and combining with my current knowledge suggests that I should only be dosing very small amounts since my pH is 6.0. After running the numbers for copper earlier, I've knocked back my trace dosing considerably, and should probably reduce it a little further again because of pH.

Interesting stuff regarding what happens in the substrate.


Here's mine. The light brown section of the substrate is pretty consistent for the top 1/2" or so of my substrate, with some clear patches here and there as can be seen in the photo above. In the dark area is the same gravel which is dark in the image since light isn't penetrating there, but when the light is off, that area of the substrate looks lighter and cleaner then the top 1/2".

@PortalMasteryRy Would you prefer if we took this discussion elsewhere? I have an excellent ability of taking threads off-topic, so feel free to slap me around if I'm putting that skill to good use in this thread. 


edit: https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/pourbaix.htm


----------

