New Salt Mix Data?

[tonylamas]

Tom, this is kinda funny, because you said exactly what I was trying to say. My attention was not drawn to the ASW mix in the "It's (still) in the Water" article, it was drawn to the food input.

from "Why Do Water Changes" thread
We seem to be attaching a great deal of emphasis on the metals in the artificial salt mixes where, IMO, we should be looking at the contributions from the food we add to our tanks.

But after digging through a bunch of the links, I found this Down the Drain: Exports from Reef Aquaria That's the link I was missing in this whole debate. Disregarding the chronology of the articles vs thread posts, I think I have a better understanding of the issues now.

Thanks for guiding my reading through this.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I went through the various inputs to some extent in this article:

Reef Aquaria with Low Soluble Metals
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-0...ture/index.htm

[tonylamas]

I had read that, before any of the others, actually, and that is probably why I keyed in on the food. Who knows why we pick up certain things and miss others?

Anyway, have any tests been run on some of the suggestions you made? Filter-floss sounds like a pretty good bet, but it seems odd they would worry about depleting the levels of some of the metals and so impregnate the floss with the metals we want gone.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Not that I know of.

[Hobster]

Randy or other chemists. I know you can not speak for the author of this article but why woud the major elements of the samples not be tested for also?? Would it be much more expensive or time consuming to test for these after everything had been set up to test for the trace elements? It would have been nice to see the % of the major elements as well. Just wondering.

[NH_Reef]

Where's Jacques cousteau when you need him? I'm an engineer not a chemist, but for all the data and debates I read through, it would seem logical to me that to get a proper comparison and baseline from NSW, one would have to start at one or more natural reefs. Several water samples from different areas taken and fully analyzed. Also, several sand bed samples carefully taken and analyzed as well. This, to me, would seem relatively easy for a researcher and am surprised it isn't documented somewhere already. It also would seem to be the logical baseline to compare when deciding on what a salt mix should or should not have in it. Then, once some one concocts a mix, larvae tests etc could be performed. I know that my comments here are probably a bit simple etc etc, but I'm curious. I have read a lot of the above mentioned articles and have even seen some refer to NSW data. If it is truly known what conditions are in natural reefs water/sand, then shouldn't that data just be the baseline for synthetic mixes or am I just off on a distant planet here?
Again,
Just very curious about this whole thing.

[Scooterman67]

This is just too good to miss, BOOMER, good to see you here, this is the one and only Scooterman you know

I was actually hoping to see more results on that salt test, maybe there is more to come, maybe we can stir things up some!

[WaterKeeper]

Originally posted by NH_Reef
...it would seem logical to me that to get a proper comparison and baseline from NSW, one would have to start at one or more natural reefs.

If you'll pay my way I'll be only too glad to collect the samples.

I think the general problem is funding. There are studies of the trace metals--Pilson, M. E. Q. 1998. An Introduction to the Chemistry of the Sea. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ. 431 pp.--is the one of the more recent studies and is used by Doc Ron for baseline NSW levels in his articles. These complete studies are few and far between as the cost is prohibitive. Other studies usually focus on a single or maybe a handful of contaminates of interest to that particular researcher. A similar dilemma faces us in getting good data on artificial saltwater mixes. There really is no incentive to provide the funds to undertake complete analysis. Ron did the community a valuable service in his tank study. Although I don't agree completely with his conclusions the data was most welcome.

This latest study will draw some fire, Why, because the study was commissioned by an salt mix manufacturer. This always draws comment of bias whether deserved or not. Hopefully other studies will follow, perhaps with independent funding.

Scoot,

You must have missed the link in this tread. The data is Here.

Oh, and very few of us miss Boomer. His constant presence on this forum is the reason only the courageous among the reefing public venture here.

[Boomer]

Hi Scoot

Tom, dead link .........and I love you too


Scoot and Hob

I was actually hoping to see more results on that salt test, maybe there is more to come


but why woud the major elements of the samples not be tested for also??

It is a 3 part article guys Tim just wants to keep people in the dark

From Randy's post

Tim's first of 3 articles should come out on about the 15th

I would assume the first, as is shown, on Trace, then Minor then Major elemtents ????

[WaterKeeper]

Thanks Boom--link is fixed.

I think this new study only is to consider trace elements so I doubt we'll see a article on the major elements in the various mixes. According to the ariticle we will next see another bioassay.

I guess we tune in next month to see if Doc Hovanec's Sea Urchins Lytichinus pictus will fare better living in IO than Doc Shimeks Sea Urchins Arbacia punctulata did. I'm putting my money on the Lytichinus. Any takers?

[Scooterman67]

Yes I didn't need the link, It hit my e-mail the day it came out. Now that I know there is three parts, we can sit back and wait until we get a total picture, thanks everyone, this will be fun.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy or other chemists. I know you can not speak for the author of this article but why woud the major elements of the samples not be tested for also?? Would it be much more expensive or time consuming to test for these after everything had been set up to test for the trace elements? It would have been nice to see the % of the major elements as well. Just wondering.

It is expensive. Tim's purpose in doing the work and writing the article was not to prove that one salt mix is better than another, but to debunk Ron's assertions about trace metals being elevated and what effect that might have on sea urchin larvae.

I do agree that seeing it would be nice.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would assume the first, as is shown, on Trace, then Minor then Major elemtents ????

from the article:

"Part 1: A Chemical Analysis of Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater.

Part 2: The Toxicity of Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater to the Development of White Sea Urchin (Lytichinus pictus) larvae, and

Part 3: It is really a "Bad Beginning" or was it just Bad Science: A Rebuttal to Shimek 2003."

[Greg Hiller]

I just read through the Marineland article. I was a bit surprised that they didn't 0.2 micron filter the samples (particularly the NSW sample) to remove any plankton. Any plankton that entered the analysis I assume would be burned up and therefore would add the content of the metals in their biomass to the total.

There was also no information in the materials and methods section regarding whether all the contents of the salt mixes were 'burned up'. What I mean is were there any insoluble materials that ended up in the analysis?

Also...sorry to be nit-picky, but how large were the sample preps. Seems to me that the degree of milling could have a significant impact on the results unless a large enough salt sample was dissolved.

And finally, is an acid washed glass bottle a good idea for collecting a sample of salt water for metals analysis? Seems to me that plastic might have been a better choice. Isn't it possible that metals leached from the glass of the container?

[Boomer]

Randy

"Part 1: A Chemical Analysis of Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater.

Part 2: The Toxicity of Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater to the Development of White Sea Urchin (Lytichinus pictus) larvae, and

Part 3: It is really a "Bad Beginning" or was it just Bad Science: A Rebuttal to Shimek 2003."

I saw that and corrected myself in a new post. It appears I hit preview and not send



Greg

Those are some good ponits

[WaterKeeper]

Hi Greg,

I agree that the NSW sample should have been filtered to remove plankton.

For trace metal analysis the acid washed, I assume borosilicate glass, would be just fine and is preferable to plastic for some metals.

To you other questions I do not know. You would need to contact Dr. Horvanec.

[photobarry]

Originally posted by Greg Hiller
I just read through the Marineland article. I was a bit surprised that they didn't 0.2 micron filter the samples (particularly the NSW sample) to remove any plankton. Any plankton that entered the analysis I assume would be burned up and therefore would add the content of the metals in their biomass to the total.

In their defense, I think they were trying to simulate how a hobbyist might collect NSW. I don't know of any hobbyists that will micron filter their SW. So, all that plankton will likely end up in the tank.

[Scooterman67]

some or actually quit a few use UV, how would this make a difference?

[photobarry]

UV on your tank or on freshly collected NSW? Unless the dead plankton is skimmed out, any associated trace metals are still in the water. They may be bound and harmless, but that is a different discussion.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

, is an acid washed glass bottle a good idea for collecting a sample of salt water for metals analysis? Seems to me that plastic might have been a better choice. Isn't it possible that metals leached from the glass of the container?

Possible, yes. He doesn't explicitly say what kind of container was used for the ASW samples. Hopefully, the same. FWIW, Ron used glass for the NSW sample storage, IIRC.

I just read through the Marineland article. I was a bit surprised that they didn't 0.2 micron filter the samples (particularly the NSW sample) to remove any plankton. Any plankton that entered the analysis I assume would be burned up and therefore would add the content of the metals in their biomass to the total.

You were probably off fraging corals, but we did discuss filtration at both Tom Frakes' lecture and at Tim's at MACNA. To be honest, I do not recall if filtration was part of Tim's process that the labs did (not him).

[photobarry]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
You were probably off fraging corals, but we did discuss filtration at both Tom Frakes' lecture and at Tim's at MACNA. To be honest, I do not recall if filtration was part of Tim's process that the labs did (not him).

Now that you mentioned it, I find it unlikely that any lab would run an unfiltered solution through their equipment. I imagine getting a piece of sand stuck in there would be a bad thing.

[WaterKeeper]

You need to remember that an ISP burns very hot and it will "eat" just about anything that enters the plasma. UV will lyse cells and their contents that then enter the water column. An ISP will vaporize those same cells and any metals contained therein will become detectable during the analysis. Unlike flame AA, the organic "smoke' does not create that much background interference. Large particles entering the capillary will clog the nebulizer but any operator worth his salt (water) will pick up on that.

I see none of you want to place bets on the outcome of the bioassay. That means--

• That you went to the lecture at MACNA or
• You surmise that Doc Tims's articles would have been a two part series rather than three if the majority of the urchin larvae where floaters 48 hours into the test.

[Habib]

Originally posted by photobarry
Now that you mentioned it, I find it unlikely that any lab would run an unfiltered solution through their equipment. I imagine getting a piece of sand stuck in there would be a bad thing.

There will be a filter but the sample is acidified. If that happens before it is filtered then metal precipitates will dissolve and will be measured.

This is less likely if the precipitate is large enough to be filtered and the filtrate is acidified.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I see none of you want to place bets on the outcome of the bioassay. That means--

That you went to the lecture at MACNA

Ok, I'll spill it: there was no correlaion between what metals were found, and the urchin larvae survival. Further, while IO was among the best salts, Reef Crystals was among the worst, just for those who are naturally cynical.

[Habib]

To be honest, I do not recall if filtration was part of Tim's process that the labs did (not him).


I was at that time too busy thinking about some of his results.

However, I captured Tom Frakes saying that if they (the lab) decanted it then some preciptate might not have been included and sounds perhaps as the samples were not filtered.