Alright, so who can test Tech M to see what's in it killing brypsis?

[redfishsc]

I know there are several companies out there that can do a full chemistry panel on water/fluid samples.


TONS of people have used Kent's Tech M to kill bryopsis, and it often works, but with my case, it comes back in a few weeks (even without a water change) and I have put a LOT of Tech-M in my tank. The mag levels haven't killed any coral, but it did kill a couple brittle stars (I suppose that is what did it).



Anyhow, I was thinking that if enough people pooled $$ together, we could send off a sample of Tech M to some company who could give is a full panel of:


1) What is actually in Tech M other than Magnesium, chloride, and sulfate ions (regardless of what their labels say and "used" to say).

2) What the concentration of said chemicals is.....



.......So that we can estimate a more direct route for killing this stuff.


At least we would know how much we are raising these impurities with each dose of Tech M.



I know we can't really know for sure WHAT chemical (or synergistic combinations) are what is killing it, but this would be a good starting point.


Last, is this even legal on a commercial product?

[Billybeau1]

I used Kent's Tech-M on my tank at 1800 ppm for 2 months and it did not put a dent in my bryopsis.

I've already invested enough $$$ on this theory. :sad2:

[HighlandReefer]

redfishsc,

Sorry to hear that the mag increase using Tech M did not work for you the way you had hoped. :(

From your starting point, how many ppm did you raise your mag up to initially kill the algae?

How many ppm did you raise your mag each day to get to your final level? Over what total period of time did it take you to raise your mag. to the final point?

Research indicates that algae recover from some combinations of heavy metals after an initial kill or setback just as you have experienced.

This article provides sited research which has been completed regarding some synergistic effects as well as the effects that heavy metals have on algae:

Comparative studies of the toxicity of heavy metals to phytoplankton and their synergistic interactions
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5414867

FWIW, it could take years of research performed by qualified chemists and researchers using lots of expensive equipment to come up with possible answers to find something that will kill algae and not harm other organisms commonly found in our reef tanks.

[stanlalee]

I used Kent's Tech-M on my tank at 1800 ppm for 2 months and it did not put a dent in my bryopsis.

I've already invested enough $$$ on this theory. :sad2:

I'm interested in your procedure as well. it worked for me but from my account and others I've gathered you have to hit it fast and hard. Did you raise it 100ppm or more daily and 400ppm or more from the starting point?

[jbird69]

perhaps your live rock is leeching phosphates? Do you have any other algae? Briopsys needs very little nutrients and once it takes hold it can flourish in pretty pristine conditions. I wonder if youve got spores deep inside your rock that keeps it coming back?

[dan223]

At least we would know how much we are raising these impurities with each dose of Tech M.
I know we can't really know for sure WHAT chemical (or synergistic combinations) are what is killing it, but this would be a good starting point.
Last, is this even legal on a commercial product?

Ive used bulk magnesium chloride more than once with good results, I believe its the magnesium chloride in the magnesium chloride that is killing the briopsis:rollface: I do not know why this myth of it having to be tech m persists

[parrotfish2005]

What test kits will read the Mg at such high levels? I am trying the TechM and have the Salifert which only goes up to 1500.

[stanlalee]

What test kits will read the Mg at such high levels? I am trying the TechM and have the Salifert which only goes up to 1500.

Elos goes to infinity, you just keep adding drops until the color changes and do math.

[dan223]

What test kits will read the Mg at such high levels? I am trying the TechM and have the Salifert which only goes up to 1500.

It goes up proportionally, I cannot remember off hand but look at the chart it goes up a set ppm for every ml added, you just have to refill the syringe. Otherwise dilute your sample 50/50 with rodi water, then double the results.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I'm not sure knowing what is in it will narrow things down unless we also know what levels of what things kill bryopsis in seawater. We'll find most any inorganic ion in it at some concentration. :)

I believe its the magnesium chloride in the magnesium chloride that is killing the briopsis I do not know why this myth of it having to be tech m persists

A variety of people have tried other brands of magnesium chloride and magnesium sulfate with no apparent effect. So the impurity theory has some merit. Do you have an alternative explanation?

[redfishsc]

Ive used bulk magnesium chloride more than once with good results, I believe its the magnesium chloride in the magnesium chloride that is killing the briopsis:rollface: I do not know why this myth of it having to be tech m persists

As Randy said, the mag chloride is not the ingredient. It does work for some folks but I would suspect it to be an impurity, not the mag chloride. I certainly, definitely did NOT work for me.

FWIW, I'm not sure knowing what is in it will narrow things down unless we also know what levels of what things kill bryopsis in seawater. We'll find most any inorganic ion in it at some concentration. :)


Well, this is why I was suggesting a "full blood panel" to see 1) what's actually in it, and 2) at what concentration.

If it shows up with a certain impurity way above the levels that we would suspect, perhaps it would be a clue as to what's killing the stuff. I know the panel wouldn't solve the problem but would be a good beginning point.

The Tech M is not clear at all, it looks like wet skimmate. Kinda tan. So there's a lot of something in it that is discoloring it. I dunno if it's the same thing that's killing they bryopsis, but something is.

redfishsc,

Sorry to hear that the mag increase using Tech M did not work for you the way you had hoped. :(

From your starting point, how many ppm did you raise your mag up to initially kill the algae?

How many ppm did you raise your mag each day to get to your final level? Over what total period of time did it take you to raise your mag. to the final point?

Research indicates that algae recover from some combinations of heavy metals after an initial kill or setback just as you have experienced.

This article provides sited research which has been completed regarding some synergistic effects as well as the effects that heavy metals have on algae:

Comparative studies of the toxicity of heavy metals to phytoplankton and their synergistic interactions
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5414867

FWIW, it could take years of research performed by qualified chemists and researchers using lots of expensive equipment to come up with possible answers to find something that will kill algae and not harm other organisms commonly found in our reef tanks.


Started using chloride and sulfate, raised it as high as 2,000ppm. No effect after several weeks.

Water change to bring it down to around 1700ppm.

Added around 80-100ppm of magnesium via Tech M every day to raise it to 2300 (when it started working). Let it there for around two weeks or so. BTA and frogspawn not happy, but otherwise, no ill effects. Bryopsis totally disappeared.

Did a 40% water chance at the two week mark since the frogspawn had stayed closed for so long. Bryopsis started coming back very quickly.


Decided to risk it, and raised the mag to around 3100ppm, again around 100ppm per day. No side effects still (except it did kill two small brittle stars). Bryopsis dies but MUCH MUCH slower.

Left it there for another two weeks. Did a small 10% water change, and bryopsis stayed gone.

Now after about 3 to 4 weeks, and no other water changes, bryopsis coming back. I haven't checked the mag to see what level it is, but it's a moot point anyhow. Either the bryopsis is now resistant to the herbicidal effects, or the mystery ingredient has petered out, and I don't want to add any more magnesium to the tank. I need to find another method. Frogspawn as been closed up for over a month and I'm close to having to relocate it in another person's system.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If it shows up with a certain impurity way above the levels that we would suspect, perhaps it would be a clue as to what's killing the stuff. I know the panel wouldn't solve the problem but would be a good beginning point.


Suppose it looks like what I found in Kent Turbo Calcium, What would you think it might be? Even assuming I tested for and could detect the right thing at the right levels. i suppose comparing to a brand with for sure no effectiveness could be more useful. :)

Purity of Calcium Chloride
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2004/chem.htm

[HighlandReefer]

From the research noted above:

"Silver was found to be the most toxic metal overall, inhibiting growth of Chlorella at levels of 0.005 ppm. Mercury and cadmium were also highly toxic to Chlorella."

Randy,

I would guess Cadmium might be one of the suspects from your article. I take it that you did not test for Mercury and Silver? Since Mercury and Silver are highly toxic to algae, perhaps running tests for these two metals may provide some insight? Of course these theories could go on & on. :lol:

[HighlandReefer]

Another thing to take into consideration might be what a hobbyist is using to supplement alk and calcium with. For example, if they are using kalk water, then many of the heavy metals would precipitate out. On the other hand, if they are using calcium chloride, this will add to the heavy metals that are being added in conjunction with the mag supplement. This might be just enough to make a difference, especially if one happens to increase their calcium levels a fair amount at the same time as increasing their mag. levels. :rollface:

[HighlandReefer]

One example as to how complicated this discussion can be:

Toxicity of Silver Nanoparticles to
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
http://www.oekotoxzentrum.ch/ueberuns/medien/20081030/silver-nanoparticles-es801785m.pdf

From this article:

"Based on total Ag concentration, AgNO3 displayed higher
toxicity than AgNP, even though this difference in toxicity
declined over time. However, based on Ag+, AgNP appeared
to be more toxic than AgNO3 (Figure 2B).

It appears from this research article that some compounds of silver are 3X more toxic then others. How might this come into play in a reef aquarium?

It is interesting that as experienced by some hobbyists, that they found the toxicity to algae decreased over time with the specified compounds of silver.

[redfishsc]

Suppose it looks like what I found in Kent Turbo Calcium, What would you think it might be? Even assuming I tested for and could detect the right thing at the right levels. i suppose comparing to a brand with for sure no effectiveness could be more useful. :)

Purity of Calcium Chloride
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2004/chem.htm

Good point on comparing to a known "ineffective" combination. I still have PLENTY of BRS mag chloride and Wal-mart mag sulfate that I used before using the Tech M. The combination (4:1) was totally ineffective.

[mat167]

I don't know whether this has been put forward already or not, but after redfishsc mentioned a 4:1 combination I would be curious as to what the exact ratio is in Tech M. I haven't seen exact values for Cl- and SO4-2 in the Tech M ingredients, so could it be possible that it's not the impurities in Tech M but rather an unconventional ratio of chloride to sulfate that aids in bryopsis problems by unbalancing the in-tank ratio?
I figure this could also explain why it is ineffective in some cases (their Cl:SO4 is at a different balance than in those cases where it is effective). Then again this theory doesn't really explain why it affects bryopsis and no other organisms, and I'm not familiar enough with the biology of bryopsis to suggest how that may happen.

Sorry if this idea has been proposed and discredited already, just thinking out loud.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The relative shift in the chloride and sulfate is fairly minor because there is already so much of each present in seawater. Also, Tech M claims to be ionically balanced, so I expect it is reasonably close to NSW ratios.

[HighlandReefer]

Mat167,

The toxicity of different heavy metals on algae has been studied and the internet has quite a few links to many various papers. The toxicity of silver for example is quite high for many algae. I don't remember the exact amount listed in the articles, but some where around 0.002 or less. Then when silver is combined with other metals, the toxicity is even higher. Unfortunately the equipment used to test for most heavy metals was not capable to detect exactly what levels the various heavy metals were at in the calcium and mag mixes.

It is interesting that different combinations of the heavy metals commonly found as contaminates in mag and cal supplements are quite a bit higher.

This article is just one of many that shows the synergistic effects of combining different heavy metals:

Individual and combined toxicity of three heavy metals, Cu, Cd and Cr for the marine copepod Tisbe holothuriae
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r24k8h501g3672r4/

My question is, how significant is the above information when raising the mag levels or calcium levels in our tank, especially if you raise mag. 400 ppm? :)

Given the fact that most heavy metals are listed at < 0.02 ppm, could silver, for example,be increased above the 0.002 threshold for algae or am I just barking up a tree? :lol:

An additional reference for metal toxicity to algae:

Bioaccumulation and toxicity of silver compounds: a review
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kmiVZHuETWcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA320&dq=toxicity+silver+algae&ots=ibqUL6sUWp&sig=TNJVSUVPnqGfvLGmoYqRFJXxXaA#v=onepage&q=toxicity%20silver%20algae&f=false

[sowellj]

from an analytical chemistry standpoint ... determining if a compound is present and at what level is fairly straightforward. Having no idea what is present in a solution and identifying it is a more costly/complicated scenario. As Randy mentioned, even knowing what is in Tech M would be of limited use as the next step would be identifying the active ingredient ... which would mean obtaining purified material of the individual components ... etc.

On an aside, Randy, I almost took a job at Genzyme a few years back.

[tcmfish]

So once you find out the impurities in Tech-M. You can use that find out how much is in the tank when dosed. Right? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it, but isn't that the general idea.

Something like if you need X amount Tech-M to kill bryopsis, and there is Y amount of impurity in Tech-M serving, then you need XY amount to kill bryopsis of impurity?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So once you find out the impurities in Tech-M. You can use that find out how much is in the tank when dosed. Right? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it, but isn't that the general idea.

Yes. So then you have a list of 57 things. How do you know which one, or which combination of two or three or ten killed the bryopsis. :)

We lack data on bryopsis, and since the effect is claimed to be fairly specific for bryopsis, data from other organsims may not do the trick, IMO.

[redfishsc]

I realize the difficulty that our chemists are pointing out--- even if we know what precisely is in Tech M, and the concentration, how do we figure out which one (or even worse, which combination!) is doing the work.


What I am hoping is that there is a "smoking gun" in the analysis that would stand out like a sore thumb. One of those "I wouldn't have expected to see that much" kind of things.


Does anyone have any idea who, (and how much they'd charge) for such a panel? If it's relatively affordable, maybe all interested could chip in to pay for it. Then again if the cost is off the charts, maybe not.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You can see element testing costs here:

http://www.enclabs.com/fees.html#analyses

[sowellj]

Testing to see if something is present relatively inexpensive ...
Receiving something from a client w/the problem of identifying what is present w/no idea what is there ... spendy.

The work would consist of preparative LC to isolate all the compounds
a quick LC-MS screen to see if your fractions are pure
liquid liquid extraction or lyophilization to concentrate the fractions
NMR on the fractions, proton, C, mulitidimensional, etc.
a second MS screen on the pure fractions to get exact mass ... mabye MS/MS data
lots of time ...

I would have no idea how to price this ... but a company I used to work at would charge clients 300/hr for mass spec work, and that was cheap. To do the above work I think you could easily be looking at six figures.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I assumed the material of interest was an inorganic ion, so it bypasses most of those tests, but if it might be organic, then you'd need those. :)

[redfishsc]

Hmm.

That is kinda spendy, and their "package" tests don't run the gamut of what was once listed in Tech-M's "ingredient" list before they reduced it to the chloride and sulfate only.


And none of them test for silver, which Cliff has been suggesting as a possibility, if I read him correctly.

So I'm not quite sure what to do at this point other than just continue using the Tech M, lol.

[sowellj]

I assumed the material of interest was an inorganic ion, so it bypasses most of those tests, but if it might be organic, then you'd need those. :)

... yep, I realized after I posted that that I was in "pharmaceutical mode" and thinking organics ... but I was too lazy to post that those wouldn't work for inorganics

[HighlandReefer]

And people want to know why medications are so expensive. :lol:

[sowellj]

And people want to know why medications are so expensive. :lol:

... don't get me started

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hey, no bad mouthing drug costs. That's money in my pocket. :D

[sowellj]

Hey, no bad mouthing drug costs. That's money in my pocket. :D

No ... I am on your side. I no longer work in the pharmaceuitcal industry but it was food on my table for a while. Not sure if you saw or not Randy, but I posted earlier that I almost took a job at Genzyme .. I think that is where you are at.

[Billybeau1]

Hey, no bad mouthing drug costs. That's money in my pocket. :D

:lol::lol::lol:

[bristle]

My father used to own an analytical lab. A full ICP scan would probably run you about $80, but it varies widely. This would give you a quantitative analysis of many single elements, but it doesn't really do inorganic compounds well. NH3, NO3, NO2, alkalinity, conductivity, PO4, mercury, DOC, TOC, as well as a host of other elements are in separate analytical machines, and this is only counting inorganic molecules.

Basically, if you want to know everything, it's going to cost a lot and require a lot of tests. But you can get a broad brush type of result by just asking for metal ion analysis...I think it's somewhere around 20 elements that are analyzed by just one machine.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Not sure if you saw or not Randy, but I posted earlier that I almost took a job at Genzyme .. I think that is where you are at.


Yes, too bad you didn't take it. Our stock price has been down down down. :D

[steks]

I know it will be very expensive to have a sample of Tech M tested, but maybe there are some people who are able to do it at their work when they have some spare time. I work at a chemical plant laboratory, so besides a few standard tests on wastewater there isn’t much I can do that would be of much use.

We do have an ICP, but we use it only for Na en Mo analyses and I don’t think mu boss would like the idea that I will set it up for multicomponent analyses. :spin1:

[TheH]

How about comparing TechM to a similarly produced product and screening for differences?

[Jk5]

I believe its the magnesium chloride in the magnesium chloride that is killing the briopsis I do not know why this myth of it having to be tech m persists

A variety of people have tried other brands of magnesium chloride and magnesium sulfate with no apparent effect. So the impurity theory has some merit. Do you have an alternative explanation?


A crazy theory... :bounce1:
Estruvite...

Ammonium+po4+Magnesium chloride could precipitate in estruvite...
The ratio for this precipitation is 1:1:1

Could magnesium chloride make precipitation of ammonium+po4?
people who has succsses with magnessium was dued because they had ammonium too?



"At aqueous NH4+-concentrations of about 600 mg/l, ammonium removal efficiencies of 97% could be obtained at a molar ratio NH4+/Mg2+/PO43- of 1/1.5/1.5. To obtain this result, the pH was continuously adjusted to a value of 9 during the reaction. According to this study, it is obvious that the MAP-precipitation technology offers opportunities for ammonium removal from scrubbing liquids."

[Jk5]

Other theory is that one of the typical impuritys from some Magensium is ammonium.
Perhaps it inhibits the algae growth.

[Jk5]

Here is a brief story of calcareous algae and coraline bleachment throught magnesium adition.
http://translate.google.es/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fe-coralia.net%2Fpanel%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D2040%26highlight%3Dmagnesio%2Bbryopsis&sl=es&tl=en&hl=es&ie=UTF-8

Perhaps this story contains the magnessium recipe against bryopsis?
Amounts, intensity and times of magnesium adition and kinds of magensium used.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

A crazy theory...
Estruvite...

The theory being that phosphate reduction drives the bryopsis die off? That bryopsis is especially sensitive to reduced phosphate relative to corals and such?

If true, other methods of reducing phosphate should work well, such as GFO or organic carbon dosing, and these seem not especially effective for bryopsis relative to other organisms.

At aqueous NH4+-concentrations of about 600 mg/l, ammonium removal efficiencies of 97% could be obtained at a molar ratio NH4+/Mg2+/PO43- of 1/1.5/1.5.

Seems unlikely for us since we have about a thousand times less ammonia (even with some added via the Tech M, which I agree is likely; more ammmonia than that would show up as problems for fish)) and more than a thousand times less phosphate. Since the likelihood of precipitation of such a solid relates to the concentrations of each component multiplied by each other, then we have a solubility product that is more than a million times less than that experiment. :)

[redfishsc]

If someone were willing to potentially sacrifice some corals to see how effective (or if effective at all) copper sulfate would work for bryopsis (ie, in a spare 10g quarantine tank), what would be a good starting point for dosing? And are there any good copper test kits that can test such low levels of copper?

The theory being that the copper impurity in Tech M being the, or one of the, culprits, and that it raises copper levels to a threshold that bryopsis is sensitive to, but most corals are not.


I'm thinking of tossing some anthelia, xenia, some texas trash zoanthids, and maybe a couple sprigs of common SPS like birdsnest and elkhorn monti into a 10g tank, as well as a several good mats of bryopsis.


I just wouldn't know where to begin.

[Jk5]

Randy...
what about the 2nd theory and the 3rd theory and recipe?


Other theory is that one of the typical impuritys from some Magensium is ammonium.
Perhaps it inhibits the algae growth.


Here is a brief story of calcareous algae and coraline bleachment throught magnesium adition.
http://translate.google.es/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fe-coralia.net%2Fpanel%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D2040%26highlight%3Dmagnesio%2Bbryopsis&sl=es&tl=en&hl=es&ie=UTF-8

Perhaps this story contains the magnessium recipe against bryopsis?
Amounts, intensity and times of magnesium adition and kinds of magensium used.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I've never seen any evidence of ammonia being a problem for algae, at least not more so than fish, inverts etc.. Many algae happily take it up, even preferentially to nitrate, as their nitrogen source.

I would not want to add ammonia to kill bryopsis, and I expect this is not it because even if you added some, most reef tanks will quickly deplete it.

However, if you want to add ammonia in a test tank, it would be pretty easy to do. Just don't look to 1 or 5 or 10 ppm as a useful tool, as that will kill fish, etc.

This has more;

Ammonia and the Reef Aquarium
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-02/rhf/index.php

From it:

Sinks for Ammonia in Reef Aquaria: Algae
________________________________________
Many organisms take up ammonia directly for use in making the proteins and other biomolecules they need to build tissues. Algae, both micro and macro, for example, readily use ammonia from the water. In cases where they are exposed to both nitrate and ammonia as nitrogen sources, many preferentially take up ammonia.6 When using nitrate, many of the pertinent biochemical pathways require the organism to reduce nitrate to ammonia before using it, so taking up ammonia makes sense.6 It has not been established in a reef aquarium setting, however, what portion of the macroalgae's nitrogen uptake is ammonia and what fraction is nitrate.
The amount of nitrogen taken up by a large macroalgal filter is substantial. A free PDF (portable document format) article in the journal Marine Biology13 has some useful information with respect to the potential export abilities of algae. It gives the phosphorus and nitrogen content for nine different species of macroalgae, including many that reefkeepers maintain. For example, Caulerpa racemosa collected off Hawaii contains about 0.08% by dry weight phosphorus and 5.6% nitrogen. Harvesting a pound (454 g; dry weight) of this macroalgae from a reef aquarium would be the equivalent of removing 25.4 grams of nitrogen, which, if it were all present in 100 gallons of water as ammonia, would be equivalent to a concentration of 67 ppm total NH4-N. Even if it took three months to grow to that mass, it would effectively be taking out the equivalent of 0.75 ppm total NH4-N per day.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I had a hard time understanding the coralline algae link, but coralline algae does incorporate more magnesium than most calcifying organisms. I've never heard of elevated magnesium hurting coralline, and that link seemed to be talking about small additions (but I may have misunderstood the translation).

[Greg Hiller]

Randy, in the FWIW dept. if you ever want any Bryopsis to test with I have plenty in my small tank at work. I've tried using magnesium additions in the form of the Brightwell's mag supplement with zero affect on the Bryopsis in this tank. I went from 1060 ppm Mg to ~1860 in 200 ppm steps, one about every day. Made some stuff unhappy in the tank, but no major losses (snails were feeling very ill).

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks, Greg. :)

FWIW, I've got my own bryopsis farm going in my display tank, but it can be hard to see through the aiptasia. I figure to deal with one pest at a time . :D

[Billybeau1]

Tech-M didn't even work on my bryopsis @ 1800ppm for 3 weeks. It seems to work for some, but not others for some reason.

I can say though that this vodka dosing experiment seems to be going well. I'm losing bryopsis and cyno is literally falling off the back glass.

I'm not quite ready to say success yet but it is looking good so far. :)

[Twitterbait]

WOW, the only chemical i use to treat for bryopsis is propane... and a match of course. I prefer not to mess with good water chemistry. instead i just burn any pests off, brush the ash away, cool and put the rock back in.

I guess i ain't schooled enough in chemistry to figure this stuff out :D

[phuzzykins]

Maybe I should rename my rabbitfish Tech-M... it gets rid of bryopsis faster than anything on the market.

In my nano tank, I saw my bryopsis disappear when I raised my Mg to 1600 using Randy's recipe 1, with components from BRS. In retrospect, it was probably just a natural succession.

[redfishsc]

I'm hoping the same thing about the natural secession in my tank. It seems to be dwindling, but that may be to my aggressive carbon dosing.