Toxins in water / Abstract logic

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

When people claim they do water changes to remove toxins, how do they accurately decipher what toxins become present in the water column from their actual testing (if they even test for specific toxins) and how do they calculate these toxins' respective PPM and what levels of those particular toxins' PPM become toxic to marine life/corals?

It just seems people throw the word "TOXIN" around (sort of like Christians claiming everything as a SIN huh?) like they know what exactly is in the water (through repetition of word, the truth is found?) , but i am fearing most are just regurgitating what they heard / were taught / told others and are now just sticking to it as a truth for the need to do things (like voting in the United States, or religious cults following a particular mind set lol). Its ok to accept being wrong, especially something as complex as Marine Water Science Chemistry. I just want to understand where the foundation evidence is that proves they are in fact removing toxins, and not just taking water out for the hell of it.

Are there alternatives to removing these toxins biologically versus water changes since water changes change the water chemistry percentage wise?

also can they exactly prove that these toxins were not presented into the water by they themselves versus the toxins accumulating due to the bio load in the tank from the tank inhabitants?

Nitrate is also too obvious to claim as a toxin for need of removal by water changes (which can be removed biologically?(macroalgae?)).

Thanks!

[disc1]

The thing is you don't have to KNOW these things. If you don't want to do water changes because you feel them unnecessary then by all means don't do them.

You are also using the word toxin wrongly. A toxin is something that can elicit an immune response. It is not the noun form of the word toxic.

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

The thing is you don't have to KNOW these things. If you don't want to do water changes because you feel them unnecessary then by all means don't do them.

You are also using the word toxin wrongly. A toxin is something that can elicit an immune response. It is not the noun form of the word toxic.


Why wouldnt we want to know?

And you also didnt answer any of the questions...

Making your comment null... No offense.

Just trying understand the reasoning why people do things. Of course we sll have the anility to do whatever we want. However if we are playing with science, facts usually trump all reasoning/logic.

[dkeller_nc]

To expand a little on David's thought -

Nitrate and Phosphate should be thought of as "nutrients"; it's unclear if very high amounts in the tank's water would be directly detrimental to invertebrate and/or fish life, though high amounts can certainly cause problems with algal growth.

With respect to actual biological toxins, the manufacture and release of these substances into the water by corals is well-established science. These organisms make these compounds in order to conduct biological warfare against their neighbors on the reef. The complexity of these compounds is very high, and different ones may have very different physical chemistry properties, so it's not possible to make a generalization about their removal by chemical and/or biological means. Some, for example, may be very effectively removed by granular activated carbon, while others may not absorb to GAC at all.

That's partly why reefers rely on water changes, because a water change will dilute all soluble compounds, regardless of their chemical properties. The saying is "The solution to pollution is dilution". ;)

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

To expand a little on David's thought -

Nitrate and Phosphate should be thought of as "nutrients"; it's unclear if very high amounts in the tank's water would be directly detrimental to invertebrate and/or fish life, though high amounts can certainly cause problems with algal growth.

With respect to actual biological toxins, the manufacture and release of these substances into the water by corals is well-established science. These organisms make these compounds in order to conduct biological warfare against their neighbors on the reef. The complexity of these compounds is very high, and different ones may have very different physical chemistry properties, so it's not possible to make a generalization about their removal by chemical and/or biological means. Some, for example, may be very effectively removed by granular activated carbon, while others may not absorb to GAC at all.

That's partly why reefers rely on water changes, because a water change will dilute all soluble compounds, regardless of their chemical properties. The saying is "The solution to pollution is dilution". ;)



That does shed some light! Thanks!

How can find out what these chemicals are? And where are these chemicsl datasheets.

Personally i can go find out on my own but im trying to integrate mass knowledge into this research to try and inform the hobby better...

And i also feel there is some ritualistic assumption attached still...

Im not trying to create a right or wrong thread as i havnt stated my beliefs. Im just asking questions.

[disc1]

To me it is more like washing your hands when you get done in the bathroom. Do you need a test to show you whether or not you've actually got bacteria on your hands? Do you need a test to show exactly which bacteria you have? I mean it could be a total wasted effort if it turned out that you didn't get anything on there.

Or do you just go with the assumption and wash your hands and move on with it? That's what I do. They might be there or they might not, but the chance that they are is enough to get me to wash my hands. What do I really have to lose.

[disc1]

What I mean by that is that it isn't really known or even knowable all the different things that might or might not be in your water. There are myriad different things that could be going on in any one tank and each tank is different. So it is precisely that unknown quality that pushes me to do water changes. I might not have anything wrong with my water, or I might have some toxic substance building up. Either way, the water change can only help and shouldn't do any harm. I don't need some scientific proof to get me to do water changes. It just makes sense to me that I would want to refresh the environment in a closed system. Quite the contrary, I would need good proof that nothing was there to stop me doing them. Because while the water change itself can't be harmful, the buildup of a toxic substance may.

[dkeller_nc]

There are tons and tons of scholarly articles on the subject. You might want to start with Google Scholar and the search term "corallimorphs chemical warfare".

If you mean Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) by "chemicsl datasheets", I suspect you'll be out of luck. MSDS exist for purified chemicals and formulated mixtures in use by commerce and industry. So far as I'm aware, coral toxins aren't part of that group.

If you mean that reefers change water out of a desire to follow a well-established good practice by "ritualistic assumption attached still", then you're right. Water changes have both an unassailable basis in logic as well as years and years of observations that support that it's a good thing to do.

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

What I mean by that is that it isn't really known or even knowable all the different things that might or might not be in your water. There are myriad different things that could be going on in any one tank and each tank is different. So it is precisely that unknown quality that pushes me to do water changes. I might not have anything wrong with my water, or I might have some toxic substance building up. Either way, the water change can only help and shouldn't do any harm. I don't need some scientific proof to get me to do water changes. It just makes sense to me that I would want to refresh the environment in a closed system. Quite the contrary, I would need good proof that nothing was there to stop me doing them. Because while the water change itself can't be harmful, the buildup of a toxic substance may.



I totally agree :)

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

There are tons and tons of scholarly articles on the subject. You might want to start with Google Scholar and the search term "corallimorphs chemical warfare".

If you mean Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) by "chemicsl datasheets", I suspect you'll be out of luck. MSDS exist for purified chemicals and formulated mixtures in use by commerce and industry. So far as I'm aware, coral toxins aren't part of that group.

If you mean that reefers change water out of a desire to follow a well-established good practice by "ritualistic assumption attached still", then you're right. Water changes have both an unassailable basis in logic as well as years and years of observations that support that it's a good thing to do.


I appreciate your honesty and calm response! I also agree 100%.

I just like digging deep on "controversial" ideas

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

corallimorphs chemical warfare

googling now =D

YUMM KNOWLEDGE!!

http://thebooksmugglers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/futurama_fry_brainspawn.jpg

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I discuss some of the organic compounds in aquarium water, including organic toxins, here:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-10/rhf/index.htm

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

FWIW, I discuss some of the organic compounds in aquarium water, including organic toxins, here:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-10/rhf/index.htm

Thanks will read now!

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

FWIW, I discuss some of the organic compounds in aquarium water, including organic toxins, here:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-10/rhf/index.htm

" Nevertheless, suspended POC is frequently less plentiful than DOC, often by an order of magnitude (unless, of course, a whale passes through the sampling zone!"

::giggle::

and theoretically, if we could only get more reef enthusiasts to ask the same questions I am, we could be learning more through personal research, and less stagnation of the mind by carrying buckets of water in and out the house LOL

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

This i s aresponse i got from Bulk Reef supply on youtube from their TRITON method video, that has triggered my knowledge funny bone:

"Alleopathic toxins unfortunately can't be measured via any test kit available to the public. There may be some sort of laboratory test to test for accurate concentrations, but unfortunately I am not aware of it. Your best bet to keep these alleopathic toxins at a low concentration in the tank is to run carbon to remove them, as well as sticking to a water change schedule. Smaller, more frequent changes won't swing your parameters too greatly. "

im still researching and I Just found this:

http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/algae-allelopathy

in case anyone else is interested in my journey for truth LOL

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, there are lots of good reasons to do water changes, and removing accumulated organics is just one of them.

Some of these can be accomplished in other ways, but may then require lots of testing and additives and binders.

As to the poll, I do water changes about ever 3 hours, day and night. :)

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

FWIW, there are lots of good reasons to do water changes, and removing accumulated organics is just one of them.

Some of these can be accomplished in other ways, but may then require lots of testing and additives and binders.

As to the poll, I do water changes about ever 3 hours, day and night. :)

I hope it is all automated!!!

HAHA =P

At that point you may as well move to Australia and buy scuba gear and so swimming every day to look at corals and fish =P

[MBMAX]

[QUOTE=OnceTrueFalseBr;233

It just seems people throw the word "TOXIN" around (sort of like Christians claiming everything as a SIN [/QUOTE]

I am sorry you got that impression of Christians .Most of us will tell you about Gods love and encourage others to read the bible .
You should read it sometime it will be a blessing.:D

[dkeller_nc]

Careful, folks. Discussion of religion or politics on these forums is verboten.

[maze531]

Don't you also do water changes to add trace elements back into the system?

[bertoni]

Okay, I've removed some posts here. Please keep the discussion on track. This is a reef chemistry forum.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Don't you also do water changes to add trace elements back into the system?

I do, and to export those that have accumulated. :)

[Stackemdeep]

Having read so many threads on inexplicable coral crashes with otherwise in-objectionable parameters and test results I can only question the husbandry involved. Often such threads end in a summary of "immeasurable stray voltage". The evidence I can measure is that of my creatures and I can visually see some improvement in the days following one of my 10% changes. Adding back in, or taking out is not that important in this regard.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Adding back in, or taking out is not that important in this regard.

Not sure what you mean. It may be why you see an improvement. :)

[Nor_Cal_Guy]

.... The evidence I can measure is that of my creatures and I can visually see some improvement in the days following one of my 10% changes. Adding back in, or taking out is not that important in this regard.

I agree, it seems in my naïve observation, that after a water change, I see an improvement in the extension of corals polyps.

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

I agree, it seems in my naïve observation, that after a water change, I see an improvement in the extension of corals polyps.

Ok, SO after a water change you see an improvement. There are still unidentified variables attached to it.

Like what was were your trace elements looking like before and after the water change.

example.

lets say you change the water and THEN test for trace elements and water parameters.

What if you find that everything is in check now. so you are confident that the water change brought everything in check.

However, what if before the water change your magnesium was VERY VERY low and Cal was very very high. if you didn't test to see this and then did the water change and balanced out the levels you would be assuming that simply changing the water fixed the problem.

however what if every week at the same time your parameters keep swinging like this, and the only thing "fixing" the look of your corals is the rise in magnesium AFTER the change. in respect to that what would have happened to the look of your corals if all you did was test first and doses for magnesium when needed? make any sense?

also when people say chemical warfare and needing to change water because of this. I can understand having a 300 gallon heavily stocked colony tank, but i am sure (and I'M assuming now lol) that the people who are afraid of all the alleopathic coral chemical warfare happening simply have like 3 or 4 LPS frags and a few fish in their 55 gallon LOL

[reefgeezer]

I'm a weekly testing & water change voter. I don't do the water changes to balance major balances like calcium, alkalinity, & magnesium. These are kept in check by dosing. The weekly checks assure that the major parameters are ok before water changes are done. The 10%-15% or so I change at any one time doesn't effect those parameters much.

[Reef Frog]

I was doing some maintenence the other day and had my hands & fore arms in the tank. Nothing major but my arms itched and looked ever so slightly blotchy for a while. No big deal but maybe something new was in the water or something that is always there was increasing in quantity. I have absolutely no problem diluting whatever it was.

My tank also seems to perk up a little after a WC after going a while without one. Not a scientific observation but it seems to be a valid clue.

[karimwassef]

My 2 cents.

I like a data driven approach, but not a desire for absolute answers.
Without a chemical lab (as in fictional CSI), the exact proportions of compounds in your saltwater is unknowable by a hobbyist. Does it matter apart from curiosity and controversy? Only if the incremental knowledge will make you a better reef keeper.

However, empirical data can be used to evaluate a desirable vs. undesirable state. I've been both a non-changer and an avid-changer. We've all seen tanks all over the spectrum. In my assessment, it's a necessary part of tank hygiene.

You could survive as a bum never taking a shower unless it rains. Or you could shower every morning. Both live, but who is healthier?

The best reefs I have ever seen included a regimen of monthly if not weekly water changes.
Best = polyp expansion, growth rates, color.

So let's collect data for these three output variables as a function of WC frequency. You'll need a lot of data points over a reasonably long time frame.

[tmz]

One can guess about which organics gac ,skimming with or without ozone pulls out and they do take some but a water change is inclusive in terms of what it takes out and puts back.

1% per day is my practice.

sort of like Christians claiming everything as a SIN

That is offensive, not apt to the subject and against the RC rules. I have no interest in discussing it or anything else with you.

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

One can guess about which organics gac ,skimming with or without ozone pulls out and they do take some but a water change is inclusive in terms of what it takes out and puts back.

1% per day is my practice.

sort of like Christians claiming everything as a SIN

That is offensive, not apt to the subject and against the RC rules. I have no interest in discussing it or anything else with you.

Ciao!

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

My 2 cents.

I like a data driven approach, but not a desire for absolute answers.
Without a chemical lab (as in fictional CSI), the exact proportions of compounds in your saltwater is unknowable by a hobbyist. Does it matter apart from curiosity and controversy? Only if the incremental knowledge will make you a better reef keeper.

However, empirical data can be used to evaluate a desirable vs. undesirable state. I've been both a non-changer and an avid-changer. We've all seen tanks all over the spectrum. In my assessment, it's a necessary part of tank hygiene.

You could survive as a bum never taking a shower unless it rains. Or you could shower every morning. Both live, but who is healthier?

The best reefs I have ever seen included a regimen of monthly if not weekly water changes.
Best = polyp expansion, growth rates, color.

So let's collect data for these three output variables as a function of WC frequency. You'll need a lot of data points over a reasonably long time frame.

I have a lot of husbandry to do this coming year! LOL

[Nor_Cal_Guy]

Ok, SO after a water change you see an improvement. There are still unidentified variables attached to it.

Like what was were your trace elements looking like before and after the water change.

example.

lets say you change the water and THEN test for trace elements and water parameters.

What if you find that everything is in check now. so you are confident that the water change brought everything in check.

However, what if before the water change your magnesium was VERY VERY low and Cal was very very high. if you didn't test to see this and then did the water change and balanced out the levels you would be assuming that simply changing the water fixed the problem.

however what if every week at the same time your parameters keep swinging like this, and the only thing "fixing" the look of your corals is the rise in magnesium AFTER the change. in respect to that what would have happened to the look of your corals if all you did was test first and doses for magnesium when needed? make any sense?

...

A reef is an unidentified variable. It's a living, evolving life form. Even in a glass box in your own home. It's never the same. Changing the water has historically proven to help the quality of the closed loop system in our home reefs.

The point is, water changes can help balance the elements present in the water. After all, we are keeping exotic animals in a glass box in OUR homes.

[karimwassef]

Another important variable in my experience is the air quality in the region of gas exchange. CO2 levels, cooking smoke, car exhaust, fresh air, insect spray, air fresheners, etc... While these chemicals are sometimes hard to identify in an aqueous form, they do impact the captive reef.

[CuzzA]

Ciao!

Just a tip, the next time you want to develop a great thread you should consider refraining from making blanket condemnations of an entire majority of the population.

At first this thread had promise, but was completely sidetracked by adding a ridiculous statement. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it's Christmas Eve. Which has me pondering if you're celebrating Christmas and if so that's quite hypocritical.

Or the fact that you just wrote off TMZ who is on the ReefKeeping Staff... A source of information you probably frequent often. I don't see you making a lot of friends around here with posts like that.

It's a shame too, as this thread could have been a quality thread. But again, the insult completely distracts the topic.

Good luck.

[jason2459]

Its not the first time he's lashed out at well respected members of which I've learned a considerable amount from or has posted with flamming/trolling intent.

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

Its not the first time he's lashed out at well respected members of which I've learned a considerable amount from or has posted with flamming/trolling intent.



I cant control who takes offense to things :/

If someone cant find humor in my comparisons thats on them not me. I never directed that at anyone in particular.

I thought this was a science based site and not a cathedral, given the fact we are in a chemistry thread...

P.s. Did anyone watch the Nye vs Ham debate?

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

Just a tip, the next time you want to develop a great thread you should consider refraining from making blanket condemnations of an entire majority of the population.

At first this thread had promise, but was completely sidetracked by adding a ridiculous statement. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it's Christmas Eve. Which has me pondering if you're celebrating Christmas and if so that's quite hypocritical.

Or the fact that you just wrote off TMZ who is on the ReefKeeping Staff... A source of information you probably frequent often. I don't see you making a lot of friends around here with posts like that.

It's a shame too, as this thread could have been a quality thread. But again, the insult completely distracts the topic.

Good luck.

Although my conparisin was a form of mockery, I dont think people should feel that a personal attack.

i guess quality is variable to each individual.

Merry Christmas!

[bertoni]

Okay, let's keep this thread civil in tone. I haven't started deleting posts yet, but I'm getting tempted.

[morty]

Although my conparisin was a form of mockery, I dont think people should feel that a personal attack.


I don't understand why "a form of mockery" should ever be perceived as anything OTHER than some form of personal attack.

And regarding form, I think most would agree that your "conparisin" served NO use in defining your question; any reader would have understood your gist before your "religion analogy". So by making one, IMO you just presented yourself as someone who wanted to appear clever and snarky.



i guess quality is variable to each individual.



I have no idea what that means.

[OnceTrueFalseBr]

I don't understand why "a form of mockery" should ever be perceived as anything OTHER than some form of personal attack.

And regarding form, I think most would agree that your "conparisin" served NO use in defining your question; any reader would have understood your gist before your "religion analogy". So by making one, IMO you just presented yourself as someone who wanted to appear clever and snarky.



I have no idea what that means.



Now I'm feeling personally attacked. Now what do we do?

And that was an honest typo. Not clever or snarky. But now that i see it with fresh eyes not 3am, it is quite intetesting in context.

[billsreef]

I think we are done here.