Using a Calcium Reactor: longest you skipped water changes?

[Bootlegger]

I'm running a calcium reactor on my 75 gallon reef tank. Previously, on my smaller tank, I dosed two-part but now I'm trying to reduce the need for water changes. Can I get away from regular water changes as long as my basic parameters are in check? For example, I should be able to add all the majors and trace elements back with my reactor. Yes/no?

Has anyone done this? How long have you gone between water changes? Any minor or major problems?

I haven't done a water change since I started the tank 3-months ago. I just add RO water for evap and that's it. I've had no issues with fish or coral, other than recently my monti digitata polyps have decided to go turtle on me. But they are still growing rapidly.

My parameters are spot-on and lock-in with my reactor, live rock, and large skimmer. If stable is the name of the game, I've got it.

[bertoni]

Lots of people use calcium reactors, and they can work very well, but I'd still recommend regular water changes, since there's no way of knowing how trace element content of the water is changing. Water changes also remove organics that we can't measure.

[Bootlegger]

The only logical concern I can think of is ionic exchange or precipitation of trace minerals that is not chemically bound to crushed coral, e.g. not put back in at a proportional rate by the calcium reactor as it is absent from the chemical composition of the media. The assumption here is that some trace minerals are binding to the live rock or precipitating to the bottom of the tank and biochemically locked-up.

This is probably a worry without evidence as we don't entirely understand what happens in the ocean environment pertaining to biochemical reactions. Also, the law of conservation of energy states that Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another. Remember, mass is energy (roughly), and energy can only be transformed. What I'm saying here is that everything you put in the tank is still there, just in one form or another. As long as that mass/energy is biochemically available, water changes are unnecessary. The reason we care about pH and magnesium level is both of these are critical in keeping biochemical reactions in your tank at a functional level.

Consider the commercial hydroponic growers. If they took our lead they'd only use soil and regularly do soil exchanges. But they don't do this at all. Instead, they use inert media and clean water, in which they carefully add measured amounts of water-soluble nutrients and minerals. They monitor pH and other parameters such as TDS and EC to ensure biochemical processes are functional. For example, at higher pH levels, most plants are incapable of certain chemical conversions, which in turn reduces their nutrient uptake ability...despite a prevalence of that nutrients. I would bet our reef tanks work very much in the same way.

Anyway, only time will tell. However, it's really hard to know what is impacting coral growth or coral as there are other factors as we all well know.

[tmz]

The amounts of various elements in reactor media or salt mix may vary by brand and batch.

Reactor media won't affect imbalances in dosing and element ratios as water changes do.

Perhaps more importantly, water changes remove excess elements and bring major minor and trace element levels and ratios back toward the baseline. The reactor media only adds some of them.

[bertoni]

Trace elements can build up or be depleted. In addition to the calcium media being dissolved, most tanks get fish food, which can add trace elements as well. One reported problem with tanks that get few water changes is boron depletion, for example. Toxic elements could build up, as well.

In addition, organics, including allelopathic compounds (chemical warfare agent from corals), can build up. Carbon might be able to help some, but water changes will move the entire water column back towards the makeup of the salt mix.

[acesq]

The only logical concern I can think of is ionic exchange or precipitation of trace minerals that is not chemically bound to crushed coral, e.g. not put back in at a proportional rate by the calcium reactor as it is absent from the chemical composition of the media. The assumption here is that some trace minerals are binding to the live rock or precipitating to the bottom of the tank and biochemically locked-up.

This is probably a worry without evidence as we don't entirely understand what happens in the ocean environment pertaining to biochemical reactions. Also, the law of conservation of energy states that Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another. Remember, mass is energy (roughly), and energy can only be transformed. What I'm saying here is that everything you put in the tank is still there, just in one form or another. As long as that mass/energy is biochemically available, water changes are unnecessary. The reason we care about pH and magnesium level is both of these are critical in keeping biochemical reactions in your tank at a functional level.

Consider the commercial hydroponic growers. If they took our lead they'd only use soil and regularly do soil exchanges. But they don't do this at all. Instead, they use inert media and clean water, in which they carefully add measured amounts of water-soluble nutrients and minerals. They monitor pH and other parameters such as TDS and EC to ensure biochemical processes are functional. For example, at higher pH levels, most plants are incapable of certain chemical conversions, which in turn reduces their nutrient uptake ability...despite a prevalence of that nutrients. I would bet our reef tanks work very much in the same way.

Anyway, only time will tell. However, it's really hard to know what is impacting coral growth or coral as there are other factors as we all well know.

This seems well thought out. For me there are two unanswered questions in the water change debate: (a) to what extent do trace elements or organics actually build up or are depleted in a balanced, thriving system [and to this, it seems to me that regular Triton type testing is informative] and (b) if imbalances are created over time, to what extent do typical size water changes have any significant effect on the imbalances [it seems the answer is its mathematically impossible even at 10-15% per week]. I may be wrong, but logic seems to support the Triton and GlenF methods of very infrequent to no water changes coupled with monitoring a large handful of major and trace elements and then dosing depleted and removing with various media the increasing to keep them all stable. I think we need more testing, or at least more anectodal evidence, and to keep our minds open to this.

[tmz]

Well, My mind is open to a reasonable alternatives to water changes but at this point I think the lack of any export is a critical flaw in the no water change logic. There have been assays of aquariums which do show excessive metals, btw.
I prefer 1% daily water changes. personally and see no reason to change based on the long term vibrancy of my aquariums

The Triton testing really doesn't give much useful information on trace elements given the high set points and lack of discrimination between bound and unbound metals, et alia.

Both the Titron and the other noted sell products to use to add elements; so, some degree of caveat emptor applies.imo.

I don't think aquariums are are easily comparable to hydrophonics.

[bertoni]

For me there are two unanswered questions in the water change debate: (a) to what extent do trace elements or organics actually build up or are depleted in a balanced, thriving system [and to this, it seems to me that regular Triton type testing is informative]...

It's very costly to get accurate numbers for trace elements, and the Triton testing doesn't seem to be accurate, according to a study. I probably can find a link if you'd like.

(b) if imbalances are created over time, to what extent do typical size water changes have any significant effect on the imbalances
The math is very easy. If you do n 10% water changes, they remove a proportion of 1 - 0.9ⁿ of any excess. This article has more:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

There are lots of posts about people doing no water changes. For some, it works, at least over the short term. For others, the tank has a lot of problems. Given the relative ease of a water change, I don't see any reason to gamble, but tanks are for entertainment, so do as you enjoy.

[acesq]

Jonathan:

My problem with the article you reference is that its analysis of the effectiveness of water changes on nitrate levels assumes no imports of nitrates. "In this example, nitrate is present at 100 ppm at the start, and is not added or depleted during the course of the year except via the water changes." This reduces the analysis to a tautology: it is better to take bad stuff away than to not.
Edit: I read the article in more detail after posting this and it is clear that Randy did analyze it from all angles. The bottom line is water changes do help even in the case of additional inputs of nitrates, but they do not keep it from accumulating. I don't think this changes the analysis below though.

The premise of the whole discussion regarding water changes, in my mind, is that there is a net monthly increase of bad stuff or a net monthly decrease of good stuff. If that is the case (and I'm not necessarily on board with it, hence the need for rigorous testing), then small water changes would have a negligible effect on balancing these out.

If our water starts out with bad stuff and stays at the same levels, then by all means, gradually replace it with water that does not have the bad stuff. But how did the bad stuff get there and are we introducing it daily? If it came from the water we made up, water changes won't help. If we are adding the bad stuff daily, small water changes will only slow the rate of increase -- but it will still increase. Is the real answer that we already have the export mechanisms (skimming, carbon dosing, activated carbon, GFO) and the import mechanisms (trace elements, two and three part dosing and/or calcium reactors) and that regular small water changes are not helpful and, if your make up water is has excessive amount of bad elements, actually unhelpful? I think its a question worth examining.

[Bootlegger]

Wow, this discussion has gotten very deep. Probably the best argument for water changes is to reduce the build-up of toxins that may be added by fish or perhaps imbalances from the reactor media. Then again, this makes assumptions that damaging toxins and excess trace minerals are free floating so water changes effectively purge them? I believe this regarding excess nutrients but not trance minerals that probably migrate to the bottom of the tank and/or build up on live rock or in low-flow areas.
Some advanced reefers believe in bare bottom tanks so they can vacuum out the bottom to combat such a build-up. I think I'm one of them.

Lastly for now, I have seen plenty of 10+ year old reef tanks doing well with calcium reactors and period water changes. I will ultimately work in some large water changes here and there if I notice anything unusual in my tank.

[tmz]

Water changes are generally a poor long term fix for nitrate and phosphate accumulations. Nitrogen and phosaphorous build ups relate to a balance in import mostly foods and export via biological activity and/or the use of chemical or mechanical removal techniques. The tank is not static.

Water changes pull the elements back to the baseline like: copper and other free or bound heavy metals , chloride : sulfate ratos.iron, potassium, boron ,iodie and so on. They also export organics and some inorganic nutrients .Unless they are very large they won't eliminate nitrate and phosphate issues without an adjustment to the biologically / abiotic filtration or inputs but do take out some as Jonathan noted.

BTW, trace elements are generally miscible and diffuse through the water they don't hang out in one area. Most organics degrade and release miscible elements; some resist further biological degradation( they are refractory) and accumulate.
I don't think anyone knows how much water change is optimal. IMO and IME smaller more frequent changes help maintain constancy in the tanks chemistry and offer less risk of big changes in the tank chemistry. Personally, I do 1% per day . Since I choose to feed the 50 plus fish in the system and the corals heavily, I manage nitrate and phosphate primarily by other means( organic carbon dosing, skimming, GAC for example) ; the water changes contribute a bit to the effort.
Sand beds vs bare bottom is a whole other issue with lot's of debate. My display tanks are mostly bare bottom but I employ cryptic areas/refugia with extra live rock and substrate to afford surface area to bacteria and other fuana.

Bottom line for me ; water changes have an export dimension and afford broad based element supplementation . No water change advocates do not adequately account for the lack of export and only deal with some of the elements dismissing those they can't easily measure or manage. They advocate the use of some costly supplements for some of the elements absent reliable or meaningful measures for most. Using a reliable salt mix with a long track record of consistency, imperfect as it may be , works for me

[bertoni]

The premise of the whole discussion regarding water changes, in my mind, is that there is a net monthly increase of bad stuff or a net monthly decrease of good stuff. If that is the case (and I'm not necessarily on board with it, hence the need for rigorous testing), then small water changes would have a negligible effect on balancing these out.

I'm not sure how you can justify that conclusion. Small water changes and large water changes tend to have similar effectiveness per gallon of water changed, over the range of changes most people use.

[DGee]

It's very costly to get accurate numbers for trace elements, and the Triton testing doesn't seem to be accurate, according to a study. I probably can find a link if you'd like.

Can you try to find that link?

I didn't know such a study was out there and I'm curious to read it.

Thanks!

[chema]

I don´t see why the use of a calcium reactor should allow to skip water changes. The calcium reactor is one of several alternatives to provide alkalinity and calcium (and also magnesium if you add some dolomite besides the aragonite). I you are replenishing those two elements by means of water changes then you don´t need a calcium reactor.

[Wesus]

For me water changes are cheapest way to keep parameters in check. I built semi automatic system to make my life easier

[tmz]

Can you try to find that link?

I didn't know such a study was out there and I'm curious to read it.

Thanks!

You can find several critiques of the Titron testing and methods by using the search function on the Chemistry forum and other forums.Here are two to get you started:


http://www.reefsmagazine.com/mag.php?do=wp_post&articleId=159

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2483278&highlight=triton

[acesq]

I'm not sure how you can justify that conclusion. Small water changes and large water changes tend to have similar effectiveness per gallon of water changed, over the range of changes most people use.

Not sure what conclusion you are referring to, but my point is that based on the math, water changes of the type that reefers typically do -- 10-30% per month -- whether all at once or in small increments, can't impact greatly the increase or decrease of trace elements and nutrients.

[acesq]

Can you try to find that link?

I didn't know such a study was out there and I'm curious to read it.

Thanks!

You can find several critiques of the Titron testing and methods by using the search function on the Chemistry forum and other forums.Here are two to get you started:


http://www.reefsmagazine.com/mag.php?do=wp_post&articleId=159

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2483278&highlight=triton

It should be pointed out that the reefs magazine article did not conclude that the Triton testing is not accurate. In fact, it found it to be very accurate for many of the elements tested and inaccurate (or less accurate) for a few. The authors requested more information and the opportunity to do more testing to be able to reach better conclusions.

[tmz]

I gave the links as requested without any spin. Folks can read the threads and form their own conclusions .
Accuracy for some elements yes, probably despite arguable shortfalls in techniques and standards but most of those are discernible with othe available test kits All elements not so much especially trace elements,more than a few.The process doesn't differentiate between bound and free elemnts which is critical in terms of bioavaialbility and potential toxicity. The set points are arbitrary and high ;yet, a plethora of supplements are marketettd with a vague implicit notion that offsetting water changes helps with cost.

No real point in arguing our individual interpretations or opinions here ;there are plenty on the threads re : Triton which are still open for anyone who want's to comment.

[Bootlegger]

Note: Coral calcium, e.g. crushed coral, which is what I'm using, is composed primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), with small amounts of magnesium and other trace minerals. I know this includes phosphates but so far it has not been a problem. The synthetic/pure stuff that most people use probably wouldn't work well without water changes as it likely has far too little trace elements, if any at all.

Anyway, I will phase water changes here shortly to be on the safe side. But as of now, I haven't see any issues and it's been three months and counting.

[tmz]

water changes of the type that reefers typically do -- 10-30% per month -- whether all at once or in small increments, can't impact greatly the increase or decrease of trace elements and nutrients.

120% to 350% per year vs 0% sounds significant to me

[ReefsandGeeks]

I went 4 months without water changes untill recently. I had dino and read that they love water changes, so I just dosed with limewater and put in an occasional trace elements and iodide. All tests came back good on my test kits. Then after I moved, I replaced about 40% of the old water with new water when i set the tank back up. I couldn't belive it, but everything was doing better within a day after being setup than they had been before the move. I woun't be neglecting water changes anymore. Polyps are bigger on my zoas, growth on SPS is increased, and colors are improved. I don't know what it was exactly that made the difference, but water changes will be back to every other week for me. I'd do more frequent water changes, but for the time being my living situation doesn't allow for storage of much RODI, otherwise I'd do weekly.

[acesq]

water changes of the type that reefers typically do -- 10-30% per month -- whether all at once or in small increments, can't impact greatly the increase or decrease of trace elements and nutrients.

120% to 350% per year vs 0% sounds significant to me

That a simple enough conclusion to make, numbers are numbers. The question though, is whether they are necessary, right?

You agree that they don't help with nitrates and phosphates as those can increase at rates which water changes have little impact on. Instead of waterchanges, to control these two we employ skimming, carbon, carbon dosing, etc. We also know water changes don't work to maintain calcium, alk and sometimes Mg in SPS tanks. So we use two-part dosing or Calcium reactors. Given this, why are we concluding, that water changes help with the other elements? How do we know we aren't just throwing good water down the drain? Is there good data on the rates of increase or decrease of elements in reef tanks or aren't we just making conservative conclusions?

Keep in mind, I don't pretend to know the answers, I just think its a topic that deserves some serious thought. We do know that you don't HAVE to do water changes to have a very successful reef tank, right? Since we have at least anecdotal evidence of that (the Triton tanks, GlennF and his followers), isn't it worth considering whether water changes are necessary at all as a normal part of our maintenance? Heck, is it possible that water changes can make matters worse in our tanks. I know that when I was not diligent with my RO/DI filters, I killed a bunch of corals with my daily water changes using tainted water. (I hate Chloramines)

I am giving it a try on my own tank. This is not a small step for me. I have been doing 1% daily water changes since my current tank was set up almost 2 years ago and since I started in this hobby almost 40 years ago, I have always practiced 30% monthly water changes, so its a practice and belief that I have fully embraced. But I feel I have to keep an open mind about these things. So far I'm almost two months in with no water changes and everything is looking great. Its way too early to reach any conclusions about my own experience, but I am hopeful. I'll be relying on Triton testing and my own to make sure nothing gets too far out of whack and will dose whatever elements are being depleted.

[tmz]

You agree that they don't help with nitrates and phosphates as those can increase at rates which water changes have little impact on.

No, I think they help but not enough in many tanks unless they are large.

Instead of waterchanges, to control these two we employ skimming, carbon, carbon dosing, etc.

Not instead of but together with is my thinking.

We also know water changes don't work to maintain calcium, alk and sometimes Mg in SPS tanks.

Water changes affect those elements but are often not enough. Sometimes they are, especially for magnesium. Do a good job on Potassium . Iodine too,IME.

So we use two-part dosing or Calcium reactors.

I don't use either of those;just calcium hydroxide and water changes.

Is there good data on the rates of increase or decrease of elements

Not much but some of which I am aware . There may be more out there.

Dr Shimek did assay aqauriums and noted high levels of most heavy metals build up over time.

Randy Farley tested copper before and after changes noting a reduction post water change.

Sulfate buildup vs chloride is another issue which could be researched further.

I am giving it a try on my own tank

I do wish you luck with it.

I'm not sure you can know which elements are being depleted or building up though given the limits of available testing or which ones are significant or insignificant.

FWIW, I have tried no water changes on some of my softie tanks for several months and saw better results in terms of coral vibrancy when I resumed them. I am always looking for opportunities for improvement but haven't found any in the no water change methods put forth to date.

[bertoni]

Not sure what conclusion you are referring to, but my point is that based on the math, water changes of the type that reefers typically do -- 10-30% per month -- whether all at once or in small increments, can't impact greatly the increase or decrease of trace elements and nutrients.
Why? The math is very clear.

[bertoni]

It should be pointed out that the reefs magazine article did not conclude that the Triton testing is not accurate. In fact, it found it to be very accurate for many of the elements tested and inaccurate (or less accurate) for a few. The authors requested more information and the opportunity to do more testing to be able to reach better conclusions.
Some of the measurements were off by 400% or more. I agree that we should give Triton some time to work on their process, but that's not very accurate. We would need to more testing to be sure of what's happening, since that's a one-point sample. I agree that some of the measurements seemed more than accurate enough to be very interesting, but I would not yet trust Triton's testing all that much. Time will tell, and they might be able to improve their results given more experience.

[tmz]

For me water changes are cheapest way to keep parameters in check. I built semi automatic system to make my life easier
I'm curious about automating;any details you wan't to share?

[acesq]

You agree that they don't help with nitrates and phosphates as those can increase at rates which water changes have little impact on.

No, I think they help but not enough in many tanks unless they are large.

Instead of waterchanges, to control these two we employ skimming, carbon, carbon dosing, etc.

Not instead of but together with is my thinking.

We also know water changes don't work to maintain calcium, alk and sometimes Mg in SPS tanks.

Water changes affect those elements but are often not enough. Sometimes they are, especially for magnesium. Do a good job on Potassium . Iodine too,IME.

So we use two-part dosing or Calcium reactors.

I don't use either of those;just calcium hydroxide and water changes.

Is there good data on the rates of increase or decrease of elements

Not much but some of which I am aware . There may be more out there.

Dr Shimek did assay aqauriums and noted high levels of most heavy metals build up over time.

Randy Farley tested copper before and after changes noting a reduction post water change.

Sulfate buildup vs chloride is another issue which could be researched further.

I am giving it a try on my own tank

I do wish you luck with it.

I'm not sure you can know which elements are being depleted or building up though given the limits of available testing or which ones are significant or insignificant.

FWIW, I have tried no water changes on some of my softie tanks for several months and saw better results in terms of coral vibrancy when I resumed them. I am always looking for opportunities for improvement but haven't found any in the no water change methods put forth to date.

So we agree on just about everything then. (The calcium hydroxide comment aside -- a nit at best. The point was, Calcium and alk have to be supplemented, water changes won't do it).

I've found Ron Shimek's articles on the build up of heavy metals and have skimmed them. I'll give them a closer read when I have time. I also landed on Richard Harker's critique of those articles and will consider them as well. Interestingly, one of Shimek's articles laments the high heavy metal content of Instant Ocean. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.php. If that's true (Harker seems to be critical of his testing), frequent water changes will INCREASE the levels of these heavy metals absent other removal methods.

While I appreciate your experience with your softie tanks, we have to also consider the opposite results that those using the Triton system and GlennF's system have had.

Anyway, its a pity that you aren't more interested in a re-evaluation of the water change question, I value your analysis on many reef issues. I am not leaving out the possibility that I'm way off base, but until I read something that is more definitive than anectodal evidence, I'll keep questioning.

[acesq]

Why? The math is very clear.

I understand what you are saying Jonathan. And putting aside what is in the new water we are using (see my response to Tom's post -- its not always good), my point is that if an element is being added to the tank at a rate of say 20% of its concentration per week, then changing 10% of the water with water that has zero of that element will still result in a buildup of the element. I also understand Randy's math and see how if the element is increasing at a smaller rate, even as high as 10% per week then a 10% weekly water change with water with zero of the element will reduce the concentration of the element over time. And this is true regardless how you split up the water change.

Your right, though, math never lies.

[bertoni]

Discussions about avoiding water changes come up regularly. If we don't seem all that interested, it's because nothing has changed, really. There are anecdotal stories both ways, and for me, water changes are fast and easy enough that I have very little interest in optimizing the number done. For a very large tank, the cost might be high enough to spend some money on high-quality testing, but for most hobbyists, there's no savings. If anyone wants to experiment with their tank, though, that's a very good reason to try something different.

[bertoni]

..my point is that if an element is being added to the tank at a rate of say 20% of its concentration per week, then changing 10% of the water with water that has zero of that element will still result in a buildup of the element.
You are correct that very rapid changes would require a more aggressive water change schedule. We don't have any real data at all, but 10-20% a month seems to be enough for most systems. Of course, less than that might be fine, but given the cost and time required, I don't see any reason to push it, other than experimentation.

[tmz]

Anyway, its a pity that you aren't more interested in a re-evaluation of the water change question

That's a bit condescending and untrue. I have and do evaluate it continuously as with most decisions about methods for my aquariums I have read , discussed and considered everything I have found and continue to do so and even tried no water changes in some tanks .

After all that and careful consideration it seems to me the information in the two methods presented is mostly anecdote wrapped in some ok science and some poor science and marketing logic . Your point of view
on the two methods noted is very different.
I'm much more skeptical of them and see serious flaws viewed through my personal prism:

The absence of export for excess and addition to correct element ratios is a serious flaw .

The lack of differentiation between elements bound to organics and free forms or species of elements is another.

The lack of compliance with standards for testing is another.

The marketing of a plethora of expensive supplements with dosing recommendations based on flawed set points and non specific and/or inaccurate measures is another.

The inacuracies for many elements and the arbitrary set point are others.

Dismissing some of the elements if they are not easy to deal with is another.

Water changes move it all back to the baseline meaning the original water chemistry when using the same salt mix . Anecdotally , it has served me very well for over a decade .

frequent water changes will INCREASE the levels of these heavy metals absent other removal methods.

How so?, presumably water containing them is taken out in the same amount as new water additions .Many elements also come in with foods and as impurities in other additives not just salt mix. Dr Randy H Farley noted that when he tested for copper it was lower overall after a water change with Instant Ocean.

So we agree on just about everything then. (The calcium hydroxide comment aside -- a nit at best. The point was, Calcium and alk have to be supplemented, water changes won't do it).

No I don't think we do.

I thought the point attempted was that calcium reactors add all or at least most of the major ,minor and trace elements needed from the disolving media / coral skeletal mass.
Commercial two part mixes also add some elements like magnesium and others and some trace elements as impurities. Calcium hydorxide dosed as clear limewater/aka kalkwasser adds none;so , I mentioned it because it's different in terms of element contributions; wrongly assumed you would know that. It is not a "nit at best". I'm not found of nit picking if that was your meaning.

I don't agree you can base a dosing scheme on some elements and dismiss the others ;nor do I agree that Titron testing gives useful information on most of those targeted for supplementation.

I do think titron testing might be useful and fun for some. Others who would like to play with no water changes can certainly choose to do so though I personally see no reason to do so if a reliable salt mix is in use.

[acesq]

That's a bit condescending and untrue.

I'm glad to hear it's not true and sorry you took it as condescending. It certainly was intended to be. I think the overall tenor of my posts has been even keeled and without emotion. On this note, before calling me out on that small comment followed by a huge compliment to you, you might want to consider the tone of your own comments, something I overlooked and will continue to overlook as a function of the whole "speaking on the internet" thing. As I said, I value your input on the threads and really hoped you were willing to engage in some skeptical analysis of the need for water changes. You clearly have no skepticism, but you do argue well in favor of water changes. That is equally beneficial to to me. I hope you'll indulge me a bit longer.

After all that and careful consideration it seems to me the information in the two methods presented is mostly anecdote wrapped in some ok science and some poor science and marketing logic

True enough. But doesn't the case for waterchanges suffer from a lack of good science as well, particularly when viewed in light of the anecdotes supporting the Triton/GlennF methods?

The absence of export for excess and addition to correct element ratios is a serious flaw .

My understanding is that both the Triton and GlennF systems have mechanisms for removal and addition. I think that's the underpinning of both systems along with the rigorous testing to ensure proper ratios (GlennF relies on hobby quality tests, Triton on its ICP testing (as inaccurate as it may prove to be)). They both use trace element free salt water and chemical and mechanical export methods to remove elements and "pure" solutions to add elements. So I think the word "absence" is incorrect. "Adequate" may be a better word and that's part of the critical analysis I think needs to be done.

The lack of differentiation between elements bound to organics and free forms or species of elements is another.

This fact ad the other testing related critiques you have (I have read much about them) raises a host of issues, including, I assume, the potential to overdose elements. I'm not sure whether on the whole this cuts for, against, or is neutral on the question of water changes. I can certainly see how you might conclude that its better to trend toward a semi-known baseline with frequent water changes than to allow things to change without an accurate method of testing. The problem with that is we already do pretty well relying pretty heavily on hobby grade test kits for many elements, why not add a few more equally accurate tests to the routine?

The lack of compliance with standards for testing is another.

I share this concern about the Triton testing and was disappointed that the thread discussing the Ross/Maupin article ended without a good resolution of the issues.

Water changes move it all back to the baseline meaning the original water chemistry when using the same salt mix . Anecdotally , it has served me very well for over a decade .

I hear you. They have served me well since the mid 70's when I was using undergravel filters, breeding neon gobies and worshiping Martin Moe. And I can understand why you would have no interest in changing. But this doesn't answer the question whether it is any better than the Triton/GlennF systems. The best argument I've yet heard against those systems is that the testing is not accurate enough. And that is very compelling. But unless these guys are pulling our legs with the length of time they have run their systems without water changes, I can't get on board with the conclusion that no water changes is necessarily a recipe for disaster. I know you aren't making that claim, but many do. What I want to know is why can it work so well for Triton and GlennF? What is it about what we have always believed about the need for water changes might be incorrect? They can't just be getting lucky.

How so?, presumably water containing them is taken out in the same amount as new water additions .Many elements also come in with foods and as impurities in other additives not just salt mix. Dr Randy H Farley noted that when he tested for copper it was lower overall after a water change with Instant Ocean.

Good point. My analysis is correct only where the bad elements are removed/reduced by some mechanism and the "baseline" salt mix levels are higher. This certainly does happen where heavy metals bind with organics and are removed by activated carbon, gfo and skimming. I'm wrong though, where they are not reduced, but are increased by inputs such as dosing, feeding etc. In those cases, water changes will tend to bring them toward the salt mix baseline. I'm sure there is information out there about which tend to rise and which tend to decrease over time. I'll look for that.

I thought the point attempted was that calcium reactors add all or at least most of the major ,minor and trace elements needed from the disolving media / coral skeletal mass. Commercial two part mixes also add some elements like magnesium and others and some trace elements as impurities. Calcium hydorxide dosed as clear limewater/aka kalkwasser adds none;so , I mentioned it because it's different in terms of element contributions; wrongly assumed you would know that. It is not a "nit at best". I'm not found of nit picking if that was your meaning.

No, my point was in reference only to the alk and the calcium components. "We also know water changes don't work to maintain calcium, alk and sometimes Mg in SPS tanks. So we use two-part dosing or Calcium reactors." I assumed my point was clear, hence the nit conclusion.

To your comment about calcium hydroxide adding "none", I'm not sure what you are referencing, but according to R H-F's article "Reef Aquaria with Low Soluble Metals", it does add impurities including manganese, aluminum, heavy metals, arsenic and lead. But again, that wasn't my point.

You do raise a good point about inputs of trace elements/impurities. I imagine the Triton people would respond that the testing allows this to be monitored and addressed in the dosing/removal. Of course, the counter point would be that the quality and reliability of the testing is not adequate.

Anyway, I'm going to keep looking at this and will run my tank without water changes until it starts looking bad and I can't fix it any other way that to do a water change. You make some excellent points and I am certainly not convinced that not doing water changes will end up being right for me.

[tmz]

consider the tone of your own comments, something I overlooked and will continue to overlook

went back over every post I made in this thread . I have no idea what comments you are referring to there is nothing remotely offensive in any of themthat I can see.

Thanks for the compliment,btw
Anyway moving on:

To your comment about calcium hydroxide adding "none", I'm not sure what you are referencing, but according to R H-F's article "Reef Aquaria with Low Soluble Metals", it does add impurities including manganese, aluminum, heavy metals, arsenic and lead.



That is incorrect. Dry calcium hydroxide products contain impurities but it's self purifying in water. The impurities precipitate out of solution in the high pH limewater ( which at full struation is around 12.4)They would only get in the tank if the slurry or powder was dosed. The clear limewater which is dosed contains calcium and hydroxide( the hydroxide binds with CO2 in the tank to form CO3,carbonate and HCO3 bicarbonate, which are carbonate alkalinity) not the precipitated impurities which settle out to the bottom of the dosing vessel.

This has more:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2003/chem.htm

But again, that wasn't my point.
hence the nit conclusion.

OK but it's not a "nit" in the context of this discussion.

In the no water change methods noted in this thread ,calcium reactors are credited with adding many of the elements needed by corals since some of them are incorporated in coral skeletal mass which dissolves in a calcium reactor. My point is that even without these extras food and water changes meet the needs for all the major minor and trace elements in my tanks m,excepting calcium and alkalinity. based on the long term vibrancy of the corals and other animals in them and those that I can test(like potassium, magnesium, iodine, etc).

[tmz]

I am certainly not convinced that not doing water changes will end up being right for me
I hope you are succesful in meeting your goals and enjoy the process. My intent is not to disuade anyone but to inform about what those methods are and what they are not so folks can make informed decisions about whether to rely on them or not and some of the things to be cautious about.

[tmz]

both ....systems have mechanisms for removal and addition

removal of what? how? other than gfo skimming and gac what are they? Even those won't touch certain ratio issues like chloride and sulfate for example or potassium etc.

Additons a plenty, yes ,a plethora of costly supplements are sold based on prescriptions in the Titron test reports that are based on arbitrary and high set points

[tmz]

You do raise a good point about inputs of trace elements/impurities. I imagine the Triton people would respond that the testing allows this to be monitored and addressed in the dosing/removal. Of course, the counter point would be that the quality and reliability of the testing is not adequate.

I don't know how they would respond.

Setting the standards an accuracy critiqe aside for the moment , the information for trace elements on which they base prescriptions for supplements is pretty useless IMO except at high end margins, given the limts of the testing technique at low levels and the arbitrary assignment of set points. Futher it does not diferentiate bound and unbound elements or speciation.

[acesq]

consider the tone of your own comments, something I overlooked and will continue to overlook

went back over every post I made in this thread . I have no idea what comments you are referring to there is nothing remotely offensive in any of themthat I can see.

Thanks for the compliment,btw
Anyway moving on:

To your comment about calcium hydroxide adding "none", I'm not sure what you are referencing, but according to R H-F's article "Reef Aquaria with Low Soluble Metals", it does add impurities including manganese, aluminum, heavy metals, arsenic and lead.



That is incorrect. Dry calcium hydroxide products contain impurities but it's self purifying in water. The impurities precipitate out of solution in the high pH limewater ( which at full struation is around 12.4)They would only get in the tank if the slurry or powder was dosed. The clear limewater which is dosed contains calcium and hydroxide( the hydroxide binds with CO2 in the tank to form CO3,carbonate and HCO3 bicarbonate, which are carbonate alkalinity) not the precipitated impurities which settle out to the bottom of the dosing vessel.

This has more:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2003/chem.htm
.


Did I read this wrong? http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-04/rhf/feature/

[acesq]

both ....systems have mechanisms for removal and addition

removal of what? how? other than gfo skimming and gac what are they? Even those won't touch certain ratio issues like chloride and sulfate for example or potassium etc.

Additons a plenty, yes ,a plethora of costly supplements are sold based on prescriptions in the Titron test reports that are based on arbitrary and high set points


I thought you examined the Triton system? Anyway it uses a special reef salt called "pure salt" that contains no heavy metals and is used for dilution purposes only and not to set up a tank. It also uses both aluminum and iron based phosphate binders and algaes. They claim these methods are capable of exporting unwanted elements.

[tmz]

Did I read this wrong? http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-04/rhf/feature/ You got the point wrong. Read them both. Then read the claims about calcium reactors made by the no water cahnge method.This is from the articvle you cited:

Limewater (the English word for kalkwasser, the solution that forms when either calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide is dissolved in water) turns out to be a very useful way to add calcium and alkalinity to a reef aquarium while adding a minimal amount of certain heavy metals. This result is not because the starting calcium hydroxide or oxide is especially low in impurities, but because it can be self-purifying if used correctly.

Saying none was an overstement for simplicity, I should have said minimal.

[tmz]

I thought you examined the Triton system? Anyway it uses a special reef salt called "pure salt" that contains no heavy metals and is used for dilution purposes only and not to set up a tank. It also uses both aluminum and iron based phosphate binders and algaes. They claim these methods are capable of exporting unwanted elements.

I spent lots of time on both of the noted sytems ,hoping for something that might improve the methods I use.

Do you understand the calims and cosnequences i?


That would be a water change using the salt they sell.
The iron or aluminum phosphate binders, are common place in the hobby,primarily geared toward phosphate removal though GFO does take up some silicate and some metals too.. Algae is certainly not not unique to their system.

I run a system now without any of those add ons and costs;just small water changes with a relatively inexpensive salt mix and organic carbon dosing( common inexpensive vodka and vinegar) .

So ,do you mean you can't run a no water change system without water changes using Triton salt and without GFO and an alunmina based binder and algae in refugia or a scrubber?

[tmz]

why not add a few more equally accurate tests to the routine?

No problem with that if the tests are actually equally accurate , provide actionable information and don't prescribe actions of dubious benefit or worse.

[acesq]

I thought you examined the Triton system? Anyway it uses a special reef salt called "pure salt" that contains no heavy metals and is used for dilution purposes only and not to set up a tank. It also uses both aluminum and iron based phosphate binders and algaes. They claim these methods are capable of exporting unwanted elements.

I spent lots of time on both of the noted sytems ,hoping for something that might improve the methods I use.

Do you understand the calims and cosnequences i?


That would be a water change using the salt they sell.
The iron or aluminum phosphate binders, are common place in the hobby,primarily geared toward phosphate removal though GFO does take up some silicate and some metals too.. Algae is certainly not not unique to their system.

I run a system now without any of those add ons and costs;just small water changes with a relatively inexpensive salt mix and organic carbon dosing( common inexpensive vodka and vinegar) .

So ,do you mean you can't run a no water change system without water changes using Triton salt and without GFO and an alunmina based binder and algae in refugia or a scrubber?


Excellent point, but the conclusion is dependent on a determination which elements build up beyond NSW levels in systems where no water changes are done but the other methods of removal are employed. I'm not sure we know that yet. Although I believe Triton claims they do and that the use of the pure salt should be a rare event. I'd love to see the proof of this. I believe Triton was running into aluminum issues which is why they recommend switching back and forth between the different types of phosphate binders.

[bertoni]

Companies produce all kinds of materials about their salt products. I haven't seen any reason to believe that the Triton salt is any different than the others. I don't know how they could get significantly purer ingredients without paying a lot more for the ingredients, in any case.

[acesq]

I think that's unfairly dismissive Jonathan. We can always just assume someone is lying, but without evidence, it's just not fair. Triton claims that they use pharmaceutical grade components and the price they charge fully supports that - $48 for a 50ltr - yes liter - mix.

[bertoni]

Hmm, well, they do charge a lot for it. I doubt I'd be willing to pay that yet, but it might have purer ingredients. I'm not sure what they mean by pharmaceutical grade, but they might have some data somewhere.

[tmz]

I never assume anyone I don't know is "lying" or completely forthright in commercial transactions.
The onus is on the seller to provide verifiable data and to demonstrate they are meeting quality standards which is controversial per the unresloved critiques of the testing part.So I think ,it's reasonable to be skeptical about the salt claims . Sometimes, we get what we pay for ; sometimes, for products with a high price point you just pay more. For perspective that's $ 3.60 per gallon for the Titron salt vs the 28 cents per gallon I pay for the salt I use.

[GainesvilleReef]

Why? The math is very clear.

It's actually very clear the other way. They only work for one time depletions or excesses not for continuous sources or sinks of trace elements, nutrients or toxins. Water changes would have to be in excess of 50% each time for that to work. It's very easy to simulate in a spread sheet. But it also could be proven with limits and infinite series, if I could remember how to do that.

That being said, I have a 125 gallon mixed reef tank that I stopped doing changes on and it's doing great, a 80 gallon mixed reef tank that I do automatic continuous water changes at about 5% per week and 30 gallon soft tank that I do 10% weekly. I also like to keep my ability to produce RODI and saltwater in case of emergencies.

[bertoni]

It's actually very clear the other way.
How so? The issue is the rate of water changes vs the rate of drift in the parameters.

[bertoni]

Anyway it uses a special reef salt called "pure salt" that contains no heavy metals and is used for dilution purposes only and not to set up a tank.
By definition, a salt used for water changes (which is what I think you mean by "dilution") is fine if it matches the salt that was used to set up the tank, assuming the salt that was used to set up the tank produced an acceptable environment.

[GainesvilleReef]

Let's say you have a coral that produces a toxin at 5 ppm per week and you do a 20% change per week. After the first week you would have 4 ppm and after the second week you would have 7.2 ppm, 9.76 after the 3rd, 11.8 after the 4th and so on. So your water change may lessen the impact of the toxin it will not reduce it. Depletion of trace elements would be the same thing in reverse. The only point I am trying to make is that the use of water changes as a method of import and export is not always productive. And it is less productive the smaller the changes we make.

I personally like to do lots of small water changes. But I question weather there is any real benefit other than keeping my salt water making capabilities in working order. I don't see water changes vs no water changes as being one answer fits all. If I had just one tank I would change water weekly or at least bi-weakly. But since I have 3 I can play around a bit. What is interesting is how close the tank with continuous water changes and the one with out water changes are in parameters and triton tests. My 30 gallon tank has very low evaporation so I use water changes to dose alk ad Ca. Every now again I do 2 or 3 changes in a week to catch back up levels. As we know every tank is different and some tanks will work fine with or without. But I would still recommend doing water changes to a new reefer.

[tmz]

your water change may lessen the impact of the toxin it will not reduce it


But it does reduce it in your example: from 20 ( 4 additions of 5) without the water changes to 11.8 with them,a 41% reduction.

. it is less productive the smaller the changes we make.

OK with that,I think, assuming the additions of new water are free of the element/compound you seek to reduce as in your example . If reduction is the goal smaller changes are less efficient to a degree.

Even if I were using a" pure salt "as in the Triton method it would still take quite a bit to make a significant change in any major, minor or trace element excess, it seems to me.

[acesq]

By definition, a salt used for water changes (which is what I think you mean by "dilution") is fine if it matches the salt that was used to set up the tank, assuming the salt that was used to set up the tank produced an acceptable environment.


When you say "matches" which elements are you referring to? Certainly not the trace elements sought to be reduced by removal/dilution. As for the major elements, it would have to match within some tolerance for sure. You wouldn't want to file one element at the expense of another. I assume Triton has that figured out or their business model would be sunk.

[bertoni]

When the toxin level reaches 20 ppm, you have steady state, well, assuming the production rate remains the same. Each water change removes 4 ppm, and 4 ppm is produced. Without water changes, there is no limit other than tank capacity. 20% per week might be perfectly fine for the tank. I guess I'm not sure what your point is.

[bertoni]

When you say "matches" which elements are you referring to?
As long as the salt water for changes has the same levels as the salt water used to set up the tank, the water changes will work to move all the levels back to their original levels, which is all we can hope to do with water changes. I'm not sure how a salt with different parameters can be expected to help, realistically speaking.

[acesq]

I wrote "you don't want to file one element at the expense of another", I meant to say "fix".
To your point the Triton mixes to their recommended NSW levels except it has not heavy metals (so they say). Thus if you want to reduce your copper by 20% do a 20% water change with the pure salt. It will reduce all the heavy metals by 20%, but you can dose those you want to bring them back to the recommended levels.

[bertoni]

Thus if you want to reduce your copper by 20% do a 20% water change with the pure salt. It will reduce all the heavy metals by 20%, but you can dose those you want to bring them back to the recommended levels.
I don't see why that's preferable to a regular water change, in reality. I certainly wouldn't assume that all the heavy metals need to be reduced at the same time.

[Buzz1329]

Putting aside water chemistry issues, what is the harm in doing regular water changes?

At the very least, it allows you to remove detritus/algae/crud from DT, sump, and substrate.

So even assuming that trace elements and nutrients remain same in a water change tank and a non-water change tank using a calcium reactor, why not use water changes to remove gunk from the tank before it starts to degrade water quality?

Mike

[GainesvilleReef]

When the toxin level reaches 20 ppm, you have steady state, well, assuming the production rate remains the same. Each water change removes 4 ppm, and 4 ppm is produced. Without water changes, there is no limit other than tank capacity. 20% per week might be perfectly fine for the tank. I guess I'm not sure what your point is.

That is the point. It never gets rid of it. And if you do water changes to add trace elements it may never reach the desired value. So to say that water changes eliminate the build up of toxins and replenish depleted elements is not really true. They can only limit buildups and never really accomplish replenishment.

[tmz]

I don't think anyone said water changes eleiminate the build up of toxins. They do reduce it though and often go along with other methods like GAC, skimming,etc.

That it would be impossible to get rid of all of anything in the water without a 100% change,seems obvious to me .
But even small water changes do reduce everything in the water and when using the same salt for make up water , add back at starting point levels,helping to maintain levels and ratios.

[tmz]

the Triton mixes to their recommended NSW levels except it has not heavy metals (so they say). Thus if you want to reduce your copper by 20% do a 20% water change with the pure salt. It will reduce all the heavy metals by 20%, but you can dose those you want to bring them back to the recommended levels.

Ok, assuming arguedo the Titron salt is truly free of heavy metals , 20 gallons of salt water with Titron salt would cost about $70 and would reduce all elements in the water "purified" out of the Titron by 20% with a a 20% water change ;some might be low.

Then there is the problem of determining whether or not removing 20% of the copper based on the information from their test is enough or not enough. The test provides an arbitrary set point and doesn't tell you if the copper is free copper or non toxic bound copper. If it's all free copper more than a 20% reduction might be needed. If it's all bound then you might not need much if any reduction.

[acesq]

That is my understanding. But from what I have read, it will be a rare occurrence when free copper is present in toxic concentrations unless it you dose it or have copper pipe exposed to the tank. Is copper really much of a risk to the vast majority of tanks?

[GainesvilleReef]

That it would be impossible to get rid of all of anything in the water without a 100% change,seems obvious to me .
But even small water changes do reduce everything in the water and when using the same salt for make up water , add back at starting point levels,helping to maintain levels and ratios.

For the same reason that water changes won't get rid of all of anything in the water they cannot maintain levels or reach the starting point without additional additives.

I agree that water changes can be used as a form of dosing but they never can be a 100% solution. Just like we use skimmers, gac, algae scrubbers and carbon dosing to add reduction capabilities you will need separate additives to complete replenishment. The most obvious examples of this are Ca, Mg and Alk. Why would trace or other elements differ from these elements and ions?

[bertoni]

That is the point. It never gets rid of it. And if you do water changes to add trace elements it may never reach the desired value. So to say that water changes eliminate the build up of toxins and replenish depleted elements is not really true. They can only limit buildups and never really accomplish replenishment.
Your understanding of what a water change is supposed to do is different from mine. I agree that water changes never completely change the water column, but I don't think that's an important goal.

[GainesvilleReef]

Your understanding of what a water change is supposed to do is different from mine. I agree that water changes never completely change the water column, but I don't think that's an important goal.

I don't think we differ at all. I don't think it's an important goal either. But if you read the discussions it comes across as the most important goal for a lot of reefers.

[tmz]

That is my understanding. But from what I have read, it will be a rare occurrence when free copper is present in toxic concentrations unless it you dose it or have copper pipe exposed to the tank. Is copper really much of a risk to the vast majority of tanks?

It was your example.
I don't know how to assess the risk for free heavy metals in general terms. The Titron test though wouldn't help me in terms of actionable information in any case, could it? To be fair/ You might also get free copper from an impure slat mix I suppose but small changes should minimize the that risk.

[tmz]

I agree that water changes can be used as a form of dosing but they never can be a 100% solution. Just like we use skimmers, gac, algae scrubbers and carbon dosing to add reduction capabilities you will need separate additives to complete replenishment. The most obvious examples of this are Ca, Mg and Alk. Why would trace or other elements differ from these elements and ions?

I disagree. "never" is an overstatement.

My main system does very well with only calcium and alk supplementation , 1% daily water changes and food.

Calcium , carbonate alkalinity and magnesium are consumed via precipitation. Solubility levels for other elements vary and don't use the same sink. Chloride , sulfate, sodium Potassium for example . Uptake will vary by element and the specifics of an aqaurium too.

[GainesvilleReef]

It was your example.
I don't know how to assess the risk for free heavy metals in general terms. The Titron test though wouldn't help me in terms of actionable information in any case, could it? To be fair/ You might also get free copper from an impure slat mix I suppose but small changes should minimize the that risk.

The triton test would be useful to me. I don't really care if it was bound or free copper. Bound copper comes from free copper. Since I can't test to see how much is bound and free, I will assume free even though I know it's most likely bound. And detection means there is or was a source. If the test show 5 pbb maybe I will just watch it. If the test shows 30 ppb or higher I will be changing water. I found it helpful in ruling out copper as an issue. In that case bound or free makes no difference.

[GainesvilleReef]

I agree that water changes can be used as a form of dosing but they never can be a 100% solution. Just like we use skimmers, gac, algae scrubbers and carbon dosing to add reduction capabilities you will need separate additives to complete replenishment. The most obvious examples of this are Ca, Mg and Alk. Why would trace or other elements differ from these elements and ions?

I disagree. "never" is an overstatement.

My main system does very well with only calcium and alk supplementation , 1% daily water changes and food.

Calcium , carbonate alkalinity and magnesium are consumed via precipitation. Solubility levels for other elements vary and don't use the same sink. Chloride , sulfate, sodium Potassium for example . Uptake will vary by element and the specifics of an aqaurium too.

Yes, you are supplementing Ca and alk as I said you would need to. My point is that you could not maintain these with water changes alone. The type of source or sink is not important only the amount matters.

[tmz]

No you asked: Why would trace or other elements differ from these elements and ions? in reference to calcium, alk and magnesium as well, apparently for rhetorical effect . I answered.

[Ink]

I analyzed ca-rx effluent with triton ICP-OES.
I found the effluent simply add Ca and a little bit of strontium. Insignificant dose of magnesium or other elements. The results is surely dependent on the media. In my case it was crushed coral in jumbo size.

If needed, I can post the analysis (my tank water and ca-rx, sampled in the same moment).

Luca

[acesq]

I analyzed ca-rx effluent with triton ICP-OES.
I found the effluent simply add Ca and a little bit of strontium. Insignificant dose of magnesium or other elements. The results is surely dependent on the media. In my case it was crushed coral in jumbo size.

If needed, I can post the analysis (my tank water and ca-rx, sampled in the same moment).

Luca

Luca, please do post your test results, I am very interested in them!

[tmz]

The triton test would be useful to me. I don't really care if it was bound or free copper. Bound copper comes from free copper. Since I can't test to see how much is bound and free, I will assume free even though I know it's most likely bound. And detection means there is or was a source. If the test show 5 pbb maybe I will just watch it. If the test shows 30 ppb or higher I will be changing water. I found it helpful in ruling out copper as an issue. In that case bound or free makes no difference.

Well it is different IMO for many of the elements .

Further, I'm not sure the "analysis "level is valid particulary for "unwanted heavy metals" and action or inaction may be based on rather meaningless set points. What was the actual copper reading you received,btw?

Interstingly,several folks have sent in mewly mixed salt water for Tropic Marin , DD, Instant Ocean ,ESV, Tropic MArin Pro and REd Sea Blue Bucket and have been kind enough to share the results in the critique thread cited earlier All of these samples of newly mixed salt water received an "analysis read of 0 for all of the "unwanted heavy metals". Either all of these salt mixes are much purer than we may have thought or the analysis isn't working in the lower ppb ranges, it seems to me.

[Ink]

The .pdf file slightly exceed the maximum dimension. How can I do?

Luca

[acesq]

Try splitting into two pdf files and saving them in a smaller file size

[Ink]

I really don't know how to do that... I don't know a way to split pdf.

Luca

[bertoni]

You might be able to post the pdf to Google drive or some similar service, and then set the permissions so that we can read it.

[Ink]

Bertoni, what if You PM me a mail address and I send files to You?

Luca

[acesq]

Luca:

I got your e-mail with the test results for your tank and your Ca-RX effluent, here they are:

Tank page 1:

321875

Tank page 2:

321876

Ca-RX page 1:

321878

Ca-RX page 2

321879

[bertoni]

The numbers all seem believable to me. They correspond to what I'd expect from such testing. Coral skeletons tend to have only small levels of ions other than calcium, magnesium, strontium, and carbonate.

[acesq]

Luca, do you dose Mg separately since the calcium reactor does not input much of it?

[Ink]

acesq, not at the moment I made that test. My actual tank can't be a reference. It's young and does nothing could be expected. Everything goes in the wrong way despite my efforces.
I believe most home test kits (if not all) give false readings about magnesium. I hope triton test will clarify this aspect.

Luca

[acesq]

I have questions about my home magnesium tests as well. The red Sea kit reads much lower (1120) than the Salifert (1340). I had my LFS test with their Salifert and got a third reading between the two(1260). It was closer to my Salifert, so there is some confirmation, but I'm not convinced of the accuracy of any of them.

[Ink]

acesq, I finally decided that my only home test kit will be kh. For every other value, I'll run a triton test. Too many times I nearly destroyed my whole tank because of a false reading from a home test.
My main rule is: do not add anything unless You are SURE it is lacking.

It is better a deficient element than an excessive one. Corals could have reduced growth if something lacks or they couldn't show perfect colors, but an element in excess can kill all them.

Luca

[Aquarist007]

I don't know if this is applicable in this discussion. I have difficulty understanding this esp with dosing in absence of water changes.

"Simply put ionic balance means that no matter what the total salinity level, calcium will always make up 1.18% of the total salt compounds. Potassium always makes up 1.11% and magnesium always makes up 3.68% and so on and so forth. "
http://www.reefgrow.com/ionic-balance/