15 replies to this topic

[ozjayok]

instead of putting straight tap water and chemicals into my tank, i was going to use those plastic storage container probably holds about only 20 -30 litres...wanted to know how long does it take for the chlorine to evaporate? and what else should i do to it. its been sitting now for 3 days....

thanks

[Jaraqui]

Chlorine should evaporate within 24 hours. For a weekly water change the water sitting there should have no adverse effects providing it is placed in a cool, dark spot in a sealed container.

[Sinbad]

I think it' still beneficial to add a conditioner to the water as no ammount of aging will render any heavy metals which are in a lot of our water supplies harmless to fish.

[golden_dase]

Chlorine should evaporate within 24 hours. For a weekly water change the water sitting there should have no adverse effects providing it is placed in a cool, dark spot in a sealed container.

Hi, not having a go at you mate, but if tap water is kept in a "sealed container", how will the chlorine evaporate?

Anyways, what I usually do is have spare/tap water (for water changes) sitting in large buckets with air-stones going to help with the evaporation of evaporative chemicals. Before adding to my tanks, I would add the suitable buffer/conditioner for the intended tank/s.

[Jaraqui]

I see how someone could get it mixed up . The first part of the question was how long it takes for chlorine to evaporate, second part was how to store, what I assumed was already chlorine free water.

[Global]

I do this with some of my smaller tanks (2footers), by filling up a few 10ltr buckets put a few drops of 'seachems Prime' in and leave them overnight.
Then trickle feed the water in via a air line tube!
But I would definatly be using some kind of suitable conditioner,buffer.

[sydad]

I think it' still beneficial to add a conditioner to the water as no ammount of aging will render any heavy metals which are in a lot of our water supplies harmless to fish.

I'm really curious about what process you imagine "conditioners" perform that actually render heavy metals in water supplies harmless to fishes.

Syd.

[Sinbad]

A chemist nor a scientist am I Syd, however, as you are no doubt aware there have been conditioners available on the market for many years which lay claim to being able to perform the function of "detoxifying heavy metals in tap water."
As a person not educated in chemistry or allied fields of science beyond high school level, I have no idea by which "process" this is achieved.
Perhaps I am a little naive, or gullible, in having believed the manufacturers product description, as inferred in your post.
If these products are not capable of achieving this could you enlighten us all, or even better, refute the claims with the manufacturer.

[dazzabozza]

I too am keen to know this as I add conditioners to my water to tackle heavy metals more so than chlorine.

Daz

[sydad]

A chemist nor a scientist am I Syd, however, as you are no doubt aware there have been conditioners available on the market for many years which lay claim to being able to perform the function of "detoxifying heavy metals in tap water."
As a person not educated in chemistry or allied fields of science beyond high school level, I have no idea by which "process" this is achieved.
Perhaps I am a little naive, or gullible, in having believed the manufacturers product description, as infered in your post.
If these products are not capable of achieving this could you enlighten us all, or even better, refute the claims with the manufacturer.

Sorry! It was a little nasty of me to ask the question the way I did.
The fact is that most manufacturers of water treatments add small amounts of sequestering agents such as EDTA salts to bind ionised metals in solution. They actually do this quite efficiently initially.
The problem is that most sequestering (binding) agents are complex organic salts with a significant nitrogen component. Although in higher concentrations these substances can prevent bacterial action by excluding access to some essential micronutrients, in the very dilute form used in water conditioners they actually provide a nutrient substrate for some bacteria, and are fairly rapidly broken down, thus releasing any bound metals.

Disaster is sometimes averted by the released metals gradually becoming bound to other organic molecules, such as naturally occurring tannins and humates, proteins and other dissolved organic carbon. The problem is that eventually even most of these substances are broken down by either bacterial action, or complex chemical reactions, and in the process metals can be released, and toxic effects follow.

I suspect that many obscure aquarium problems are due to this sequence of events, which however can be partially averted by good husbandry, including frequent partial water changes and judicious use of suspect water. This is one reason that I advocate the use of reservoirs for water storage for aquariums.

Some years ago I cleaned one of my reservoirs after experiencing increasing, albeit rather minor, problems over a period of months. Oon the bottom of the reservoir was a thin layer of brown sludge that I checked for the presence of metals. It was principally iron, but with significant amounts of aluminium, copper and zinc. These elements had all been deposited as basic oxides during aerated storage of water for at least several days before use. There was a sufficient quantity to ensure that virtual saturation of the relatively insoluble basic oxides was ensured.I now clean my reservoirs frequently, even when I am happy with tap-water.
I consider that it is infinitely better to remove problems this way than to rely on dubious science as advocated by the manufacturers of "conditioners", well-intentioned though they may be (this comment excludes the removal of chlorine by said conditioners: this being the principal function and purpose of most treatments).

Apologies for the long-winded post, but I felt it necessary to make an adequate explanation.

Syd.

[dazzabozza]

Hey Syd.

Most of that went over my head the first time I read it but I'll try to decipher / summarise it :-

The fact is that most manufacturers of water treatments add small amounts of sequestering agents such as EDTA salts to bind ionised metals in solution. They actually do this quite efficiently initially.

"They" being the sequestering agent and not the company that makes to product?

The problem is that most sequestering (binding) agents are complex organic salts with a significant nitrogen component. Although in higher concentrations these substances can prevent bacterial action by excluding access to some essential micronutrients, in the very dilute form used in water conditioners they actually provide a nutrient substrate for some bacteria, and are fairly rapidly broken down, thus releasing any bound metals.

Disaster is sometimes averted by the released metals gradually becoming bound to other organic molecules, such as naturally occurring tannins and humates, proteins and other dissolved organic carbon. The problem is that eventually even most of these substances are broken down by either bacterial action, or complex chemical reactions, and in the process metals can be released, and toxic effects follow.

If used in high concentrations it could affect the efficiency of beneficial nitrifying bacteria?
If used in low concentrations the binding is quickly undone by certain bacteria?
The metals that become unbound by the bacteria are then bound to other organic molecules already present in the tank?
Then eventually these organic molecules are broken down too and the metals re-released?
So what you're saying is ideally you're best off never letting the metals enter the tank?

I suspect that many obscure aquarium problems are due to this sequence of events, which however can be partially averted by good husbandry, including frequent partial water changes and judicious use of suspect water. This is one reason that I advocate the use of reservoirs for water storage for aquariums.

I consider that it is infinitely better to remove problems this way than to rely on dubious science as advocated by the manufacturers of "conditioners", well-intentioned though they may be (this comment excludes the removal of chlorine by said conditioners: this being the principal function and purpose of most treatments).

As a rough guess I would say that 85%+ of fishkeepers around the world use tap water and don't age/aerate the water in drums before-hand. Are you saying that conditioners are pointless from a heavy metal detox point if view? In an ideal world I would have a pipeline from the great African lakes but instead have to suffice with my tap water straight into my tanks

This is a concept that I struggle with..... Firstly why allow manufacturers to promote metal detox if it's not efficient longterm? Secondly from a fish health perspective some deaths are often related to metal poisoning and conditioners are generally recommended to help prevent the issue.

I worry that some people will read your reply with the opinion that they're better off not using conditioners without fully understanding the whole picture / alternatives.

Daz

[Mr_docfish]

While on the topic Syd, would it be possible after water changing with a "conditioner":
In planted tanks, that the offending metals be used up by the plants... ?

and in in predominantly "fish" tanks, with the amount of food being added, which causes a reasonable level of phosphate in solution, the metals might bind with the phosphates (given the right environment) and precipitate? or at least be bound to large organic waste particles in the filters/gravel and is removed during regular cleaning?

This might explain the reason why we dont see these problems of released toxins on a regular basis.... though I have come across cases of such happenings where there was no other explanation, so with this I agree with Syd as a possible risk - depending on circumstances, though still rare in my opinion.

I am in a situation at work where I have no choice but to use our own conditioner mix. Given the chance, I would rather do both - hold & aerate the water and still add a smaller quantity of conditioner as insurance upon adding to the systems (we cannot trust our suppliers of tap water to maintain constant levels of added metal based chemicals such as copper sulphate and aluminium sulphate).


On a side note, just as an example:
We have had situations in the early days where the Koi were badly affected by Aluminium... upon increasing the EDTA in our mix, we have never had this problem again (the EDTA prefers Iron to Aluminium, so with high Iron levels in our water in Canning Vale, the EDTA was being used up by the Iron - leaving the Aluminium free in solution).

[sydad]

Hey Syd.

Most of that went over my head the first time I read it but I'll try to decipher / summarise it :-



"They" being the sequestering agent and not the company that makes to product?



If used in high concentrations it could affect the efficiency of beneficial nitrifying bacteria?
If used in low concentrations the binding is quickly undone by certain bacteria?
The metals that become unbound by the bacteria are then bound to other organic molecules already present in the tank?
Then eventually these organic molecules are broken down too and the metals re-released?
So what you're saying is ideally you're best off never letting the metals enter the tank?


As a rough guess I would say that 85%+ of fishkeepers around the world use tap water and don't age/aerate the water in drums before-hand. Are you saying that conditioners are pointless from a heavy metal detox point if view? In an ideal world I would have a pipeline from the great African lakes but instead have to suffice with my tap water straight into my tanks

This is a concept that I struggle with..... Firstly why allow manufacturers to promote metal detox if it's not efficient longterm? Secondly from a fish health perspective some deaths are often related to metal poisoning and conditioners are generally recommended to help prevent the issue.

I worry that some people will read your reply with the opinion that they're better off not using conditioners without fully understanding the whole picture / alternatives.

Daz

Hi Daz,

I'll try to answer your questions as presented.

First point: Yes, I was referring to the sequestering agent as being quite efficient initially. The comment also applies to the manufacturers of conditioners, as they seem to have convinced most aquarists of the need to have sequestering agents included in "conditioners"

In high concentrations, sequestering agents will inhibit ALL bacterial growth, but such levels would be toxic to aquatic life.

In low concentrations, bound metals will be released eventually as the sequestering agent is degraded by bacterial action.

The fate of any released metals will depend on numerous factors, with most of the metals being subsequently bound by plants, organic carbon compounds, and even inorganic compounds such as phosphates. Any metals that are bound to biodegradable substrates will be released as those substrates are themselves degraded.

Obviously, it is desirable to have no unwanted metals entering the aquarium in the first place.

To deal with your comment about the high proportion of aquarists who do not use reservoirs for aqeing of water; I agree that this is the case, but a huge majority of those people are what I call "temporary aquarists".
Consider how few people who keep fish, belong to such organisations such as the PCS. These organisations attract the truly enthusiastic. But look again at how many of those enthusiasts are around for long periods (10+ years). Look at the classifieds in the Aquariums for Sale in our papers. Why do you suppose there is such a high turnover in our hobby.

I consider that most people who take up fish-keeping do so in the expectation that they will be successful in their endeavours, with only minimum effort to provide their fishes with all the requirements they need: and obviously a suitable water source is the greatest of these. This is just basic common sense, yet as you point out, the overwhelming majority choose to depend on "conditioners" and other such snake-oils rather than do the job properly and provide a simple water-storage system that can be aerated. Yet by doing this, they would eliminate many of the problems faced regularly by aquarists. Of the long-term, successful aquarists of my aquaintance (and here I refer to those who have kept fish for 20 years or more), not one has chosen to ignore the need to provide suitable water via storage reservoirs. None use "conditioners" except in emergencies.


To your next point: it is pointless to speak of "allowing" manufacturers to use sequestering agents in conditioners. Who is to stop them?. Regulatory authorities are only interested in the presence of bioactive materials su as antibiotics in aquarium treatments. As long as there is a dollar to be made, snake-oils will continue to be produced.

Here, I must point out that I do not consider "conditioners" to be always useless: chlorine removal is their prime function, and sequestering agents undoubtedly, at least occasionally assist in the aversion of disaster by providing a time "buffer", which in my opinion is their only function. As I said in my previous post, most problems require good practice (husbandry) to solve, and the routine practice of frequent partial water changes is of prime importance.

A factor I have not dwelt on is the relative infrequency of metal poisoning ion the aquarium.The commonest event is from copper added by water dissolving traces of this element. This problem is easily prevented by brief flushing of the pipes by running water for a few seconds.
Aluminium is an occasional problem, but is not always even temporarily solved by the use of sequestering agents, as other metallic ions may be preferentially bound . Yet aluminium is precipitated as a basic carbonte in reservoirs in which the water is above pH 7.0, and which are well aerated.
You point out that deaths occur in aquarium fishes from metal poisoning, but to my knowledge this is an infrequent event, and is commonest when poor tank maintenance is allowed to persist. I myself am guilty of this cardinal sin of fish-keeping, where I dosed with iron for plant growth. I had not checked incoming water from ageing pipes, and there was a significant amount of rust-sludge, so the total dissolved iron became a problem. The use of a conditioner would not have had any significant effect in this situation.

As do you, I also worry that people will not be fully informed, or understand the whole picture, and this includes the alternative of providing aged water.

I hope that I have provided some useful insight into the questions you presented. The basic problem is that we are all inculcated with information of varying degrees of usefulness, and it takes a lot of time and judgement (read experience) to separate the wheat from the chaff.


To Oliver;

Plants do take up metals. If in sufficient quantities they will suffer toxic effects and die. In any event parts of the plants (leafs) will die, and when degraded by bacterial action will inevitably release at least some of bound metals.
As I inferred above, of the inorganic chemicals, phosphates are the ones that most firmly bind metals: metallic phosphates tend overall to be highly insoluble, particularly in alkaline conditions. However when precipitated in a planted tank, growing plants are able to access the phosphates, and either release the metals, or incorporate them in the plant cells. Either way, the metals are able to re-enter the water eventually, and ultimately need to be removed by water changes if build-up is to be avoided.

I appreciate that shops encounter water problems that most of us will never face (or at least do so on a relatively insignificant scale). I also appreciate that despite my constant proselytizing, few aquarists will set up reservoirs, even when to do so would be a fairly simple exercise. With the water volumes you use in the shop, it becomes far from simple (or cheap) despite the desirability.

I find your comment on aluminium interesting. It is actually relatively low in toxicity compared to heavier metals such as copper and zinc. I am reminded of an episode of Burke's Backyard, where he set up a pond for some Aussie natives. He used a clay substrate for the plants added to the pond, and as a result experienced quite cloudy water, which he treated with a fairly high dose of potassium alum as a flocculent. This worked well and the following day he added the fish to the now-clear pond, which would certainly still have had a considerable amount of alum present. The fishes appeared unaffected, and the following episode a week later showed the pond, plants and fishes to be in good health. Amazing! Of course, we don't know what "adjustments", such as replacing defunct fishes, took place in the time between shows (yes, I know that I come over as a cynic to even suggest that that nice Mr. Burke could do such a thing!).

Syd.

[Mr_docfish]

.........
I find your comment on aluminium interesting. It is actually relatively low in toxicity compared to heavier metals such as copper and zinc. .........

Syd.

I did not test the water for the heavy metal involved - but the symptoms pointed to something that could affect the nervous system of the fish, and the addition of copious amounts of "conditioner", and subsequent increase in EDTA in our mix for future use, we had stopped the problem.... I only assumed Alum - it could have been other metals or a combination... I will never know... at least it has never happened again to our fish since.
Thanks for your input mate,
Cheers.

[dazzabozza]

........As do you, I also worry that people will not be fully informed, or understand the whole picture, and this includes the alternative of providing aged water.

I hope that I have provided some useful insight into the questions you presented. The basic problem is that we are all inculcated with information of varying degrees of usefulness, and it takes a lot of time and judgement (read experience) to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Hey Syd

Thanks for taking the time to do such a detailed reply. Hopefully more people will have a better understanding of the benefits from pre-preparing / aging our water in drums using aeration. It's something I'll now pay more attention to when designing the water changing system in my shed.


Daz

[ozjayok]

how do you guys do your water changes? if there is a thread on this can someone put up a link pls