Jump to content





Posted Image

PCS & Stuart M. Grant - Cichlid Preservation Fund - Details here


Photo

Chlorine in water: do we get worked up about nothing?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 Leevers

Leevers
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 08-August 07
  • Location: Kenwick

Posted 22 January 2008 - 04:47 PM

(Blakey)
and even if you do complain really .. how much further does it go than a recieptionist..


hahaha good point!

#22 keenas

keenas
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 05-February 06
  • Location: Canningvale, Perth WA

Posted 22 January 2008 - 07:30 PM

Chris, funny you mentioned Flourides as they to mentioned that same issue as they thought that it would be more detremental than the chlorides. They also spoke about heavy metals in the water...

#23 Noddy65

Noddy65
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 10-July 05
  • Location: The Oaks, Sydney, NSW

Posted 22 January 2008 - 08:49 PM

The heavy metals is a new one to me?
What levels and how dangerous are they at that level?
My understanding of fish (and correct me if Im wrong) accumulating heavy metals is that it moves up the food chain. Microscopic organisms filter it, they get eaten, something eats them, then something eats them and so on and so forth, until enough accumulats that it affects fish. I cant see that happening in our fish unless the food we FEED them is high in heavy metals?

Might be like the artificial sweetner thing, sure it can cause cancer...but you have to eat 5 kg of it each day for 10 years...so its really not an issue smile.gif

Mike

#24 Donna

Donna
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 14-October 07
  • Location: Rockingham

Posted 22 January 2008 - 09:03 PM

So do I throw out my water ager or not? biggrin.gif

#25 sydad

sydad
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 31-October 04
  • Location: Jandakot

Posted 22 January 2008 - 10:08 PM

Hi mike,

I have definitely lost fish due to chlorine poisoning. About 30 years ago, I carried out a 50% water change on a 500 litre pond containing about 100 half grown Pearl Gouramis. This was something I did several times a week as they were somewhat crowded, and I wanted to keep them in good condition as I had sold them to a wholesaler who was waiting for room to become available in his holding tanks before he picked them up.
On the occasion in question I was conscious of an obvious smell of chlorine coming from the pond while it was filling; something I had noticed before, though not as strongly. About 36 hours after the change all the fish started to display hyperaemic gills, and started to die in another 10-12 hours. I lost the whole batch within 30 hours, and autopsies on about 10 of them revealed the aforementioned hyperaemia, with histological evidence of chemically induced gill-necrosis. There was no evidence of any infective process, and all bacterial cultures returned negative results.
I provided the fish health laboratories (at that time within the Agriculture Dept) with the histo. slides I had prepared, and their pathologist agreed that the picture was classical chlorine poisoning.
The Water Dept. subsequently confirmed that on the day I experienced the strong smell that a malfunction had resulted in dissolved chlorine levels up to 5ppm (about 5x normal) in the water supled to our area from a local sub-artesian source. No compensation was available, as they insisted that the levels were not unsafe for humans,and that they were not responsible for providing water safe for fish!
There have been, over the years, a number of similar incidents, which Water is increasingly reluctant to confirm.
You are correct about the dilution of "'normal" chlorinated water, together with the usual presence of dissolved or solid organic material being sufficient to render chlorine relatively harmless, but if a spike occurrs for any reason, the makings of a disaster are present.
Of course, the use of a dechlorinator may help, but I had , prior to the incident above, never used it, and have never since as I elected to install an aerated reservoir, which ensured most chlorine was dissipated within a few hours (or less if sunlight fell onto the exposed reservoir).

Keenas, you are evidently confused about the nature of chlorine in water. It is present as a dissolved gas, and any attempt to analyse it by drying results in the total loss of the gas. Chlorides present as anions are an entirely different matter. Some Eurpoean aquarium suppliers have produced kits to evaluate levels of dissolved chlorine, and which are reasonably accurate. The problem is that like some older pool analysis kits they contain the potent carcinogen o-tolidine, and are consequently banned from sale within Australia.

Mal, you may like to consider that the sequestering agents used to bind heavy metals are, at the concentrations employed, subject to biological degradation. When this occurrs, guess what happens to any bound heavy metals. Sequestering agents(such as EDTA), should be considered only as stop-gap solutions.
The only "heavy" metal normally present in sludge from water pipes is iron (rust), and is more unsightly than harmful, though obviously it's presence should be limited in the aquarium.
Sorry about the length of this post.

Syd.

#26 Blakey

Blakey
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 11-October 04
  • Location: Scarborough, WA

Posted 22 January 2008 - 10:58 PM

so what about us folks near the new de-salination plant? what sort of chemicals are been used in the water now?

i find it all too risky that some days it is fine and others it is not to take the chance to not condition/age my water. Although 90% of the time it would be fine the 10% im not risking on losing my fish.. simple as that

#27 Mr_docfish

Mr_docfish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 29-July 07
  • Location: Canning Vale WA

Posted 22 January 2008 - 11:19 PM

you will find that the water corp in WA will not divulge the exact list of chemicals that they use (they will just give you a copy of the WHO list and say that they are within those levels)
I have been told by people that 'do work' for the water corp (not work directly for them they sternly said!) that there are a number of chemicals that are added to our water supply, but what exactly, depends on the source of the supply in the area.
Of these chemicals (there are up to 11 different ones - some one in the water corp should jump in now if you have balls) I can say that we do NOT have chloramines in the metro area. We do have Chlorine, Flourine, Copper Sulphate, Aluminium Sulphate/hydroxide, and something called Myox?? I have been told by the water corp when I confronted them about this one that it is used to make swampy water taste better, but he did not know what the chemical makeup was.
In light of this small list of what I know, I can say that fish cannot live in water with these chemicals, and some of them will not be made less toxic by aerating or running past UV lights.
I use 10000s of liters of tap water in my shop, and I make my own conditioner that can cope with 'most' of these chemicals. Without this conditioner, the fish will not live, or will be seriously damaged.
But there are the oldies that stick by their "done it for 40 years and never had a problem" but this what they all say when they ask why they lost all of their fish after a water change. My answer to them is "If you don't want to believe me, then go ahead and carry on they way you always did it. I am quite happy to sell you more fish than small amounts of conditioner, it is more profitable".

BTW, I drink beer, burbon and filtered tap water......and the water corp have bottled water delivered to their joint at the end of Bannister Road here!!!! water for thought!!

Oliver

#28 Blakey

Blakey
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 11-October 04
  • Location: Scarborough, WA

Posted 22 January 2008 - 11:41 PM

awsome oliver.. bloody good post mate!

#29 KrAmEr

KrAmEr
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 24-May 07
  • Location: Perth, Innaloo

Posted 23 January 2008 - 12:00 AM

Good post Oliver.

IMO if your not using an ager/conditioner your just ignorant. I mean how hard is it to add while filling up a tank? It doesn't cost much either..

#30 Noddy65

Noddy65
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 10-July 05
  • Location: The Oaks, Sydney, NSW

Posted 23 January 2008 - 09:39 AM

Thanks for the post Syd. Ive always wondered how much of the chlorine killing fish is just an urban myth and how much is true. Your case provide evidence that it can happen.
Another question come to mind though. Do the water conditioners people use deactivate chlorine at the high levels enough to render them harmless?
Since there is so much variation in water in Perth is the standard doseing regimes people use A: pointless because the dose is too low B: useless because theres nothing there anyway?

Thanks for the info Oliver. It goes to show how little we really know about the water we use sometimes. It also goes to show that there is never one way that works and that often different systems can work for different people.
Id be interested to know how much of an effect your high stocking levels influence the effects of water additives?

There are just so many unknowns in this sort of thing...I love this type of discussion.

Mike

#31 Den

Den
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 15-January 05
  • Location: Warnbro W.A.

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:11 AM

Over the years I've made a few mistakes, and I now have preventative measures to ensure I dont repeat them, but fresh tap water is no doubt a fish killer.

I have had tank crashes an several occasions immediately after accidently doing an extra large water change in my big tank, this happened because I like to keep my over flow styled filter running during a water change so I fill from one end of the tank and syphon from the other at the same time. Each crash the water went slighly milky and the fish started gasping and I have lost about 30% of the fish in the worst occasion. I now run a strict timer to avoid this problem.

I also lost a pond full of Koi carp by accidently forgetting to turn the hose off during an evening water top up (the hose ran all night). I now use the bore to fill the pond so dont have this problem any more.

You can argue about what chemicals are in there, all I know is if you put a fish in 100% tap water without aging or treating it, the fish will die, so obviously there is something in it that kills fish.

When I fill a bath tub or bucket with water I can smell chlorine.

Cheers
Den

#32 Blakey

Blakey
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 11-October 04
  • Location: Scarborough, WA

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:59 AM

Just last night i filled up a water bottle and i could smell chlorine..

Mike, as long as you dont get too excited over this sort of chit chat mate... we havnt touched on some sort of water fetish of yours have we?

#33 Mr_docfish

Mr_docfish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 29-July 07
  • Location: Canning Vale WA

Posted 23 January 2008 - 05:47 PM

(Noddy65)
Do the water conditioners people use deactivate chlorine at the high levels enough to render them harmless?

Since there is so much variation in water in Perth is the standard doseing regimes people use
A: pointless because the dose is too low
B: useless because theres nothing there anyway?

Id be interested to know how much of an effect your high stocking levels influence the effects of water additives?

Mike


IMO most of the older conditioners/purifiers on the market are under dosing (check out the 15+ year old Tri-Start). I find that most of the stuff that has a 5ml to 20 or 40 liter rate can do the job quite well, and if there is a situation where the levels are over the top, at least you have neutralized the majority, and the remainder will be absorbed/neutralized by organics/plants/hardness in the tank anyway....hopefully.

The saying, it is better to be safe than sorry comes into effect when looking at conditioners. Adding a bit more will not harm your fish (and with the situation that Sydad bought up about the EDTA being consumed by the bacteria in the system and therefore releasing the heavy metals, adding extra will ensure that there is hopefully enough EDTA in the tank for long enough until plants/organics can absorb/neutralize them). So 'B' does not come into the equation, 'A' is the most likely candidate for some conditioners on the market (also on the subject, there are some products that claim to remove heavy metals, but to not contain anything that could do this......if I may dump one product here for he purpose of saving fishes lives, for example: 'Start Right'.)

I have not found and problems with high stocking densities on the effectiveness of water conditioners.....except the fact that EDTA is consumed by bacteria, heavily loaded systems have a lot of them (bacteria) so in theory this could be a problem. As I mentioned, I make my own salt based conditioner, and I had to add extra EDTA to suit our system some years back....this was probably due to the fact that the bacteria were consuming it too rapidly?...but since the increase, there have been no more incidences that have required me to increase it further.

HTH
Oliver

#34 sydad

sydad
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 31-October 04
  • Location: Jandakot

Posted 24 January 2008 - 11:06 PM

In my earlier post on this string, I indicated my preference for not using water treaments. Perhaps I should give a little more detail on why I have persisted in this view.

Quite a few years ago, an old friend (who sadly is no longer with us) from Melbourne, wrote to me...yea, snailmail...asking if I could help him to solve an ongoing problem. This gentleman was a prominent breeder of Corydoras catfishes, and a couple of years prior to his request had started having regular losses of both breeders and fry. The loss of breeders was particularly galling to him, as many cories take up to several years to become sexually mature.
Anyhow, investigation eventually isolated the fact that Melbourne water had, about the time the problems began, increased the chlorination levels of tap water following some problems associated with low levels of bacterial contamination.... no real news here as it had been widely reported.
My friend, of German descent and accordingly fastidious in his approach to problems, but with little formal scientific training (he was a linguist of some renown), took a logical approach and purchased a dissolved chlorine evaluation kit. Using this kit he upped his dosage of sodium thiosulphate to a level where chlorine readings became insignificant (undetectable using the kit).
Shortly thereafter his problems began, and regular, small losses were experienced. Concluding logically, but as it turned out, wrongly, that the kit may be at fault, he further increased the dosage of thiosulphate.
Not long after this the problem worsened. He approached Melbourne water for assistance, and was assured by them that no other additions than the increased chlorine had been made.
At my suggestion, he submitted water samples to several analytical laboratories, with no significant results: until in desperation he sent a specimen to a laboratory specialising in sulphur chemistry, and they detected minute quantities of mercaptans. When my friend sought clarification on the origin of these substances, the laboratory admitted ignorance on the topic as they were not present in the tap water.
He explained the treatment regime he was using, and the laboratory, being intrigued pursued investigations along a somewhat different line; concluding eventually that the mercaptans resilted from a reaction between sodium thiosulphate and extremely low levels of otherwise harmless dissolved organic substances, which had been made more reactive by the added chlorine.
Again at my suggestion, my friend installed a reservoir in which he aerated all water for a day or so before use in his aquariums, and presto!, the losses stopped soon thereafter. Further investigations revealed that the mercaptans were extremely toxic to fishes, and to cories in particular.

This convinced me that adding chemicals to my aquarium water unnecessarily was a mistake, and having set up my own reservoir, I carried out water changes for the next 16 years or so using tap water that was never treated with any chemicals other than those needed to alter hardness and/or alkalinity. I still use the reservoir system despite now living in an area where piped water is not available....mainly because this gives me more control over water temperature.

If you have persisted thus far in reading this rather wordy document, permit me to make some further observations that may assist.
I cannot understand why aquarists, knowing that their fishes need at least minimal water changes, and further that tap water comes out of the tap with at least one undesirable additive (and this is probably the easiest to eliminate by simple aeration), and possibly more as evidenced by some assertions in this string, persist in adding further chemicals (read pollutants) in an attempt to correct potential problems.
I believe that any serious aquarist will, as a matter of course, install a reservoir and carry out water changes therefrom.
If you believe that there are other undesirable substances present in your tap water, surely logic suggests that they be removed; and not that a chemical soup be added, and which may well exacerbate any potential problems.
The simple way to effect the removal of virtually all and any undesirable pollutants is to use an adsorbent resin to treat the feed/tap water. Such resins are freely available, and one of the best which is sold primarily for aquarium use is Seachem's PURIGEN. This remarkable substance (admittedly not cheap), will remove nearly all undesirables from tap water, but because of their small molecular sizes, is not efficient at removing dissolved gases....so the reservoir is still necessary. The resins are regenerable, so the main cost involved is the initial purchase.

And I still think that a water storage reservoir should be amongst the first item purchased by any thinking aquarist who goes beyond his/her second aquarium. ( I expect a flood of howls of protest as usually experienced when I make this assertion, but I've yet to hear a valid reason for failing to provide such a BASIC item).
If you have persisted thus far in this post, there may yet be hope for you: not because of any insight I may possess, but because you are obviously persistent, and possess a high tolerance for boredom :wink:

Syd.

#35 Blackcats

Blackcats
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 04-April 07
  • Location: Waikiki

Posted 25 January 2008 - 09:35 AM

Syd

Regarding your "water reservoir system", I assume you mean a large storage tank with an airstone, or have you invented some contraption to mechanically remove dissolved gases from the water. laugh.gif

Previously, I have just used covered buckets and let them stand for a few days before use ( this was when we only had a couple of tanks).
Now that we have a higher demand for water we have been using de-chlorinators if using tap water (we also use bore water).

Just an observation, sometimes when there is a strong chlorine smell and
the chemical is added, almost immediately long strings of dark blue threads appear, which must be the chlorine binding or reacting with the additive. Other times when there is little or no smell this effect isn't seen.
This reassures me that the chemical does seem to do the job it claims as the fish have been fine. biggrin.gif
I think it also shows that the chlorine levels in tap water are inconsistent, so if someone used water without aging it or adding de-chlorinator, on a heavy dosage day their fish would be at risk.

Harry

#36 Poncho

Poncho

    Vice Presidente Castro

  • Committee
  • Joined: 20-January 06
  • Location:Warnbro
  • Location: Warnbro

Posted 25 January 2008 - 09:36 AM

I wasn't bored at all Sydad, I thought it was well written and I'm happy that you think that there maybe hope for me.

At risk of going off topic I'd like to re-emphasise the point that Sydad made regarding adding chemicals (read pollutants) to water in order to treat it. I think people here should think about this point not only in terms of their aquariums but also in terms of personal consumption.

I have a paper here written by a respected environmental toxicologist (Prof. Peter Dingle aka Dr Dingle) from Murdoch Uni which weighs up the pro's and cons of flouride additions to the water. I won't post it as it is quite lengthy but there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that the benefit of less cavities in teeth by adding flouride to drinking water is far outweighed by potential and probable negative impacts including dental fluorosis (i have suffered from this), skeletonal fluorosis, chronic fluoride poisoning, poisoning of beneficial micro-organisms that benefit digestion and bone cancer.

If anyone is interested further I can forward some text regarding contaminants in drinking water or alternatively look up Dr Dingle's website. The focus is regarding detrimental effects for humans but would still possess some relevance to fish health. But back to the topic at hand.

At the risk of sounding ignorant to some - I won't put any additives or conditioners in my tank water because I don't have faith in the manufacturers of these products to know all the ins and outs and possible unintended effects that their products will have on my water chemistry.

I don't have a large reservoir though to age water as space is a problem for me and probably an issue to many, so the practicality of this solution doesn't make it as appealling as buying a bottle of conditioner.

My approach has been to run water through these types of filters:

http://www.psifilter...Whole-House.htm[url]

This is mainly to prevent my family from exposure to chlorine and other nasties found in the water supply that can have chronic repercussions on our health but I believe these filter units make the water suitable for direct aquarium use also. Just a shame they are no good for removing fluoride.

I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this method especially if they can see a drawback to it that I am not aware of or have overlooked.

#37 Blakey

Blakey
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 11-October 04
  • Location: Scarborough, WA

Posted 25 January 2008 - 09:45 AM

Although we can safely assume there areharmful toxins and chemicals in the water ... are they at a high enough level to actually do is any harm? Surely fish are alot more sensative to these chemicals and toxins... so if our fish can do alright... we should be fine?

The food we eat these days probably has more artificial chemicals, flavours, colours, preservatives.. and the rest that would be doing well more damage than water from the tap!

I know for a fact that if you keep frogs the water from the tap is too toxic for them... and needs to be treated and aged very well for them.... although when i squirt my garden they tend to sing when it all gets wet?

i fear that this is an issue neve to be resolved...

#38 Poncho

Poncho

    Vice Presidente Castro

  • Committee
  • Joined: 20-January 06
  • Location:Warnbro
  • Location: Warnbro

Posted 25 January 2008 - 10:43 AM

Depends how you define a high enough level.

A level can be low enough so that you don't detect any side effects immediately (acute effects) but exposure to chemicals over a long period of time can produce side effects after a lag period eg. asbestos and a whole host of carcinogens.

A lag period could for arguments sake be 20 years - nearly all aquarium fish will be long gone by that time but hopefully we will still be kicking about. This would make us prone to cancers formed through long term exposure to chemicals added to our water supply like fluoride.

But look on the bright side - you'll have very nice teeth!

#39 sydad

sydad
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 31-October 04
  • Location: Jandakot

Posted 25 January 2008 - 12:04 PM

Harry,

Yes, I do refer to a suitably sized container fitted with an airstone. This of course equates to a simple mechanical device that accelerates the dissipation of chlorine.
The blue threads you see, I would guess are dissolving crystals of methylene blue, or something similar. Such substances arecommonly added to "water conditioners" (though damned if I know why).Thats just my guess. Do the blue threads appear ONLY when the chlorine odour is strong, or always on adding the conditioner?
Covered buckets would delay the dissipation of chlorine, but buckets are a good idea if you can store them somewhere in sufficient numbers: particularly as you can use buckets to remove the water from aquariums, and know that, with a little planning, you have sufficient for replacement.

I currently use buckets to remove water, and it's quite hard work as my water changes can be up to 500 litres/day. It doesn't matter if I slop water around in this procedure, as all my aquaria are in my fishroom shed. biggrin.gif

Poncho,

I haven't waded through Prof. Dingle's paper, though aware of it. The point about fluoride additions to tap water have been argued endlessly, and I was well exposed to most of them while employed as a medical scientist at the Perth Dental Hospital/ UWA Dental School biological diagnostic and research laboratories. I agree with your comments re fluorosis, but feel that you must have been exposed to another source of fluoride, as fluorosis is extremely rare from Perth tap water, except in people who drink ENORMOUS quantities of water... a pathological condition in itslf.
I am not aware of any reported deleterious affects, on fishes by the fluoride ion used at the commonly recommended concentration of 1mg/l.

The household filters you mention depend on activated carbon to remove tap water pollutants, and are OK up to a point. Dissolved chlorine "breakthrough" occurs relatively early, and the thorough elimination of that substance requires much more frequent replacement of filters than most people carry out (or can afford?)
It is regrettably much more difficult to remove fluoride, and the only practical way is by reverse osmosis, though this is not 100% effective either.
As to the "problem" of storing water, as I explained above to Harry, buckets can be ideal. If insufficient in volume then the solution employed by a friend was to purchase a wheely-bin, sans wheels, and use that. I seem to remember that they have a volume in the 180-250 litre range. The only down side is that aerating at the depth of one of these requires a reasonable air-pump, and of course with any reservoir, you need a suitable transfer pump. But these are minor items compared with the overall cost of several or more aquariums.
My (big) bit again.

Syd.

#40 Peckoltia

Peckoltia
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 15-October 04
  • Location: Dianella

Posted 25 January 2008 - 02:13 PM

(Blakey)
Although we can safely assume there areharmful toxins and chemicals in the water ... are they at a high enough level to actually do is any harm? Surely fish are alot more sensative to these chemicals and toxins... so if our fish can do alright... we should be fine?

The food we eat these days probably has more artificial chemicals, flavours, colours, preservatives.. and the rest that would be doing well more damage than water from the tap!

I know for a fact that if you keep frogs the water from the tap is too toxic for them... and needs to be treated and aged very well for them.... although when i squirt my garden they tend to sing when it all gets wet?

i fear that this is an issue neve to be resolved...


I use straight tap water on my frogs, and have done so for a couple years now. I even get spawns out of my GTF's every so often. I read an article sometime ago in a reptile magazine written by a vet/frog breeder. Who claims that the levels of chlorine found in the water almost has antisceptic like properties to some frog species. Not sure how true this is. But like I said I have never had any problems with straight tap water with my frogs (3species).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users