Ionic concentration of Salt.....Kent Marine

[BlackTip]

I used regular IO for the first 6-8 months, and I don't want to go back to it. I switched to Seachem Reef Salt, and my parameters have been stable since then. My only complaint is Mag is lower than advertised (1150 approx). My main concern however is the high Boron (16 vs NSW of 4).

I corresponded with Seachem and they assured me that the high concentration of Born is OK, and it doesn't have any ill effect. I am worried of long term effects, however.

So, I am considering switching to something else. Many people recommend Kent Marine. I looked at Kent website and others like Redsea, and I couldn't find any mention about Ionic concentration similar to what Seachem published here: http://seachem.com/reef-salt.php

So, for people who use Kent and other sea salt, how do you know what is in the salt? I want to compare apple to apple, and not just look at dkh, ca, and mag. I want to compare other trace elements.

Thanks,

[ReefsandGeeks]

It's hard to really know what is in the salt if you can't measure it yourself. If you're measuring Mag as lower than advertised, what makes you think the other trace elements they list are accurate? You could do a Triton test, but I've heard mixed things about the accuracy of them with trace elements, so as far as I know, there's no good way of testing the water. Personally, I think if you're happy with everything else with the seachem, it would be worth sticking with them. adding Mag is easy enough. I'm not familiar with boron or the effects of many of the trace elements long term, but you'll be hard pressed to find any salt mix that has exactly the levels of everything you want.

[GimpyFin]

I've used Kent for a few years now and really like it. Although, outside of cal/alk/mag, I haven't seen any place where they actually publish the values for the other ion concentrations in the salt. Though, you might be able to reach out to their customer service. There's a chance someone there may be able to provide that information.

[BlackTip]

I did send an email to Kent, but I haven't heard back yet.

[bertoni]

That boron level probably is okay. I suspect it's present as borate, which has been added to increase the pH a bit. I'd prefer the level to be more like 4 ppm, but the product probably is fine as is.

[BlackTip]

I received a response from Kent Marine. They sent two documents. The first lists the ionic concentration in their salt, and the second is an analysis done by AquariumWaterTesting that analyzed and tested most popular brands of synthetic reef salt. The paper is from 2008, so I don't know how accurate it is today.

The major difference I found between Seachem Reef Salt and Kent Marine are:

Kent:
Boron: 5.6
Carbonate/bicarbonate : 194

Seachem:
Boron 16
Carbonate/bicarbonate: 142

All other ionic concentrations are very similar. A thing I learned from the paper is the Reef Salt has too much Silica, and that is probably why I can't get red of diatom after 18 months. No much, but it is there.

Kent has too much dkh for my liking.

So, Jonathan: You believe the the high Boron in Reef Salt should not cause any problems in long term use?

Thanks,

[bertoni]

I think it'll be fine. A lot of people have dosed borate in the form of pH buffers and still managed reasonable results. I wouldn't worry about the boron all that much.

[GimpyFin]

What dKH are you targeting?

[Potatohead]

Seachem Reef Salt is excellent salt. If you think the boron is high now, before they reformulated it in 2011 or so, it was 60. IMO one of the most underrated salts out there, especially for the price. If you are doing water changes there is no reason why boron levels would elevate.

Also FWIW if I check my alk with a Hanna dkh checker (which shows total alkalinity) and my Salifert kit (which shows carbonate alkalinity only) the values are virtually the same, which leads me to believe the boron content is blown out of proportion.

[BlackTip]

Originally Posted by GimpyFin

What dKH are you targeting?

Currently, my DKH is 8.5-9.0. That what I like to keep it at.

Originally Posted by Potatohead

Seachem Reef Salt is excellent salt. If you think the boron is high now, before they reformulated it in 2011 or so, it was 60. IMO one of the most underrated salts out there, especially for the price. If you are doing water changes there is no reason why boron levels would elevate.

Also FWIW if I check my alk with a Hanna dkh checker (which shows total alkalinity) and my Salifert kit (which shows carbonate alkalinity only) the values are almost the same, which leads me to believe the boron content is blown out of proportion.

Agree with you. It is really good salt at a very good price. I read the article in ReefKeeping and in advancedaquarest, both recommend to keep Boron under 10. I don't know the long term harm, if any, but I don't want to learn the hardway.

[BlackTip]

Originally Posted by bertoni

I think it'll be fine. A lot of people have dosed borate in the form of pH buffers and still managed reasonable results. I wouldn't worry about the boron all that much.

Thanks as always Jonathan

[Potatohead]

Originally Posted by BlackTip

Currently, my DKH is 8.5-9.0. That what I like to keep it at.



Agree with you. It is really good salt at a very good price. I read the article in ReefKeeping and in advancedaquarest, both recommend to keep Boron under 10. I don't know the long term harm, if any, but I don't want to learn the hardway.

Easy solution, continue to buy the Seachem and mix it 50/50 with something else

[GimpyFin]

Just to add a side note, the paper you have from 2008 is inaccurate, at least for today. Kent mixes in about 150 ppm carbonate/bicarbonate (8.5 dKH) @ 1.025/26, not 194. The lower alk is one of the main reasons I use it.

[BlackTip]

Originally Posted by GimpyFin

Just to add a side note, the paper you have from 2008 is inaccurate, at least for today. Kent mixes in about 150 ppm carbonate/bicarbonate (8.5 dKH) @ 1.025/26, not 194. The lower alk is one of the main reasons I use it.

That number of 194 for Carb/bicarb doesn't come from 2008 analysis paper. it comes from the first document that sent to me. It contains one table with various ionic concentration. I don't know whether it is appropriate to publish it or not. If you want it, send me a PM with your email address.

I am not doubting you. Often published numbers and actual numbers don't match.

[Potatohead]

Originally Posted by BlackTip

That number of 194 for Carb/bicarb doesn't come from 2008 analysis paper. it comes from the first document that sent to me. It contains one table with various ionic concentration. I don't know whether it is appropriate to publish it or not. If you want it, send me a PM with your email address.

I am not doubting you. Often published numbers and actual numbers don't match.

I was looking into the Coralife salt some time ago, which is the same salt as the Kent in a different box.

The alk is definitely lower than that now, it's more like 9 - 9.5. I do believe calcium is still very high though, around 500, which is why I ultimately went to something else and ended up on the Seachem after that.

This video helps;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha_-eFjLIJw

[GimpyFin]

Yeah, I understand. Just didn't want you led around by false information, that's all. I've been using it consistently for over 3 years and I can tell for certain it mixes in right around 8.5 dKH @ 1.025. The parameters I get for Cal/mag are consistent to what is listed on Kent's website.

[BlackTip]

Originally Posted by Potatohead

I do believe calcium is still very high though, around 500, which is why I ultimately went to something else and ended up on the Seachem after that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha_-eFjLIJw

Kent advertise this:

Specific Gravity: 1.024 - 1.026
pH: 8.2 to 8.3
Calcium: 550 to 575 ppm
Magnesium: 1,350 to 1,450 ppm

Why the high CA turned you away? What are the bad side effects for high CA?