|
11/03/2014, 12:14 PM | #51 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 383
|
Well, after I read the whole thread, I would say ceramic stuffs such as rocks and biomedia are 100% safe after all. Thank God.
|
11/03/2014, 12:23 PM | #52 | |
im an addict lol
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Land o lakes, FLorida
Posts: 12,930
|
Quote:
__________________
Goal levels: salinity 35ppt, temp 78-79, alk 8-9, cal 430-450, mag 1310-1400 po4 .03, no3 1-3 Current Tank Info: System 1... 100 gal Zoa tank I built, 30 gal Ric Yuma shroom tank, 30 gal mix tank my sons,40 gal softie tank, 40 gal nem tank, two 40 gal LPS tank. System 2... 240 gal SPS display attached 100 gal frag SPS only tank. |
|
11/03/2014, 12:29 PM | #53 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 12:30 PM | #54 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
OK, thanks for posting that. So one would expect that it will release aluminum ions in a similar way that Phosguard and other aluminum oxide products do. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily a problem, only that it may be the cause of elevated aluminum that some folks using this material observe.
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 12:53 PM | #55 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
ICP cannot distinguish between alumina and aluminum: it's not a useful measurement.
And to be clear: no one is suggesting that alumina is being reduced to aluminum in a reef tank, right? Last edited by shermanator; 11/03/2014 at 01:50 PM. |
11/03/2014, 12:58 PM | #56 |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
No, there is no concern that aluminum metal is around in reef water tested by ICP and/or released by most products. The distinction between aluminum ions and aluminum oxide is not really appropriate as aluminum oxide is entirely aluminum and oxygen ions.
They are using ICP-OES (Optical Emission Spectroscopy; or sometimes called AES (atomic emission spectroscopy). So the water is processed a little bit to remove particulates and bacteria and such (Ehsan called it a cyclone, I have no idea on the details or how well that works; I filtered through 0.2 micron filter disks when I've used this method (assuming I wanted it filtered), but they do not, apparently), and then it is heated in the plasma to tremendously high temperatures. Every element is broken into individual ions and it makes no difference what form it really comes in as. Everything is burned down to ions in the plasma and it is the optical emission of the elements that is then detected, with each element radiating specific bands that can then be counted.
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
11/03/2014, 01:01 PM | #57 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
So why would you (or anyone) worry about elevated levels of alumina? It's chemically inert.
|
11/03/2014, 01:07 PM | #58 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
I struggle to see how ICP (Triton) could be useful whatsoever. For example, Randy: don't you dose sodium silicate? How could you know what your silicate (versus silicone dioxide) level is and how to respond/react to the results?
Bottom line: I would not be concerned whatsoever about the potential correlation of elevated aluminum measurements and ceramic medias. |
11/03/2014, 01:18 PM | #59 |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
It isn't chemically inert. It dissolves to release soluble aluminum ions. The solubility in freshwater is known to be about 2.5 ppm aluminum at pH 8.2, and soluble aluminum ions has clear toxicity to marine organisms in the literature.
I've shown the release of ions experimentally, and people have for many years seen occasional problems with leather corals exposed to whatever is released from aluminum oxide media. I show the experiments I've done here: Aluminum and aluminum-based phosphate binders http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/7/chemistry and, at Seachem's request, I redid some of the experiments with a smaller amount of phosguard and got the same results here: New Aluminum Release Data for Phosguard http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...light=aluminum
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
11/03/2014, 01:21 PM | #60 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 01:26 PM | #61 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
I should re-state: it's my opinion that alumina should be chemically inert in a reef tank. That I know of, the mechanisms for taking alumina into a soluble aluminum hydroxide either involves strong acid, strong base, or a catalyst.
I'm curious what mechanism your propose and how you can assure ICP results are not from sub-0.2 µm alumina particles. I'll check out your articles... |
11/03/2014, 01:27 PM | #62 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
|
|
11/03/2014, 01:43 PM | #63 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
I'm still not sure how you are discounting that the aluminum from the ICP is simply alumina that is < 0.45 µm? And do you have standard deviations on your measurements (you did mention n=3)? Is 0.05 statistically different from 0.16? What's the rho value? Sorry if I'm coming across like a jerk -- maybe I'm missing something, but ICP is a pretty lousy method to look at aluminum species. And aluminum oxide versus aluminum hydroxide is an important distinction (since one is known to be toxic). EDIT - There are methods (fluorimetric) to detect aluminum ions, have you tried any of these samples in such a test? |
|
11/03/2014, 01:49 PM | #64 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
Figure 2: The ICP emission spectrum between 237.2 and 237.4 nm of a sample from my aquarium (blue) and the same sample after being spiked with 0.5 ppm aluminum (red). Figure 2 shows some typical ICP data for these samples. The blue line represents the emission spectrum displayed by my aquarium water sample. It is actually the average of three testing replicates taken from a single water sample. The red line represents the same sample with 0.5 ppm aluminum spiked into it. Clearly, the spiked aluminum gives a clearly defined signal exactly where it is supposed to be, while the aquarium water sample shows no such peak. This same conclusion applied at each wavelength examined, and for the Instant Ocean samples as well. From these data, I conclude that the concentrations of aluminum in my aquarium sample and in Instant Ocean are less than 0.05 ppm aluminum. Nevertheless, the device software for the ICP is what most laboratories will use to quantify ions in high volume samples submitted for analysis. When I used the Varian software to determine the concentration in these samples, it integrated the noise in these samples to the equivalent of 0.05 – 0.12 ppm aluminum for both samples (and for each of several wavelengths used). Likewise, 18 mega-ohm deionized water (very pure) came out at 0.04 to 0.11 ppm aluminum. Consequently, the background noise, and the reality or not of the emissions being quantified must be carefully considered when reporting values near the noise limit for the device. Was this an important issue for the samples analyzed for aluminum by Shimek? Is that why the samples all looked fairly similar in terms of aluminum concentration? Do any of those reported values represent real determinations, or simply background noise? I don’t know, but I am skeptical. Since I am not aware of any other measurements of aluminum in reef aquaria, I believe that we are left without knowing what the concentrations are, except that in the case of my aquarium at least, the concentration is ≤ 0.05 ppm.
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 01:54 PM | #65 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
In normal seawater, aluminum is expected to take the forms Al(OH)4- and Al(OH)3, according the Millero in "Chemical Oceanography". I'm not sure why you are certain it is different here.
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 01:54 PM | #66 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
Another experiment would be to do the alumina filtration as described and see if it poses any issues to reef life. To my knowledge, you and others have only shown that ionic aluminum is problematic. Last edited by shermanator; 11/03/2014 at 01:59 PM. |
|
11/03/2014, 02:02 PM | #67 |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
FWIW, Triton claims the Limit of Detection for their method for aluminum is about 100 ng/kg, or about 0.1 ppb.
That is a bit above the NSW value, but it is far, far below the levels that some folks have gotten of >0.1 ppm (>100 ppb). So I don't really think that the limit of detection or quantitation for is an issue for aluminum levels above 0.1 ppm. It wasn't in my case, and I accept that it isn't for them (although I can only rely on their assertion of their LOD).
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
11/03/2014, 02:05 PM | #68 | ||
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
It's known that ionic aluminum is toxic. You show Phosguard leads to some sort of atomic aluminum show up in the ICP. It could simply be small particle alumina (which carries no risk that I know of). Quote:
|
||
11/03/2014, 02:12 PM | #69 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
here's the history: 1. For many years, people had been noticing the leather corals sometimes closed up when using Phosguard or other aluminum oxide phosphate binders. That predates me. That demonstrates that there is at least sometime a reason to be concerned, regardless of any form issues or measurements. It was a hobbyists result that was fairly well recognized at the time (1980's - 1990's) 2. I thought that one possible explanation for the issue was released aluminum, since there is known solubility of aluminum in fresh water and seawater. But that was just a hypothesis. 3. I measured to see if there was any aluminum that came off of phosguard in any form. There was, and much of it was not filterable at 0.45 microns. Still don't know the form, but it is not particulates by the standard definition. It may be colloids. 4. I added an amount of soluble aluminum to a test tank. I added amounts which were below the known solubility of aluminum in fresh water at the same pH. I added it sowly, from lower to higher concentration. At the highest concentration (0.5 ppm) I observed the same phenomenon that reefers observed: leather coral closed up, etc. 5. Since it was happening at about the same concentration of aluminum observed with the Phosguard, I concluded that the aluminum may have been the explanation of what was happening when people used Phosguard. Obviously it does not prove exact cause and effect, but it links the entire hypothesis together, and is enough, IMO, to be a caution. However, I am aware that trace metal toxicity is very dependent on the form the metal takes and on organic binding of the metal.
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 02:15 PM | #70 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
Do you have a different hypothesis to explain the tox data that has been known for a very long time that sometimes followed Phosguard use?
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 02:20 PM | #71 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
Again, sorry if I came across badly. From a chemistry perspective, I have trouble with the idea that Al2O3 will (again, in a reef tank) ever wind up as ionic Al(III). Last edited by shermanator; 11/03/2014 at 02:26 PM. |
|
11/03/2014, 02:23 PM | #72 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
I'm fairly new to this hobby (but not new to chemistry), but I know there are many variables to worry about whenever trying to pin down a culprit for anecdotal (non-controlled) reports. |
|
11/03/2014, 02:37 PM | #73 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
What exactly caused that problem is, in some ways, immaterial.
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
11/03/2014, 02:42 PM | #74 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
In your article you have a nice, controlled experiment (but I suspect you used Al(III)). When someone posts that they added Phosguard and all hell broke loose, that of course isn't a controlled experiment. Side note: Advanced Aquarist needs a methods section. |
|
11/03/2014, 02:48 PM | #75 | |
Reef Chemist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 86,233
|
Quote:
This paper shows that the solubility of corundum (least soluble of all the aluminum oxide hydroxides) at pH 4 is about 10^-3 M or 27 ppm. Are you really so confident that at pH 8.2, the 0.4 ppm that I observed cannot be dissolved? Pankow ("Aquatic Chemistry Concepts") shows a solubility graph vs pH for all aluminum species, and pH 8.2 the total is lower than at pH 4, but by less than a factor of 100. So I just don't see how 0.4 ppm is out of the question, especially since the surfaces of Phosguard may well be hydrous oxide/hydroxides and not pure corundum (which are more soluble than corundum by far). http://www.clays.org/journal/archive...6/36-5-391.pdf
__________________
Randy Holmes-Farley Current Tank Info: 120 mixed reef |
|
|
|