Is Marine Pure effective at reducing nitrates? We learn some valuable lessons. | BRStv Investigates

[chicago]

i can just add my own observations and 2 cents worth.. i ordered 12 of these blocks to replace my DSB in my 300 gallon horse troft sump. right now i do not have any sps to speak of.. tank crashed last year and redoing it.. but i purchased them with the advertising that they reduce nitrates. i have been keeping fish saltwater from the days of lift tubes and under gravels in the 70's. There are many ways to set up tanks. Mirical mud DSB, ect.
The point here is that these were sold as nitrate reducing - same as live rock.-- i think they are simply not Dense enough to house and maintain the correct dettrifiyng bacteria that is needed. I will give it more time. I will put some acrlyic around these 12 blocks and report back. Also, i am ordering the test kits today. what will be interesting is my levels.

 

[chicago]

ok.. this might get me some bashing back.. but did BRS ever post a follow up video. Been looking for it and can not find. thanks..

 

[vio]

ok.. this might get me some bashing back.. but did BRS ever post a follow up video. Been looking for it and can not find. thanks..

 

[vio]

Like i said........may work ......if.......are in some kind close reactor, control the effluent.
But , to pay $ 65 per block , huge place to act like reactor , NOT to mention about Detritus , they ( those blocks) are like magnet for Detritus , Yes , accumulate some Bacteria , but also Detritus.
In my opinion .......Detritus is worst think to accumulate , # 1 enemy for Low Nutrition , in special for SPS.

 

[chicago]

Yep saw those. Was looking for a follow up.

 

[MartinWaite]

lol

You definitely need to get out more. I'll help you out:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/m...rm-of-al-into-tank.355397/page-3#post-4416141

"I took a look at my last ATI ICP test and it did have elevated Aluminum, I do have a few marine pure blocks and two boxes of the spheres, "

ATI has specifically come on to my forum to discuss elevated aluminum that they see"

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/elevated-aluminum.345529/#post-4310813

"We made very similar experiences. We have hundreds of tanks with Aluminium at 40 - 150 ug/L in our open database"

To be fair, they also go on to claim that they do not correlate coral problems with the alumimum:

"We have hundreds of tanks with Aluminium at 40 - 150 ug/L in our open database and Corals dont have a real Problem as long as everything else is fine."

That's the difference between us then Randy as I do have a life and get out I don't sit and read every posting on here like you seem to, to manage to come up with 2 posts out of the what millions of posts on REEF2REEF. I'm going by the tank results I've seen of which I've looked at loads and also the feedback and comments made on the official ATI Facebook advice group of which I've been a member of since it started and I've never seen anyone reporting a problem with elevated alum on their test results. Why is it that for everyone one who has a problem with MP and Triton testing there is someone who doesn't it all seems rather hit and miss to me. I've yet to see a scientific proof of MarinePure and Aluminium that is repeatable. How many people with the problems haven't got aluminium light units, or alum tank stands ect. If the proof was there fair enough but it's just not definitive enough for me go out and buy a load of live rock to replace my MarinePure blocks.

 

[MartinWaite]

Yep saw those. Was looking for a follow up.

As far as I'm aware they haven't done a proper test yet. But I missed quite a few but I have looked for it to no avail.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That's the difference between us then Randy as I do have a life and get out I don't sit and read every posting on here like you seem to, to manage to come up with 2 posts out of the what millions of posts on REEF2REEF. I'm going by the tank results I've seen of which I've looked at loads and also the feedback and comments made on the official ATI Facebook advice group of which I've been a member of since it started and I've never seen anyone reporting a problem with elevated alum on their test results. Why is it that for everyone one who has a problem with MP and Triton testing there is someone who doesn't it all seems rather hit and miss to me. I've yet to see a scientific proof of MarinePure and Aluminium that is repeatable. How many people with the problems haven't got aluminium light units, or alum tank stands ect. If the proof was there fair enough but it's just not definitive enough for me go out and buy a load of live rock to replace my MarinePure blocks.

lol

If you want to criticize me for being more aware of the data surrounding reefers experience with aluminum or other chemicals, then I won't argue with you.

I have read hundreds (maybe thousands) of experiences by reefers with aluminum over several decades, as well as numerous scientific articles on aluminum in seawater and related solutions. My comments on reef chemistry (e.g., aluminum) issues are totally driven by data, whether it is reefer experiences or published chemical oceanography.

There certainly are many sources of metals in reef tanks. One that we tracked down was a metal screen over the tank corroding and releasing zinc. Another case was condensation on corroded basement pipes dripping water into the tank as a source of copper. Many times it is more commonly expected, like a failed heater, magnet, or other metal parts in the actual tank water. I have participated in hundreds of threads looking for the source of metals in reef tanks, including aluminum.

After all of that work, I have clearly noticed one very common source: aluminum-containing media used in the tank. There certainly may be unexplained cases of elevated aluminum, but it is very commonly found in tanks using these sorts of media and it is rarely found elsewhere.

I'm actually surprised that people continue to use the argument that "person A had no issue using product A, so it can't be real" as a justification for a general claim that it "is not a problem". There are so many important differences between tanks with respect to metals that to think that every tank would experience the same effects is just not a reasonable expectation.

Here's a partial list of the reasons that people may experience different results (what you derisively refer to as "hit or miss"):

1. Many reefers do not keep the types of corals that seem historically most prone to issues from aluminum (leather corals). Even within the category of leather corals that do respond, there may be differences between species. If you don't keep these corals, then your data that you saw no issues is almost irrelevant.

2. There are many ways that aluminum is exported from aquaria, and the use of these varies a lot.

• GFO may bind aluminum (I don't have detailed evidence of this, but Triton has suggested it).
• Skimming will certainly export aluminum (soluble or particulate) that is attached to organic matter.
• GAC may bind soluble aluminum that is attached to organics.
• Certain filter media claims to bind aluminum (polyfilter, for example, although I am skeptical of that claim in seawater)
• Water changes obviously remove what aluminum is in the removed water
• Aluminum can be incorporated into calcium carbonate minerals (e.g., mussel shells)
• Some people (like myself) have areas where detritus (and potentially aluminum particulates) may settle out. Others do not.
• Different aquaria likely have very different levels and types of organic matter present, and aluminum is known to bind strongly to the types of organic chemicals present in seawater (e.g., humic acids)

3. People use different amounts and types and batches of the Marine Pure product in different total volumes of water.
4. People use it in different ways (flow rates around it and through it, etc.) and under different chemistry conditions in the water (e.g., pH, which impacts aluminum in several important ways)

• Some people may have low enough flow through it to have denitrification taking place in it, which may tend to reduce the pH and impact aluminum solubility

5. Some people report their Marine Pure products are crumbling apart over time. Some do not. Not sure why, but that's an obvious difference.


With these sorts of differences, it would actually be surprising (to me, at least) if everyone saw the same effects.

 

[Velcro]

That's the difference between us then Randy as I do have a life and get out I don't sit and read every posting on here like you seem to, to manage to come up with 2 posts out of the what millions of posts on REEF2REEF. I'm going by the tank results I've seen of which I've looked at loads and also the feedback and comments made on the official ATI Facebook advice group of which I've been a member of since it started and I've never seen anyone reporting a problem with elevated alum on their test results. Why is it that for everyone one who has a problem with MP and Triton testing there is someone who doesn't it all seems rather hit and miss to me. I've yet to see a scientific proof of MarinePure and Aluminium that is repeatable. How many people with the problems haven't got aluminium light units, or alum tank stands ect. If the proof was there fair enough but it's just not definitive enough for me go out and buy a load of live rock to replace my MarinePure blocks.

 

[vio]

Personal , i care less about Aluminium , but i try 2 x 8x8x2 in 40 gal. tank , i use to have 50 ppm Nitrate , try to grow some mus. after more then 2 months , still 50 ppm Nitrate , yes i use flow.

 

[chicago]

Well put. Randy. As always I appreciated the resources and information you have provided. We can all have our own opinions on matters as that is what keeps us trying new and better ways of keeping reefs.

 

[VR28man]

We're getting way off the main topic: BRS' tests (this would be fine in another thread, but not BRS'). Also, to start this post, I have been calling on people to hold their horses on tossing their MarinePures for the past week or so, so what I'm going to say is not influenced by opinions pro or con.

That's the difference between us then Randy as I do have a life and get out I don't sit and read every posting on here like you seem to, to manage to come up with 2 posts out of the what millions of posts on REEF2REEF.

That ad hominem is uncalled for. Randy has real expertise in Reef Chemistry and thereby lots of knowledge on related issues. He is very passionate and generously hosts the chemistry subfora here and on RC. Commenting on these things is his obligation and his job. Of course, it doesn't mean that he is necessarily correct on any given topic, but he definitely merits consideration.

I've yet to see a scientific proof of MarinePure and Aluminium that is repeatable. How many people with the problems haven't got aluminium light units, or alum tank stands ect. If the proof was there fair enough but it's just not definitive enough for me go out and buy a load of live rock to replace my MarinePure blocks.

Some of the basics of aquarium keeping are scientifically proven (e.g. the nitrogen cycle, that live rock can host nitrifying and denitrfying bacteria). Some things are spin offs from non-hobby scientific research (e.g. spectra, flow rates, etc. for coral growth). Some things are reasonable inferences from those, or years of experience (e.g. 1 lb of live rock per gallon if you're using rock as your main filter. Macroalgae to deal with phosphates and nitrate) but without strict experiments to prove them (e.g. how big a fuge? How much LR is really necessary?).

And many things are hypothesis based fads - some correct, which will stand the test of time, some incorrect, which will die down if people stop buying/doing these things. (I put DSBs, among many other things, into this category) None of these things will be every "scientifically proven", because there's no money to research it with high confidence. The fact that many variables can play into it makes "proving it" even harder, though it would be valuable to learn what conditions make technique X viable versus non-viable.

MarinePure falls into this category. Its basic premise is sound - a large porous block to house nitrifying and (if flow is kept down, IIRC to 50 gph or so) denitrifying bacteria. And, the premise is IMO founded on now enough anecdotal experience that I'll believe it (though some posters call into question denitrification, to which I'd ask - NOT FOR THIS THREAD - how much flow has been going through it for how long?). However, the problems of disintegration (in some tanks; I think I'm experiencing this), alleged leaching of Al, are important side effects that need to be considered when using it.

 

[Scott Campbell]

lol

If you want to criticize me for being more aware of the data surrounding reefers experience with aluminum or other chemicals, then I won't argue with you.

I have read hundreds (maybe thousands) of experiences by reefers with aluminum over several decades, as well as numerous scientific articles on aluminum in seawater and related solutions. My comments on reef chemistry (e.g., aluminum) issues are totally driven by data, whether it is reefer experiences or published chemical oceanography.

There certainly are many sources of metals in reef tanks. One that we tracked down was a metal screen over the tank corroding and releasing zinc. Another case was condensation on corroded basement pipes dripping water into the tank as a source of copper. Many times it is more commonly expected, like a failed heater, magnet, or other metal parts in the actual tank water. I have participated in hundreds of threads looking for the source of metals in reef tanks, including aluminum.

After all of that work, I have clearly noticed one very common source: aluminum-containing media used in the tank. There certainly may be unexplained cases of elevated aluminum, but it is very commonly found in tanks using these sorts of media and it is rarely found elsewhere.

I'm actually surprised that people continue to use the argument that "person A had no issue using product A, so it can't be real" as a justification for a general claim that it "is not a problem". There are so many important differences between tanks with respect to metals that to think that every tank would experience the same effects is just not a reasonable expectation.

Here's a partial list of the reasons that people may experience different results (what you derisively refer to as "hit or miss"):

1. Many reefers do not keep the types of corals that seem historically most prone to issues from aluminum (leather corals). Even within the category of leather corals that do respond, there may be differences between species. If you don't keep these corals, then your data that you saw no issues is almost irrelevant.

2. There are many ways that aluminum is exported from aquaria, and the use of these varies a lot.

• GFO may bind aluminum (I don't have detailed evidence of this, but Triton has suggested it).
• Skimming will certainly export aluminum (soluble or particulate) that is attached to organic matter.
• GAC may bind soluble aluminum that is attached to organics.
• Certain filter media claims to bind aluminum (polyfilter, for example, although I am skeptical of that claim in seawater)
• Water changes obviously remove what aluminum is in the removed water
• Aluminum can be incorporated into calcium carbonate minerals (e.g., mussel shells)
• Some people (like myself) have areas where detritus (and potentially aluminum particulates) may settle out. Others do not.
• Different aquaria likely have very different levels and types of organic matter present, and aluminum is known to bind strongly to the types of organic chemicals present in seawater (e.g., humic acids)

3. People use different amounts and types and batches of the Marine Pure product in different total volumes of water.
4. People use it in different ways (flow rates around it and through it, etc.) and under different chemistry conditions in the water (e.g., pH, which impacts aluminum in several important ways)

• Some people may have low enough flow through it to have denitrification taking place in it, which may tend to reduce the pH and impact aluminum solubility

5. Some people report their Marine Pure products are crumbling apart over time. Some do not. Not sure why, but that's an obvious difference.


With these sorts of differences, it would actually be surprising (to me, at least) if everyone saw the same effects.

Randy

Given the literature you have read and your own personal studies, here are the 4 questions I would like to direct your way about this whole Marine Pure / soluble aluminum debate.

1. Assuming soluble aluminum causes a particular coral to become stressed and close up, how is it possible that with the same (and perhaps increasing) levels of soluble aluminum that coral is able to recover full health after a few days or a few weeks? Every organism I have seen that exhibits negative effects from aluminum toxicity does not recover and continues to decline until such time as the organism dies or is removed from contact with the soluble aluminum. Which is what your own study showed. The common experience of many people using Marine Pure products is a short-term negative response followed by a complete recovery of the organism without water changes and without removing the organism from contact with the soluble aluminum.

2. Your own study showed no negative effects from soluble aluminum toxicity on corals until reaching a level of 500 parts per billion. In your report, you noted molluscs started to die at a concentration of 2,400 parts per billion. Crabs at up to 10,000 parts per billion. Most people are seeing aluminum levels at maybe 20-50 parts per billion after placing Marine Pure products in their tank. A few higher but many even lower. Why would these people see the effects of soluble aluminum on corals at such a low level when your own study showed it required a roughly 1000% increase from such levels to trigger a negative response? Your study also showed all corals tested showing negative effects while most people only notice select corals (filter feeders, etc.) being impacted.

3. Most folks notice aluminum levels dropping the longer the Marine Pure blocks are in their tank. Often to undetectable levels. Having dealt with ceramic materials for over 40 years, a ceramic material that leaches a metal or a salt will continue to leach a metal or a salt until circumstances are changed. Your own studies showed that Phosguard continued to release aluminum over the course of your study (with most of the aluminum in particulate form). How is it possible that Marine Pure products leach soluble aluminum and then stop leaching soluble aluminum with no apparent change in circumstances? You floated the idea of the ceramic material "smoothing out". But it seems just as likely that a degrading ceramic material would become more pitted with more surface area over time. You also mentioned the possibility of a shielding coat of organic material. And yet Phosguard and other materials / objects releasing unwanted heavy metals don't seem particularly affected by organic material.

4. How is it possible that Marine Pure shapes of different sizes and similar surface area leach vastly different amounts of soluble aluminum for the same volume of ceramic material? The thin plates release roughly 5-6 times more aluminum than the spheres.

I have trouble reconciling these four issues with your assertion that Marine Pure products are releasing soluble aluminum rather than particulate alumina-silicates. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

Scott

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

1. Assuming soluble aluminum causes a particular coral to become stressed and close up, how is it possible that with the same (and perhaps increasing) levels of soluble aluminum that coral is able to recover full health after a few days or a few weeks? Every organism I have seen that exhibits negative effects from aluminum toxicity does not recover and continues to decline until such time as the organism dies or is removed from contact with the soluble aluminum. Which is what your own study showed. The common experience of many people using Marine Pure products is a short-term negative response followed by a complete recovery of the organism without water changes and without removing the organism from contact with the soluble aluminum.

I think it is pretty much the norm that when an organism is suffering from a toxin in the air or water and you remove the toxin, it usually recovers. Applies to people and all sorts of organisms. Suffering from a poison? Stop eating it. The first recommendation on the first page I googled on how to treat aluminum toxicity is to remove it from the diet. It doesn't say give up because you are doomed. Are you talking about plants? I really do not know what those studies might involve or how they are done, so cannot comment on what they mean in relation to corals.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

2. Your own study showed no negative effects from soluble aluminum toxicity on corals until reaching a level of 500 parts per billion. In your report, you noted molluscs started to die at a concentration of 2,400 parts per billion. Crabs at up to 10,000 parts per billion. Most people are seeing aluminum levels at maybe 20-50 parts per billion after placing Marine Pure products in their tank. A few higher but many even lower. Why would these people see the effects of soluble aluminum on corals at such a low level when your own study showed it required a roughly 1000% increase from such levels to trigger a negative response? Your study also showed all corals tested showing negative effects while most people only notice select corals (filter feeders, etc.) being impacted.
y different amounts of soluble aluminum for the same volume of ceramic material? The thin plates release roughly 5-6 times more aluminum than the spheres.

The level of aluminum I added and saw effects is higher than most find in their aquaria . That may well be why most people with elevated aluminum but below the levels I tested don't see an effect.

I would note that the aluminum level I quote is the amount I dosed, not a measured level in the water. I have no idea how fast it dropped after I added it. The actual level a day later might be far lower as it binds to all the surfaces and organics stuff in a reef tank, or precipitates. it may have been no higher than some folks observe in their tanks and see effects.

It may also be that the effect comes largely from aluminum particulates, and I didn't form aluminum particulates until I dosed quite a lot of soluble aluminum. As I noted elsewhere, this level is well above the equilibrium solubility in raw seawater. I expect the solubility is much higher in reef tank water with organics in it, but I do not know how much higher.

I only tested corals that people typically saw effects on historically. I did not test any hard corals, for example.

 

[Scott Campbell]

I think it is pretty much the norm that when an organism is suffering from a toxin in the air or water and you remove the toxin, it usually recovers. Applies to people and all sorts of organisms. Suffering from a poison? Stop eating it. The first recommendation on the first page I googled on how to treat aluminum toxicity is to remove it from the diet. It doesn't say give up because you are doomed. Are you talking about plants? I really do not know what those studies might involve or how they are done, so cannot comment on what they mean in relation to corals.

But people are seeing a recovery *without* removing the toxin in the case of Marine Pure. The aluminum that triggered the negative response is still in the tank. And that is my question - how is that possible?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

3. Most folks notice aluminum levels dropping the longer the Marine Pure blocks are in their tank. Often to undetectable levels. Having dealt with ceramic materials for over 40 years, a ceramic material that leaches a metal or a salt will continue to leach a metal or a salt until circumstances are changed. Your own studies showed that Phosguard continued to release aluminum over the course of your study (with most of the aluminum in particulate form). How is it possible that Marine Pure products leach soluble aluminum and then stop leaching soluble aluminum with no apparent change in circumstances? You floated the idea of the ceramic material "smoothing out". But it seems just as likely that a degrading ceramic material would become more pitted with more surface area over time. You also mentioned the possibility of a shielding coat of organic material. And yet Phosguard and other materials / objects releasing unwanted heavy metals don't seem particularly affected by organic material.

I just think your assertion about steady release is unsupported and potentially incorrect in an environment where the surfaces are rapidly covered with protective layers of organics, inorganic precipitates, bacteria growth, etc. We know (or at least I believe) GFO gets coated with calcium carbonate, for example. Not sure what you mean about Phosguard not being impacted, but I wouldn't agree that is likely to be true. I expect Marine Pure gets coated too. That's why it can house bacteria, presumably.

Release of particulates may also change over time as the source of the particulates runs out of available particles somehow. The debate of whether the material released is dissolved or particulate or both (even if it were possible to actually define what one meant exactly) is intellectually interesting, but probably not uppermost in the mind of a user who had an issue, despite rinsing the material before use.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But people are seeing a recovery *without* removing the toxin in the case of Marine Pure. The aluminum that triggered the negative response is still in the tank. And that is my question - how is that possible?

I noted earlier in this thread a myriad of ways it is likely removed:

• GFO may bind aluminum (I don't have detailed evidence of this, but Triton has suggested it).
• Skimming will certainly export aluminum (soluble or particulate) that is attached to organic matter.
• GAC may bind soluble aluminum that is attached to organics.
• Certain filter media claims to bind aluminum (polyfilter, for example, although I am skeptical of that claim in seawater)
• Water changes obviously remove what aluminum is in the removed water
• Aluminum can be incorporated into calcium carbonate minerals (e.g., mussel shells)
• Some people (like myself) have areas where detritus (and potentially aluminum particulates) may settle out. Others do not.
• Different aquaria likely have very different levels and types of organic matter present, and aluminum is known to bind strongly to the types of organic chemicals present in seawater (e.g., humic acids)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

4. How is it possible that Marine Pure shapes of different sizes and similar surface area leach vastly different amounts of soluble aluminum for the same volume of ceramic material? The thin plates release roughly 5-6 times more aluminum than the spheres.

Since I do not know the manufacturing details, I can't say why this is the case, but it does not seem to be a theoretical problem to any type of release, particulate or dissolved. The available surface area and exactly what chemical forms are exposed on the surface will certainly impact release rates. So will flow rates through the material, the pH inside, other chemicals penetrating inside or not, etc. Fine particles will have high surface area and may be a source of both particulates and dissolved materials. I do not even have reason to assume the material is homogeneous. I have no idea of these sorts of details.

I tend to think there is substantial dissolve material just because the Al:Si ratio does not follow a fixed pattern (as you have already noted) and I do not blame test error. Triton also says they remove particulates (I think by centrifuge, but the translation wasn't especially clear when we discussed it), but I have no idea what size of what sorts of particles they may actually remove before testing.

But there may be a lot of particulate release too. Might be both.

I'm not sure the nature of the release is that important, or even how you would define it. How small of a particulate is a "soluble" material? The usual oceanography methods (fine filters, like 0.45 micron or 0.2 micron) might not be appropriate if the goal is to understand the initial release mechanism and if there might be 0.1 micron "particles".

 

[Scott Campbell]

I just think your assertion about steady release is unsupported and potentially incorrect in an environment where the surfaces are rapidly covered with protective layers of organics, inorganic precipitates, bacteria growth, etc. We know (or at least I believe) GFO gets coated with calcium carbonate, for example. Not sure what you mean about Phosguard not being impacted, but I wouldn't agree that is likely to be true. I expect Marine Pure gets coated too. That's why it can house bacteria, presumably.

Release of particulates may also change over time as the source of the particulates runs out of available particles somehow. The debate of whether the material released is dissolved or particulate or both (even if it were possible to actually define what one meant exactly) is intellectually interesting, but probably not uppermost in the mind of a user who had an issue, despite rinsing the material before use.

So I could toss a copper pipe in my aquarium and protective layers of organics, inorganic precipitates, bacteria growth etc could over time prevent the release of copper into my tank? That seems unlikely, but okay.....