Nitrite Toxicity

[Duncan62]

This is a chemistry forum. The reason for its existence is to discuss reef tank chemistry. If a claim is made, asking for actual evidence is not an affront, it's a necessity.

I'll keep all my opinions to myself. It's obvious from the evidence provided here thar nitrite is a toxic substance. I'll let the chemists decide how much hurts which thing or not. All my tanks have been exclusively on large high flow algea scrubbers. Algea directly process ammonia and bypass almost all the cycling issue. I realize I'm a dinosaur in this age but I do know what works. Like or not. I really just want that ki d of discussion. It's poison but it's not. That's what today proved. I resent being talked down to. I think most people do. I feel the chemical make up and it's reaction with other items discussed in links makes my point though. My stance simply was it's a contributor to stress. I stand by that. The proof is in this forum. No link or google. Just a fact. Enough of that. Have a nice evening. No proof required.

 

[brandon429]

I didnt think it turned out too bad we've all had big disagreement posts before.


rinsing sand, not rinsing sand

phosphate inflows/outflows

nitrite/nitrate testing validity

disease control ideals

is instant ocean bad or good salt

whether or not ammonia fails to self control in tanks

legit/illegit use of bottle bac

whether cycles can be skipped at all or must be waited to a certain date





all that and more we hash out to evolve procedure. everyone gets scratched occasionally its pretty ok in the end.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It's poison but it's not. That's what today proved.

Agreed. I expect you meant that as sarcasm, but it is, in fact, true of nearly every ion in seawater. They are benign or even critically needed at one level, and toxic at a higher level. The important question is where that transition from benign to toxic takes place.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The proof is in this forum. No link or google. Just a fact. Enough of that. Have a nice evening. No proof required.

Where?

I've never seen a test of nitrite toxicity in this forum, but I've not read every post.

 

[Lasse]

@Randy Holmes-Farley There is a difference between what I do in my own aquarium and what I am advise others to do. I hopefully have so much control over the other parameters that I do not need to worry about nitrite concentrations and if I do mistake - it is my own conscience and my own wallet that is affected. If I sit here 6 to 9 time zones away and try to help a newbie in the US with his/hers start - without knowing all parameters - the only thing I can do is to highlight the ones that he/she can control. last week it was one with very high nitrites but an expensive fish coming in later in the week. My advice was that in that situation - I would probably put the fish in the aquarium but after that concentrate on bringing the nitrites down. Sparsely feeding, adding nitrification bacteria, use a internal foam filter and so on. If someone else have the same nitrite concentration and say - can I go to my LFS and buy a fish - I would advise not to do so before the concentrations coming down. But there is people here that says that the new cycling science says that you do not bother about this - just add fish. And the main character have not even fish in his tanks - only corals. Lately - this person have use around 5 lines in your very good article, in order to accuse me for reject your article. I am very grateful that you have clarified your standpoint.

I would point out that nitrite in a new aquarium is not typically chronically elevated, so its more of a nonchronic concern.

The problem with this is that you do not know how long this situation exist if you do not measure the nitrite. I´ll say it again the first step - NH4 -> NO2 - will start nearly directly, especially if you add some nitrifying organisms. There is no concern - IMO - to measure ammonia with low accurate hobby tests - you know that this step will work. However the second step can hung and you get a lot of NO2 as metabolites that not will be directly transferred to nitrate. Hobby nitrate test are accurate and will give you a sign that first step work (nitrite rise) and a sign that the second step kick in (the nitrite peak degrease). Nitrate measurements will be affected of nitrite measurements and is not reliable in the start. Nitrite measurements is - IMO - the only measurement you need to do in the star in order to have control- When nitrite goes down to around 0.02 - 0.05 - its time to measure nitrate. today - there are combination tests that measure both nitrite and nitrate. I have personally recorded a stalled nitrification cycle of around 3 weeks - no living organisms in that aquarium. We do not know the concentrations for chronic or sublethal toxicity and till there is more information of this - I prefer to have the 0.1 ppm as threshold in my aquariums.

However - it can changes in the future cause I have seen one article - here - there the authors have a threshold of around 80 ppm NO2 (25 ppm as NO2-N) as chronic exposure - even if there was gill damage at this concentrations. I may not agree with that but the article describe much of the concerns that I have try to explain here and in other threads. This below is of special interessant to me because I have been into this explanation why nitrite concentrations in saltwater fish blood are below ambient levels. In saltwater - the chloride cells actively transport out chlorid from the fish into the water in order to hold osmotic homeostasis. This means that NO2 ions will be transported out too and because there is always a certain level chloride coming into the fish because of osmotic pressure (in saltwater) the extra NO2 ions that have been taken up in the intestine demand extra energi (Cl + NO2 > Cl ) and could be a part of nitrite stress in saltwater fish. My bold

Due to drinking of sea water, in marine fish the main nitrite uptake to blood occurs in the intestine, competing with Clin the Na?/K?/2Cl- and Na?/Cl- cotransporters (Grossel and Jensen 1999). Also, nitrite can reach fish blood by diffusion through the gill epithelium. However, due to high Cl concentration, the active transport of ions in the gill excretes Cl- and Na? and in addition actively excretes the NO2 - instead the Cl- (Jensen 2003).

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I asked a simple question. I’m honestly trying to understand what you’re saying. If yelling at me in caps is all you can do I understand. So are you saying that the presence of a test kit means it’s toxic if present? Nitrite kits have plenty of uses. I’m just wanting to know why you believe your views. If you have any evidence or examples besides saying healthy tanks are healthy because you say so

What are the uses of the nitrite kit? We have several people saying they are just lining the pockets of testing companies. Others think they help?

 

[MnFish1]

What about a copperband? I'm curious.

I would humbly suggest that copper bands added to any tank are susceptible to problems. Unrelated to nitrite (i.e. a tank with 'no' nitrite) - still has problems with nitrite

 

[MnFish1]

By telling people to add fish irregardless of nitrite levels is just one more problem. Bad for the hobby. Setting people up to fail. Why not just do what we all know works. Nitrite rapidly fall to near 0. Add fish. It's not hard. Eliminating all sources of stress possible is all I'm advocating for. Increased chance of success.. Less mortality.

IMHO suggesting that 'testing nitrite is unnecessary' is a somewhat odd statement. Now - maybe the question is 'does nitrite say much about my cycle'? That debate I'm not going to get into. But - If someone has a high nitrite - there (IMHO - and I'd wonder what @Randy Holmes-Farley ) and @Lasse think - as was said before - I would think this is an additional stressor on fish - especially in the beginning of a tank

 

[MnFish1]

No. I'm just saying don't put delicates in first. Why risk it? That's why damsels. They can take it better. I'm not dying on this hill. All I'm saying is why take the risk when a little more time is all it takes. I've agreed repeatedly it's not the only bad thing in a new tank. How about you guys bathe your fish and corals in nitrite and I'll provide a clean stable environment before corals and expensive fish. Everyone is correct but me but every animal in my tank is happy. All the time. Good enough for me.

The fact - I believe is - that with bacteria - bottled - one can add ANY fish immediately. I'm not sure its a good idea to add fish to a tank - and just wait - with nothing else. This is part of the problem 'cycling' - like QT means multiple things to people. I have added blue faced angels to a new tank - with dry rock and bottled bacteria - with no problem. Bacteria are bacteria. There is no magic. IMHO

 

[Duncan62]

IMHO suggesting that 'testing nitrite is unnecessary' is a somewhat odd statement. Now - maybe the question is 'does nitrite say much about my cycle'? That debate I'm not going to get into. But - If someone has a high nitrite - there (IMHO - and I'd wonder what @Randy Holmes-Farley ) and @Lasse think - as was said before - I would think this is an additional stressor on fish - especially in the beginning of a tank

Be careful! You'll get jumped. Lol

 

[MnFish1]

...This shows your true colors. Lecturing others about the hobby and then subjecting living things to ammonia burns because "its 5 bucks". Instead of providing data and links you have resorted to personal attacks. Please go to my profile and hit that little ignore button for me please since you clearly can't contribute to the topics and are an inhumane hobbyist.

the truth (my truth) is that with proper bacterial additions - nothing is subjected to ammonia burns. I'm not sure how people do not get this. Instead there is some kind of attitude that taking 6 weeks to cycle a tank is 'needed', 'moral', etc. Not directed as a criticism of you - but - in general. In 2021 - its not needed - IMHO

 

[MnFish1]

Yes cost matters . Life is full of choices and tradeoffs. You must have enough privilege and funds to risk killing an expensive animal. It's about limiting exposure. Just like ammonia and nitrate. Why put fish in either? I choose not to and for some reason it chaps your butt. I'll do mine and you do yours.

Actually - most of the people (I think) arguing the point) are saying they wouldn't put anything at risk - whether $1, $5 or $1000

 

[Duncan62]

The fact - I believe is - that with bacteria - bottled - one can add ANY fish immediately. I'm not sure its a good idea to add fish to a tank - and just wait - with nothing else. This is part of the problem 'cycling' - like QT means multiple things to people. I have added blue faced angels to a new tank - with dry rock and bottled bacteria - with no problem. Bacteria are bacteria. There is no magic. IMHO

I'd be afraid to do that with inverts. I've heard the right bacteria mixes are great. I haven't tried.

the truth (my truth) is that with proper bacterial additions - nothing is subjected to ammonia burns. I'm not sure how people do not get this. Instead there is some kind of attitude that taking 6 weeks to cycle a tank is 'needed', 'moral', etc. Not directed as a criticism of you - but - in general. In 2021 - its not needed - IMHO

I moved to algea scrubbers years ago to directly process ammonia. I don't know why I ever commented. Get your links to supporting data or be attacked. Lol

 

[Duncan62]

I'd be afraid to do that with inverts. I've heard the right bacteria mixes are great. I haven't tried.

I moved to algea scrubbers years ago to directly process ammonia. I don't know why I ever commented. Get your links to supporting data or be attacked. Lol

I'm glad your doing your thi g and it works. That's all that counts. It's your tank.

 

[Duncan62]

Actually - most of the people (I think) arguing the point) are saying they wouldn't put anything at risk - whether $1, $5 or $1000

Damsels aren't at risk. The only one I ever lost jumped out. Not because of cycling. Most of these people weren't born when that practice started. It was industry standard for a long time. I realize the technology and methods have evolved.

 

[Duncan62]

Damsels aren't at risk. The only one I ever lost jumped out. Not because of cycling. Most of these people weren't born when that practice started. It was industry standard for a long time. I realize the technology and methods have evolved.

Most just say opinions are worthless without links.

 

[Soren]

Most just say opinions are worthless without links.

It's not that opinions are worthless, they just need justification into a proper argument (hence requests for links or research that backs up the claim) when they directly oppose the opinions of others... nobody convinces anybody with only personal opinion when opinions conflict. This again becomes a "my word against your word" situation.

 

[LaloJ]

For those who say that nitrite is not toxic to fish, I guess nitrates at a level of +100 ppm would be a silly thing to worry about ??

 

[brandon429]

Paul B has reported seeing 160 ppm nitrate before in his matured reef. He’s feeding ground up seafood it all lines up well and fat fish.

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

the truth (my truth) is that with proper bacterial additions - nothing is subjected to ammonia burns. I'm not sure how people do not get this. Instead there is some kind of attitude that taking 6 weeks to cycle a tank is 'needed', 'moral', etc. Not directed as a criticism of you - but - in general. In 2021 - its not needed - IMHO

I don't disagree but the comment was more directed at Duncan for his attitude toward a fish's cost/life and his "ignore science and it makes me right" attitude toward nitrite and then dropping the fish in cycle comment.

I wouldn't do a fish in cycle personally because I know I can establish bacteria to sustain a few damsels in 4-5 days its not worth the risk to use the fish... Not sure how you can make that claim or if you have data/studies to back it up but I would love to see them.