Nitrite Toxicity

[MnFish1]

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.

Well - conversely - A link to another thread here is not really a 'reference' or 'research'. I haven't seen many people here posting links one way or the other. There are lots of data out there what the ammonia does during an aquarium cycle - as well as data out there as to how toxic ammonia is. If you use bottled bacteria, following the instructions, there is as close to zero risk as any other method - IME

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Yes - and he has said multiple times he can't grow multiple types of SPS, etc. He now shoots (from what I remember) for a lower nitrate level. Most inhabitants of a 'mature' tank - are the ones that survive the conditions that are there. The rest die off. So - the things in Pauls tank that survived - (doesn't mean thrive) - can survive 160ppm nitrate. That is not a blanket statement that a nitrate of 160 ppm is 'ok'. Right?

 

[MnFish1]

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.

I would look at the instructions on any number of products (bacterial additions) - that say 'add water, bacteria and fish on day 1'. Thats data. I've transferred a full bioload (of fish) - into a new filter/tank (emergency) using only bottled bacteria - and they were not 5 damsels. They were gold-flake angels, 2 tangs, a pair of clowns and a wrasse.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

PS - a 'fish-in cycle' is normally defined by 'drop a couple fish in a tank - with a filter - and feed them. That is different than adding fish, bacteria and a filter to a tank.

 

[Lasse]

I have used this method (or variants of it) for both fresh and saltwater aquariums during a long time (around 50 years) . Never lost a fish at start up) and when following up with measurements - never had a nitrite peak. Nowadays - I do no measurement at all during start ups. But i say it again - this method is build on small ammonia addition (by the fish gills) in a period of 3 weeks. The use of high ammonia input is the real problem - IMO - both for "ugly" periods and halted nitrification process (nitrite problem).

Only time I do a instant start is when I can use old sand, rocks and some old saltwater.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Duncan62]

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.

They don't oppose the others. Any compound, nitrite , nitrate, copper, iodine, anything in excess can increase stree levels in fish. That was my point. If anyone can't find links about excess chemicals and nutrients causing stress I'm not wasting my time to compile data for well established truths. For some reason your opinion matters to me . I said I'd keep my opinion to myself and I will . I'll stay away from the chemistry discussion. My biology degree is insufficient to discuss things with most of these people.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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?

In fresh water they are clearly helpful.

In seawater I would suggest they are an interesting and useful way to understand what is happening in your tank when it is cycling.

 

[Soren]

Well - conversely - A link to another thread here is not really a 'reference' or 'research'. I haven't seen many people here posting links one way or the other. There are lots of data out there what the ammonia does during an aquarium cycle - as well as data out there as to how toxic ammonia is. If you use bottled bacteria, following the instructions, there is as close to zero risk as any other method - IME

I do not think links to other threads on R2R are argument support unless they contain links to documented research, especially peer-reviewed or published. We are probably all familiar with the idea that we need to prove reliability for any given information on the internet. More links to more peer-reviewed and published articles and more research are always helpful if we learn better ways to keep a reef.

It is obvious that ammonia is toxic. It is also a given fact that following the instructions on bottled bacteria as well as the traditional nitrogen cycle for a tank is a reliable method. Neither of these are directly related to the original question of this thread: Is Nitrite (specifically) toxic to marine life at levels typically observed in aquariums?
Obviously also, all substances are toxic at high enough levels. I wish this discussion was less about counter-arguments presenting extremely high levels as toxic and more about whether nitrite is a significant enough concern that it should be measured and observed during or after cycle.

This question is very relevant to me because I just set up a quarantine tank recently, thought it was cycled (albeit quickly) by using some live rock from an existing tank, one of the fish I added had troubles that looked like possible ammonia burn, ammonia tested zero with a few different methods (Seachem alert badge, API dip strips, Salifert reagent), but nitrite showed up on API 5-in-1 dip strips. I would like to understand if the nitrite toxicity could have been the likely cause of death for the fish or if it was likely from conditions before shipment or just general stresses from shipping. I fully understand that high nitrite could be an additional stress and wil still try to limit it, but I want to know whether this is one of my greatest concerns in a new tank or if it is a minor health concern.

They don't oppose the others. Any compound, nitrite , nitrate, copper, iodine, anything in excess can increase stree levels in fish. That was my point. If anyone can't find links about excess chemicals and nutrients causing stress I'm not wasting my time to compile data for well established truths. For some reason your opinion matters to me . I said I'd keep my opinion to myself and I will . I'll stay away from the chemistry discussion. My biology degree is insufficient to discuss things with most of these people.

I understand this and even see that this was your original point. This thread is about nitrite toxicity, so it should be about answering the question more specifically about what levels are toxic, what levels are a minor health concern (if any), and what levels are safe/natural/needed (if any).

Just from my observation of this discussion, I think that sharing opinions is not the hazard, nor do I want the sharing of opinions to cease. It is just important to share opinions as possible counter-points while being willing to be countered unless there is enough data to support an absolute statement. Posing opinions as questions or conceding points where the data is not absolute is better than stating an opinion as an absolute (i.e. "Nitrite is poison"). If the only justification for such an absolute is that a high enough level is harmful, then I should be able to say also that "H2O is poison" since it would be lethal to fish at a high enough concentration. These threads are discussions with the intent of determining best practices for advice for those uneducated on the topic, so absolutes are not beneficial. It is probably harmful if "nitrite is poison" causes a panic response for someone new who measures some nitrite. What is better is to be able to say at what level nitrite is a concern while also recommending a longer cycle time and eradication of measurable nitrite whenever possible.

I don't think your opinions are invalid or should not be shared. My observation of this thread is that your issues with others came from your initial absolute statement ("Nitrite is poison") and consecutive attempts that seemed to be defense of the absolute when others have data that they think goes against the absolute. If instead your statement was "Nitrite is toxic at "x" level" and you could share any documentation of cases that support the statement, it would have been received much better. This is exactly why I think these challenges were posed to your opinion after the initial absolute statement.

Hopefully some of this makes sense...

 

[Soren]

I have used this method (or variants of it) for both fresh and saltwater aquariums during a long time (around 50 years) . Never lost a fish at start up) and when following up with measurements - never had a nitrite peak. Nowadays - I do no measurement at all during start ups. But i say it again - this method is build on small ammonia addition (by the fish gills) in a period of 3 weeks. The use of high ammonia input is the real problem - IMO - both for "ugly" periods and halted nitrification process (nitrite problem).

Only time I do a instant start is when I can use old sand, rocks and some old saltwater.

Sincerely Lasse

I agree that the methods are tried-and-true but does this answer the original question about nitrite toxicity specifically? Maybe we need more studies on health of fish in a tank with a "stalled" cycle (i.e. zero measurable ammonia but measurable nitrite) and at what levels the nitrite seems to be directly toxic. This leads to a different question about ethics of intentionally stressing/harming/killing fish for research, though, which may be why there is not more data being collected today...

 

[brandon429]

If I get one thousand aquarists to meet ammonia control but purposefully stock up their tank while nitrite positive and we keep their threads handy, and and can track progress out months or years to look for disease expression trends and those are not statistically different than cyclers who waited months before stocking, for nitrite control, we have forum based evidentiary proof by bulk patterning and my summary of outcomes isn’t required, click and read the threads—ask random participants


Pico reefs worked this way, on bulk anecdote repeats by peers from thread tracking and setup repeats


don’t think for one second pico reefers got design help or setup permission from formal articles whatsoever, they were a hindrance. Fears of allelopathy were linked to us

Every reef sage except for Borneman said they wouldn’t work, he agreed they were legit stand alone systems at the time

= thread patterning is valid research data, watch how many trends we buck using it.

 

[Cell]

In the absence of funding for controlled experiments in a lab setting, crowdsourcing is an extremely valuable tool.

 

[brandon429]

I really agree it is.

tiny snippets from crowd sourcing patterns specifically evolve us faster than awaiting formal google approval

another example: crowds who lost $30 lysmata shrimp in about 95% of peroxide doses quickly told us that lysmata aren't peroxide tolerant yet just about everything else we keep strangely is


when peroxide dosing started heavily in 2011, it took about 3 weeks to make the list of sensitive organisms which still holds. losses dropped to near zero and held, threads show using that list.


and on peroxide just by itself as a reef tank doser/fixer/helper...purely crowd sourced. the sages still loathe it to this day. probably 250K reports of happiness with it keep it cemented in our tool options kit. on paper you can make its reactions look like the atomic bomb in a reef

nitrite, we're coming for ya/ bout to be canceled lol.

 

[brandon429]

Reefgeezer hates it when I use vague descriptions, plurals when it should be singular etc

when I say 'we' - am meaning an slew of cyclers who want an accurate start date where their animals act happy in every way, and when audited on digital gear will always show the ammonia under control. that constant tie in between tank behavior and digital proofing on the one parameter that burns has shown to be the reliable marker for safe start dates.

 

[MnFish1]

I do not think links to other threads on R2R are argument support unless they contain links to documented research, especially peer-reviewed or published. We are probably all familiar with the idea that we need to prove reliability for any given information on the internet. More links to more peer-reviewed and published articles and more research are always helpful if we learn better ways to keep a reef.

It is obvious that ammonia is toxic. It is also a given fact that following the instructions on bottled bacteria as well as the traditional nitrogen cycle for a tank is a reliable method. Neither of these are directly related to the original question of this thread: Is Nitrite (specifically) toxic to marine life at levels typically observed in aquariums?
Obviously also, all substances are toxic at high enough levels. I wish this discussion was less about counter-arguments presenting extremely high levels as toxic and more about whether nitrite is a significant enough concern that it should be measured and observed during or after cycle.

This question is very relevant to me because I just set up a quarantine tank recently, thought it was cycled (albeit quickly) by using some live rock from an existing tank, one of the fish I added had troubles that looked like possible ammonia burn, ammonia tested zero with a few different methods (Seachem alert badge, API dip strips, Salifert reagent), but nitrite showed up on API 5-in-1 dip strips. I would like to understand if the nitrite toxicity could have been the likely cause of death for the fish or if it was likely from conditions before shipment or just general stresses from shipping. I fully understand that high nitrite could be an additional stress and wil still try to limit it, but I want to know whether this is one of my greatest concerns in a new tank or if it is a minor health concern.


I understand this and even see that this was your original point. This thread is about nitrite toxicity, so it should be about answering the question more specifically about what levels are toxic, what levels are a minor health concern (if any), and what levels are safe/natural/needed (if any).

Just from my observation of this discussion, I think that sharing opinions is not the hazard, nor do I want the sharing of opinions to cease. It is just important to share opinions as possible counter-points while being willing to be countered unless there is enough data to support an absolute statement. Posing opinions as questions or conceding points where the data is not absolute is better than stating an opinion as an absolute (i.e. "Nitrite is poison"). If the only justification for such an absolute is that a high enough level is harmful, then I should be able to say also that "H2O is poison" since it would be lethal to fish at a high enough concentration. These threads are discussions with the intent of determining best practices for advice for those uneducated on the topic, so absolutes are not beneficial. It is probably harmful if "nitrite is poison" causes a panic response for someone new who measures some nitrite. What is better is to be able to say at what level nitrite is a concern while also recommending a longer cycle time and eradication of measurable nitrite whenever possible.

I don't think your opinions are invalid or should not be shared. My observation of this thread is that your issues with others came from your initial absolute statement ("Nitrite is poison") and consecutive attempts that seemed to be defense of the absolute when others have data that they think goes against the absolute. If instead your statement was "Nitrite is toxic at "x" level" and you could share any documentation of cases that support the statement, it would have been received much better. This is exactly why I think these challenges were posed to your opinion after the initial absolute statement.

Hopefully some of this makes sense...

I think the question is answered. Nitrite in general in reef tanks is thought to be non-toxic - as the levels are not high enough to kill a fish in 24 or 48 or 72 hours at pH 8.2. Would those levels be a lot different at pH 7.8? or 7.6? where some tanks are at - IDK, the results for the most part are done at pH 8.2. Some posters have questions whether higher than 'normal' nitrite levels cause longer term effects - there haven't been any studies. Some posters question whether higher nitrite levels (even if 'not toxic') - can signal a potential warning sign with regards to cycling. The research I'm aware of with this topic is that a cycle is not complete until nitrite is near 0, and that higher levels (for example in aquaculture) may suggest a problem that needs investigating.

I love research - BUT finding 1 study that says one thing - does not mean the conclusions are 'fact'. It only says that using the methods presented, these results were obtained, and the conclusion is XXXX. For example - there are multiple contradictory studies with regards to 'fallow periods'. You could pick 1 and say 76 days. you could pick another and it would suggest (especially in low O2 environments that fallow periods may fail. You can pick another one that says at a higher temperature, you can get away with a shorter fallow time, etc etc etc.

My experience is that when I set up a tank I don't test ammonia, nitrite or nitrate. I use bottled bacteria add fish - and depending on the bioload - I may add more bacteria than the directions. Then I watch how things progress. I have never seen distress, etc. If I were doing a cycle with ammonia liquid, with no bacteria. I would follow all 3 to be certain that the cycle is complete as per 'scientific research' - which suggests minimal ammonia (0), minimal nitrite (near 0) - and no nitrate. (EDIT - SOME NITRATE)

I recently read an article about 'nitrite toxicity' - and the conversion of high levels of nitrate to nitrite in fish - which causes slower growth, higher methemoglobin levels and poor health. I'd be interested in @Randy Holmes-Farley 's opinion.

 

[MnFish1]

In the absence of funding for controlled experiments in a lab setting, crowdsourcing is an extremely valuable tool.

In general - this is of course true. However - I could make the point (I think fairly strongly) - that the years of 'cycling science' were also 'crowd sourced data' backed up by science. For many years there was a strong debate that 'bottled bacteria' does not work (that was crowd sourced data). For many years it was considered impossible to breed many reef fish (that was crowd sourced data).

Though there are claims here that after x days - no matter what - the 'tank is cycled' and there are 'hundreds' of examples. I have not seen them. To me cycled means can keep a complete bioload for that tank. (i.e. a 100 gallon tank can hold xx fish of a certain size). If you add 1 fish - and it has no problems - to ME - that does not prove the tank is 'cycled'. Many of the fights/arguments/discussions here relate to there not being a standard definition of a term. One person's definition of cycled means no ammonia and 2 clownfish in a 100 gallon tank, etc etc etc. Until we have standard definitions of what everyone is actually doing, I'm not sure any strong conclusions can be drawn. On the topic here, though - without a disaster - it is unlikely that nitrite in a reef tank will cause short-term lethal toxicity.

 

[Soren]

I think the question is answered. Nitrite in general in reef tanks is thought to be non-toxic - as the levels are not high enough to kill a fish in 24 or 48 or 72 hours at pH 8.2. Would those levels be a lot different at pH 7.8? or 7.6? where some tanks are at - IDK, the results for the most part are done at pH 8.2. Some posters have questions whether higher than 'normal' nitrite levels cause longer term effects - there haven't been any studies. Some posters question whether higher nitrite levels (even if 'not toxic') - can signal a potential warning sign with regards to cycling. The research I'm aware of with this topic is that a cycle is not complete until nitrite is near 0, and that higher levels (for example in aquaculture) may suggest a problem that needs investigating.

I love research - BUT finding 1 study that says one thing - does not mean the conclusions are 'fact'. It only says that using the methods presented, these results were obtained, and the conclusion is XXXX. For example - there are multiple contradictory studies with regards to 'fallow periods'. You could pick 1 and say 76 days. you could pick another and it would suggest (especially in low O2 environments that fallow periods may fail. You can pick another one that says at a higher temperature, you can get away with a shorter fallow time, etc etc etc.

My experience is that when I set up a tank I don't test ammonia, nitrite or nitrate. I use bottled bacteria add fish - and depending on the bioload - I may add more bacteria than the directions. Then I watch how things progress. I have never seen distress, etc. If I were doing a cycle with ammonia liquid, with no bacteria. I would follow all 3 to be certain that the cycle is complete as per 'scientific research' - which suggests minimal ammonia (0), minimal nitrite (near 0) - and no nitrate.

I recently read an article about 'nitrite toxicity' - and the conversion of high levels of nitrate to nitrite in fish - which causes slower growth, higher methemoglobin levels and poor health. I'd be interested in @Randy Holmes-Farley 's opinion.

Thanks, @MnFish1 . This puts us right back on track with what I consider the point of this topic.
...and out of my desire to learn and not to counterpoint or misdirect the thread, but doesn't a cycle, no matter the method, always end in elevated nitrates until water change? I thought from my research that the indication of a proper cycle was elimination of ammonia and nitrite as they are converted to nitrate that is removed by dilution?

Are there reef tanks where the anaerobic bacteria (if I am understanding correctly) are active enough to completely eliminate nitrate into nitrogen gas? Does this require a very light bioload?

 

[MnFish1]

@Randy Holmes-Farley - Another couple questions:

1. Do you think hypo salinity (i.e. a lower Chloride level) can make nitrite more toxic - for example in a QT tank?
2. Do you agree that a lower temperature may cause more nitrite toxicty?

For everyone else - this article states this (which relates more to chronic levels) - which I think would be 'uncommon' -
"For marine organisms, the ranges in safe concentrations are higher – 0.5 to 15.0 mg/L for invertebrates and 5.0 to 50.0 mg/L for fish."

 

[MnFish1]

Thanks, @MnFish1 . This puts us right back on track with what I consider the point of this topic.
...and out of my desire to learn and not to counterpoint or misdirect the thread, but doesn't a cycle, no matter the method, always end in elevated nitrates until water change? I thought from my research that the indication of a proper cycle was elimination of ammonia and nitrite as they are converted to nitrate that is removed by dilution?

Are there reef tanks where the anaerobic bacteria (if I am understanding correctly) are active enough to completely eliminate nitrate into nitrogen gas? Does this require a very light bioload?

I believe the anaerobic bacteria take somewhat longer than the usual cycle (they are more slowly growing)

 

[brandon429]

1. Do you think hypo salinity (i.e. a lower Chloride level) can make nitrite more toxic - for example in a QT tank?

what a great question really it is. never thought of that

 

[Soren]

In the absence of funding for controlled experiments in a lab setting, crowdsourcing is an extremely valuable tool.

I really agree it is.

tiny snippets from crowd sourcing patterns specifically evolve us faster than awaiting formal google approval

another example: crowds who lost $30 lysmata shrimp in about 95% of peroxide doses quickly told us that lysmata aren't peroxide tolerant yet just about everything else we keep strangely is


when peroxide dosing started heavily in 2011, it took about 3 weeks to make the list of sensitive organisms which still holds. losses dropped to near zero and held, threads show using that list.


and on peroxide just by itself as a reef tank doser/fixer/helper...purely crowd sourced. the sages still loathe it to this day. probably 250K reports of happiness with it keep it cemented in our tool options kit. on paper you can make its reactions look like the atomic bomb in a reef

nitrite, we're coming for ya/ bout to be canceled lol.

Crowdsourcing is very valuable in determining anecdotal evidence which will tend to be good information since there is nothing to gain in intentionally sabotaging the hobby but a lot to gain in a successful hobby and shared interest from information that yields success.

The problem, though, is that the evidence is anecdotal until it is supported by science, which is usually done through the means of peer-reviewed publications. When opinions conflict, with only anecdotal evidence comes the "my word versus your word" situation in which nothing is learned. It becomes too common when very specific questions (such as toxicity of nitrite in marine systems) are asked.

Whether or not we measure nitrite, it seems obvious from anecdotal evidence that successful reefs can be achieved, but this does not further our understanding of the complex interactions in reefs until further studies are done in a never-ending process to try to completely understand every detail.