Nitrite Toxicity

[brandon429]

also agreed we make attribution errors too by dealing in bulk subjective reports. I love how the more data we get building though it starts to hone down that risk into direct causatives though, a rather inefficient process. but given a decade of look backs that's when the patterns seem to emerge its really neat to see what aquarists can do to drive their own hobby, not wait for permissions etc

 

[brandon429]

if there's nitrite toxicity in low salinity holding systems Ill promptly edit that into my hating nitrite testing thread and give MN credit for the adjustment. we do have a section on unsticking quarantine cycles and up till just now never wanted to see any nitrite data for those either.

 

[Soren]

@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."

@Randy Holmes-Farley If I may add a question, 3. Does raising or lowering pH have an effect on toxicity of nitrite like it can for ammonia? From my recent reading, is it correct that raising the pH can increase the toxicity of ammonia?

For context to my own situation, I added a little bit of baking soda to my quarantine tank just before my butterflyfish died (maybe coincidence) since I measured pH a bit low (~7.8). Maybe this was a different stressor that was unrelated to nitrite or maybe it had nothing to do with the death. Otherwise, Is it possible for ammonia toxicity to occur while it is not measurably detected through testing but nitrite is detected?

 

[LRT]

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.

I think you nailed it.
We need to narrow down at what levels should nitrites be considered harmful.
We probably also need to rethink definition of cycling.
Not sure if your statement about cycled tank being entirely capable of handling bioload could be any more correct and on point.
We know this can literally be done within first 24 hrs if done correctly.

 

[ReefGeezer]

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.

Since you have mentioned it... I don't hate the vague descriptions per se. I hate that the vague descriptions might let people infer that you have some sort of organized team that knows what they are talking about rather than a list of threads where you personally have interjected your opinions and counted the inevitable results as "data". For example: What does "audited by digital gear" and "digital proofing" mean?

In response to the OP's question... The results are in. The toxicity of nitrite at marine pH levels is demonstrably far less than ammonia. It has been shown that most fish can survive very high levels. Personally, there is still a lot that I know I don't know about this subject though. Until I know more, or at least know what I don't know, I'll continue to treat nitrite as something that's not welcome at my party.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Randy Holmes-Farley If I may add a question, 3. Does raising or lowering pH have an effect on toxicity of nitrite like it can for ammonia? From my recent reading, is it correct that raising the pH can increase the toxicity of ammonia?

For context to my own situation, I added a little bit of baking soda to my quarantine tank just before my butterflyfish died (maybe coincidence) since I measured pH a bit low (~7.8). Maybe this was a different stressor that was unrelated to nitrite or maybe it had nothing to do with the death. Otherwise, Is it possible for ammonia toxicity to occur while it is not measurably detected through testing but nitrite is detected?

I do not know if pH has any effect on nitrite toxicity for other reasons, but pH does not impact the form of nitrite present the way it shifts the equilibrium of the different forms of ammonia (NH3 penetrates membranes more readily and NH4+ doesn't penetrate membranes well).

 

[Soren]

I do not know if pH has any effect on nitrite toxicity for other reasons, but pH does not impact the form of nitrite present the way it shifts the equilibrium of the different forms of ammonia (NH3 penetrates membranes more readily and NH4+ doesn't penetrate membranes well).

Thanks, @Randy Holmes-Farley . I forgot about the different forms of "ammonia" due to my limited chemistry experience/knowledge. That makes sense and would seem to indicate that pH may have no effect on nitrite effects.

Any thoughts on my second question? Can fish be dealing with ammonia toxicity if ammonia is undetectable on common tests but nitrite is detectable (i.e. ammonia present and is being processed into nitrite but also absorbed by the fish causing it to not be detected in the water)? ...or would ammonia toxicity only affect the fish at levels that are detectable?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks, @Randy Holmes-Farley . I forgot about the different forms of "ammonia" due to my limited chemistry experience/knowledge. That makes sense and would seem to indicate that pH may have no effect on nitrite effects.

Any thoughts on my second question? Can fish be dealing with ammonia toxicity if ammonia is undetectable on common tests but nitrite is detectable (i.e. ammonia present and is being processed into nitrite but also absorbed by the fish causing it to not be detected in the water)? ...or would ammonia toxicity only affect the fish at levels that are detectable?

If the ammonia kit is able to detect low levels accurately, then that should be an OK guide to the toxicity, except possible in situations involving chemicals that may interfere with ammonia testing.

The toxicity of ammonia won't be impacted by how much is produced and removed by other processes, just the steady concentration level.

For example, if fish are adding 0.1 ppm per day and other processes are removing 0.1 ppm per day, and the concentration of ammonia is constant at 0.2 ppm, the toxicity is the same as when the fish are adding 1 ppm per day and other processes are removing 1 ppm per day and the concentration of ammonia is constant at 0.2 ppm.

 

[brandon429]

Reefgeezer I have a very organized team compared to the next group assessing nitrite positive reef starts. if you know of that next group, who they may be, link them here so I can see outcome comparisons.

there are truly thousands of aquarists willing to test ignoring nitrite in reefing, we're well underway logging outcomes.

 

[Duncan62]

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...

It makes sense.

 

[brandon429]

Randy was that a potential concern above posted by MNFish regarding salinity and changing nitrite toxicity in quarantine setups

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy was that a potential concern above posted by MNFish regarding salinity and changing nitrite toxicity in quarantine setups

Salinity directly impacts the level of nitrite needed to become toxic.

For example:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/rhf/index.htm

​

Table 3. Toxicity of Nitrite to Marine Organisms as a Function of Salinity.​
Species	Effect​	Salinity(ppt)​	Toxic Concentration(ppm)​
Litopenaeus vannamei (juvenile shrimp)30	144-h LC50​	15​	201​
	144-h LC50​	25​	501​
	144-h LC50​	35​	845​
	Safe level for rearing​	15​	20​
	Safe level for rearing​	25​	50​
	Safe level for rearing​	35​	84​

 

[LRT]

It makes sense.

I think we need to define peers and critically look at who's writing the papers and doing the research.
Studies will vary vastly especially when outcomes have the potential to line pockets of groups that are funding the research.

 

[Soren]

I think we need to define peers and critically look at who's writing the papers and doing the research.
Studies will vary vastly especially when outcomes have the potential to line pockets of groups that are funding the research.

If only there was a way to completely remove biases and uncontrolled variables from research or at least have the biases of a study revealed!

I agree completely with applying a critical view of who is doing the research and their motivation.

 

[ReefGeezer]

Reefgeezer I have a very organized team compared to the next group assessing nitrite positive reef starts. if you know of that next group, who they may be, link them here so I can see outcome comparisons.

there are truly thousands of aquarists willing to test ignoring nitrite in reefing, we're well underway logging outcomes.

It would not be possible for me to identify the "next" group. I seriously doubt there is one. That's because there's no value in crowd sourcing results for a process with a known and inevitable outcome.

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail this thread. I'll stop.

 

[brandon429]

no its ok. we covered that crowd sourcing info brought us pico reefs, peroxide dosing, list of tolerant and sensitive animals within peroxide dosing, skip cycling, specific cycling start dates where those do not exist in the hobby and several more listable uses but I don't want to derail.

for many needs in reefing, crowdsourcing is your 100% only option for inspection of outcomes. also don't forget the irony of me linking that same article above from Randy in 210 nitrite arguments but never actually seeing my needed answer for salinity impacts in the read. MN gets credit for the heads up I'll edit it in the right places soon.

 

[brandon429]

also rip cleans


pure crowdsourced buzz sawing of bad reefs into good ones.

name for me one living reefing individual who would have ever agreed tap water washing your sandbed produces great and desirable outcomes in reef tanks. heck, try and name us one now even though the thread examples are in the thousands now for rip cleans and wash outs, its still a much-hated procedure.

 

[LRT]

It would not be possible for me to identify the "next" group. I seriously doubt there is one. That's because there's no value in crowd sourcing results for a process with a known and inevitable outcome.

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail this thread. I'll stop.

I happen to love and nerd out on the current discussion and was hoping you would expound on this particular statement

 

[Malcontent]

I think we need to define peers and critically look at who's writing the papers and doing the research.
Studies will vary vastly especially when outcomes have the potential to line pockets of groups that are funding the research.

Uh-oh, here comes the Military Industrial Nitrite Complex.

 

[MnFish1]

also rip cleans


pure crowdsourced buzz sawing of bad reefs into good ones.

name for me one living reefing individual who would have ever agreed tap water washing your sandbed produces great and desirable outcomes in reef tanks. heck, try and name us one now even though the thread examples are in the thousands now for rip cleans and wash outs, its still a much-hated procedure.

My strong 'opinion' is that the vast majority of ammonia oxidizing bacteria do not live 'in the sand'. They live 'in and on' the rock. If this were not the case, it would be impossible to have bare bottomed tanks. My recollection from years ago - is that this issue with sand causing problems - came up with deep sand beds that people then stirred up - and killed a bunch of things. This was (IMHO) wrongly thought due to a 'cycle'. Instead it was probably hydrogen sulfide - and other gasses released, etc. I for one would have no problem 'rinsing my sand' with tap water. I agree with you no one should.

Another example - if you can take all the sand out of your tank - and have no effect - then it can't be doing much for biological filtration (except perhaps the anaerobic kind) - which has more to do with Nitrate than ammonia.