Tap Water

[Anonymous]

Wow! Thanks for the link Mega...

I had a slight problem with slime already (and I'm not even really starting quite yet) because I used only a tap "purifier" (DI) and not RO or RO/DI..

Besides a cleaner crew to munch away at the slime produced by the high phospates or a bunch of water changes using properly filtered water does anyone have any ideas of other ways to bring down phosphates?

Someone at a LRS suggested I use some sort of poly filter pad (Bio pad or something like that) to help bring down phosphates, and the packaging said it helps to reduce it as well, but I'm concerned about it becoming colonized like a canister filter and reducing the effectiveness of rock.. Anyone heard of this type of pad before and have any views on it??

 

[Anonymous]

Poly filters rock. They take out all kinds of stuff, though the argument can be made they take out good things as well. The may help with phosphate, but if you continue to put water into your system that is phosphate rich, the poly filter will hardly help because you are putting the phosphate *into* the system and stuff that likes phosphate will get it. Getting the stuff out before you put the water into the system is the way to go.

I think if you can afford a reef tank, you should afford an RODI unit, or purchase RODI water from the LFS.

RR

 

[esmithiii]

Also as I stated before, polyfilters have been known to be harmful to GSPs.

Ernie

 

[MarkO1]

I reduce phosphates and nitrates by removing algae from my refugium. Supposedly the algae consumes the phospahtes and nitrates.
_________________
Mercedes 600

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm.. And being as I'm green myself, a GSP would probably be nice to try once things are ready...

'Nuff said, guess I need to plop down on an RO/DI...

Thanks Ernie..

Norm

 

[Anonymous]

Also as I stated before, polyfilters have been known to be harmful to GSPs.

Ernie,

I run polyfilter pretty regularly, and havent seen any problem like this. Any details?

RR

 

[Anonymous]

I use tap water in my reef tank. i was wondering what the problems could come of this.To this point i've had no problems(minor algae)but i just want to no what to expect.

I have a tang and his name is mugatu... :wink:

w/out getting into the other issues excellently expounded upon by ernie,
( :wink: )-i'd like to just deal with the tap water itself as source water.

some locales have very good quality tap, some have tap that's really unfit to drink.

if you really want to know what you've got-you can always get a report of the water quality analysis done by your local township-i believe they're required to do it quarterly-and it's quite detailed.

fwiw-i've also seen tap water with a phosphate level over the scale of some test kits->3.0 ppm

.01ppm usually means big time algae bloom :wink:

 

[piscies75]

I have been using tap water for many years, just recently I went back to r/o from LFS and adding I-BIONIC, and Poly Marine pad. A recent test have all my levels in line and my cyno red algae is 80% reduced in noly a few weeks. A new water store told me that Toronto water was pretty good so I could get away with the 2 stage filter for $185 plus taxes. Others say you need 4 or 5 stages to remove heavy metals. Then I got this response from Poly Marine pad company of New Jersey:

We manufacture a Patented water filtration system that
eliminates the need for R/O in saltwater and reef aquaria.
Our system , Kold Ster-il (r) , removes the tapwater contaminates
but leaves in the necessary minerals i.e. hardness and alkalinity.
R/O wastes 85% of all incoming tapwater and truly makes very
little sense. Why make very softwater to then add synthetic
seawater mixes and turn it back into super hardwater ?
Our system had an optional medium that can be added directly
into the second stage for phosphate and silicate adsorption.
Visit our website for more information. <A HREF="http://www.poly-bio-marine.com/

 

[LeoR]

esmithii:

Curious about your formulas and conclusions.

--------------
"Before I used RO/DI water, I had to scrape almost daily or the green algae would make it impossible to see...
I have to clean my glass about twice a month."
--------------

1. How do you explain that I need to clean my glass LESS often than you, yet I've never used anything but tap water?
Your conclusion seems to be based on just your own tank, which must have been out of whack for some other reason (I've never heard of anyone cleaning the glass daily).

2. Does your spreadsheet really take into account that water change replaces a supposedly heavily concentrated mix?
If so, how can the effect be minor?

3. What about consumption/incorporation of trace elements by the tank life -- that's why those elements are there. Does your formula subtract these from the concentration?

4. You do not seem to take into account that saltwater mixes are designed for mixing with tap water.
How do you know that you have enough trace elements with RO/DI?

LeoR

 

[Anonymous]

<RRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPP!>

Was that a can of worms I just heard :?:


Kold Ster-il is what my LRS uses... (R=Reef, not fish, I have LFS's too..)

And Poly-Bio-Marine.. Yeah! - That's the pad I was (trying to) refer to.

Anyone actually using a Kold Ster-il system have any input?? I trust my LRS, but I'd like to hear from end-users/consumers like myself... Especially since I'm preparing to pony up on purification equipment soon.

 

[randy holmes-farley]

These manufacturer claims are among the most absurd in the industry.

"Our product removes everything bad and leaves everything good".

And they even bash each other when they make ridiculous claims like "the other guys salt mix is designed for tap water, ours isn't"

 

[piscies75]

here is a reply from H20 Guru seller on ebay that many have purchased from:
There a million ways to skin a cat . The
reason most people opt for R.O. D.I. is constant water and ease of
maintenance . The other reasons are the absolute lack of bacteria, virus,
noxious heavy metals , chemicals and organics .
The R.O. waste water hype is about the only negative thing people can find
to fault the systems with . In truth the waste ratio is at least 3-4 to 1 .
But given that the cost and environmental impact are impossible to top .
R.O. is the most environmentally friendly way to produce pure water . No
added energy no chemicals .
It would be nice to think we could improve on the awesome performance of
these systems and someday we may . But for now they are all most impossible
to top .
If you are topping off with mineral laded water especially hard water .
Calcium not sodium you have problems with scale build up and mineral
imbalance .
If you use R.O. D.I. water to top off you add no calcium you add nothing so
in theory you could go on topping off forever . You would maintain the
proper balance and not build up the mineral content .
I am concluding you need a 5 stage filter system at least. I am not endorsing anybody , this hobby continues to be some many sides to consider. No mater which supplier I choose the cost is over $300 Canadian. We have new Water Stores popping up everywhere here for $5 no tax I can get 5 gallons imperial (supply my own bucket)this water seems to be pretty good. The filters they use are about 6 feet high each behind a wall of glass. I can increase my muscles at the same time. In my 40 gallon and 20 gallon tanks I plan on water change every 3 of 4 weeks.

 

[esmithiii]

1. How do you explain that I need to clean my glass LESS often than you, yet I've never used anything but tap water?
Your conclusion seems to be based on just your own tank, which must have been out of whack for some other reason (I've never heard of anyone cleaning the glass daily).

It is simple to explain. Your tap water probably has less nitrates and phosphates than mine. As for my tank being "out of whack" that is possible, but the RO/DI water seemed to make a big difference in my case.

2. Does your spreadsheet really take into account that water change replaces a supposedly heavily concentrated mix?
If so, how can the effect be minor?

Yes, it does. I would be happy to send it to you so you can check the math. it is quite simple, actually. Let me give you an simple example to illustrate:

Suppose that you put 10g of sugar in 1L of water (I will use metric measurements here for simplicity.) Now suppose you do a 15% water change using PURE water. How much sugar is left? 10g*85% = 8.5g. Repeat another water change. Now you have 8.5g*85%=7.2g. How many water changes do you have to do until there is less than 1g of sugar left? 15 water changes!

Now to make matters worse, let's suppose that the water that you are using to do the water changes is not pure, that it has some sugar in it too, let's say 1g of sugar per liter (1/10th of the concentration of the original solution above. How much sugar is left after a 15% water change? (10g*85%) + (15%*1g)=8.65g. Do another water change and you have (8.65g*85%) + (15%*1g) = 7.5g. How many water changes to get down to 1g? 48 water changes.

Now lets make matters even worse lets suppose that you have evaporation and that 20% of your water evaporates between water changes. That means that before the first water change, the concentration of sugar would increase. How much? (20%*1g)=.2g. How much sugar is left in the water after the first water change? [(10g+.2g)*85%]+(15%*1g)=8.82g. How much after the second water change? [(8.82g+.2g)*.85] + (15%*1g) = 7.82g. How many water changes to get down to 1g? Never. You would never be able to get under 2g.

This example illustrates what happens if you have contaminants in your make-up water. Every time you add water for evaporation you dump contaminants in your tank. Every time you do a water change you add contaminants.

3. What about consumption/incorporation of trace elements by the tank life -- that's why those elements are there. Does your formula subtract these from the concentration?

The formula assumes that the contaminants are not consumed. Again, we are mainly talking about nitrates and phosphates as the contaminants. If you wanted to add a factor for consumption of nitrates you could do so in my spreadsheet. Most peoples' tanks generate nitrates when the fish/corals are fed. Unless you have a highly efficient sand bed and a macro algae export then the net is greater than zero. I was conservative and kept it at zero.

Remember, we are discussing the use of water changes alone for nutrient export.

4. You do not seem to take into account that saltwater mixes are designed for mixing with tap water.
How do you know that you have enough trace elements with RO/DI?

Not to be rude, but what have you been smoking? How can a salt mix remove nutrients when you add it to the tank? As for trace elements, I get plenty from my salt mix. Which trace elements in your tap water are consumed regularly? Do you test for them?

I will repeat one thing: there is a reason why 99% of all serious, experienced reefkeepers use RO/DI water. They know it makes a difference. If you are too cheap to shell out the $180 for a RO/DI unit, fine, just don't ask me to agree that it is better for your tank.

 

[LeoR]

esmithii:

1. The possibility that your tap water has more nitrates and phosphates (setting aside the fact that it probably does not account for the huge diff between cleaning glass daily and bi-weekly) does not warrant your blanket statement:
"Tap water = Algae".

2. Your calculation starts from premises that some element needs to be at 1/10 of the initial concentration. That's silly. We want to keep the concentration at and above the initial level (to provide elements for life consumption).

3. Your assumption that elements and compounds are not consumed makes your formula useless. All the stuff that's in saltwater is there for a reason -- either for chemical properties or to be consumed in some way.
Even though you may not be aware of it, you agree with this by, for example, adding calcium.
As for "contaminants":
Are you really sure you know what in saltwater is necessary and what is not only unnecessary but is harmful junk?
Nitrates and phosphates are also necessary for a balanced ecosystem. In fact, there would be almost no life without them.
If you think it's the law of nature to keep them to a minimum to prevent algae from overtaking the tank, I have more than one tank to prove you wrong.

4. Whatever you are smoking seems to be too strong for you.
I didn't say that salt mix removes something. So, ease off on stimulants and reread my statement until you understand it.

LeoR

 

[Anonymous]

esmithii:

1. The possibility that your tap water has more nitrates and phosphates (setting aside the fact that it probably does not account for the huge diff between cleaning glass daily and bi-weekly) does not warrant your blanket statement:
"Tap water = Algae".

2. Your calculation starts from premises that some element needs to be at 1/10 of the initial concentration. That's silly. We want to keep the concentration at and above the initial level (to provide elements for life consumption).

3. Your assumption that elements and compounds are not consumed makes your formula useless. All the stuff that's in saltwater is there for a reason -- either for chemical properties or to be consumed in some way.
Even though you may not be aware of it, you agree with this by, for example, adding calcium.
As for "contaminants":
Are you really sure you know what in saltwater is necessary and what is not only unnecessary but is harmful junk?
Nitrates and phosphates are also necessary for a balanced ecosystem. In fact, there would be almost no life without them.
If you think it's the law of nature to keep them to a minimum to prevent algae from overtaking the tank, I have more than one tank to prove you wrong.

4. Whatever you are smoking seems to be too strong for you.
I didn't say that salt mix removes something. So, ease off on stimulants and reread my statement until you understand it.

LeoR

a purely false statement-it has already been well established that many salt mixes on the market today contain amounts of heavy metals that are in much higher concentrations than found in nsw-and some have also been proven to be toxic to various forms of marine life, at those concentrations.

hopefully matt m. can chime in here w/ the links to the analyses studies=i simply don't remember the link :wink:

also-just because something is present in nsw does not necessarily mean that a creature will use it-gold is present in nsw, so is uranium,-and just about every single other metal on the planet-doesn't mean an anemone needs, or uses them :wink:

 

[randy holmes-farley]

Well, it hasn't been proven, but it has been asserted endlessly by Ron Shimek that the levels of copper in salt mixes and in all of the reef tanks that he measured are in the toxic zone. I believe that he is trying to prove it now.

Rons article:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-02/r ... /index.htm

My debate with him (starts well into the thread and goes on forever):

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/sh ... did=100591

 

[LeoR]

vitz:

What do you mean by quoting my entire post and saying "a purely false statement"?

If you disagree with the mixers' claim that mixes are designed for tap water, take it up with them.

If you disagree that most elements in NSW are useful, you'll have to do better than "I believe".

LeoR

 

[LeoR]

Randy:

I'd be surprised if salt mixes matched the NSW closely -- you know that this is probably impossible to achieve (at least in dry form and for every package size).

The issue is whether they adequately support life when mixed with tap water. Since it works for me, it proves that they do (at least in some circumstances), and disproves that tap water equates tank overrun by algae.

LeoR

 

[esmithiii]

Leo- You are missing the point. My goal as an aquarist is to closely match my tank parameters with that of nature. If this is not your goal then you needn't read on.

The question about using tap water or using RO/DI water has nothing to do with trace elements. The issue is about other things that are in tap water that I don't want to accumulate in my tank because they are harmful or they are at higher levels than that of natural sea water.

Specifically, there are metals, nitrates and phosphates in the water that I don't want to add. My tank gets plenty of nitrates through the food that I add (via fish that consume it and the bacteria that processes their waste.) My goal is to add zero nitrates to the tank. You have misread and misunderstood the intent from the start. The point is that if there are nitrates in your makeup water (what I called contaminants) then they will accumulate in your tank. Period. You cannot argue with the math. If there are heavy metals in your water, they too will accumulate in your tank. Where else would they go? Do you have organisms that export metals in your tank? Regular water changes alone will not do an adequate job of reducing the levels.

As for mixes being designed for tap water, I will repeat my point- there is nothing in the mix that will reduce the nitrates in your tap water or the metals dissolved in your tap water.

I never stated that you couldn't use tapwater. Quality of tap water varies by region. In my case, I would never add it to my tank.

Ernie

 

[Anonymous]

esmithii:

1. The possibility that your tap water has more nitrates and phosphates (setting aside the fact that it probably does not account for the huge diff between cleaning glass daily and bi-weekly) does not warrant your blanket statement:
"Tap water = Algae".

2. Your calculation starts from premises that some element needs to be at 1/10 of the initial concentration. That's silly. We want to keep the concentration at and above the initial level (to provide elements for life consumption).

3. Your assumption that elements and compounds are not consumed makes your formula useless. All the stuff that's in saltwater is there for a reason -- either for chemical properties or to be consumed in some way.
Even though you may not be aware of it, you agree with this by, for example, adding calcium.
As for "contaminants":
Are you really sure you know what in saltwater is necessary and what is not only unnecessary but is harmful junk?
Nitrates and phosphates are also necessary for a balanced ecosystem. In fact, there would be almost no life without them.
If you think it's the law of nature to keep them to a minimum to prevent algae from overtaking the tank, I have more than one tank to prove you wrong.

4. Whatever you are smoking seems to be too strong for you.
I didn't say that salt mix removes something. So, ease off on stimulants and reread my statement until you understand it.

LeoR

a purely false statement-it has already been well established that many salt mixes on the market today contain amounts of heavy metals that are in much higher concentrations than found in nsw-and some have also been proven to be toxic to various forms of marine life, at those concentrations.

hopefully matt m. can chime in here w/ the links to the analyses studies=i simply don't remember the link :wink:

also-just because something is present in nsw does not necessarily mean that a creature will use it-gold is present in nsw, so is uranium,-and just about every single other metal on the planet-doesn't mean an anemone needs, or uses them :wink:

i was only reffering to the hilighted statement-not your entire quote. :wink: