| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
tomason 
Guest
Joined: April 08 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 137
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: Old Tank Syndrome
Posted: October 23 2003 at 1:41pm |
|
Last night I read an article by Shimek about exporting heavy metals (it's a long one!):
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.htm
That got me thinking about "old tank syndrome" a bit. I've heard before that after a few years you need to start replacing your LR with fresh stuff. Is the accumulation of heavy metals the only reason or just one of the reasons?
How long can one reasonably expect a reef tank to last? Is replacing LR all that's necessary to make them go indefinitely? That article makes it sound like because heavy metals are accumulating in the sand, rock, and in the tissues of the fish and corals, our tanks are headed for inevitable crash.
LR is hard enough to replace when it's covered with corals and stuff, but how can you replace a DSB? Once you disturb it and allow oxygen into the anaerobic zones where the heavy metals have precipitated, they can then dissolve into the water again and reach toxic levels.
In other articles he's written, Shimek says that a properly maintained DSB can last indefinitely. Now that was in regard to a DSB becoming over-loaded with organics, NOT heavy metals.
Ok, so to sum up:
1. What do you people do about heavy metals?
2. Are our tanks headed for inevitable crash? (I can't imagine the answer is "yes", but I'd like to know what you think)
3. Given the heavy metal problem, are DSB's viable for the long-haul?
Thanks for the input!
-Tom
|
 |
SSpargur
Guest
Joined: February 05 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1716
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 2:01pm |
Where do the "heavy metals" come from? Are they introduced to the tank via tap water or are the metals in the salt?
It seems that using RO/DI would definitely slow this process if the metals come via the water. I will enjoy learning by following this thread.
Good thread to start Tom.
Edited by SSpargur
|
|
Sean Spargur
West Valley, UT
|
|
Carl
Guest
Joined: September 17 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 2:04pm |
Tom, I havn't read the article yet, but I will. If my opinion changes afterwhich, I will edit this post.
Based on the brief input shared by you however, my "experience" in the filtration industry would conjure the technical term of bullsh*t. To say that LR will adsorb (read my post about 5 minutes ago) such a significant amount of metal contaminants to where they will be hazardous is rediculous. If a tank has sufficient filtration which adsorbs contaminants and that media is removed in some form, you also remove whatever contaminants have been adsorbed. For instance, carbon media removes metals, fluidized sand beds remove metals, calcium reactors remove metals, etc...
I personally believe that this is a scare tactic of some sort, not sure why though. What is his intention? Is he manufacturing a new LR filtration/rejeuvination device? Hey... not a bad idea! Where are my patent forms...
Anyway, with turnover of media, water changes, proper water movement and exchange and just standard maintenance, I personally and professionally feel that he is way out in left field on this one.
Just a thought... good argument, I mean discussion you started... 
Edited by Carl
|
|
In Syracuse
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." - Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
|
|
Trevah
Guest
Joined: July 25 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 177
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 2:47pm |
well...ummmm....yeah make sure you change out your live rock every 2 years.....and since it is contaminated make sure you call me and i will dispose of it appropriately....  heehee....
|
|
tomason
Guest
Joined: April 08 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 137
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 3:21pm |
Sean, the heavy metals come from the salt, tap water, food, additives, etc. The concentrations of heavy metals were greater (for most of the metals) in the aquarium water he tested than natural seawater.
Carl, the idea behind the rock and sand accumulating heavy metals is that under anaerobic conditions they precipitate out of the water and collect inside the rock and sand bed (where the anaerobic zones are).
Trevah, so it's a scam to get free rock! That's a good idea! 
Here's a thread on Reef Central discussing that article:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139957&highlight=heavy+metals
He says it out-right there: our tanks will have to be torn down eventually. 
Here is Ron's salt study he mentioned there:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.htm
Here's another article by Randy Holmes-Farley about heavy metals:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-04/rhf/feature/index.htm
|
|
Carl
Guest
Joined: September 17 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 3:58pm |
[QUOTE=tomason]Carl, the idea behind the rock and sand accumulating heavy metals is that under anaerobic conditions they precipitate out of the water and collect inside the rock and sand bed (where the anaerobic zones are).
I understand the concept and the interpretation of it. I appreciate it. However, I find it unlikely that under "normal" tank conditions with the constant movement and stirring of the substrate, rock surfaces, etc that such high concentrations exist. There are always exceptions, but then I could expect problems if I dump a quart of oil in the tank as well. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I think that to suggest replacing the live rock and sand in a person's tank is ludecrious... sorry if my spelling is atrocious.
|
|
In Syracuse
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." - Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
|
|
jfinch
Guest
Joined: March 06 2003
Location: Pleasant Grove
Status: Offline
Points: 7067
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 5:25pm |
I really like this topic!
The adsorbtion of copper and presumable other multivalant metals into calcium carbonate is, as far as I can tell, a scientific fact. The idea that metals can be reduced in anaerobic conditions is also true. Whether or not it has any bearing on our tanks is the point of confusion (at least to me). I really believe this to an area without black and white answers, even if Shimek sees everything in black and white.
|
|
|
|
Beware
Guest
Joined: September 05 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 75
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 7:48pm |
|
It Makes We Wonder...What Is The Longest Running Tank In The Club That Has Never Had A Crash?...Beware
|
|
Carl
Guest
Joined: September 17 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 8:40pm |
JFinch, as always... well said. I certainly can agree with the tank finding it's own "dead spots" on which these deposits are made and possibly even built up to an extent. Perhaps I was half-cocked in the earlier post(s). However, to make claims as the article referenced I believe is absurd. Adsorbtion can also be overcome to some point by stimulus of the area, thereby freeing particles into the water stream. This could be a simple as moving a powerhead, a fish swimming by or foraging cleanup crews. If proper process are in place, removal of these particles is eventual.
Additionally, Sspargur hit on a good point. Limiting the source. RO SHOULD be free of contaminants. Possibly the original author of the article is in the RO business and will follow up with a full page ad for his new system?
|
|
In Syracuse
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." - Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
|
|
Will Spencer
Admin Group
Joined: September 04 2003
Location: West Jordan
Status: Offline
Points: 6799
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 9:27pm |
I'm wondering the same thing as Beware. I don't profess to know anything about this subject, but IME nobody can leave their tank alone long enough for these things to happen anyway. If I understand correctly the process of the heavy metals building up could take many years, (15+.) Most people end up moving, moving their tank, giving up on the hobby, or experiencing a crash for other reasons such as power failure.
Surely someone, somewhere has had a tank up and running for 20 years or more that could be used for experimental purposes, but for most of us this hasn't happened yet. Has it?
I'm truly curious if anyone has tried to set up a long-term experiment on this subject.
|
|
jfinch
Guest
Joined: March 06 2003
Location: Pleasant Grove
Status: Offline
Points: 7067
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 23 2003 at 9:55pm |
|
wsinbad1, although DSBs have been used in aquaria for decades, they were not very popular at all back in the 80s (at least not in my neck of the woods back then). They really became popular here in the early 90s so I doubt anyone here has a tank with a DSB much older then 10 yrs. It was people like Shimek and the internet (fishnet, reefcentral, ect) that started the DSB train. You know, that train never made it to the station in Europe...
|
|
|
|
Mark Peterson
Paid Member
Joined: June 19 2002
Location: Murray
Status: Offline
Points: 21437
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 24 2003 at 6:35pm |
I've spoken with people that have had LR/LS reef tanks going for 7 or more years without problems, for all the reasons mentioned previously.
Water that's free of contaminants like heavy metals...hmmm. So the use of tap water, which I so freely espouse, which Jon termed liquid rock (I love that term, thanks Jon) may be viewed as a formula for disaster. 
Well okay,
so the water evaporates from the ocean and the rain falls on the ground and runs into the rivers and aquifers.
Some of the aquifer and river water is captured, cleaned and purified so we can drink it or use it in our aquariums.
Eventually the water makes it's way to the coast and swirls around the reef.
I wonder what the rate of top-off is for the ocean? The water being used to top-off the ocean is very dirty and carries with it all the minerals, metals and organic compounds acquired on it's trip down the hill.
So what happens to the water and it's "contaminants" in the ocean. Is it building up and will the ocean eventually crash? 
I believe the answer is NO. It appears that the natural environment has processes and organisms that handle, even live on these so-called "contaminants."
If we use natural processes in our aquariums, they can likewise handle contaminants. It's probably still wise to use some help in the form of skimming, algae harvesting,and GAC.
I've seen 100's of LR/LS reef tanks; some with problems. Never have I seen an old tank that was crashing because it was too old, but I've seen plenty of tanks experiencing problems due to neglect and misinformation. 
my 2 cents
Edited by Mark Peterson
|
Reefkeeping Tips, & quick, easy setup tricks:www.utahreefs.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9244 Pay it forward - become a paid WMAS member 
|
|
Carl
Guest
Joined: September 17 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 25 2003 at 9:10am |
Well said Mark
I would especially be concerned with areas in nature with relatively low water exchange such as tidal pools or lagoons. I would believe that a tidal pool or lagoon would be the closest simulation to a captive reef setup. The argument would be made that volume is so much greater, but I think that the similarities are far greater than most would think. The aquarist typically provides over-filtration for their systems to compensate for the lack of true water volume exchange. I would believe that with this over filtration, water exchanges, etc that our ability to handle the metals and other contaminants in the water column may even be greater than mother nature . Find someone with a tidal pool or lagoon where the metals, minerals and other contaminants have adsorbed, precipitated, settled out (or whatever term that you want to use) over the last couple million years and I will put money down that their tidal reef is still successful. How often does mother nature replace her LR? The last thing that this hobby needs is another fear factor.
Just my "Rant Of The Day".
Edited by Carl
|
|
In Syracuse
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." - Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
|
|
jfinch
Guest
Joined: March 06 2003
Location: Pleasant Grove
Status: Offline
Points: 7067
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 25 2003 at 9:46am |
Mark and Carl,
You guys are comparing the complete ocean biosystem with a 20 gallon tank sitting in my basement. IMO, caution should be exersised when doing that. The chemistry, biology and ecology of the oceans are not, even today, fully understood. I add about a gallon of top-off water per day to a 20 gallon tank. That's 5% of the tank volume, I doubt that the ocean receives that kind of water influx from rivers. I have more fish (per sq ft) then a typical reef. I have less algae then a typical reef. I sometimes feed flake food which the ocean does not receive. I add B-ionic, baking soda, pickling lime, ect to my tank that the ocean doesn't. I don't have near the same lighting as the ocean. I don't have a vast volume of deep, cold (strange) water connected to my reef. Like I said earlier, this is a very interesting topic but with few answers (at least for me).
I agree with Mark that tank neglect will almost certainly lead to disaster.
Edited by jfinch
|
|
|
|
inspector eric
Guest
Joined: October 03 2003
Location: Ghana
Status: Offline
Points: 15
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 25 2003 at 10:13am |
Jon
I am wondering what kind of lights and other conditions you have on your basement 20 gal
 jfinch wrote:
I add about a gallon of top-off water per day to a 20 gallon tank. That's 5% of the tank volume, |
I have a 55gal that everyone is telling me that I run the lights ( 55PC x2) too long (11 1/2 hrs) and I am only losing right around a gallon a week. Perhaps I do need a fan in my canopy.....
Sorry the distraction ...great thread...I just thought I would ask....if that kind of loss is typical.........
|
|
just because it isn't leaking doesn't mean it's safe!!!!
|
|
jfinch
Guest
Joined: March 06 2003
Location: Pleasant Grove
Status: Offline
Points: 7067
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 25 2003 at 10:36am |
My evaporative losses do vary from summer/fall/winter/spring. I've got one 250 watt MH and two 24 inch vho actinics (I think they're 75 watts apiece). They do generate a lot of heat. I've got a fan in the hood that comes on when the MH comes on and a fan in the stand/sump that's on all the time. In the summer my tank runs about 80-82°F and in the winter 78°F. My lighting cycle is actinics from 11 am to 10 pm, MH from noon to 9:30 pm.
|
|
|
|
Carl
Guest
Joined: September 17 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2003 at 8:09am |
JF,
Possibly I expressed myself incorrectly, but there is no reason to yell at me.
I misspoke if I too directly compared our small aquatic ecosystems to the ocean. I believe that I tried to draw comparrison only to tidal pools or lagoons where the influent and water exchange is minimal on a comparative scale to the ocean. The reason that I tried to do this was to demonstrate that contaminant deposits have existed in these bodies of water for millions of years. I know of no one that has had a system set up that long. With runoff, contaminants are continually introduced, settled and adsorbed. Yet, these ecosystems continue to thrive.
I simply had a strong opinion about the comments referred to in the original post and had no other way of conveying my thoughts other than to try and draw a comparrision. Sorry if I didn't do it well. But, I think that it was close enough.
In with the good air, out with the bad... OK, I am better now.
|
|
In Syracuse
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." - Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
|
|
jfinch
Guest
Joined: March 06 2003
Location: Pleasant Grove
Status: Offline
Points: 7067
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2003 at 9:24am |
Hey, no blood no foul! (although I almost lost my ear last friday night due to a high stick to the head... I'll never play skateless ice hockey again! BTW, not only can super glue be used to attach coral to rock, it also keeps gaping wounds shut  )
It's sometimes hard to properly express ones "emotion" though a forum such as this. If we were sitting face to face having this disscussion, you would see that I am not really that attached to this topic and the mood would be much more jovial. I find this topic interesting and as such have a few opinions and was just expressing them not meaning to offend. 
|
|
|
|
Carl
Guest
Joined: September 17 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2003 at 9:31am |
JF, You can't offend me so no worries! I didn't take it that way at all. just thought that it required some additional 'splanation. I feel the same that this topic is probably one of the grayest and possibly the most interesting yet... Thanks to Tomason for starting it! Because when you get right down to it, no one really knows.
Still love ya man!
|
|
In Syracuse
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." - Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
|
|
tomason
Guest
Joined: April 08 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 137
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2003 at 3:54pm |
I appreciate everyone's input on this subject!  It's gotten me thinking some more....
Given that the hobbyist tanks Ron tested had elevated levels of almost every metal he tested, it seems clear that our tanks don't process those contaminants as well as the ocean, despite the natural methods we use. However, if they're holding steady at those levels, then the tanks must be processing them still, otherwise the levels would just continue to rise (maybe they are?). Like you guys and those articles said, no one really knows what's going on.
Much of the stuff I've read mainly just talks about "nutrient export" in terms of organics and nitrates (and phosphates). Most people seem to just skim and maybe grow some caleurpa in a refugium and then use their nitrate and phosphate test kits (or, more likely, how much nuisance algae is present) to determine whether they have sufficient nutrient export.
As far as metals go, Ron analyzed various forms of nutrient export (skimmate, caleurpa, xenia, etc.) for their heavy metal content. Each one had different concentrations of metals and were better at exporting at least one than any of the others.
Perhaps, then, an even more natural method would be to use as many forms of export as possible. All corals take some metals out of the water, as do all algaes (at least, I would think they all do). That could be a really good reason to have lots of bio-diversity. Plus you can frag the corals and sell them.
I don't know..... I guess I might be hesitant to just forget the heavy metal issue and say our tanks can handle it. The most compelling reason to do so is the fact that there are many tanks still thriving that are many years old. However, given that our tanks really aren't the ocean and the metals have to go somewhere, it'd be nice to find out where they're going! It's a little out of my league to figure it out though.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I'd like to see more evidence on both sides before I'd really be convinced either way. I agree with Jon about that point: it's not really black and white yet!
-Tom
|
|
