drfu Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 So i just got my Hanna Ulr Phosphate Checker and on my tanks the reading are 35 on one and 42 on the other. My issue is now i dint know what these readings mean, so my questions are as follows: 1) because its ppb, not ppm, what is this in ppm? 2) what should my levels be, i know everything should be zero but what is reef safe or except able? Thought this was a good test kit to buy but nit if i dont know how to use it, lol so some experienced help with this would be very helpful, thanks in advance. Link to comment
Boggers Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 35 ppb is .035 ppm As for how much is acceptable will depend on what you keep. around .03 should be the goal IMO Link to comment
Mojado Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 35 ppb is .035 ppm As for how much is acceptable will depend on what you keep. around .03 should be the goal IMO No, it's not quite as easy as moving the decimal over 3 times. The Hanna is a phosphorus detector, not phosphate detector. There is a factor of 3 (therabouts) between phosphorus and phosphates. So the conversion from what the Hanna gives you, phosphorus in ppb, to phosphate in ppm is: (Phosphorus_ppb)*3.066/1000 = Phosphate (ppm) 35ppb of phosphorus = .107ppm of phosphate. That's kinda high. You wanna get that number down to below .05ppm. Link to comment
drfu Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 No, it's not quite as easy as moving the decimal over 3 times. The Hanna is a phosphorus detector, not phosphate detector. There is a factor of 3 (therabouts) between phosphorus and phosphates. So the conversion from what the Hanna gives you, phosphorus in ppb, to phosphate in ppm is: (Phosphorus_ppb)*3.066/1000 = Phosphate (ppm) 35ppb of phosphorus = .107ppm of phosphate. That's kinda high. You wanna get that number down to below .05ppm. Thanks for the math, oh great, now i have to do math everytime i check my phosephates......and it sounds like i need a bag of phosgard now to fix this issue as i am doing water changes weekly! Link to comment
drfu Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 No, it's not quite as easy as moving the decimal over 3 times. The Hanna is a phosphorus detector, not phosphate detector. There is a factor of 3 (therabouts) between phosphorus and phosphates. So the conversion from what the Hanna gives you, phosphorus in ppb, to phosphate in ppm is: (Phosphorus_ppb)*3.066/1000 = Phosphate (ppm) 35ppb of phosphorus = .107ppm of phosphate. That's kinda high. You wanna get that number down to below .05ppm. Or if i don't want to do the math, what is an acceptable level of phosphorus? Did i make a mistake in buying this ulr kit vs the regular phosphate kit? Link to comment
Eisernes Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Or if i don't want to do the math, what is an acceptable level of phosphorus? Did i make a mistake in buying this ulr kit vs the regular phosphate kit? No you got the right one. The phosphorus one is supposed to be much more accurate than the phosphate one. Link to comment
seabass Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Yep, that's the best one to get. You don't have to do math, you just have to know what levels are acceptable: It's easy, all you need to know is that you should target phosphorus at 10ppb (or less); anything higher than that you need to bring it down. Link to comment
drfu Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 Yep, that's the best one to get. You don't have to do math, you just have to know what levels are acceptable: It's easy, all you need to know is that you should target phosphorus at 10ppb (or less); anything higher than that you need to bring it down. Thanks, the chart is awesome, my levels are not. Just got my 3 powerheads in today, going to blow off any crap off my rocks with them, will do another 15% water change, change out my ff & let it continue to stabilize. Tank is still new, only cuc so far, lighting arrives next week & im trying to be patient! Thanks again for the info Link to comment
hypostatic Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 No, it's not quite as easy as moving the decimal over 3 times. The Hanna is a phosphorus detector, not phosphate detector. There is a factor of 3 (therabouts) between phosphorus and phosphates. Do you know why there is this factor of 3? Link to comment
nanosaurus Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Do you know why there is this factor of 3? The molecular weight of phosphate is about 3x that of phosphorus Link to comment
Rollermonkey Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Except, of course, that now the experts are starting to think the quest for ultra-low phosphate levels may be completely unnecessary... Link to comment
Arkayology Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Except, of course, that now the experts are starting to think the quest for ultra-low phosphate levels may be completely unnecessary... Yup. Link to comment
skimlessinseattle Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Except, of course, that now the experts are starting to think the quest for ultra-low phosphate levels may be completely unnecessary...Article? Link to comment
seabass Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Except, of course, that now the experts are starting to think the quest for ultra-low phosphate levels may be completely unnecessary... Can you two please post some links? I don't believe that I've seen this data yet, but it sounds very interesting. I've read this article, http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/high-levels-of-dissolved-inorganic-nitrogen-increase-coral-bleaching-probability which discusses PO4 starvation might cause coral bleaching. They reference a "Zeovit phenomena" that I wasn't aware had a name (which I assume refers to the lightening effect that Zoevit initially has before the amazing colors start to emerge). Although this confuses me as I thought Zoevit lowered nitrogen (nitrate) levels quicker than phosphate (the reverse of the article). Anyways, I speculate that the ultra low levels that the two of you refer to (which I assume would be less than 0.01 ppm), might be a limitting factor to zooxantallae production (the symbiotic algae in coral) and/or its nutritional contribution. However, zooxanthallae is also the cause of the browning of coral under weak lighting (as the nutritional needs of coral require additional photosynthetic energy, resulting in increased zooxanthallae to compensate). Since zooxanthallae is brown in color, reduced zooxanthallae is likely the reason for the impressive coloration of Zeovit systems. I assume that Zeovit systems are successful (assuming that they reduce zooxanthallae due to low nutrient levels) due to the array of nutritional supplements (like amino acids) that are part of the system (but I don't know, as I have never run one before). On the other hand, I've experienced the negative effects of high PO4. Poor calcification of coral and coralline algae, poor coral health, Cyano, Dinos, as well as invasive algae growth. It sounds like you guys are suggesting that monitoring phosphate (phosphorous) can be just as important to prevent ultra low levels. I think the phosphate level in the ocean is around 0.005 ppm, and it has been a common belief that levels above 0.03 ppm can cause problems with calcification and algae growth; so I assume that the target range should be 0.03 ppm (or 10 ppb of phosphorus), with low and high levels causing different problems. Without seeing this info, is this an accurate interpretation? Link to comment
Chris! Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Except, of course, that now the experts are starting to think the quest for ultra-low phosphate levels may be completely unnecessary... You want low... just not 0. You certainly don't want high phosphate either tho, as that can open up its own bag of problems..... see 1st sentence of the bottom section of the post directly above. FWIW, I would still take being to low over being to high for the most part.... To low and you get washed out colors (often still get good growth and PE as long as you are feeding somewhat decently), and I've seen a weird bacterial issue but not 100% that was caused by the actual phosphates being to low as it was the method of lowering them.... to high and you have way more problems and ugly brown corals that don't grow/ properly calcify. Link to comment
basser1 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I also keep mainly SPS and my quest was to always strive for lower P04 levels. But recently there are discussions about higher P04 may not be all that bad. Here is an interesting thread on RC where a reefer claims his phos. level is 1.024!!! He has great color and great growth. Here is a link that has pic, and several links about the relationship of P04 and acros. Take a look, his tank really looks nice. http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2366953&highlight=phosphate A few more links http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/increased-phosphate-levels-increase-growth-rate-in-acropora-muricata http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/#5 Link to comment
drfu Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 Wow, some interesting reads! But @ this point i would just like to get my phosphorus & phosphate levels in check as .13 can't be good. I will be checking both today as well as nitrates to see where my tank is at with the changes i made last night. May have to do another large 25% water change tomorrow........after i watch the Canadian men win gold in hockey! Link to comment
Rollermonkey Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 The article I read referred to research done in Kanoehe Bay, HI. There were other factors, particularly levels of iron, but the long and the short of it was that areas with high iron and ultra-low phosphate had more invasive algae growth and coral growth was reduced, while areas with high phosphate and ultra-low iron recovered. Since it was an area where numerous factors were at play, they couldn't isolate the effects of phosphate, but the researchers seemed to think it has less effect than other factors. I believe it was the same article that addressed natural levels of phosphates in various reef environments, and that oftentimes, levels on thriving reefs were several orders of magnitude higher than we experience in our tanks, further contributing to the idea that phosphates alone are not problematic. I don't hardly read any articles except what shows up in the e-mail version of Coral magazine... How do you guys not see these when I do? Link to comment
drfu Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 Never heard of the magazine till now, will have to check it out Link to comment
Mojado Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 and that oftentimes, levels on thriving reefs were several orders of magnitude higher than we experience in our tanks, further contributing to the idea that phosphates alone are not problematic. Several orders of magnitude higher?? Are you paraphrasing or did it actually show 1000 times greater phosphates are OK? Link to comment
Rollermonkey Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I'm paraphrasing. People are striving for PPB in their tanks, but PPM is something that occurs in nature. That's orders of magnitude, as far as I'm concerned. The issues with the reef in question involved a sewer line and rusting military equipment. When the sewer was extended and the rusting hulks removed, the improvements in reef health were huge. They were also able to compare various locations around the bay that had different levels and compare them over time. Link to comment
Chris! Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Here is an interesting thread on RC where a reefer claims his phos. level is 1.024!!! I stopped reading when he said he BELIEVED it said 1.024. You're going to put up this thread and hype up that you have high phosphate link you're site (which makes me wonder, is this just for site traffic.....????), and say you believe it said____. I mean that'd be like someone saying they found a cure for AIDS, and just said yup we did it.... for proof I would like to offer a stock photo of an empty needle, and a person who said they feel like they don't have it any more. LOL Also as far as the whole repairing and extending the sewer and removing rusty military equipment and the water quality improving.... duh. Take a dump in your tank and throw some match box cars in for good measure and see how it responds, then be amazed when it gets better after you remove those things. Link to comment
basser1 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I stopped reading when he said he BELIEVED it said 1.024. You're going to put up this thread and hype up that you have high phosphate link you're site (which makes me wonder, is this just for site traffic.....????), and say you believe it said____. I mean that'd be like someone saying they found a cure for AIDS, and just said yup we did it.... for proof I would like to offer a stock photo of an empty needle, and a person who said they feel like they don't have it any more. LOL Also as far as the whole repairing and extending the sewer and removing rusty military equipment and the water quality improving.... duh. Take a dump in your tank and throw some match box cars in for good measure and see how it responds, then be amazed when it gets better after you remove those things. Well whether or not you and I agree with his practices or not, you can't deny he has a pretty impressive looking tank...... Link to comment
drfu Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 Is the point here that you should not worry too much about phosphorus & phosphate levels? I just don't want to add my fish/coral till its safe to do so. The rest of my parameters are solid, just this issue. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.