Randy's thoughts on trace elements

[mcgullen]

Thank you, @Randy Holmes-Farley , for another fascinating read. Since iodine and ICP came up in your replies, I am wondering if you might comment on the statement being thrown around that “ICP-OES by its very nature cannot reliably detect iodine levels in seawater.” Is this statement true in your opinion?

 

[Lasse]

The zooxanthellae is located in the outermost cell layer of the host. For me it does not matter if the enzymatic process happens outside or inside the zooxanthellae - the enzyme is produced by the zoox. If the zoox not there - no enzymes.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[jda]

That’s interesting. Have you however seen GHA behest from adding iron to promote chaeto?

Have not ever seen anything ever that could limit GHA without harming other things. I am talking about all types of hair algae that hobbyists like to lump into GHA. For me, GHA needs not help.

 

[GARRIGA]

Have not ever seen anything ever that could limit GHA without harming other things. I am talking about all types of hair algae that hobbyists like to lump into GHA. For me, GHA needs not help.

Not hurt but have you seen dosing iron as helping GHA and other greens not wanted. I'm dosing ChaetoGro to promote Pom Pom but not sure how that's affecting GHA. Mostly because I've been dosing hydrogen peroxide which does seem to be negatively affecting GHA and to some extent Pom Pom although that is relative to GHA flourishing. Based on my limited time doing this. Can't conclude if adding iron encourages GHA although don't see how I get around not dosing that if I want Pom Pom. Just trying to see how you've seen GHA respond when you were purposely trying to promote chaeto.

 

[d2mini]

All of this is why I'm liking the Reef Moonshiners program.
On my little 60g cube the cost is low enough.
Send off a test to Oceamo, and then replenish anything that is low.
And daily dosing of a handful of elements that takes just a few minutes.
Dosage of any individual element is easily changed as needed, unlike the pre-mixed bottles of who knows what.

It's nice to know my water has all major and minor trace elements near/around NSW, whether it needs it or not.

 

[danimal1211]

No they have not missed it - as @danimal1211 shows in the post above. It is one of their premises for their argument.

All organisms that use NO3 as Nitrogen sources need to convert it to NH4/NH3 either just outside the organism or just at the inside before further transport and/or assimilation into amino acids. Its a energy demanding process that include different enzymatic processes. This is more or less an axiom.

Why using NO3 in this experiment instead of NH4/NH3 directly?

Its because NO3 is the predominant inorganic N species in oceanic water (and in water above reefs).

And this is my hobbyhorse when it comes to inorganic nitrogen sources in aquariums - this experiment not only proves zooxanthellae can take up inorganic N directly from the water column - it also shows they have the systems to convert NO3 into NH4/NH3 - IMO. Not all microalgae have this ability which will favour zooxanthellae (and the corals) if NO3 is the predominant inorganic N species in our reefs too. NH4/NH3 can be uptaken easily by most bacteria, micro and macroalgae and it is also true for organic amino acids that have the same or better permeation and transport capacity as NH4/NH3.

By using a fast nitrification and let the NO3 be the predominant N source - we will favour those organisms which have these enzymatic abilities to turn NO3 into NH4/NH3

Sincerely Lasse

With so many systems requiring NO3 dosing I wouldn’t be surprised to see trickle filters make a comeback. Rapid conversion of ammonia to nitrate.

 

[GARRIGA]

With so many systems requiring NO3 dosing I wouldn’t be surprised to see trickle filters make a comeback. Rapid conversion of ammonia to nitrate.

Recall in the early days of the Berlin Method those being called Nitrate Factories. One of those what the heck moments as if that's a bad thing

 

[jda]

Not hurt but have you seen dosing iron as helping GHA and other greens not wanted. I'm dosing ChaetoGro to promote Pom Pom but not sure how that's affecting GHA. Mostly because I've been dosing hydrogen peroxide which does seem to be negatively affecting GHA and to some extent Pom Pom although that is relative to GHA flourishing. Based on my limited time doing this. Can't conclude if adding iron encourages GHA although don't see how I get around not dosing that if I want Pom Pom. Just trying to see how you've seen GHA respond when you were purposely trying to promote chaeto.

It the iron helps the GHA then I never noticed because GHA has never needed any kind of help to me.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you, @Randy Holmes-Farley , for another fascinating read. Since iodine and ICP came up in your replies, I am wondering if you might comment on the statement being thrown around that “ICP-OES by its very nature cannot reliably detect iodine levels in seawater.” Is this statement true in your opinion?

Lets ask an expert.

@Christoph

Any comments, Christoph?

 

[Hans-Werner]

I am looking to see if there is any support for this statement and not seeing any -

Not really a surprise if noone tries ...

I recommend to try to limit iron also. Iron is the second nutrient green algae need in much higher concentrations than corals.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Article on nitrogen fertilization in Red Sea reef.

N + P fertilization experiment on algae.

I am sure there are much more articles around but I don't care too much about opionions. I give you the best information I can, and you can accept it or discard it. It's your choice. I don't care.

If I get new ideas from discussion, it's good to me. But I have results of scientific research and years of experimentation behind me. I rely more on these than on opinions.

 

[Lasse]

@Hans-Werner . I think that both me and @Thales not disagree with you according to PO4 concentrations. My concern is more if low NO3 concentrations in reality can serve as a limitation for growth of unwanted algae but not as a limitation for zooxanthellae growth. The N content in most algae species (and N/P quota) is in average much higher compared with other organism which indicate a higher demand of inorganic N in the water column. In this point - I do not disagree with you. However I am more concerned of which species of inorganic N that are dominate in the water column. IMO - benthic algae will be more NH4/NH3 depended compared with planktonic algae (Zooxanthellae is a captured planktonic algae).

I´m thankful for the links but in both fertilization experiment - high levels of NH4/NH3 was used. In the Hawaii experiment - pure NH4Cl was used as inorganic N fertilizer.

In the Red Sea experiment a granulate fertilizer that result in around 45 % NH4-N and around 55 % NO3-N of the total N fertilization - from the article

this approach provides a fast and high supply of macronutrients (15% total N (8% nitrate N, 7% ammoniacal N), 9% available phosphate, 12% soluble potash)

The authors was surprised that the N uptake in the zooxanthellae under the enrichment experiment did not rise compared with control. One of the possible reasons that support my thoughts was this

There are several possibilities why this was not observed in our study. Firstly, NO3− uptake in zooxanthellae can be highest under low NH4+ availability (Grover et al., 2003; Tanaka et al., 2017), however, NH4+ was elevated ~5-fold compared to the environmental background in our experiment (Table S1). Secondly, P can be a limiting factor to zooxanthellae’s N uptake (Godinot et al., 2011)

Yes - I´m cherry picking but I just want to highlight that there is some reality behind my thoughts

Lately - there has been some ideas to use NH4 and/or amino acids instead of NO3 as DIN source for corals - IMO - this will increase the possibility for unwanted benthic algae growth.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Christoph]

Lets ask an expert.

@Christoph

Any comments, Christoph?

Hi Randy,

Iodine is indeed difficult to measure, but its very do-able when a suitable protocol is followed.

Here is the reasons:

1) When someone trained in trace metal analysis would apply his procedures to iodine, he would get likely fairly random numbers - there is special factors regarding sample handling and measurement that need to be in place for reliable iodine measurements.

2) for ICP-OES: Iodine has not very intense emission lines on most spectrometers, so sensitivity is not very good (but sufficient)

3) the most common (and intense) emission line at 187 nm is suffering from phosphorus interference. For this reason we cannot quantify iodine on our ICP-OES when the phosphorus level is high

4) ICP-MS is way superior for iodine determination since there is no interferences - also the detection limit is well below 1 µg/l.

There is plenty of publications regarding iodine analysis using ICP-MS (and also OES), so it can definitely be done.

for example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889157522002186

Determination of urinary iodine by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry - PubMed

The ICP-MS method described here is fast, accurate and specific for the quantification of urinary iodine. Compared to the S-K method the urinary iodine concentrations measured by the ICP-MS method were slightly, but significantly lower. Consequently, the results of studies using S-K method...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Best regards,
Christoph

 

[Thales]

Not really a surprise if noone tries ...

I recommend to try to limit iron also. Iron is the second nutrient green algae need in much higher concentrations than corals.

So the answer is no, there is no support for this statement:
Hans-Werner said:
“Corals will grow on the phosphate and trace elements and will outcomplete green algae at nitrogen”
Thanks.

Article on nitrogen fertilization in Red Sea reef.

N + P fertilization experiment on algae.

I am sure there are much more articles around but I don't care too much about opionions. I give you the best information I can, and you can accept it or discard it. It's your choice. I don't care.

That seems rude and unnecessary, especially when you are sharing your opinions, and forces me to squint at your advice/opinions, and the claims about products your company sells.

If I get new ideas from discussion, it's good to me. But I have results of scientific research and years of experimentation behind me.

So does almost everyone else participating in this discussion. Ideas are great. Stating them as fact, not so much.

I rely more on these than on opinions.

Yet you keep sharing your opinions. That seems like a double standard.But, as you say, you don’t care.

I apologize in advance, if I am completely misunderstanding you

 

[Hans-Werner]

Lately - there has been some ideas to use NH4 and/or amino acids instead of NO3 as DIN source for corals - IMO - this will increase the possibility for unwanted benthic algae growth.

At the moment I am not thinking much about N dosing since I don't do N experiments and so I just don't dose it. I can see in coral colors and algal growth when I feed more to the fish or when during holidays someone fed more than I usually feed. For me that's sufficient to regulate N nutrition in the tanks.

Your statement may also be true if you follow my argumentation: Nitrate in the "target concentrations" of many reef tanks acts more as an oxidant than as a nutrient. The oxidant function will suppress iron availability and in this way inhibit algal and cyanobacterial growth.

What happens if both, nitrate and ammonium, are present as nutrients in your "model"? Will algae grow or won't they?

Another interesting conclusion - IMO - that can be drawn from this aquarium experiment is that zooxanthellae in these corals can use NO3 as a nitrogen source. This is due to the fact that no ammonium source is included in the experiment (more than the coral's own excretion)

Yes, of course zooxanthellae can use nitrate. If they wouldn't, nitrate just wouldn't cause any harm to corals. The problem of oxidative stress occurs in corals when nitrate is available and other nutrients are scarce. The zooxanthellae assimilate nitrate, producing reactive oxygen species ROS which cause bleaching and burning tissue at the most light exposed sites. Low phosphate concentration inhibits repair mechanisms. Corals get harmed and may die.

Most autotrophic organisms can use nitrate and ammonium, also land plants and freshwater plants. Usually one is preferred and one or both in unbalanced ratios may have unwanted physiological effects. Most land plants prefer nitrate to balance the uptake of cations like potassium, calcium, magnesium etc.. However, nitrate application alone also doesn't seem to be best, it seems to interfere with phosphate and iron in plants, likely by elevating pH inside and outside the plants.

Although reef chemistry may be complicated, some aspects may be quite straightforward.

 

[Hans-Werner]

So the answer is no, there is no support for this statement:
Hans-Werner said:
“Corals will grow on the phosphate and trace elements and will outcomplete green algae at nitrogen”
Thanks.

That seems rude and unnecessary, especially when you are sharing your opinions, and forces me to squint at your advice/opinions, and the claims about products your company sells.

So does almost everyone else participating in this discussion. Ideas are great. Stating them as fact, not so much.

Yet you keep sharing your opinions. That seems like a double standard.But, as you say, you don’t care.

I apologize in advance, if I am completely misunderstanding you

In general science is not conceived as opinion.

I am sorry if some points cam over rude. I guess these are subtleties that don't pass the language barrier.

This may seem also rude to you: In my eyes it doesn't make sense to get away from the points and discuss the discussion. So I will end here to discuss the discussion from my side.

 

[Thales]

In general science is not conceived as opinion.

I am sorry if some points cam over rude. I guess these are subtleties that don't pass the language barrier.

This may seem also rude to you: In my eyes it doesn't make sense to get away from the points and discuss the discussion. So I will end here to discuss the discussion from my side.

But you seem to keep sharing your opinion as science.

 

[Hans-Werner]

But you seem to keep sharing your opinion as science.

Where? The articles I link are science. Then I have own observations and measurements, and if I draw conclusions I can't prove from these observations I usually mark it as opinion by "in my eyes" or "I think" or similar.

However, I don't give to every point that is backed by science one or several articles, that would be a bit too much I think.

I have linked a number of articles in this forum. I do not link every article again and again everytime I state something as a proven scientific fact.

Of course also many scientific articles can have bad results or make wrong conclusions, but usually scientific results should be reproducable, are done in parallell replicate experiments and the "material and methods" are documented in the articles. Usually scientists also have better tools for analysis than we have.

 

[Hans-Werner]

But you seem to keep sharing your opinion as science.

What point exactly is annoying you? Concluding from your reactions there is some fact or opinion you don't want to accept and that is causing you coginitive dissonance.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hi Randy,

Iodine is indeed difficult to measure, but its very do-able when a suitable protocol is followed.

Here is the reasons:

1) When someone trained in trace metal analysis would apply his procedures to iodine, he would get likely fairly random numbers - there is special factors regarding sample handling and measurement that need to be in place for reliable iodine measurements.

2) for ICP-OES: Iodine has not very intense emission lines on most spectrometers, so sensitivity is not very good (but sufficient)

3) the most common (and intense) emission line at 187 nm is suffering from phosphorus interference. For this reason we cannot quantify iodine on our ICP-OES when the phosphorus level is high

4) ICP-MS is way superior for iodine determination since there is no interferences - also the detection limit is well below 1 µg/l.

There is plenty of publications regarding iodine analysis using ICP-MS (and also OES), so it can definitely be done.

for example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889157522002186

Determination of urinary iodine by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry - PubMed

The ICP-MS method described here is fast, accurate and specific for the quantification of urinary iodine. Compared to the S-K method the urinary iodine concentrations measured by the ICP-MS method were slightly, but significantly lower. Consequently, the results of studies using S-K method...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Best regards,
Christoph

Thank you Christoph.