Analyzing Hanna Ammonia checker Hi784, chemistry and performance

[Mr Phu]

If I use this calculator and salinity 35 psu, temperature 77 F and pH 8.1 will it give around 0.025 mg/L free NH3. It will not kill any fish.
But - if it a newly started aquarium - I personally would not put in fish (or any gill breathing animals) before I has done some following up measurements during 2 - 3 days and see if the trend is stable, up or downward. In my mature aquarium NH3+NH4 is normally around 0.04.

Other people will probably advise you differently but there is a few parameters where I want both braces and a waist belt to feel secure. NH3 is one of those where I want the trend to be stable or down. However - is not so much the actual number I relay on - its the trend.

Sincerely Lasse

Free NH3 is 0.0315 is that safety ??

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Free NH3 is 0.0315 is that safety ??

0.5 ppm total ammonia is ok when starting a tank. As Lasse notes, making sure it is not rising more is desirable.

 

[Mr Phu]

0.5 ppm total ammonia is ok when starting a tank. As Lasse notes, making sure it is not rising more is desirable.

U mean the Hanna checker is below 0.50 ppm TAN is oke right ?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

U mean the Hanna checker is below 0.50 ppm TAN is oke right ?

Yes. It takes much more to kill a fish:

Ammonia is Our Friend!

Ammonia is Our Friend By Randy Holmes-Farley Yes, I know the title is provocative, and likely goes against much of what you read and hear in the reef aquarium hobby. I believe, however, that the hobby may have been harmed by the continual...

www.reef2reef.com

From it:

1. While ammonia is toxic at high levels, the levels needed to be lethal to a marine fish are higher than many people think. I’ve not seen any study in the literature that shows an LC50 (half of fish die) in less than 15 ppm total ammonia in seawater over 4 days or more of exposure at normal pH.

2. Sublethal toxic effects of ammonia, such as gill lesions observed by histopathology, do not seem to become significant until levels reach 5-10 ppm total ammonia at pH 8.1.

3. The toxicity of ammonia is a function of pH. At pH 8.5, toxic effects kick in at ammonia levels 2.5x lower than at pH 8.1. Likewise, at pH 7.8, it takes twice as much ammonia to be toxic as at pH 8.1. In a situation where ammonia might well reach toxic levels, such as a shipping bag, raising pH in the bag should not take place.

4. Toxic levels of ammonia are just not reached in typical operating reef aquaria. Seeing a measured value of 0.2 ppm, whether real or test error, is not a concern. It may be a benefit.

 

[Lasse]

Free NH3 is 0.0315 is that safety ??

It will not kill fish direct - however seen in a longer perspective (with these numbers) - no one will know whats happens.

In a sixteen days aquarium - the main source of total ammonia may still be from the gills of the fish after eating - the breakdown bacteria's production of NH4/NH3 is normally not huge the first months. If you have overfeeding and the use of old matrix may change that but - IMO - go down with the feeding till you see your normal readings again. But you do not need to panic - only be adware of the path you are at.

IMO - WC will not affect NH3/NH4 production - maybe the opposite. Its true that nitrifications organism needs to attach to something and small particles in the water column is excellent substrate for them. A WC tend to take away these particles.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[mmorrison55]

My cycling tank, cycled with dr Tim’s and no fish. Current is showing 2.5 on the H1784 checker. Am I now supposed to do some calculation to get my true reading or am I in dangerous levels of ammonia and need to do a water change?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My cycling tank, cycled with dr Tim’s and no fish. Current is showing 2.5 on the H1784 checker. Am I now supposed to do some calculation to get my true reading or am I in dangerous levels of ammonia and need to do a water change?

Where in the cycling process are you? I think I’d advise just waiting.

 

[mmorrison55]

I’m about two weeks since I added the Dr Tim’s all for one and some Fritz ammonia chloride powder according to my tank size ~180 total gallons sump and display

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’m about two weeks since I added the Dr Tim’s all for one and some Fritz ammonia chloride powder according to my tank size ~180 total gallons sump and display

Dr Tim’s can be slow. Maybe consider some Fritz bacteria.

 

[mmorrison55]

Dr Tim’s can be slow. Maybe consider some Fritz bacteria.

I have about a 1/3 of the Dr Tim’s bottle. Should I put the rest of it in?

And if I did end up getting some Fritz, you mean the turbo start 900 stuff?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I have about a 1/3 of the Dr Tim’s bottle. Should I put the rest of it in?

And if I did end up getting some Fritz, you mean the turbo start 900 stuff?

Yes. It seems much faster than Dr Tim’s in studies folks have done.

 

[mmorrison55]

How long after adding the nitrifying bacteria should I see ammonia levels decrease?

I added the remaining ~1/3 bottle of dr Tim’s late yesterday afternoon, and rechecked ammonia and nitrite this morning. Both were reading the high limit of the Hanna checkers, so I’m not sure exactly what levels they are, but @ or higher than 2.5 for ammonia, and >200 for nitrite? Both were flashing #’s, so I think that means above what they can report.

I had a basic ammonia test kit that came with the used gear haul I picked up, and it read just a tinge darker than the 2.0 on the test color chart, so I think it’s in range of the 2.5 that the Hannah was reporting.

Anyway, should I give it days, week, weeks before checking again? And should I go ahead and add some of the Fritz in the mean time even thought I just added 80 gallons of the dr Tim’s treatment to go along with the 160 I originally added?

I will be out and about later and can’t go by my LFS to pick up more bacteria (Fritz turbo) if you think it’s needed.

I’m a bit worried that I reduced my bacteria levels significantly when a few days after I added it originally, approx 10 days ago, I removed some sand because I had way too much in my display..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Dr Tim’s was VERY slow in taricha’s study.

Not all Cycling Bacteria are created equal. Who's who, and what do they need?

Haha, if you posted this, asking if your cycle stalled or never got started, my answer would be “a dud bottle of Dr. Tim’s is not am uncommon occurrence”. Actually, no not really - if I understood correctly - he spun down all of the 'bacteria' - and used just the pellet. So 1. He could have...

www.reef2reef.com

Fritz was fast.

 

[Lasse]

It has happens that very high NH4/NH3 concentrations have total blocked the process. Do a dilution for the Hanna ammonium test - 5 ml aquarium water 5 ml RO water (if you not have mixed new saltwater) See what you get (read result * 2)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

I'm amazed that context clues are totally unfactored


"two weeks since I added the Dr Tim’s all for"

Since that wasn't a red flag to the umpires, a six month one won't be either (example=have, from this forum)

Never having an objective timing cutoff in place to deem enough contact time available to complete a cycle, and instead only relying on someone's reported test kit readings, even if we're months in the wait, is old cycling science with heels dug in

Recommending extra bottle bac can't help with disease prep, that's the enduring risk, not stalls that require endless verification



There comes a time in cycling where the number of days, the time axis from all printed cycling charts before we trained ourselves to accept as fact anything reported from home, factors.


Not being harsh, am saying yall are excluding competing data vs being willing to consider it (that nobody is stalling out in their living rooms as reported as we can see in our own searches)

why aren't we being told that time underwater factors in stalls?

Coverage happens, reported levels vary from home test kits we know.

Time underwater is objective


To rely solely on subjective data is old cycling science, objective is in now

Given enough time, most ways of cycling we do are already charted and predictable.

isn't that fair to tell readers? That if they have a stalled home reef aquarium at day fourteen wait, after being fed+heated+inoculated+cross contaminated, that's article- worthy due to rarity--》not commonality?

There's data for that possibility... and now we can invite audits from seneye owners over time to fact check.



Omitting part of a dual axis data set where time can solve the matter is restricting cycle science evolution in my opinion. I see no objective markers being applied at all for nine pages, solely what's reported as ammonia determines ethical start dates: that isn't the right way friends/I know you want to help fish systems

help by leading away from stall scaring which doesn't occur, and right into disease preps since you can also see the masses have that as a real, pressing, daily and documented need


Can anyone post one instance of any dr time fed cycle, at two weeks, failing on a seneye log from posters who don't do cycle work, just from a recent seneye thread? I haven't seen any in years, and i watch for them like a hawksbill

it'll be amazing if someone locates two examples from the thousands of seneye logs available in Facebook forums, web sites etc.

Lots stated in this thread doesn't line up with owning a seneye, and calibrating it, before posting.


we are omitting valid tools, data sets, all kinds of patterns just to keep the focus on stalls


The reason a group of anthias lives in a new reef tank, for half a month and then after, adding only bottle bac and feeding daily, is due to the effectiveness of bottle bacteria not the lack thereof

The context clue for the prior tank before this one were the words anthias plus weeks of feeding and they don't die or act the slightest harm that's not a teetering stall. Anthias during a cycle is the best testament to bottle bac not stalling efficacy we can see as reefers

Anthias dead vs alive: that's objective

Fish that keep living in every cycling post we can find: objective

That's locked in, from day one, just like all other bottle bac cycle threads (the big picture outcome)

The findings about cycles here are in total opposition to mine, wanted to note for future reference.

 

[brandon429]

A seneye from a reef tank aquarium thread is great data. And then search out several more, keep an eye for new posts from seneye users (I've sent them messages asking to see the cycling time logs, they're happy to usually, patterns stand out)

From peers who are neutrally reporting seneye trends, with no skin in the convince a stall stance... that pattern matters

It's pure neutral data compiled for five years now, people's uploaded seneye data. I'm amazed that group pattern isn't more valuable to cycle umps... there are situations where nobody's cycle stalls


And I think readers should investigate that potential truth as well, so that reef cycling is advanced/ the point

This thread relies on the reported data, a sole evaluation point, from the tank owner to discern ethical start dates but they won't factor massive group seneye data, nor will any mention of disease prep ever be factored in the safe start date solely because we're in a chemistry forum....


That huge giant gatekeep = ocs

In old cycling science, every poster leaves thinking their tank is definitely stalled, I've noticed that pattern

The last two aquariums posted here would pass a seneye audit. Stamped for history. One day 80% of us will all have seneye- like devices, we will know ammonia timing then.

It's too comfortable to unfactor the group reporting data that's freely accessible any longer in the matter, imo.

 

[mmorrison55]

I'm amazed that context clues are totally unfactored


"two weeks since I added the Dr Tim’s all for"

Since that wasn't a red flag to the umpires, a six month one won't be either (example=have, from this forum)

Never having an objective timing cutoff in place to deem enough contact time available to complete a cycle, and instead only relying on someone's reported test kit readings, even if we're months in the wait, is old cycling science with heels dug in

Recommending extra bottle bac, to a cycled tank, is ocs. It's overselling bottle bac unneeded



There comes a time in cycling where the number of days, the time axis from all printed cycling charts before we trained ourselves to accept as fact anything reported from home, factors.

why aren't we being told that time underwater factors in stalls? Coverage happens, reported levels vary



Omitting part of a dual axis data set where time can solve the matter is ocs

There are about five more markers of old cycling science here causing stumbles in cycles no seneye owner will ever face.

Last objective request

Can anyone in all reefing post one instance of any dr time fed cycle, at two weeks, failing on a seneye log? What if I pay a small PayPal bounty to the first 'getter... do we get to see independent stall data then?

Or will it be: no seneye stall data posted, heels dug in? Friendly requests shore up gaps between new and old cycling science.

Lots stated in this thread doesn't line up with owning a seneye, and calibrating it, before posting. That changes so much, the need for stall assessments...

Thanks for the reply. I have a few clarifying questions since I want to be sure I’m fully understanding…

1.Two weeks is a red flag why? Is that not enough time since I added the Dr Tim’s for it to reduce the ammonia or is that too long?

2. OCS? Is that shorthand for over complicating **** or something else? I’m not familiar with the acronym.

3. Seneye? Is that another word for the Hannah checkers that sense the color in the test vials?


To level set, ~ 12 days ago, I added saltwater to my tank. The next day I added fritz ammonium chloride powder according to the directions for 180 gallon system. Several hours later once I made a trip to my LFS, I picked up a 240 gallon treatment size of Dr Tim’s. I added ~ 3/4 of the bottle (3/4 240. =180). I had ordered the 8174 ammonia checker to be delivered soon thereafter. 1st one arrived DOA so had to get another one. FF to two days ago my checkers came in. I tested ammonia last night on the Hannah checked and it read flashing 2.5, which I assume means it’s actually above 2.5. I then added the reminder 80 gal treatment of the dr Tim’s. This am, I looked through the items I had picked up when I bought a lot of used gear off a guy who was getting out of the hobby. I found he had a Top Fin ammonia color chart checker. I’m color blind which is why the Hannah’s are attractive to me. Anyways, I ran the top fin test this am, and had my daughter compare to the color chart, it was darker than the 2.0 but less than the 4.0. It was just ever so darker than the 2.0 color she said. So between 2-4 ppm, but we thinks it’s closer to the 2.0-2.5 range if we had to guess.

I also have a Hannah nitrite ULR checker and ran a test on sample for ***** and giggles. It reported my nitrites as flashing 200 So my sample was above the range it could report.

I went to LFS this morning and added 200 gallon treatment of the fritz turbo start 900.


Also I need to add, that a day or two after adding the Dr Tim’s. I removed some sand, as my sand bed was way too deep for my liking. So I’m sure that removed some of the bacteria as well.

I think that about clarifies my process up to now. Any suggestions on how to proceed is appreciated

Thanks

Mike

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks for the reply. I have a few clarifying questions since I want to be sure I’m fully understanding…

1.Two weeks is a red flag why? Is that not enough time since I added the Dr Tim’s for it to reduce the ammonia or is that too long?

2. OCS? Is that shorthand for over complication **** or something else? I’m not familiar with the acronym.

3. Seneye? Is that another word for the Hannah checkers that sense the color in the test vials?


To level set, ~ 12 days ago, I added saltwater to my tank. The next day I added fritz ammonium chloride powder according to the directions for 180 gallon system. Several hours later once I made a trip to my LFS, I picked up a 240 gallon treatment size of Dr Tim’s. I added ~ 3/4 of the bottle (3/4 240. =180). I had ordered the 8174 ammonia checker to be delivered soon thereafter. 1st one arrived DOA so had to get another one. FF to two days ago my checkers came in. I tested ammonia last night on the Hannah checked and it read flashing 2.5, which I assume means it’s actually above 2.5. I then added the reminder 80 gal treatment of the dr Tim’s. This am, I looked through the items I had picked up when I bought a lot of used gear off a guy who was getting out of the hobby. I found he had a Top Fin ammonia color chart checker. I’m color blind which is why the Hannah’s are attractive to me. Anyways, I ran the top fin test this am, and had my daughter compare to the color chart, it was darker than the 2.0 but less than the 4.0. It was just ever so darker than the 2.0 color she said. So between 2-4 ppm, but we thinks it’s closer to the 2.0-2.5 range if we had to guess.

I also have a Hannah nitrite ULR checker and ran a test on sample for ***** and giggles. It reported my nitrites as flashing 200 So my sample was above the range it could report.

I went to LFS this morning and added 200 gallon treatment of the fritz turbo start 900.


Also I need to add, that a day or two after adding the Dr Tim’s. I removed some sand, as my sand bed was way too deep for my liking. So I’m sure that removed some of the bacteria as well.

I think that about clarifies my process up to now. Any suggestions on how to proceed is appreciated

Thanks

Mike

I’ll certainly leave the questions to Brandon, but just recognize that not everyone agrees with his assertions.

 

[Lasse]

I repeat - try to dilute a sample in that way that you can read a figure with the Hanna ammonium checker. Its important to know a figure between the thumb and the index finger in order to valuate what has happen in this aquarium.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Its important to know a figure between the thumb and the index finger in order to valuate what has happen in this aquarium.

Um, what does that mean in English?