Another Triton ICP "High Tin" Case

[Dr. Jim]

I definitely think that this may be the case. We started up our tank in February of this year. It was a new @Waterbox Aquariums 220.6. We started doing ICP tests through Triton starting in February because I wanted to make sure we documented regularly and with the same company. We have basically been doing a 32g water change weekly. Here are our Tin values over this past year. One thing to note... Our corals and fish are doing great and we haven't really seen any adverse effects (that we know of) so far.

2/2020	3/2020	5/2020	6/2020	8/2020	9/2020	10/2020	11/2020
5.259	15	7.098	5.512	5.624	5.476	9.555	8.407

Do you have acro's? I'm very convinced that TIN levels of at least 18 will affect acro's, but levels over 100 didn't appear to affect my LPS, monti's or gorgonians (although I only have a few of these compared to 50+ acros). Here are my levels over the past 6 months .... (NEW tank set up 11 mo ago). I finally got my tin level down to an acceptable level (4.47 as of 2 weeks ago) after getting rid of the Red Sea "green tubing", the new Red Sea skimmer, and a piece of new PVC pipe I used as a temporary drain when I removed the Red Sea sched 80 drain:

5/11/20 Triton	6/1/20 Triton	6/1/20 ATI	6/27/20 Triton	8/13/20 ATI	9/15 ATI	10/6/20 ATI	10/19/20 OCEAMO	11/4/20 ATI	11/17/20 Triton
18	22	45.84 (0.47)	18 (0.1)	114.2 (0.48)	122.0 (0.48)	87.27 (0.50)	14.2 (<1)	49.97 (0.50)	4.472 (0.1)

I can't find the quote right now, but I'm fairly sure that it was AquaForest that wrote that Tin levels over 10 can be detrimental to corals.

I am still negotiating with Red Sea so can't say everything I would like to say at this point, but I will mention that one of their "rebuttals" was that tin leaching from plastic will dissipate over 3 months. I clearly proved this to be a false statement. There were many items I tested after being in use for over 9 months that still showed dangerously high levels of tin, including the "green tubing" that showed a level of 1400 after 8 months of use.

Red Sea is also claiming that only 10% of measured tin is toxic and only 40% of a tube or pipe makes contact with water, so they are trying to say all my values should be reduced by these amounts. Of course they didn't consider that simply soaking tubing or pipes with no flow as I did would result in lower numbers than if I had a pump pushing water through them as happens in "real life"! (I have a battle on my hands!)

 

[esther]

Do you have acro's? I'm very convinced that TIN levels of at least 18 will affect acro's, but levels over 100 didn't appear to affect my LPS, monti's or gorgonians (although I only have a few of these compared to 50+ acros). Here are my levels over the past 6 months .... (NEW tank set up 11 mo ago). I finally got my tin level down to an acceptable level (4.47 as of 2 weeks ago) after getting rid of the Red Sea "green tubing", the new Red Sea skimmer, and a piece of new PVC pipe I used as a temporary drain when I removed the Red Sea sched 80 drain:

​

5/11/20 Triton	6/1/20 Triton	6/1/20 ATI	6/27/20 Triton	8/13/20 ATI	9/15 ATI	10/6/20 ATI	10/19/20 OCEAMO	11/4/20 ATI	11/17/20 Triton
18	22	45.84 (0.47)	18 (0.1)	114.2 (0.48)	122.0 (0.48)	87.27 (0.50)	14.2 (<1)	49.97 (0.50)	4.472 (0.1)

I can't find the quote right now, but I'm fairly sure that it was AquaForest that wrote that Tin levels over 10 can be detrimental to corals.

I am still negotiating with Red Sea so can't say everything I would like to say at this point, but I will mention that one of their "rebuttals" was that tin leaching from plastic will dissipate over 3 months. I clearly proved this to be a false statement. There were many items I tested after being in use for over 9 months that still showed dangerously high levels of tin, including the "green tubing" that showed a level of 1400 after 8 months of use.

Red Sea is also claiming that only 10% of measured tin is toxic and only 40% of a tube or pipe makes contact with water, so they are trying to say all my values should be reduced by these amounts. Of course they didn't consider that simply soaking tubing or pipes with no flow as I did would result in lower numbers than if I had a pump pushing water through them as happens in "real life"! (I have a battle on my hands!)

I do have acros. We have a full mixed reef and everything seems to be steadily growing and doing well. The only thing I’ve noticed is coloration isn’t 100% where it should be, but that may be due to PO4 being at 0.1 maybe? Anyhow, looking forward to hearing how this all works out for you.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I can't find the quote right now, but I'm fairly sure that it was AquaForest that wrote that Tin levels over 10 can be detrimental to corals.

Not sure what they are basing that on, since no one knows what forms of tin are in any given reef tank.

I've seen tin levels reported in dozens of aquaria, and certainly many are above 10 ug/l without apparently reporting a "problem". That said, no one knows what any given tank would look like with higher or lower levels of tin, and it is certainly a fine thing to try to minimize.

 

[Dr. Jim]

I do have acros. We have a full mixed reef and everything seems to be steadily growing and doing well. The only thing I’ve noticed is coloration isn’t 100% where it should be, but that may be due to PO4 being at 0.1 maybe? Anyhow, looking forward to hearing how this all works out for you.

Most of your values are in the 5-10 range (with one at 15), all much lower than my results, which might give further support to the suggestion that levels below 10-18 may not be too terribly detrimental to acro's (although of course not desirable to have).

 

[Dr. Jim]

Not sure what they are basing that on, since no one knows what forms of tin are in any given reef tank.

I've seen tin levels reported in dozens of aquaria, and certainly many are above 10 ug/l without apparently reporting a "problem". That said, no one knows what any given tank would look like with higher or lower levels of tin, and it is certainly a fine thing to try to minimize.

Agreed. I think the best conclusion we can reach is that if someone is having problems with acro's with a tin level above 10-15 (with all other parameters in acceptable ranges), then tin should be considered as being a likely (or at least possible) source of the problem.

 

[Yevoc]

Hello Dr. Jim
I don't know if it is worth looking into but for the sake of science I will bring it up.

The Sicce pump on the the Red Sea skimmers, under the plastic cap that covers the epoxy, there is a shiny mylar sticker with a series number on it.

Might be harmless but it is the only thing besides the screw that looks metallic.

 

[Dr. Jim]

Hello Dr. Jim
I don't know if it is worth looking into but for the sake of science I will bring it up.

The Sicce pump on the the Red Sea skimmers, under the plastic cap that covers the epoxy, there is a shiny mylar sticker with a series number on it.

Might be harmless but it is the only thing besides the screw that looks metallic.

Hi Yevoc.

I only used the R.S. Skimmer for 3 weeks. I bought it new when I found suggestion that my Octopus skimmer may be leaching tin. It turned out that it was something else in the "soak tank" that was with the Octopus. I then soon learned the new R.S. Skimmer was leaching a significant amount of tin so I stopped using it (and went back to the Octopus).

In retrospect, I do believe that it is very likely that any new skimmer or reactor may leach tin. And, if it does, I have good reason to believe it could take well over 9 -12 months before levels start to decline.

I do have 3 Sicce pumps in my system. They were all "soak tested" and found to be fine.

But thank you for taking the time to take a photo and for your post! Much appreciated! (At least everybody with Sicce pumps can relax!)

Jim

 

[Petesreef]

I definitely think that this may be the case. We started up our tank in February of this year. It was a new @Waterbox Aquariums 220.6. We started doing ICP tests through Triton starting in February because I wanted to make sure we documented regularly and with the same company. We have basically been doing a 32g water change weekly. Here are our Tin values over this past year. One thing to note... Our corals and fish are doing great and we haven't really seen any adverse effects (that we know of) so far.

2/2020	3/2020	5/2020	6/2020	8/2020	9/2020	10/2020	11/2020
5.259	15	7.098	5.512	5.624	5.476	9.555	8.407

I think you might have the solution to this problem which maybe we could call "New Tank Syndrome" - newer (<2yr) and especially smaller (<300g) systems have a potential "leaching" issue of ALL their new equipment & media (just think about how many different things we are putting into reef systems now!) which could have significant and potentially harmful effects.

Maybe good old regular Water Changes in the first 2 years could significantly help reduce these effects (your 32g weekly w.c. on a ~200g system seems to be keeping your livestock and ICP #'s stable) until our systems have time to stabilize.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hello Dr. Jim
I don't know if it is worth looking into but for the sake of science I will bring it up.

The Sicce pump on the the Red Sea skimmers, under the plastic cap that covers the epoxy, there is a shiny mylar sticker with a series number on it.

Metallized plastic is typically aluminum.

 

[Rickyrooz]

Glad to see you are back Dr. Jim

 

[PSXerholic]

Do you have acro's? I'm very convinced that TIN levels of at least 18 will affect acro's, but levels over 100 didn't appear to affect my LPS, monti's or gorgonians (although I only have a few of these compared to 50+ acros). Here are my levels over the past 6 months .... (NEW tank set up 11 mo ago). I finally got my tin level down to an acceptable level (4.47 as of 2 weeks ago) after getting rid of the Red Sea "green tubing", the new Red Sea skimmer, and a piece of new PVC pipe I used as a temporary drain when I removed the Red Sea sched 80 drain:

​

5/11/20 Triton	6/1/20 Triton	6/1/20 ATI	6/27/20 Triton	8/13/20 ATI	9/15 ATI	10/6/20 ATI	10/19/20 OCEAMO	11/4/20 ATI	11/17/20 Triton
18	22	45.84 (0.47)	18 (0.1)	114.2 (0.48)	122.0 (0.48)	87.27 (0.50)	14.2 (<1)	49.97 (0.50)	4.472 (0.1)

I can't find the quote right now, but I'm fairly sure that it was AquaForest that wrote that Tin levels over 10 can be detrimental to corals.

I am still negotiating with Red Sea so can't say everything I would like to say at this point, but I will mention that one of their "rebuttals" was that tin leaching from plastic will dissipate over 3 months. I clearly proved this to be a false statement. There were many items I tested after being in use for over 9 months that still showed dangerously high levels of tin, including the "green tubing" that showed a level of 1400 after 8 months of use.

Red Sea is also claiming that only 10% of measured tin is toxic and only 40% of a tube or pipe makes contact with water, so they are trying to say all my values should be reduced by these amounts. Of course they didn't consider that simply soaking tubing or pipes with no flow as I did would result in lower numbers than if I had a pump pushing water through them as happens in "real life"! (I have a battle on my hands!)

Hi Dr.Jim,
Noticed your thread here due to someone which linked me to the ICP post links.
In the Reef Moonshiner's community, there are cases in the 120microgram/L with no visual issues or at least no losses up to levels of 250 and higher in certain cases of Tin.
Very common is Tin in the 20-40 range if elevated, which doesn't seem to cause any issues at all.

I personally prefer to have some Tin detectable in the 5-15 range, but it usually depletes very heavily in full synthetic Reefing methods due to no water changes and reduced import of "impurities".
Tin from new tanks, is a big source, but also magnets apparently, and very suspicious are frozen foods.

I see a lot of times Tin as a source in some Salt mixes (no names!).

Cheers
-Andre

 

[Dr. Jim]

Hi Dr.Jim,
Noticed your thread here due to someone which linked me to the ICP post links.
In the Reef Moonshiner's community, there are cases in the 120microgram/L with no visual issues or at least no losses up to levels of 250 and higher in certain cases of Tin.
Very common is Tin in the 20-40 range if elevated, which doesn't seem to cause any issues at all.

I personally prefer to have some Tin detectable in the 5-15 range, but it usually depletes very heavily in full synthetic Reefing methods due to no water changes and reduced import of "impurities".
Tin from new tanks, is a big source, but also magnets apparently, and very suspicious are frozen foods.

I see a lot of times Tin as a source in some Salt mixes (no names!).

Cheers
-Andre

When you say you've seen levels of 250 without issues, are you including SPS? If so, that is very conflicting with what I have found. (But it may be a little more believable if you tell me LPS).

 

[PSXerholic]

When you say you've seen levels of 250 without issues, are you including SPS? If so, that is very conflicting with what I have found. (But it may be a little more believable if you tell me LPS).

Let me clarify, 120 wasn’t really linked to SPS losses. That however doesn’t include sensitive SPS such as Echinatas as more delicate species. Corals did not show signs of heavy impacts in these ranges.
Going into the 180-250 ranges which I believe was outside the liable detection levels of the ICP labs, corals looked rough, bleached but not to the point of massive losses. How long they have been exposed to those is unclear and many people aren’t really honest when they bringing this up or just don’t know better.

Point I was trying to make, is that your levels are not of concern in my opinion to take drastic actions.
However I typically advise to keep the Test routine up to watch the trending of traces over time in order to see if preventive steps should be taken or something need investigation.

 

[Dr. Jim]

Let me clarify, 120 wasn’t really linked to SPS losses. That however doesn’t include sensitive SPS such as Echinatas as more delicate species. Corals did not show signs of heavy impacts in these ranges.
Going into the 180-250 ranges which I believe was outside the liable detection levels of the ICP labs, corals looked rough, bleached but not to the point of massive losses. How long they have been exposed to those is unclear and many people aren’t really honest when they bringing this up or just don’t know better.

Point I was trying to make, is that your levels are not of concern in my opinion to take drastic actions.
However I typically advise to keep the Test routine up to watch the trending of traces over time in order to see if preventive steps should be taken or something need investigation.

Thank you for clarifying this.

Andre, I admire your accomplishments and value your opinions, but this time I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Since I did not set up a scientific experiment with a control I have no way to prove my findings but there is no doubt in my mind that the tin levels I had caused problems with my SPS frags, including death. However, it is important to say that it would not surprise me at all if a well-established mature tank with SPS colonies might fare better than my small and young Q-tank with relatively new SPS frags. (45 gal cube; 5-10 mo of age during testing period). I strongly suspect that this may explain the differences that we are each claiming (i.e. perhaps your observations were with SPS colonies in mature tanks?)

FWIW, My recommendation to others is that if one has tin levels of 15-20 or higher and is having problems with SPS and can't find any other possible cause, then I would certainly investigate the source of the tin.
And, even if there are no visual effects on SPS colonies, perhaps we should wonder if they might "do better" without the tin.

Andre, I really wish tin was "good" for our tanks..... I could sell you bottled water for cheap for your Moonshiners collection!

Thanks for helping.
Jim

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I will remind folks that there are lots of different tin compounds used in different applications and made by different companies that will have very different toxicity. Thus a single number suggesting tin is OK or not OK may not be appropriate for all aquaria.

This paper shows more than a 2,000x difference in toxicity of different organic tin compounds:

Canadian Science Publishing

"Abstract
The effects of a number of inorganic and organic tin compounds on pure cultures of green and blue-green algae and natural phytoplankton in lake water were tested. Organic tin compounds were generally more inhibitory to primary production and reproduction of the algae than inorganic tin compounds. The toxicity of organotin compounds varied considerably with the number and nature of the organic groups attached to tin, with trialkyl tin compounds being the most toxic forms. Within a given alkyl tin compound series, the longer the carbon chain, the higher the toxicity. A direct relationship between toxicity and partition coefficients of trialkyl tin compounds was observed. Other tin compounds had no such direct relationship.Key words: algae, tin, toxicity, partition coefficients"

 

[Dr. Jim]

I will remind folks that there are lots of different tin compounds used in different applications and made by different companies that will have very different toxicity. Thus a single number suggesting tin is OK or not OK may not be appropriate for all aquaria.

This paper shows more than a 2,000x difference in toxicity of different organic tin compounds:

Canadian Science Publishing

"Abstract
The effects of a number of inorganic and organic tin compounds on pure cultures of green and blue-green algae and natural phytoplankton in lake water were tested. Organic tin compounds were generally more inhibitory to primary production and reproduction of the algae than inorganic tin compounds. The toxicity of organotin compounds varied considerably with the number and nature of the organic groups attached to tin, with trialkyl tin compounds being the most toxic forms. Within a given alkyl tin compound series, the longer the carbon chain, the higher the toxicity. A direct relationship between toxicity and partition coefficients of trialkyl tin compounds was observed. Other tin compounds had no such direct relationship.Key words: algae, tin, toxicity, partition coefficients"

Thanks for this Randy.

I wasn't really trying to pinpoint a "number" other than possibly suggesting that levels of below 15-20 may not be harmful IME. But at least this article suggests that tin CAN be toxic.....so at least this much can be established.

 

[PSXerholic]

Thank you for clarifying this.

Andre, I admire your accomplishments and value your opinions, but this time I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Since I did not set up a scientific experiment with a control I have no way to prove my findings but there is no doubt in my mind that the tin levels I had caused problems with my SPS frags, including death. However, it is important to say that it would not surprise me at all if a well-established mature tank with SPS colonies might fare better than my small and young Q-tank with relatively new SPS frags. (45 gal cube; 5-10 mo of age during testing period). I strongly suspect that this may explain the differences that we are each claiming (i.e. perhaps your observations were with SPS colonies in mature tanks?)

FWIW, My recommendation to others is that if one has tin levels of 15-20 or higher and is having problems with SPS and can't find any other possible cause, then I would certainly investigate the source of the tin.
And, even if there are no visual effects on SPS colonies, perhaps we should wonder if they might "do better" without the tin.

Andre, I really wish tin was "good" for our tanks..... I could sell you bottled water for cheap for your Moonshiners collection!

Thanks for helping.
Jim

Jim, to be honest there is much more to healthy or dead corals than just to look at Traces we can detect via a conventional ICP test!

Would love to see the ICP you have on file when you experienced SPS losses and what type of losses and some other background info such as Temp ranges, PH lowest in the morning and highest in the evening, if Aminos or carbohydrates were used and all that.
However at the end of all that, it means nothing, and is only indicative since there are so many artificial and natural based reasons why your SPS could have died.

A lot of times as Randy partially touched, there are suspicious toxins or toxic elements that may have played a role. May it be from the Livestock, surrounding environment or supplements we used.
I personally have changed compounds I used, due to that concern to be as compatible as possible.

Not asking this for arguing, but more for gaining experience from others in these matters, as I had to realize that every case is different and "we" as reefing community tend to oversimplify things pretty fast ;-)
But we gotta start somewhere and sharing info is a good start.

 

[PSXerholic]

I will remind folks that there are lots of different tin compounds used in different applications and made by different companies that will have very different toxicity. Thus a single number suggesting tin is OK or not OK may not be appropriate for all aquaria.

This paper shows more than a 2,000x difference in toxicity of different organic tin compounds:

Canadian Science Publishing

"Abstract
The effects of a number of inorganic and organic tin compounds on pure cultures of green and blue-green algae and natural phytoplankton in lake water were tested. Organic tin compounds were generally more inhibitory to primary production and reproduction of the algae than inorganic tin compounds. The toxicity of organotin compounds varied considerably with the number and nature of the organic groups attached to tin, with trialkyl tin compounds being the most toxic forms. Within a given alkyl tin compound series, the longer the carbon chain, the higher the toxicity. A direct relationship between toxicity and partition coefficients of trialkyl tin compounds was observed. Other tin compounds had no such direct relationship.Key words: algae, tin, toxicity, partition coefficients"

Very interesting! I will buy and read that up, thank you for sharing.

 

[Dr. Jim]

Here's the quote from Fauna Marin that I referred to earlier (but couldn't find at the time):

TIN​

"Tin occurs in seawater up to 3 µg/l (0,26 US.liq.gal.) and should be kept below 10 µg/l (0,26 US.liq.gal.) due to its harmful effect on SPS. Tin concentrations above the recommended values can lead to creeping tissue detachment and death in fast-growing SPS."

I can agree with this!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here's the quote from Fauna Marin that I referred to earlier (but couldn't find at the time):

TIN​

"Tin occurs in seawater up to 3 µg/l (0,26 US.liq.gal.) and should be kept below 10 µg/l (0,26 US.liq.gal.) due to its harmful effect on SPS. Tin concentrations above the recommended values can lead to creeping tissue detachment and death in fast-growing SPS."

I can agree with this!

I cannot. IMO, this sort of statement is terribly misleading.