Cycling Problems with QT Tank in Laundry Room - Suspected QAC Contamination

[Tobin VP]

First post here on R2R! … I am new to the hobby but have been reading/studying it for years. I finally have space at home to begin. I will be following up in the future with build threads for my salt water mixing station, QT tanks (invert and fish), and display tank that I’m still building. I’m excited to finally post after 100s of hours of only reading.

I am having problems fishless cycling my coral quarantine tank - and it seems that I am possibly in a stalled cycle state. I have tried various substrates over the past 12 weeks and have monitored tank parameters almost daily. I have narrowed several things down and now suspect that Quaternary Ammonia Compounds (QACs) from fabric softening dryer sheets (standard Bounce Outdoor Fresh scented) have been transported into the tank through lint settling in the air. I want to get a read from the expert community if I’m on the right track here and I also want to understand the chemical mechanisms that could be at work.

Here are the details:

Tank Setup​

My coral QT tank is located with my salt water mixing station in a laundry room (Figure 1). This tank is a 10 gal Fiji Cube (7.6 gal of actual water volume) and is bare bottom with no rock. Initially upon filling the tank I used 18 MarinPure Biomedia 1.5” Spheres as a substrate, Brightwell MicroBacter QuickCycle as my ammonia source, and Birghtwell MicroBacter Start XLM as my nitrifying bacteria source. My salt mix is Red Sea Coral Pro and I use all Red Sea test kits. I should also note that I use a 7-stage BRS RODI filter system and have confirmed zero TDS in my RODI output water. I also verified less than 1 ppb Total Chlorine with Hanna Ultra Low Range Checker in my RODI water. (NOTE: My tap water is 40 ppb total chlorine. My water utility is clearly using chloramines).

Figure 1: The Coral QT tank in Laundry Room.

​

First Tank Cycle Attempt​

I was hopeful for a fast 10-day cycle but was also aware that small bare bottom QT tanks are notorious for needing more time and patience due to a lack of suitable surface area for the bacteria to take hold. It took nearly a month to cycle the tank. I took detailed readings of total ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate daily (see Figure 2 below). The shape of these curves for the most part tracked “typical” production and decay trends. At the completion of this month long process the total ammonia was reduced from 1.6 ppm to very near (but not quite) zero total ammonia (< 0.1 ppm), nitrite had spiked at 0.2 ppm and then disappeared, and I was at 2 ppm nitrate. After almost a week at this non-zero reading of < 0.1 ppm, I assumed that I was having difficulty reading zero precisely with my test kit. It seemed like the tank had for the most part cycled, but I wanted to be sure and test that before introducing livestock.

Did the Tank Cycle?​

I wanted to double check and test the cycled tank by simulating some bioload before adding any livestock. I added a small amount of QuickCycle (estimated to be a typical couple of days of bioload for a fish system of this size). This took the TA to 0.8 ppm and I expected to see it consumed within about a 24-48 hour period. Unfortunately, there was little to no response at all - I then kept supplementing with MicroBacter Start XLM and it brought it down over the course of a couple weeks. During this time it seemed like it was the bacteria dosing in the water column that was doing the work. It finally settled again at about 0.1 ppm this time a little higher than before. In retrospect having it spike to 0.8 ppm was a bit high for a 2 day bioload ... but even in this case it didn't feel like it should have taken 2 weeks with multiple supplemental bacteria doses to bring ammonia back down (these dosing times are not denoted in Figure 2). It didn't seem like the tank had cycled and I was worried that the reason the ammonia ultimately came down was due to my continued dosing of the bacteria and not because I had established a suitable microbial biome.

Attempting a Re-cycle with more Substrate​

Next I decided to do a 50% water change and then I removed my substrate (18 MarinePure ceramic bioballs) from the sump area to move into display area where I could visually examine if biofilm was forming on the media. The ceramic bioballs were in a filter mesh bag for easy removal. At this point I was shocked to find a strong biofilm coating on the entire outside of the bag. This is a good sign - right? But then I placed it in the display area and it floated! The entire bag floated with ceramic balls. The biofilm on the outside of the bag was so well formed that it was encasing the bag and sealing gas inside of it and it actually floated the bag. This was surprising to me (can someone else confirm ever seeing this?). At this point I realized that I was clearly not getting much flow into the bag where the balls were and because it was sealed off it likely was a pretty anaerobic environment. So the tank was not benefiting from the massive surface area of the media itself to grow beneficial bacteria. I started wondering if possibly I had too low of surface area for the beneficial bacteria to cycle my tank. At this point I decided to switch to the Brightwell recommended Lattice Nitraz and much more porous filter bags. I put in 2-3 times the recommended amount of Lattice media and filled the rest of my sump with 20 plastic bio balls (older technology but many experts swear by it for aerobic uses). I introduced them slowly over many days as I removed the MarinPure bio media balls and agitated them before removal to slough off as much beneficial bacteria into the water column as possible. I also re-dosed MicroBacter Start XLM all over again in an attempt to reseed the beneficial bacteria in the other media. At this point it seemed that I had plenty of the bacteria present in my tank.

I then added a couple of drops of QuicCycle to simulate a bioload to see if the tank would consume the ammonia. TA immediately spiked this time at 0.6 ppm and stayed there for over a week. Then it began going up! Wait! TA going up with no livestock? Something was wrong here. Over the next few days the TA reached 0.8 ppm and was there for several days. I continued to add supplemental bacteria and it did then go down over the next several days and this time the TA leveled off at 0.3 ppm - well above zero. At this point it felt like once again I had a stalled tank. I still had ammonia. I had helped bring it down with additional bacteria dosing but It was (and is still) stuck at TA of 0.3 ppm.

Figure 2: Cycling Data: Ammonia, Nitrite, and Nitrate over 12 weeks. Initial cycle and two subsequent stalled tests shown. There are a couple noisy/erroneous readings that are apparent in the data). Times of bacteria dosing not shown.

Finding the Problem - The Investigation into QACs​

At this point I concluded that I either a) I had another ammonia source in my tank, or b) my TA readings were wrong. First, in order to investigate I wanted to eliminate faulty readings. I made up several precise salt water batches and through several checks of my testing kits (I have multiple Red Sea kits) I got very consistently zero TA readings on these batches across more than one kit. I should also note that the other previous non-zero TA tests described above were reproducible - in many cases I double tested them. I convinced myself that the test kits and my use of them were not at issue and I was able to test zero TA with them.

I then turned my attention to possible ammonia sources and thought that it could be introduced through the air. I first looked through the tank for any large bugs or any other organics that might have fallen into the tank but I found none. Recall, that this tank is in a laundry room and I next focused on this and especially on the chemicals in the room. The laundry detergents in use (sometimes containing bleach) are kept far away from the tank - but is it possible that bleach could transport through the air? This seemed unlikely but I wanted to rule it out. I also considered the fabric softener dryer sheets in use as there is a lot of dust (i.e. lint) that forms on horizontal surfaces in the room. (Note: There are a couple existing discussions on R2R about tanks in laundry rooms but there is nothing conclusive in those threads on the associated risks.)

I purchased the Total Chlorine ULR Hanna checker and got 5 ppb TC in the tank. This was higher than my target of keeping it below 2 ppb as I found some articles suggest this level for marine environments. Recall, I get 1 ppb TC out of my 7-stage RODI so the in-tank readings showed additional TC over the source RODI water. This 5 ppb TC reading was concerning since it was clearly above the suggested safe levels. It was (and still is) not clear what impacts this has on the tank, but my focus moved quickly to fabric softeners since what I found was even more concerning.

I mixed up a precise batch of saltwater and confirmed zero TA in it. I then pulled a small amount of lint from the lint trap in the dryer, soaked it in 100 ml of this saltwater for a few minutes and then tested for ammonia. I got high levels of TA at nearly 2 ppm (this test not shown in figures). I then went around the room and collected small amounts of dust (with a wet finger) from the tops of picture frames on the walls and transferred this dust/lint into 100 ml of salt water … this too tested high for TA at 0.8 ppm (shown in Figure 3). This testing was to discern the presence or lack thereof of ammonia in the lint/dust and it showed that it was clearly present and at levels that surprised me relative to the small amounts of lint that I collected. I did not control for the precise amount of lint/dust dissolved into the water in each test case … but it was on the order of the amount that could easily settle into my tank over several weeks. This experiment clearly showed this transport mechanism as a viable ammonia source.

Next, to confirm the dryer sheets as the source of the ammonia on the lint specifically, I took a small fragment of a Bounce dryer sheet and soaked it for a few minutes in saltwater and again found high TA at 0.8 ppm (see Figure 4). It appeared to be at least in part the Bounce fabric softener sheets in use with the dryer. Note too that dryer sheets transfer a chemical coating to fabric through the sheet being heated. In this case the sheet fragment was not heated which would likely transfer far less QAC out of the sheet and into the saltwater as compared to what would occur in the dryer. I then did some research on fabric softeners and I found that almost all of them - as well as many many other things in our home environment - contain Quaternary Ammonia Compounds (QACs). I looked up the “smart label” data (detailed listing of ingredients) online for the Bounce sheets and one of its primary ingredients is Dialkylester Dimethyl Ammonium Methosulfate. Moreover there are some 52 other compounds that create “fragrance” in these Bounce sheets. Yikes!!! I'm not a chemist … but they all have scary names that only chemists can pronounce ... I would think no one would want any of them in their tank! I sure don't.

Then as a follow up test, I extensively cleaned the lint trap of the dryer and ran 5-6 loads of laundry with NO dryer sheets but still using typical laundry detergent in the wash cycle prior to the drying cycle. I then collected this lint from the lint trap and again mixed with my saltwater and tested TA. I was surprised to get almost zero TA at 0.1! Note I was not able to perfectly clean the entire inside of the dryer and expect over time that this would diminish even further. The prior lint when using dryer sheets appears to have contributed all (or at least most) of the TA in the prior readings. Now that I had removed the use of Bounce dryer sheets the resulting lint in the trap (and therefore likely the lint in the air) were clear of ammonia.

Figure 3: Total Ammonia readings after cleaning lint trap with no Bounce sheets and dust/lint from room. The dust/lint vial was collected from the tops of picture frames in the room - this dust settled when Bounce sheets were still in use prior to lint trap cleaning. RODI control (TA=0ppm). Lint from dryer trap after cleaning (TA=0.1 ppm). Dust/lint in room (TA=0.8 ppm)

​

Figure 4: RODI and salt water mix control (TA=0 ppm). Fabric softener fragment (TA=0.8 ppm). Tunze Care Panes cleaner (TA=1.2 ppm). Note that specific magnitudes were not controlled for, rather these tests showed the presence or absence of ammonia indication only.

QACs in Tank​

Based on these tests I am currently concluding that a significant amount of lint over time (in this case many weeks) was transported into my QT tank by settling through the air. Furthermore, during the time that Bounce dryer sheets were being used in the dryer (almost daily over many weeks) this lint was coated with significant amounts of QACs. It seems that initially the tank may have cycled but during and towards the end of that time enough QAC was accumulating that I lost the cycle - or at a minimum the cycle was fine but the tests possibly wrongly indicated the perpetual presence of ammonia. Over the last two months the baseline ammonia of the tank has continued to increase and it was not until I removed Bounce sheets that it seemingly has plateaued now at TA 0.3 ppm. Coincidence? Possibly. But at this point I have no better working hypothesis for the TA readings in my tank.

In addition to the possible introduction of ammonia into the system, there also appears to be a lot of other reasons that QACS are not good for aquatic life and I have found many technical papers that list QACs as such. I also recently spent (too many) hours reading about the infamous Vibrant situation where polyQACs are apparently involved as well. It is clear that QACs are bad in many ways.

At this time it seems very feasible that QACs in signifiant quantities were transported into the tank. The only way I can positively confirm this beyond a shadow of doubt is to directly test for them. I'm looking into these testing options and any ideas on reasonably priced ways to conduct them are welcome. It is not clear if online services will/can test for QACs.

Current Course of Action​

My current course of action at this point (pending better advice) is to do a 100% water change, complete cleaning, and start again with NO bounce sheets in use in the laundry room. Furthermore, as a precautionary measure, I am planning to add a desktop air purifier to the room near the tank to further extract lint/dust from the air.

But in the meantime I want to get any comments from the community on this 12-week adventure I have been on. Am I missing anything here? Also I would love to get some expert QAC chemistry explanations on the possible mechanisms that would be at work here and if high(er) ammonia readings would be consistent with the presence of QACs.

Questions ​

1. Does the conclusions that QACs are likely the culprit for high TA readings and the inability to cycle make sense?
2. Is it possible that the QACs are just a positive interference in the salicylate-based test kit? Like iron or copper typically are? For example, is it possible the QAC R groups are stable in the tank but are broken down during the testing methodology (introduction of reagents) and thus depending on pH convert into NH3 and NH4+ only in the test vial?
3. Is there really ammonia being introduced? I read that QACs (at least on some test strips) do not register in TA (but those test strips may not be salicylate-like). Is it possible that only ammonium NH4+ and not free ammonia NH3 is being introduced? And would that even really matter since it would eventually be present for conversion? Note: I have a Seachem Ammonia badge in the tank that always seems to register lower free ammonia than the Red Sea tests would indicate (after pH and temp correction lookup). Admittedly a visual badge of this nature is not super precise and I can not confirm if these badges directly measures free ammonia or if it is simply inferred on the badge through actually measuring total ammonia. This is an anecdotal observation that keeps my attention and makes me think positive interference is a possibility within the test kit.
4. Is it that the QAC level will not allow beneficial bacteria to survive or at least at a minimum not allow it to thrive to the extent needed for ammonia reduction?
5. When I restart/recycle the tank would it make the most sense to dispose of all Lattice Nitraz, plastic bioballs, and MarinPure spheres? It seems like it is possible that QACs as a cation could possibly remain attached to the medium?
6. I looked into inexpensive test strips where I could test for QACs. The food industry uses these, but I could not find any confirmation that they are accurate in salt water at the pH levels we operate in and it is not clear to me what precision I would even need to assess reef safety. Any insights here are welcome.
7. My total chlorine did go up from 1 ppb to 5 ppb within the tank. Would QACs possibly do this? Or do I have another possible contaminating source of Chlorine? What levels of Total Chlorine would you consider bad in a reef environment?

​

Additional Observations​

1. I am leaving the tank up for another 5 weeks as I go on a long vacation with an ATO operating and some remote monitoring capability. I am curious to see if there is any recovery at all of this situation. I expect that the QACs will not degrade on their own and I will continue to see the non-zero TA readings after 5 weeks. But the point here is that I still have access to the current water chemistry in the tank if anyone thinks I could conduct further testing on it.
2. I would have loved to see a Seneye in tank during this process. I'm thinking about getting one when I restart and recycle the tank. I suppose it could be useful to me later as I take fish quarantine tanks up and down and possible hospital tanks.
3. I have also been dosing magnesium, alk, and calcium via Red Sea Foundation elements. I have been pulling my hair out with low alk readings regardless of how much Red Sea Foundation B I dose. I have even conducted a pause and then ramped back up slowly as Randy Holmes-Farley suggests in one of his online essays. The original Coral Pro salt water mix was confirmed to be 11.5 dKH when the tank was filled as well as on the subsequent 50% water change. This tank quickly goes to 6-6.3 dKH regardless of my attempts at correcting it. I have stopped trying as I just continue to get calcium carbonate precipitate and have had my return pump seize. My Mg is staying at 1350-1400 ppm and Ca at 420-460 ppm …. and notably the Ca is getting consumed (albeit more slowly) as the CaCO3 forms. Also, I have read Randy H-F’s explanation of Mg(OH)2 formation as a cloud when dosing. I dose into strong flow to limit the amount of time there is a high pH environment at work … but right after the magnesium hydroxide cloud starts to dissipate (about 2 secs) I see a clear precipitate form in the water column where the cloud was … it looks like snow (some fairly large flakes). This swirls around for a while and I am not sure if it goes back into solution or settles. What is this? I didn't think CaCO3 could form that fast in the water column itself. This is an odd effect that I could not find an explanation for. At this point I wonder if it could be related to the presence of the QACs? Is the inability to keep higher alk levels possibly consistent with the presence of QACs?
4. I have had a Neptune Apex in the tank for a couple of weeks. The ORP has never exceeded 170-185 mV which is very low. I know that many people discourage paying too much attention to this parameter, but would low ORP be consistent with the presence of QACs?
5. I use Tunze Care Panes to clean my aquarium glass. I'm very cautious not to get any of it into the tank. But I did do a test on a small amount of it on a rag and then soaked in salt water and it resulted in incredibly high TA readings. I had several email exchanges with the company and their product engineers. They even provided me with the MSDS and assured me that all ingredients are "natural" botanical oils, water, and alcohol and that it is impossible for any ammonia or QACs to be introduced from their product. Their only suggestion is that some ingredient in their product, while safe, could be a positive interference on the salicylate method.

​

Ramifications and Ideas Going Forward​

I'm surprised to find how prevalent QACs are and how (seemingly) easily they can make their way into our tanks. Moreover, there have recently been researchers expressing concern about the increased use of disinfectants of all kinds due to COVID-19. These disinfectants often times contain QACs. Also, there are supposedly more than 200 commercial product categories that contain QACs - air fresheners, detergents, disinfectants, fabric softeners, etc. There are many potential sources: A cleaner or air freshener sprayed in the room? Disinfecting your hands with anti microbial lotions/cleaners and then shortly after working in the tank? Fabric softener laden lint in the air? The list goes on.

At the same time I have noticed a large cluster of unexplainable system crashes and stalled cycles in the online forums that seemingly go unresolved. User brandon429 seems to have great passion on this topic and he has done a great deal of work in this area. He even has come up with an approach to confirm the presence of a cycle by looking for movement in the readings - effectively by removing/ignoring any constant offset of ammonia. It indeed is a very clever approach and would be consistent with accounting for a positive interference in the testing methodology (possibly QACs) that are offsetting results in a reliable deterministic fashion. The fact that fish and coral are living/thriving in these ultra high ammonia cases makes one conclude that the tests are clearly wrong. But maybe it is more nuanced than that ... maybe the tests are just being used in an environment which have positive interference. Are QACs possibly involved more than we realize in these situations? And this brings me to the last point/idea.

If the expert community thinks that indeed QACs in my case are responsible for my high ammonia readings then either the QACs 1) destroyed the bacteria that was needed, 2) acted as a positive interference in the testing, or 3) introduced ammonia into the tank. Or possibly all of them in various combinations? But regardless, under any of these cases - if an aquarist sees unexpected ammonia spikes - or the presence of baseline ammonia in the system that is otherwise unexplainable - does this represent a possible surrogate indicator for QACs (or other interferences)? A so called "Canary in the Coal Mine" for the possible introduction or build up of QACs in our tanks? If so then follow on testing would be warranted which also suggests the need to have affordable ways to measure QACs in our tanks at the concentrations of interest.

Closing​

Thanks to those who read this far! Admittedly, this was a VERY long (first) post here on the forum and hopefully not too overly detailed. I have been on this adventure for a few months now and wanted to provide as much detail as possible and then get the community's thoughts.

Although the last 3 months have been frustrating as I attempt to cycle my first tank - I’m super excited to be entering the hobby. I have always loved technical challenges … and clearly this hobby has them! Can't wait to actually buy some coral and fish some day!

 

[Llyod276]

Wow. Im just gonna have to say... "have you tried turning it off and on again?..." oh wait, no wrong problem.

Heres an idea since you went to through the trouble of contacting NOAH about this, maybe not leave it upon the laundry machines where your contaminants are ingressing?

Or if that is too much of an ask, put a lid on it?

The tech data, man where do you find the time.

 

[brandon429]

Brother I have some help for you, your tank is cycled. It was days and days ago

you are toiling over what non digital test kits read vs digital ones, if you owned a seneye none of this post would exist.


your tank is cycled to the degree of surface area you have and you can’t use those test kits in any sensible way to discern your cycle status
or you’ll stay in a false stuck cycle, cycles don’t stall your lint did nothing, your cycle is fine.

you’ll need to use a cycling chart and compare how long it shows ammonia control takes (ten days ramp up) to know your status. If you’ve copied the common surface area from common qt setups, then your tank can carry the fish they carry in similar setups right now.


here’s a similar qt cycle that was false stalled, on non digital kits. Yours will follow the same outcome:

Stalled Cycle?

20 gallon QT tank set up 30 days ago. I do not have a DT set up yet, just trying to get a jump on fish to add to my tank and make sure they're healthy and pest free right from the get go. Like I said tank was set up 30 days ago. Sponge filter and HOB filter running sponge and ceramic. Used...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[brandon429]

And lastly, to show the insanity that old cycle rules + non digital ammonia kits cause, I present to you here eight pages of fully running, years-old display reefs where the owners can’t stand to believe their tank didn’t uncycle using all Red Sea kits:

Sustained Ammonia spikes are misreads

The reason you think your reef tank can’t control its ammonia is due to false training from old cycling science. That and you don’t own a seneye on the tank in question: if you did, you wouldn’t ever think your ammonia was out of control...

www.reef2reef.com

So the significance isn't missed: that's all fully matured reefs who all of a sudden one day detected a slightly high red sea reading and then took all kinds of remedial measure believing the cycle undid.

Peers supported the notion mostly, we see. I told them all nothing was wrong. Nobody loses basic ammonia control in a high surface area system once established. Above we see the other side of the cycle doubt coin: undoing of a cycle fears.

We see in the link many of them Im able to convince to cease taking reaction measures, that nothing is wrong, and we can track their tank out to today to check for problems. Those are valuable work logs for issues in this thread

 

[brandon429]

Final analysis: no matter how resolved we become that your cycle is broken (once stalled perception hits, it’s rarely ever extracted we can see) there isn’t a seneye here to see nh3, we don't know your status other than how characteristics of your setup align with other similar setups with a measured bioload carry start date.

a failed cycle means fish can’t live normally in clean water, the feed we give them will wreck the system if uncycled in 48 hours. I bet your system works fine and keeps fish alive and doesn't cloud up in 48 hours.


your cycle isn’t stalled, no reef cycle stalls, any seneye owner can attest. Cycle stalling is PURELY a realm for api and Red Sea testers.


all you see is nh4, and are using old rules that say it should be zero to be cycled

the range of readings you show above, we show same ranges among fully cycled tanks using Red Sea, the thread is back edited with over fifty examples.


seneye owners know nh3 is never zero in a reef, which explains plainly using updated cycling science why nh4 kits almost never read zero in running reefs- because nh4 is over ten times higher in a given reef water sample than nh3



your exact next steps:
1. Get an ammonia alert badge from seachem. Nh3
2. Change out all your water for new, like the first link with the qt cycle
3. add in your fish to be prepped, use the alert badge to know when to do water changes
4. don’t buy or add prime in a reef quarantine setup. Use water changes if required to manage rising ammonia which isn’t likely if you won’t overload fish. Your cycle has just been fixed same as the initial stall example. Water change + go




**qt tanks dont tank longer to cycle whatsoever. There’s less surface area in them so the ammonia loading we use in quarantines should be carved down tremendously during assessment, likely less than your kits can read anyway for an up/down spike of half a ppm at most. your surface area is as full on bac as it can be, a while ago.

 

[Miami Reef]

@Tobin VP Are you a scientist?

 

[brandon429]

ps

I love huge initial posts I too am an over typer heh

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Welcome to reef2Reef!

This has to be the of the most interesting first posts I've read.

I think the best hypothesis is that some type of amine from laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, etc. is interfering with the test. Some organic amines will do so (although not, I think, true quaternary amines, which cannot go through the chemical reactions for the Red Sea test.

I do not think degradation to ammonia is the likely explanation.

Other ions can also interfere, such as iron, which can give a high false positive.

Using a method like the Seachem alert badges (or Seneye) will reduce some of these interferences.

 

[brandon429]

As an overall trend in microbiology it’s fascinating to me how solely aquarium cycling science has been carved away from food safety science rules, and aquatic biology rules that govern wastewater management, and deemed to be in such a weak state that the slightest noncompliance by the tank owner renders a heated, circulated and well-fed weeks old water system ‘dead’

a system of concentrated and dosed water bacteria in water, given food and heat, dead…



in any other industry where the procedural rules aren’t made by sellers (our cycling rules are written and discussed at the macna podium by bottle bac sellers) they get an independent view of what bacteria really do. I personally consider the view of cycle stalling to be the biggest fleecing of reefers ever created. It only took a small directional urge to make forum peers routinely agree a cycle is stalled... we see it in posts within the stall study threads.

Places like this forum seem to be on the cutting edge of updated evaluation. Dan and Taricha and MNFish sure have helped define new measurements in display tank filter biology.. logged here in the forum

Ive tracked half a million in false bottle bac sales made by someone detecting nitrite, or ammonia, in 5-10 weeks old systems solely because the rules on cycle stalling have gone unchallenged. we are trained to re buy more bacteria to replace dead ones.

there must be ten thousand seneye owners now posting their measurement trends for running reefs. We haven’t heard from bottle bac sellers regarding updated ammonia trending, crucial compliance dates across tanks these new testers show. We haven’t got updated cycling articles about the amazing lack of any stalls when the testing paradigm changes.


Brightwell: now that you can hook up a seneye to your lab tank and clean it, and see that no crucial filter bacteria are removed, no loss of biofilter, you can update that sales line on your cycling web page that says its good to add the bottled bacteria after every water change. You were prior hinting that a deficit existed we could fill for cost...


when will we get an updated MACNA talk, that these myriad extra bottles of bac sold were never ever needed? Digital ammonia testing is currently underway destroying the notion of stalled cycles in reefing.


*this is no slight to the OP that was some thorough evaluation above, clearly laid out. It’s a rebuke of the industry that’s all. Bottle bac works great, the first dose. All follow up dosed are unneeded. We run very large cycling threads solely off one single dose of cycling bacteria, some feed, a ten day wait and not any testing whatsoever.

 

[taricha]

I'm going to (partially) take the opposite side of brandon429's perspective (and later partially agree)...

I added a small amount of QuickCycle (estimated to be a typical couple of days of bioload for a fish system of this size). This took the TA to 0.8 ppm and I expected to see it consumed within about a 24-48 hour period. Unfortunately, there was little to no response at all - I then kept supplementing with MicroBacter Start XLM and it brought it down over the course of a couple weeks. During this time it seemed like it was the bacteria dosing in the water column that was doing the work. It finally settled again at about 0.1 ppm this time a little higher than before. In retrospect having it spike to 0.8 ppm was a bit high for a 2 day bioload ... but even in this case it didn't feel like it should have taken 2 weeks with multiple supplemental bacteria doses to bring ammonia back down (these dosing times are not denoted in Figure 2).

I then added a couple of drops of QuicCycle to simulate a bioload to see if the tank would consume the ammonia. TA immediately spiked this time at 0.6 ppm and stayed there for over a week. Then it began going up! Wait! TA going up with no livestock? Something was wrong here. Over the next few days the TA reached 0.8 ppm and was there for several days. I continued to add supplemental bacteria and it did then go down over the next several days and this time the TA leveled off at 0.3 ppm - well above zero. At this point it felt like once again I had a stalled tank. I still had ammonia. I had helped bring it down with additional bacteria dosing but It was (and is still) stuck at TA of 0.3 ppm.

These indicate a more fundamental failure to establish a nitrifying biofilm that can process ammonia without any carbon input. 0.8ppm total ammonia is not a hard challenge for an established nitrifying biofilm.
While it might be tempting to connect this to the interesting positive ammonia results from your laundry room dust, a simpler explanation is that this bacterial product sometimes just doesn't establish a cycle.
Take this example thread:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/why-are-all-cycles-not-created-equal.917071/
In that thread, whatever the test kit problems are, side by side the same total ammonia , no2, no3 test kits show that biospira cycled a tank conclusively, quickly, and permanently. MB Start XLM took an absurdly long time to show any Ammonia processing at all (in the absence of carbon).
So it's not necessary to point to whatever compound is in the laundry room dust as a killer of the bacteria. They may just not be very good under no-carbon conditions.
You can either dump in some fish flake, and see if the heterotroph bacteria in MB Start XLM snap to work, or you can pour in some biospira. In either case, I think you'll come to brandon's conclusion. The tank is safe for fish, laundry lint is irrelevant... probably.

Questions ​

1. Does the conclusions that QACs are likely the culprit for high TA readings and the inability to cycle make sense?
2. Is it possible that the QACs are just a positive interference in the salicylate-based test kit? Like iron or copper typically are? For example, is it possible the QAC R groups are stable in the tank but are broken down during the testing methodology (introduction of reagents) and thus depending on pH convert into NH3 and NH4+ only in the test vial?
3. Is there really ammonia being introduced? I read that QACs (at least on some test strips) do not register in TA (but those test strips may not be salicylate-like). Is it possible that only ammonium NH4+ and not free ammonia NH3 is being introduced? And would that even really matter since it would eventually be present for conversion? Note: I have a Seachem Ammonia badge in the tank that always seems to register lower free ammonia than the Red Sea tests would indicate (after pH and temp correction lookup). Admittedly a visual badge of this nature is not super precise and I can not confirm if these badges directly measures free ammonia or if it is simply inferred on the badge through actually measuring total ammonia. This is an anecdotal observation that keeps my attention and makes me think positive interference is a possibility within the test kit.
4. Is it that the QAC level will not allow beneficial bacteria to survive or at least at a minimum not allow it to thrive to the extent needed for ammonia reduction?
5. When I restart/recycle the tank would it make the most sense to dispose of all Lattice Nitraz, plastic bioballs, and MarinPure spheres? It seems like it is possible that QACs as a cation could possibly remain attached to the medium?
6. I looked into inexpensive test strips where I could test for QACs. The food industry uses these, but I could not find any confirmation that they are accurate in salt water at the pH levels we operate in and it is not clear to me what precision I would even need to assess reef safety. Any insights here are welcome.
7. My total chlorine did go up from 1 ppb to 5 ppb within the tank. Would QACs possibly do this? Or do I have another possible contaminating source of Chlorine? What levels of Total Chlorine would you consider bad in a reef environment?

2. The total ammonia chemistry is slightly reactive to a number of nitrogen compounds, amino acids, proteins etc. Many low-but-not-zero reef results may result from this.
3. these compounds don't show on the free ammonia films/discs. They use gas-permeable membranes and react to the nh3 in the gas form and thus are a bit harder to fool than the total ammonia tests.
4. I'd wager a bottle of biospira would plow through whatever contaminant is entering through the laundry lint.
6. You'll have a hard time testing for QAC at the low ppm level in saltwater. There are a number of ways to detect them in freshwater though, the strips ought to be fine for this purpose (at a high enough ppm level)
7. That's within the test error, and would be of no concern anyway.
"Accuracy @ 25°C/77°F ±5 ppb ±5% of reading"
Chlorine/chloramine at that level would be pretty short-lived in a reef system.


(This thread is probably going to make me sample my laundry room dust out of curiosity. )

 

[brandon429]

I will add this: any fish added here will act fine and an ammonia alert badge will indicate basic controls in place and the water will remain clear during feedings typical for the degree of surface area you have here and the dilution. Please test this!

Do a water change and put life in it, not liquid ammonia. Enough carbon got in from the environ to start a basic cycle, see the top of living room fan blades/ baseboards for observable stores of carbon, gnat wings et al

The prediction comes from a long line of no outliers in your situation. That doesn't mean chemistry testing using non seneye agrees, it means this tank will carry fish and clear water and pass a badge inspection because the last 200 setups showing that exact range of ammonia readings above are found across the spectrum of fully running tanks our work thread shows.

We collect examples of full running sps reefs who posted the same bad red sea reading prompting the OP with concern.


When we move from the chemistry detail involved in non digital testing and sample the macro: living fish, clean water, nh3 meters showing control, ability to handle daily feed within reason and no crash, we can build large pattern threads off this large scope view. I find it hard to believe that we have all positive results and some of the tanks aren't cycled.

No seneye testing validates stalled cycle claims. Taricha we need to get a donated seneye into your hands for bac testing. Trim and benchmark it on a known running cycled reef first to prove within spec nh3, then use that same slide and setup to produce data on cycle issues.


*given this is a low surface area qt vs display its not the slam dunk we are used to. If the active surface area isn't in the immediate flow path and swirling currents in the display keep wastewater from immediately contacting active surfaces i can see how a backup would result.

But if this qt has copied the position, placement and general degree of surface area already known functioning for this size tank, I bet this tank acts normally when we stock it. They all do. I have no bioload losses on file not any, not one event in all traced cycle attempts I've seen.

 

[brandon429]

Taricha one other aspect often never mentioned stands out

Everyone is concerned with ethics of using live animal demos for cycle stress testing, but our pattern study threads are just that. We often and routinely have lysmata shrimp in tow for cycle studies and they never die, they're the weakest motile organism we keep in most tanks and they live in pattern, even under the exact same bad reading level the OP posted in concern.

I can't even think of outlier losses, ammonia control is so very inherent by day ten of a feed+wait cycle I'll be just shocked to see convincing digital data to the contrary. My skepticism has to endure for cycle stalling until we get one two or three events where actual consequence happens in any organism. All organisms in the false stall study thread are alive and fine

 

[Dan_P]

First post here on R2R! … I am new to the hobby but have been reading/studying it for years. I finally have space at home to begin. I will be following up in the future with build threads for my salt water mixing station, QT tanks (invert and fish), and display tank that I’m still building. I’m excited to finally post after 100s of hours of only reading.

I am having problems fishless cycling my coral quarantine tank - and it seems that I am possibly in a stalled cycle state. I have tried various substrates over the past 12 weeks and have monitored tank parameters almost daily. I have narrowed several things down and now suspect that Quaternary Ammonia Compounds (QACs) from fabric softening dryer sheets (standard Bounce Outdoor Fresh scented) have been transported into the tank through lint settling in the air. I want to get a read from the expert community if I’m on the right track here and I also want to understand the chemical mechanisms that could be at work.

Here are the details:

Tank Setup​

My coral QT tank is located with my salt water mixing station in a laundry room (Figure 1). This tank is a 10 gal Fiji Cube (7.6 gal of actual water volume) and is bare bottom with no rock. Initially upon filling the tank I used 18 MarinPure Biomedia 1.5” Spheres as a substrate, Brightwell MicroBacter QuickCycle as my ammonia source, and Birghtwell MicroBacter Start XLM as my nitrifying bacteria source. My salt mix is Red Sea Coral Pro and I use all Red Sea test kits. I should also note that I use a 7-stage BRS RODI filter system and have confirmed zero TDS in my RODI output water. I also verified less than 1 ppb Total Chlorine with Hanna Ultra Low Range Checker in my RODI water. (NOTE: My tap water is 40 ppb total chlorine. My water utility is clearly using chloramines).

Figure 1: The Coral QT tank in Laundry Room.

​

First Tank Cycle Attempt​

I was hopeful for a fast 10-day cycle but was also aware that small bare bottom QT tanks are notorious for needing more time and patience due to a lack of suitable surface area for the bacteria to take hold. It took nearly a month to cycle the tank. I took detailed readings of total ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate daily (see Figure 2 below). The shape of these curves for the most part tracked “typical” production and decay trends. At the completion of this month long process the total ammonia was reduced from 1.6 ppm to very near (but not quite) zero total ammonia (< 0.1 ppm), nitrite had spiked at 0.2 ppm and then disappeared, and I was at 2 ppm nitrate. After almost a week at this non-zero reading of < 0.1 ppm, I assumed that I was having difficulty reading zero precisely with my test kit. It seemed like the tank had for the most part cycled, but I wanted to be sure and test that before introducing livestock.

Did the Tank Cycle?​

I wanted to double check and test the cycled tank by simulating some bioload before adding any livestock. I added a small amount of QuickCycle (estimated to be a typical couple of days of bioload for a fish system of this size). This took the TA to 0.8 ppm and I expected to see it consumed within about a 24-48 hour period. Unfortunately, there was little to no response at all - I then kept supplementing with MicroBacter Start XLM and it brought it down over the course of a couple weeks. During this time it seemed like it was the bacteria dosing in the water column that was doing the work. It finally settled again at about 0.1 ppm this time a little higher than before. In retrospect having it spike to 0.8 ppm was a bit high for a 2 day bioload ... but even in this case it didn't feel like it should have taken 2 weeks with multiple supplemental bacteria doses to bring ammonia back down (these dosing times are not denoted in Figure 2). It didn't seem like the tank had cycled and I was worried that the reason the ammonia ultimately came down was due to my continued dosing of the bacteria and not because I had established a suitable microbial biome.

Attempting a Re-cycle with more Substrate​

Next I decided to do a 50% water change and then I removed my substrate (18 MarinePure ceramic bioballs) from the sump area to move into display area where I could visually examine if biofilm was forming on the media. The ceramic bioballs were in a filter mesh bag for easy removal. At this point I was shocked to find a strong biofilm coating on the entire outside of the bag. This is a good sign - right? But then I placed it in the display area and it floated! The entire bag floated with ceramic balls. The biofilm on the outside of the bag was so well formed that it was encasing the bag and sealing gas inside of it and it actually floated the bag. This was surprising to me (can someone else confirm ever seeing this?). At this point I realized that I was clearly not getting much flow into the bag where the balls were and because it was sealed off it likely was a pretty anaerobic environment. So the tank was not benefiting from the massive surface area of the media itself to grow beneficial bacteria. I started wondering if possibly I had too low of surface area for the beneficial bacteria to cycle my tank. At this point I decided to switch to the Brightwell recommended Lattice Nitraz and much more porous filter bags. I put in 2-3 times the recommended amount of Lattice media and filled the rest of my sump with 20 plastic bio balls (older technology but many experts swear by it for aerobic uses). I introduced them slowly over many days as I removed the MarinPure bio media balls and agitated them before removal to slough off as much beneficial bacteria into the water column as possible. I also re-dosed MicroBacter Start XLM all over again in an attempt to reseed the beneficial bacteria in the other media. At this point it seemed that I had plenty of the bacteria present in my tank.

I then added a couple of drops of QuicCycle to simulate a bioload to see if the tank would consume the ammonia. TA immediately spiked this time at 0.6 ppm and stayed there for over a week. Then it began going up! Wait! TA going up with no livestock? Something was wrong here. Over the next few days the TA reached 0.8 ppm and was there for several days. I continued to add supplemental bacteria and it did then go down over the next several days and this time the TA leveled off at 0.3 ppm - well above zero. At this point it felt like once again I had a stalled tank. I still had ammonia. I had helped bring it down with additional bacteria dosing but It was (and is still) stuck at TA of 0.3 ppm.

Figure 2: Cycling Data: Ammonia, Nitrite, and Nitrate over 12 weeks. Initial cycle and two subsequent stalled tests shown. There are a couple noisy/erroneous readings that are apparent in the data). Times of bacteria dosing not shown.

Finding the Problem - The Investigation into QACs​

At this point I concluded that I either a) I had another ammonia source in my tank, or b) my TA readings were wrong. First, in order to investigate I wanted to eliminate faulty readings. I made up several precise salt water batches and through several checks of my testing kits (I have multiple Red Sea kits) I got very consistently zero TA readings on these batches across more than one kit. I should also note that the other previous non-zero TA tests described above were reproducible - in many cases I double tested them. I convinced myself that the test kits and my use of them were not at issue and I was able to test zero TA with them.

I then turned my attention to possible ammonia sources and thought that it could be introduced through the air. I first looked through the tank for any large bugs or any other organics that might have fallen into the tank but I found none. Recall, that this tank is in a laundry room and I next focused on this and especially on the chemicals in the room. The laundry detergents in use (sometimes containing bleach) are kept far away from the tank - but is it possible that bleach could transport through the air? This seemed unlikely but I wanted to rule it out. I also considered the fabric softener dryer sheets in use as there is a lot of dust (i.e. lint) that forms on horizontal surfaces in the room. (Note: There are a couple existing discussions on R2R about tanks in laundry rooms but there is nothing conclusive in those threads on the associated risks.)

I purchased the Total Chlorine ULR Hanna checker and got 5 ppb TC in the tank. This was higher than my target of keeping it below 2 ppb as I found some articles suggest this level for marine environments. Recall, I get 1 ppb TC out of my 7-stage RODI so the in-tank readings showed additional TC over the source RODI water. This 5 ppb TC reading was concerning since it was clearly above the suggested safe levels. It was (and still is) not clear what impacts this has on the tank, but my focus moved quickly to fabric softeners since what I found was even more concerning.

I mixed up a precise batch of saltwater and confirmed zero TA in it. I then pulled a small amount of lint from the lint trap in the dryer, soaked it in 100 ml of this saltwater for a few minutes and then tested for ammonia. I got high levels of TA at nearly 2 ppm (this test not shown in figures). I then went around the room and collected small amounts of dust (with a wet finger) from the tops of picture frames on the walls and transferred this dust/lint into 100 ml of salt water … this too tested high for TA at 0.8 ppm (shown in Figure 3). This testing was to discern the presence or lack thereof of ammonia in the lint/dust and it showed that it was clearly present and at levels that surprised me relative to the small amounts of lint that I collected. I did not control for the precise amount of lint/dust dissolved into the water in each test case … but it was on the order of the amount that could easily settle into my tank over several weeks. This experiment clearly showed this transport mechanism as a viable ammonia source.

Next, to confirm the dryer sheets as the source of the ammonia on the lint specifically, I took a small fragment of a Bounce dryer sheet and soaked it for a few minutes in saltwater and again found high TA at 0.8 ppm (see Figure 4). It appeared to be at least in part the Bounce fabric softener sheets in use with the dryer. Note too that dryer sheets transfer a chemical coating to fabric through the sheet being heated. In this case the sheet fragment was not heated which would likely transfer far less QAC out of the sheet and into the saltwater as compared to what would occur in the dryer. I then did some research on fabric softeners and I found that almost all of them - as well as many many other things in our home environment - contain Quaternary Ammonia Compounds (QACs). I looked up the “smart label” data (detailed listing of ingredients) online for the Bounce sheets and one of its primary ingredients is Dialkylester Dimethyl Ammonium Methosulfate. Moreover there are some 52 other compounds that create “fragrance” in these Bounce sheets. Yikes!!! I'm not a chemist … but they all have scary names that only chemists can pronounce ... I would think no one would want any of them in their tank! I sure don't.

Then as a follow up test, I extensively cleaned the lint trap of the dryer and ran 5-6 loads of laundry with NO dryer sheets but still using typical laundry detergent in the wash cycle prior to the drying cycle. I then collected this lint from the lint trap and again mixed with my saltwater and tested TA. I was surprised to get almost zero TA at 0.1! Note I was not able to perfectly clean the entire inside of the dryer and expect over time that this would diminish even further. The prior lint when using dryer sheets appears to have contributed all (or at least most) of the TA in the prior readings. Now that I had removed the use of Bounce dryer sheets the resulting lint in the trap (and therefore likely the lint in the air) were clear of ammonia.

Figure 3: Total Ammonia readings after cleaning lint trap with no Bounce sheets and dust/lint from room. The dust/lint vial was collected from the tops of picture frames in the room - this dust settled when Bounce sheets were still in use prior to lint trap cleaning. RODI control (TA=0ppm). Lint from dryer trap after cleaning (TA=0.1 ppm). Dust/lint in room (TA=0.8 ppm)

​

Figure 4: RODI and salt water mix control (TA=0 ppm). Fabric softener fragment (TA=0.8 ppm). Tunze Care Panes cleaner (TA=1.2 ppm). Note that specific magnitudes were not controlled for, rather these tests showed the presence or absence of ammonia indication only.

QACs in Tank​

Based on these tests I am currently concluding that a significant amount of lint over time (in this case many weeks) was transported into my QT tank by settling through the air. Furthermore, during the time that Bounce dryer sheets were being used in the dryer (almost daily over many weeks) this lint was coated with significant amounts of QACs. It seems that initially the tank may have cycled but during and towards the end of that time enough QAC was accumulating that I lost the cycle - or at a minimum the cycle was fine but the tests possibly wrongly indicated the perpetual presence of ammonia. Over the last two months the baseline ammonia of the tank has continued to increase and it was not until I removed Bounce sheets that it seemingly has plateaued now at TA 0.3 ppm. Coincidence? Possibly. But at this point I have no better working hypothesis for the TA readings in my tank.

In addition to the possible introduction of ammonia into the system, there also appears to be a lot of other reasons that QACS are not good for aquatic life and I have found many technical papers that list QACs as such. I also recently spent (too many) hours reading about the infamous Vibrant situation where polyQACs are apparently involved as well. It is clear that QACs are bad in many ways.

At this time it seems very feasible that QACs in signifiant quantities were transported into the tank. The only way I can positively confirm this beyond a shadow of doubt is to directly test for them. I'm looking into these testing options and any ideas on reasonably priced ways to conduct them are welcome. It is not clear if online services will/can test for QACs.

Current Course of Action​

My current course of action at this point (pending better advice) is to do a 100% water change, complete cleaning, and start again with NO bounce sheets in use in the laundry room. Furthermore, as a precautionary measure, I am planning to add a desktop air purifier to the room near the tank to further extract lint/dust from the air.

But in the meantime I want to get any comments from the community on this 12-week adventure I have been on. Am I missing anything here? Also I would love to get some expert QAC chemistry explanations on the possible mechanisms that would be at work here and if high(er) ammonia readings would be consistent with the presence of QACs.

Questions ​

1. Does the conclusions that QACs are likely the culprit for high TA readings and the inability to cycle make sense?
2. Is it possible that the QACs are just a positive interference in the salicylate-based test kit? Like iron or copper typically are? For example, is it possible the QAC R groups are stable in the tank but are broken down during the testing methodology (introduction of reagents) and thus depending on pH convert into NH3 and NH4+ only in the test vial?
3. Is there really ammonia being introduced? I read that QACs (at least on some test strips) do not register in TA (but those test strips may not be salicylate-like). Is it possible that only ammonium NH4+ and not free ammonia NH3 is being introduced? And would that even really matter since it would eventually be present for conversion? Note: I have a Seachem Ammonia badge in the tank that always seems to register lower free ammonia than the Red Sea tests would indicate (after pH and temp correction lookup). Admittedly a visual badge of this nature is not super precise and I can not confirm if these badges directly measures free ammonia or if it is simply inferred on the badge through actually measuring total ammonia. This is an anecdotal observation that keeps my attention and makes me think positive interference is a possibility within the test kit.
4. Is it that the QAC level will not allow beneficial bacteria to survive or at least at a minimum not allow it to thrive to the extent needed for ammonia reduction?
5. When I restart/recycle the tank would it make the most sense to dispose of all Lattice Nitraz, plastic bioballs, and MarinPure spheres? It seems like it is possible that QACs as a cation could possibly remain attached to the medium?
6. I looked into inexpensive test strips where I could test for QACs. The food industry uses these, but I could not find any confirmation that they are accurate in salt water at the pH levels we operate in and it is not clear to me what precision I would even need to assess reef safety. Any insights here are welcome.
7. My total chlorine did go up from 1 ppb to 5 ppb within the tank. Would QACs possibly do this? Or do I have another possible contaminating source of Chlorine? What levels of Total Chlorine would you consider bad in a reef environment?

​

Additional Observations​

1. I am leaving the tank up for another 5 weeks as I go on a long vacation with an ATO operating and some remote monitoring capability. I am curious to see if there is any recovery at all of this situation. I expect that the QACs will not degrade on their own and I will continue to see the non-zero TA readings after 5 weeks. But the point here is that I still have access to the current water chemistry in the tank if anyone thinks I could conduct further testing on it.
2. I would have loved to see a Seneye in tank during this process. I'm thinking about getting one when I restart and recycle the tank. I suppose it could be useful to me later as I take fish quarantine tanks up and down and possible hospital tanks.
3. I have also been dosing magnesium, alk, and calcium via Red Sea Foundation elements. I have been pulling my hair out with low alk readings regardless of how much Red Sea Foundation B I dose. I have even conducted a pause and then ramped back up slowly as Randy Holmes-Farley suggests in one of his online essays. The original Coral Pro salt water mix was confirmed to be 11.5 dKH when the tank was filled as well as on the subsequent 50% water change. This tank quickly goes to 6-6.3 dKH regardless of my attempts at correcting it. I have stopped trying as I just continue to get calcium carbonate precipitate and have had my return pump seize. My Mg is staying at 1350-1400 ppm and Ca at 420-460 ppm …. and notably the Ca is getting consumed (albeit more slowly) as the CaCO3 forms. Also, I have read Randy H-F’s explanation of Mg(OH)2 formation as a cloud when dosing. I dose into strong flow to limit the amount of time there is a high pH environment at work … but right after the magnesium hydroxide cloud starts to dissipate (about 2 secs) I see a clear precipitate form in the water column where the cloud was … it looks like snow (some fairly large flakes). This swirls around for a while and I am not sure if it goes back into solution or settles. What is this? I didn't think CaCO3 could form that fast in the water column itself. This is an odd effect that I could not find an explanation for. At this point I wonder if it could be related to the presence of the QACs? Is the inability to keep higher alk levels possibly consistent with the presence of QACs?
4. I have had a Neptune Apex in the tank for a couple of weeks. The ORP has never exceeded 170-185 mV which is very low. I know that many people discourage paying too much attention to this parameter, but would low ORP be consistent with the presence of QACs?
5. I use Tunze Care Panes to clean my aquarium glass. I'm very cautious not to get any of it into the tank. But I did do a test on a small amount of it on a rag and then soaked in salt water and it resulted in incredibly high TA readings. I had several email exchanges with the company and their product engineers. They even provided me with the MSDS and assured me that all ingredients are "natural" botanical oils, water, and alcohol and that it is impossible for any ammonia or QACs to be introduced from their product. Their only suggestion is that some ingredient in their product, while safe, could be a positive interference on the salicylate method.

​

Ramifications and Ideas Going Forward​

I'm surprised to find how prevalent QACs are and how (seemingly) easily they can make their way into our tanks. Moreover, there have recently been researchers expressing concern about the increased use of disinfectants of all kinds due to COVID-19. These disinfectants often times contain QACs. Also, there are supposedly more than 200 commercial product categories that contain QACs - air fresheners, detergents, disinfectants, fabric softeners, etc. There are many potential sources: A cleaner or air freshener sprayed in the room? Disinfecting your hands with anti microbial lotions/cleaners and then shortly after working in the tank? Fabric softener laden lint in the air? The list goes on.

At the same time I have noticed a large cluster of unexplainable system crashes and stalled cycles in the online forums that seemingly go unresolved. User brandon429 seems to have great passion on this topic and he has done a great deal of work in this area. He even has come up with an approach to confirm the presence of a cycle by looking for movement in the readings - effectively by removing/ignoring any constant offset of ammonia. It indeed is a very clever approach and would be consistent with accounting for a positive interference in the testing methodology (possibly QACs) that are offsetting results in a reliable deterministic fashion. The fact that fish and coral are living/thriving in these ultra high ammonia cases makes one conclude that the tests are clearly wrong. But maybe it is more nuanced than that ... maybe the tests are just being used in an environment which have positive interference. Are QACs possibly involved more than we realize in these situations? And this brings me to the last point/idea.

If the expert community thinks that indeed QACs in my case are responsible for my high ammonia readings then either the QACs 1) destroyed the bacteria that was needed, 2) acted as a positive interference in the testing, or 3) introduced ammonia into the tank. Or possibly all of them in various combinations? But regardless, under any of these cases - if an aquarist sees unexpected ammonia spikes - or the presence of baseline ammonia in the system that is otherwise unexplainable - does this represent a possible surrogate indicator for QACs (or other interferences)? A so called "Canary in the Coal Mine" for the possible introduction or build up of QACs in our tanks? If so then follow on testing would be warranted which also suggests the need to have affordable ways to measure QACs in our tanks at the concentrations of interest.

Closing​

Thanks to those who read this far! Admittedly, this was a VERY long (first) post here on the forum and hopefully not too overly detailed. I have been on this adventure for a few months now and wanted to provide as much detail as possible and then get the community's thoughts.

Although the last 3 months have been frustrating as I attempt to cycle my first tank - I’m super excited to be entering the hobby. I have always loved technical challenges … and clearly this hobby has them! Can't wait to actually buy some coral and fish some day!

Nice report! And much information to digest. Here is a thought.

The oxidation of 1.6 ppm ammonia ( MW 17) only gave 2 ppm nitrate (MW 62). The observed nitrogen mass balance is off. This is a distraction that probably needs clearing up before using the ammonia test result to conclude that the original nitrifying (presumably) bacteria stopped working. A high baseline reading would solve the mystery, though I have yet to think of a readon why the aquarium water would have such a high baseline with the salicylate method.

There was time when a popular belief was that ammonia readings in aquaria were caused by being in the vicinity of a cat litter box and a similar but infinitely less sophisticated investigation was conducted to prove it. Might have been on Reef Central. @Randy Holmes-Farley and @brandon429 might remember the post.

 

[brandon429]

for sure those posts happened across forums in the 2000’s


our hobby was, and still is, deeply searching for reasons nh4 isn’t bone dry zero in every reef tank, cycled or running.

*the new Hanna digital nh3 meter I had such high hopes for /$59 vs $190 for seneye/ is reading .11 ppm nh3 in a fully cycled reef on a recent post here at rtr. More posts will come soon then we can pattern track them against tank pics and animal health views in the pics

That’s above toxicity levels for many/most inhabitants yet the tank in question is well past cycle date markers and surface area markers we all know seneye will list as .001-.005~ ppm nh3


symptomless ammonia burning claims are the bane of my online existence



we waited twenty years for a cheap digital tester and this new one is still off. I’m not thinking seneye is perfect accurate but just that it gives such good indications of tiny changes once calibrated, and seneye is SO good at always lining up with the tank view and lack of burn symptoms in the animals. most other ammonia tests are constantly in conflict with a dangerous reading vs a totally normal looking and running reef tank display

 

[brandon429]

Those new Hanna digital nh3 meters are set to read at 77 degrees. I’d venture 98% of all reefs especially in July aren’t at 77, so I wonder what a sample temp reading of +1-3 degrees does to the output read, surely it’s affecting it somehow. A cycled reef tank doesn’t stick and hold daily at .11 ppm nh3.

 

[brandon429]

@Tobin VP

You posted a great topic that is really weighing on the hobby nowadays, great thread.

to move forward can I interest you in a field test

get a clownfish or two and put them in, after you change all the water for new so it’s a clean start

it’s not that I’m flippantly advising you to burn fish, it’s that we’ve reached the pinnacle of what we can do with tests available and now it’s time to sink or swim regarding alternate cycle start date markers.

you’re being advised to start now using the same start date markers we use in multiple thirty page cycling threads, we can test that here.

Waiting longer cant pack more bacteria onto those surfaces, so let’s fish this thing up. I’ll be on the hook for bad claims made public if it all goes gray and smelly overnite. I never liked brightwell bacteria very much in my threads but in all fairness it’s still water bacteria being sold to us concentrated and in water, so I’ve no right to slant them especially without some seneye data on brightwell timing and ability.


*after this many weeks, food alone would cycle that tank, no bottle bac*

 

[Stang67]

@Tobin VP Are you a scientist?

My bet is on chemical engineer.
Welcome to the forum.

 

[Tobin VP]

@Tobin VP Are you a scientist?

I was trained as an Aerospace Engineer within control systems and system identification. Most of my work has been in the area of algorithm development, systems theory, mathematical modeling from time series data, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and most recently quantum computing.

Not a pure “scientist” … really more engineer. But trying to learn as much as possible in the areas of water chemistry and marine biology.

 

[Tired]

That's honestly just a bad place for an aquarium. You risk contamination from all sorts of chemicals, and the vibrations of the machines will likely stress your fish out. If it was me, I'd be finding another place to put it.

 

[Tobin VP]

@brandon429​

Nice to get your feedback. I have been reading many of your posts and have already seen many of the links you provided above. I figured you would chime in. I love the enthusiasm! I was going to be truly offended if you had no comment ;-)

My impression is that you are mostly right about cycling in the hobby and that often times people are being mislead by their readings and our current understanding! There are a lot of interesting things going on here with this topic as I think you have pointed out many times: product marketing, economics, growth of the hobby, access to more information (good and bad), prevalence or more and more technology (good and bad).

My interest lies both in finding the solutions but also understanding why the solution works. If I find an observation that I can't explain or is contradictory to other data I instinctively want to explain it as much as possible.

So any resistance (or questioning) to believing my Qt tank is ready to go or not (it probably is) - is not so much me not believing that you’re likely right - but more me asking questions to understand it all better going forward. In my current case it’s looking more and more like the QACs are probably not the cause of any major cycling issue - and I agree with you that the tank is "probably" ready to go now. I'm just being extra careful and deliberate especially since its my first time through.

I’m awaiting back information from RedSea on known, common, interferences with the ammonia test kit and specifically if any exist with QACs. My questions have been escalated to their Chief Scientist. I do hope to hear back.

I may be getting a Seneye soon. I'm not super thrilled with the price tag and the need for another mini web server ... but I am probably going to pull the trigger. Do you by chance have Seneye data that you are willing/able to share of tanks during cycle? I have a bunch of ideas for modeling these processes from time series data. Successfully doing so could provide additional insights for all of us.

I'm away from the tank now for 5 weeks. Much more to come.