How toxic is ammonia, really?

[brandon429]

Aqua logic

I believe Randy, Dan and Taricha can use those test kits effectively but if we trust the masses to do so, we get the ‘help I’m at 8 ppm ammonia’ threads when they are indeed not in an ammonia challenge that’s shown above in my false reads collection.


I don’t think we need to measure ammonia at any phase in reefing, I don’t ask for peoples ammonia level even when we cycle their dry start tanks. But yes if someone wants to make proofs about what ammonia is doing in their reef a seneye will make their levels match what the tank pics shows that’s for sure.

With seneye, there isn’t a conflict between the stated ammonia level and what the test readout said.

 

[AquaLogic]

Do you currently have elevated ammonia?

1 ppm total ammonia is not going to immediately kill fish. But it is very possibly unhealthy for them and I'd do something about it.

That said, 1 ppm is unlikely in an established reef tank.

I was concerned about ammonia in my quarantine tank. Yesterday my Seachem alert badge turned green indication .2 PPM. I immediately did a 50% water change, but it can take the Seachem badge a long time to catch up. After a few hours I did another 50% water changer (it is a small 4 gallon container with two small fish) about 6 hours later I used my Redsea ammonia test which indicated something between 0.8 and 1.2, which worried me. This morning the badge is normal yellow again. So after essentially a 100% water change the ammonia badge says everything is ok, but now, after about 12 hours the Redsea tests shows no change and is still (estimated) between 0.8 - 1.2

So, I am just very confused about when to worry about ammonia, and why the Redsea kit doesn't show a change. It shows a change in my display, which I measured at the same time, but not in the quarantine. How can a 100% water change have 0 impact on ammonia?

I'm trying to figure out what it is I'm missing here, so any help is great, thank you!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I was concerned about ammonia in my quarantine tank. Yesterday my Seachem alert badge turned green indication .2 PPM. I immediately did a 50% water change, but it can take the Seachem badge a long time to catch up. After a few hours I did another 50% water changer (it is a small 4 gallon container with two small fish) about 6 hours later I used my Redsea ammonia test which indicated something between 0.8 and 1.2, which worried me. This morning the badge is normal yellow again. So after essentially a 100% water change the ammonia badge says everything is ok, but now, after about 12 hours the Redsea tests shows no change and is still (estimated) between 0.8 - 1.2

So, I am just very confused about when to worry about ammonia, and why the Redsea kit doesn't show a change. It shows a change in my display, which I measured at the same time, but not in the quarantine. How can a 100% water change have 0 impact on ammonia?

I'm trying to figure out what it is I'm missing here, so any help is great, thank you!

Is this a cycled tank? Water changes can be hard to keep ammonia down with fish in a uncycled tank.

 

[AquaLogic]

Is this a cycled tank? Water changes can be hard to keep ammonia down with fish in a uncycled tank.

It has a cycled sponge, but it may not be sufficient. It had some Marine pure but I took that out because I read it would interfere with copper treatment. This is probably what led to the ammonia spike, but I’m not sure how else to treat with copper. I’m not new to the hobby but I’ve never treated with copper before so I am new to that. Should I put the marine pure back in? And what should I pay attention to, the test or the badge?

 

[Garf]

It has a cycled sponge, but it may not be sufficient. It had some Marine pure but I took that out because I read it would interfere with copper treatment. This is probably what led to the ammonia spike, but I’m not sure how else to treat with copper. I’m not new to the hobby but I’ve never treated with copper before so I am new to that. Should I put the marine pure back in? And what should I pay attention to, the test or the badge?

The badge is reading NH3, the liquid ones are probably testing NH3 + NH4. Can you test pH?

 

[Garf]

It has a cycled sponge, but it may not be sufficient. It had some Marine pure but I took that out because I read it would interfere with copper treatment. This is probably what led to the ammonia spike, but I’m not sure how else to treat with copper. I’m not new to the hobby but I’ve never treated with copper before so I am new to that. Should I put the marine pure back in? And what should I pay attention to, the test or the badge?

Have you added copper already? that'll mess up the liquid tests for total ammonia.

 

[AquaLogic]

The badge is reading NH3, the liquid ones are probably testing NH3 + NH4. Can you test pH?

Yes, I understand the difference in what they read now thank you, what I am unsure about is what that should mean to me. If the badge says ok is it ok? Or does the high reading on the test mean I have cause for alarm?

I have not yet started copper, I wanted to make sure all parameters were good first.

PH just tested at approximately 8.2 with the Redsea test.

Thanks!

 

[Garf]

Yes, I understand the difference in what they read now, what I am unsure about is what that should mean to me. If the badge says ok is it ok? Or does the high reading on the test mean I have cause for alarm?

I have not yet started copper, I wanted to make sure all parameters were good first.

PH just tested at approximately 8.2 with the Redsea test.

Thanks!

Probably best to check yourself with the calculator on post#12 of this thread but I get them to marry up well, NH3 + NH4 of 0.9, giving a NH3 of 0.06, which is in the ok for now range, but must try harder category.

 

[AquaLogic]

Probably best to check yourself with the calculator on post#12 of this thread but I get them to marry up well, NH3 + NH4 of 0.9, giving a NH3 of 0.06, which is in the ok for now range, but must try harder category.

Ok thanks, so perhaps proceed with daily water changes to control, and then start copper when stable?

 

[Garf]

Ok thanks, so perhaps proceed with daily water changes to control, and then start copper when stable?

I think @Jay Hemdal has an issue with delaying copper treatment, wonder how he would do it? Or @MnFish1

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I think @Jay Hemdal has an issue with delaying copper treatment, wonder how he would do it? Or @MnFish1

The problem we see with delaying copper treatments on newly acquired, wild caught fish is that then, a protozoan disease can get started. Once that happens, you get put on the defensive and have to chase after it - and treating active infections is always a lot harder than preventing them.

 

[Garf]

The problem we see with delaying copper treatments on newly acquired, wild caught fish is that then, a protozoan disease can get started. Once that happens, you get put on the defensive and have to chase after it - and treating active infections is always a lot harder than preventing them.

I thought that's what it was. So would you just copper a QT and control ammonia with waterchanges and the ammonia badge as a guide. Reference post #49, thanks

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I thought that's what it was. So would you just copper a QT and control ammonia with waterchanges and the ammonia badge as a guide. Reference post #49, thanks

Well, in a perfect world, I’d avoid the whole issue by culturing bacteria in my main tank for use in the QT. I like to run air driven sponges filters in my sump until I need them.

Controlling ammonia with water changes in a small QT can be a nightmare. I’ve seen tanks where the ammonia rose 1 ppm in 24 hours. Bottle bacteria like Dr Tim’s sometimes helps, as would any non calcareous filter media you can pull from the DT. Sometimes, an LFS will have media you can use.

 

[AquaLogic]

The problem we see with delaying copper treatments on newly acquired, wild caught fish is that then, a protozoan disease can get started. Once that happens, you get put on the defensive and have to chase after it - and treating active infections is always a lot harder than preventing them.

Thank you. Is it correct that media like marine pure is undesirable during copper treatment? Also, one of my fish being treated is a prawn goby, is it ok to have a small dish of sand for him, or will that cause problems with the copper? I brought in a sponge filter from the display, but I'm not sure it was mature enough. If could use the marine pure the problem would be solved.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Thank you. Is it correct that media like marine pure is undesirable during copper treatment? Also, one of my fish being treated is a prawn goby, is it ok to have a small dish of sand for him, or will that cause problems with the copper? I brought in a sponge filter from the display, but I'm not sure it was mature enough. If could use the marine pure the problem would be solved.

Marine Pure is a ceramic media, it is perfectly fine to use with copper, it is inert. A small dish of sand would be o.k., but if you can find sand for freshwater aquariums, that would be better (more inert as well).

 

[jda]

Silica sand does not bind medications like aragonite does. I was always told that it can be hard on sand sleepers or filterers since I have heard that the surface can be rough like a billion tiny razor blades (no idea if this is true).

For me, the largest reason not to have any nh[3,4] with freshly caught fish is because even if you do not kill them, copper is hard on many of them with unknown side effects and the two can be like going through chemo with pneumonia at the same time. The majority are going to have to fight off diseases and build an immunity since I am convinced that most do not treat anyway. Fish do not have 1-800 lawyers like mesothelioma, asbestos and mine workers to fight for them when their lives are shortened with ammonia damage that did not cause death. Why add ammonia damage to a fish?

My bare bottom QT tank is seldom used. I run a bio wheel type of filter on it constantly. It takes about 48 hours for the AOB in the filter to catch back up to just be able to handle the waste already inside of the fish. The ammonia level can peak to about .20 or .25 on Hannah egg from a smooth zero before this and also back down to a smooth near-zero after a few days. The filter responds quickly, but who knows how bad it would be if I fed during these times. This last time was Powder Brown, Yellow Tang, Queen Angel and a trigger that a local had covered in Crypto or Ood and they went in for a 5-6 days until the spots left. They are much more calm now and will be OK from here in my normal introduction tanks for a few months.

If the nh[3.,4] in the above scenario gets any higher, then a squeeze of a sponge out of my display goes into the filter which does seem to arrest that climb. If there is a lot of fish, I do a squeeze beforehand.

The whole point is that it is not hard to keep nh[3,4] low, so why risk it at all? I like my tangs to live for 20+ years.

Part of me finds these type of discussions disgusting since they seem to challenge people to take risks with lives... but the science is interesting too. i am already disgusted by the current desire to just declare victory on a new tank start if a fish does not immediately die.

 

[AquaLogic]

Marine Pure is a ceramic media, it is perfectly fine to use with copper, it is inert. A small dish of sand would be o.k., but if you can find sand for freshwater aquariums, that would be better (more inert as well).

Wonderful, thank you!

 

[rennjidk]

@Jay Hemdal

I wanted to tag you in response to the original thread, but wasn't sure if it would be poor etiquette.

Having asked you directly several times, and hanging around your forum long enough, I know that NH3/4 test results are one of your common, initial probing questions, along with other parameters, medication, etc.

Since you head the disease and treatment forum, how do you interpret studies like these in your assessment and treatment of fish in our tanks?

As someone who is not part of the scientific community, or well versed in fish disease and treatment, it's difficult to interpret the data, and sometimes feels like that episode of Futurama, when Bender became the crew's chef.

Thanks in advance to both you, and @Randy Holmes-Farley for posting the study.

In the context of trying to understand why so many people believe Seachem Prime was useful for them in an elevated ammonia situation, against the data in the link below about Prime potentially doing nothing to free ammonia in seawater, the question arises, why?

Does Prime actually "Detoxify" free ammonia, NH3?

This started when @Dan_P was looking at measuring NH3 with seneye and was curious about performance near zero NH3. I suggested trying Prime to artificially zero out the NH3 sensor, and the results were weird... so I checked with my seachem kit. Prime by Seachem is commonly used to treat tap...

www.reef2reef.com

One logical explanation is that folks really do not have a good understanding of how toxic ammonia is. They see 1 or 2 or 5 ppm total ammonia, dose Prime, the fish live, and they declare success.

But how toxic is it really? [note, there are always sublethal effects to toxins, and nowhere in this discussion am I advocating for elevated ammonia, I am focusing solely on the endpoint of death and how it relates to belief in whether Seachem Prime has "worked" in a given scenario]

In other words, what would have happened if they did not use Prime in the identical scenario.

We can use published scientific data on ammonia toxicity to gauge what might have happened.

Of course, every species of fish or invert ay have different ammonia tolerability, and pH also plays a strong role.

But let's explore some data.

Here's a 2019 review article published in INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL. 48, NO. 03, MARCH 2019.

NIScPR Online Periodical Repository: Ammonia toxicity and adaptive response in marine fishes – A review

nopr.niscpr.res.in

The authors are at the University of Antwerp, Biology Department (Belgium) and the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute in India. Thus, it is not a hobby publication, and they have already collected a fair number of previously published experiments to summarize.

Table 2 is what we want to look at.


Table 2 — Comparative toxicity of ammonia to various marine fish

Species TA-N (mgL-1) UIA-N (mgL-1)
4 -Day LC50 Sea bass 40 1.7
4 -Day LC50 Sea bream 57 2.5
4 -Day LC50 Turbot 59 2.6
4 -Day LC50 Cat fish 45 1.6
4 -Day LC50 Rainbow trout 22 0.3-0.6
8 -Day LC50 Sea bass >22.3 >0.9
20 -Day LC50 Sea bream 15.7 0.89
28 -Day LC50 Turbot 38 1
20-Day EC50 Sea bream 15.7 0.89
28-Day EC50 Turbot 17-19 0.50-0.65
55-Day EC50 Turbot 17-21 0.60-0.75
55-Day EC50 Sea bass 22 0.9
LC50 = Lethal concentration for 50% of the population
EC50 = Concentration reducing growth by 50%

Note the important measure: LC50. That is the concentration where 50% of the fish die in the indicated time.

ALL of the data supports the idea that few of these fish (much less than half) would die in 10-20 ppm total ammonia in 2 days. It takes 4 days in more than twice as much ammonia to kill even half of them.

That concentration is a long, long way above what most reefers would use as a trigger point for using Prime. So when fish survive, it may just be the expected result, whether Prime is added or not.

I don't want to make this initial post too long, so we can follow up with additional papers as they arise showing LC50 data for marine fish in seawater.

But I will note here that these results are typical, not an outlier. This paper shows similar results, where more than 1 ppm FREE ammonia is needed to kill half of a batch of silversides in 96 h. That translates to about 25 ppm total ammonia at pH 8.0.

The acute and chronic toxicity of ammonia to marine fish and a mysid - Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

The acute toxicity (96-hr LC50) of un-ionized ammonia to mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) and larval inland silversides (Menidia beryllina) was influenced by pH and salinity in a species specific manner. With mysids, NH3 was most toxic at pH 7.0 and less toxic at pH 8.0 and 9.0. In contrast, NH3...

link.springer.com

 

[Jay Hemdal]

@Jay Hemdal

I wanted to tag you in response to the original thread, but wasn't sure if it would be poor etiquette.

Having asked you directly several times, and hanging around your forum long enough, I know that NH3/4 test results are one of your common, initial probing questions, along with other parameters, medication, etc.

Since you head the disease and treatment forum, how do you interpret studies like these in your assessment and treatment of fish in our tanks?

As someone who is not part of the scientific community, or well versed in fish disease and treatment, it's difficult to interpret the data, and sometimes feels like that episode of Futurama, when Bender became the crew's chef.

Thanks in advance to both you, and @Randy Holmes-Farley for posting the study.

Diagnosing aquarium problems remotely is very difficult. We try to collect as much information as we can to try and get a clearer picture of things. I use ammonia tests as a measure of how new the tank is. The outline of what we ask for is here:

Some Helpful Hints When Posting or Responding to Threads in the Fish Disease Treatment and Diagnosis Section

Aquarium Fish Disease Problem Solving Determining the best course of action for a problem with your aquarium can be a difficult task. Even advanced aquarists will often need to seek the help of others for complicated or unique issues. Our intent here on Reef 2 Reef is to offer expert advice...

www.reef2reef.com