Jeopardy Answer: It cannot be done

[kingranch2003]

4) How can I create magic crystals on the surface of my rock

Sorry, I had to. I’ll sea myself out

Okay enough bad jokes. If I have more pop up, I’ll barium

Now there's a joke worth a Nickle!

 

[KrisReef]

What is awesome about this site is although Chuck rarely visits RHF keeps it real here in Chuck’s absence. I think Chuck trusts RHF more than I do, please don’t tell Chuck.

The uptake or loss of trace elements is presumably a result of metabolic activity in the tank.

Figuring out how all of the metabolic activity impacts trace elements is still a work in progress. It’s The Lords work to find out how it all affects works together and I hope Chuck or Randy gives us more answers as they work together to solve the issue.

 

[BristleWormHater]

What is awesome about this site is although Chuck rarely visits RHF keeps it real here in Chuck’s absence. I think Chuck trusts RHF more than I do, please don’t tell Chuck.

The uptake or loss of trace elements is presumably a result of metabolic activity in the tank.

Figuring out how all of the metabolic activity impacts trace elements is still a work in progress. It’s The Lords work to find out how it all affects works together and I hope Chuck or Randy gives us more answers as they work together to solve the issue.

Chuck Norris?

 

[KrisReef]

Chuck Norris?

Yes. He can fix anything.

 

[Hans-Werner]

There are, of course, a near infinite number of question this applies to, but three that might be worthy of mention are:

1. How can I reduce organics in the water without also removing some trace elements?

2. How can I reduce nitrate in the water without also removing some trace elements?

3. How can I reduce phosphate in the water without also removing some trace elements?

These come to mind when encountering a person who does not want to use some method for one of these because it also consumes some trace elements.

I cannot think of any method for any of these that does not remove trace elements as well, although some (like a water change) may add trace elements back, and some of these methods may remove more or different trace elements than others.

In general, I don't really think trace element export should be a primary reason to not use a method, assuming you need to do it. But knowing what that method removes could be useful in terms of dosing.

If anyone has counterexamples, I'm happy to hear them.

It works much better the other way round: Add trace elements to remove nitrate and phosphate (and possibly organics).

If trace elements are limiting nutrients it is difficult to have the full potential of nitrate and phosphate removal by coral growth. Overcoming this trace nutrient limitation may increase incorporation of nitrate and phosphate into coral growth. The effect of trace elements may be noticable and measurable.

Also for degradation of hard to degrade organics certain trace metals are necessary, namely copper and manganese, to form radicals able to crack the bonds.

 

[Hans-Werner]

In what way? I may not be reading the question right, my understanding is that you are saying that we cannot export phosphate or nitrate without also exporting trace elements.
To my knowledge denitrifying bacteria doesn’t require trace elements.

So if I run a sulfur denitrifier, I'm gassing off NO3 as N2 and NO etc.
So I ought to be able to keep all my precious trace elements, right?

For the enzymes for nitrate and nitrite reduction trace metals molybdenum and iron or copper are needed.

The answer to that is, IMO, the same as the answer to whether all or just some of the trace elements in foods are usable: we just don't have data on the recycling of trace elements in reef tanks. Some is recycled, certainly, but it is also likely some is not.

Some likely ends up removed in various ways, such as stuck to detritus, mineralized as a precipitate on the bottom or on rock and sand surfaces, removed by skimming, GAC, etc.

I think one major "sink" for trace elements in food are the organisms feeding on the food themselves. Like we humans take up most of the trace elements necessary for our metabolism from our food, also fish, corals and other invertebrates do.

The question is, how much of the trace elements added with food are taken up by the fish during digestion and how much leaves the fish and how much of the share that leaves the fish remains in the water in a bioavailable form.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Serious question, not being a jerk, is or should this discussion result in actionable information?

What I mean is, nutrient export has been a thing for as long as we have kept aquariums, but the existence and possible importance of trace elements is very recent, at least at the hobbyist level. We have been operating blind to this topic far longer than we have been aware of it, and removing trace via whatever we have been doing so far hasn’t as far as I am aware of had a negative impact.

I am admitting near total ignorance as to the importance of trace elements to the organisms in my care. I’ve done only 1 ICP test in my hobby career, and that was when I first started out and was killing everything (turned out I had 2 different salinity measuring devices out of calibration the same amount, and they checked each other. Lesson learned everything gets calibrated now)

I am still somewhat skeptical that things like moonshiners may more about the amount of attention you are paying to your aquarium vs the dosing of trace elements. Sort of like the guy who eats McD’s everyday takes a fish oil pill thinking that will keep the cardiologist away.

My philosophy in most things is take care of the big things and the small stuff takes care of itself. But I’ve been wrong before and am always looking for more information…in this case is the juice worth the squeeze? I am open to the idea

There are three reasons for my posting this thread.

1. I mentioned in the first post that some folks are making decisions on N, P, or organic export on the basis of incorrect info on whether some of these methods impact trace elements.

2. One reason for the thread is to just get folks thinking deeper about the processes available and how they work.

3. Finally, I sometimes try to make the forum a little more fun than it might otherwise be if it’s just a constant recitation of facts and ideas.

Yes, it is actionable. Think deeper on what we do. Consider impacts in trace elements of different processes. Account for those issues if and when it is appropriate.

 

[ajmckay]

It works much better the other way round: Add trace elements to remove nitrate and phosphate (and possibly organics).

If trace elements are limiting nutrients it is difficult to have the full potential of nitrate and phosphate removal by coral growth. Overcoming this trace nutrient limitation may increase incorporation of nitrate and phosphate into coral growth. The effect of trace elements may be noticable and measurable.

Also for degradation of hard to degrade organics certain trace metals are necessary, namely copper and manganese, to form radicals able to crack the bonds.

My first thought when I read this relates to planted aquarium methods. Where trace elements are referred to as fertilizers and when added in a balanced fashion along with light and co2 allows plants to fully utilize the nutrients in the water/substrate and maximize growth.

 

[NickNH]

I don't belive it can feasibly be done. Most mechanical filtration takes things with it in various amounts and forms.
Biological methods for nutrient control like bacteria, coral, and algae consume trace nutrients as they grow.
Ideally use both methods and just make sure to occasionally top up the water with trace nutrients.

 

[MyFirstCar]

Serious question, not being a jerk, is or should this discussion result in actionable information?

What I mean is, nutrient export has been a thing for as long as we have kept aquariums, but the existence and possible importance of trace elements is very recent, at least at the hobbyist level. We have been operating blind to this topic far longer than we have been aware of it, and removing trace via whatever we have been doing so far hasn’t as far as I am aware of had a negative impact.

I am admitting near total ignorance as to the importance of trace elements to the organisms in my care. I’ve done only 1 ICP test in my hobby career, and that was when I first started out and was killing everything (turned out I had 2 different salinity measuring devices out of calibration the same amount, and they checked each other. Lesson learned everything gets calibrated now)

I am still somewhat skeptical that things like moonshiners may more about the amount of attention you are paying to your aquarium vs the dosing of trace elements. Sort of like the guy who eats McD’s everyday takes a fish oil pill thinking that will keep the cardiologist away.

My philosophy in most things is take care of the big things and the small stuff takes care of itself. But I’ve been wrong before and am always looking for more information…in this case is the juice worth the squeeze? I am open to the idea

There are three reasons for my posting this thread.

1. I mentioned in the first post that some folks are making decisions on N, P, or organic export on the basis of incorrect info on whether some of these methods impact trace elements.

2. One reason for the thread is to just get folks thinking deeper about the processes available and how they work.

3. Finally, I sometimes try to make the forum a little more fun than it might otherwise be if it’s just a constant recitation of facts and ideas.

Yes, it is actionable. Think deeper on what we do. Consider impacts in trace elements of different processes. Account for those issues if and when it is appropriate.

I think its a fun question and poses some interesting thought experiments. Interrogation of these questions and norms are how we better understand reefing, and move success rates forward. This hobby did start with people bleaching rocks constantly, so we've come a long way.

It also has practical implications for those who do minimal/no water changes. Most (speaking *very* broadly) of success in this hobby comes from controlling what comes in and goes out of the water (light, food, filtration, etc). Reef-ers who do minimal water changes have tanks so the inputs and outputs are in balance, and learning more about these outputs of trace elements may help us understand why low/no water change tanks sometimes succeed and sometimes fail.

That said, I don't think anyone should be changing their reefing habits based on this one thread or discussion. Posing the question is just the start of the process.

 

[sixty_reefer]

For the enzymes for nitrate and nitrite reduction trace metals molybdenum and iron or copper are needed.

Thank you i wasn’t aware of this process, upon reading it seems that is a one time process and not an ongoing absorption need such a macro or micro algae’s would need.
I would expect the impact to be so little that it wouldn’t make much difference on the overall system.

I think one major "sink" for trace elements in food are the organisms feeding on the food themselves. Like we humans take up most of the trace elements necessary for our metabolism from our food, also fish, corals and other invertebrates do.

The question is, how much of the trace elements added with food are taken up by the fish during digestion and how much leaves the fish and how much of the share that leaves the fish remains in the water in a bioavailable form.

i’ve seen a discussion between marine biologists on nutrition, they mention that it is expected to be a lost of around 90 percentile between tropic levels.

 

[drewzaun]

think its a fun question and poses some interesting thought experiments. Interrogation of these questions and norms are how we better understand reefing, and move success rates forward.

I agree 100%. I’ve never considered that while I am targeting nitrates and phosphates that I may be removing other things I may want. Idk what impact this may or may not have on what I do in the future I’m learning.

My biggest hang up atm is I don’t have the confidence in our ability to test and accurately influence the amount of any given trace.

I know some minerals we take as humans have various forms, some more bio available than others and some only absorbed when certain criteria are met, I don’t know if we know that about corals or not. We probably do but I haven’t learned it yet.

What I do know is that people who do zero ICP testing and no intentional trace element dosing have beautiful healthy reefs, and tinkering in gray areas is not always a path to a good outcome.

I’m all about learning more about this, but I don’t see actionable intelligence yet. For me, for the foreseeable future at least, whatever knowledge I glean is purely academic, and my resources will be spent upgrading lights and flow and other things I am more comfortable controlling.

 

[fandaga]

I can’t come up with anything practical…

Theoretically one could imagine an engineered enzyme or zeolite/MOF/etc with high substrate specificity. But the problem is as difficult as CO2 sequestration.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Thank you i wasn’t aware of this process, upon reading it seems that is a one time process and not an ongoing absorption need such a macro or micro algae’s would need.
I would expect the impact to be so little that it wouldn’t make much difference on the overall system.

Yes, of course, and iron and manganese are needed for many other processes too. But in a reef tank one of the main sinks for many trace elements are coral skeletons. Once incorporated into the skeleton of an Acropora or a living gorgonia, they will remain there. So you never get a steady state where you can say just as many bacteria are dying as are growing, I don't need a supply.

This may be a difference between keeping leather corals and a few LPS in the seventies and eighties and the SPS from the nineties up to now.

 

[Lasse]

i’ve seen a discussion between marine biologists on nutrition, they mention that it is expected to be a lost of around 90 percentile between tropic levels.

Warm-blooded animals have mostly 90% loss - cold-blooded animals like fish is normal said to have 80 % loss compared with the energy and nutrition on food they eat. For heterotrophic bacteria - I do not know but the loss is probably around these figures.

1. How can I reduce organics in the water without also removing some trace elements?

2. How can I reduce nitrate in the water without also removing some trace elements?

3. How can I reduce phosphate in the water without also removing some trace elements?

I think it is very important to distinguish between trace elements (yes all elements for that matter) in the water column and in dead organic matter. If you look at the whole system (water column + dead organic matter) there is no export method that does not involve loss either chemically bound or bound in new biomass - IMO. Even if denitrification is very species-specific and most of the inorganic N will leave the whole system while everything else remains in the system

If we instead concentrate on trace elements in the water column - the ones we can measure - I am quite convinced that 1 and 2 are feasible and also with methods that provide the system with new trace elements and other inorganic substances

1) Organics in the water - both dissolved and as particulate organic matter can be expressed as BODx there BOD stands for Biological Oxygen Demand and x for the actual days the test is run. The microbes "eat" the organic matter - transform around 20 % to its own biomass and release the other 80 % as inorganic substances - most as dissolved inorganic - including inorganic P, N, C and most of the other substance that is Incorporated in organic matter. All of this happens fast when Oxygen is present. A filter of some type with a fast flow of oxygen rich water will speed up this process and also release inorganic substances into the water. But 20 % of the original organic matter is transformed into new bacterial biomass and can be exported out from the system with help of rinsing the filter.

However - its not valid for all traces and pollutants. Some of them are toxic to many bacteria and therefore the bacteria must be able to transform these into - for them - harmless products - usually this means making them fat-soluble and therefore bio-accumulate them into the biomass in fat depots. Mercury is one such pollutant that bio-accumulates, as are copper and cadmium.

For example, metallic mercury is toxic to most bacteria - they then convert it into methylmercury which is not toxic for them and can be stored in the biomass or bind into humus.

This method is a rather slow export method but can be done with a biological filter that is rinsed now and than - it takes away maybe 20% of the traces from the organic matter but on the other hand it also release new traces into the aquarium from the organic leftover in the tank.

The bottom line is that microbiological decomposition (mineralization) does not take many substances from the water - instead, the process adds substances to the water from the decomposed organic material.

2) NO3 can be removed from the water with classic denitrification. In this case - most of the NO3 is not used as a "normal" nutrient that will be Incorporated in bacterial biomass - instead will it replaces the oxygen in the bacterial cell's metabolism (combustion)

The bottom line is that classical denitrification is species-specific and removes only NO3 from both the water and the entire system - in that process nothing else is removed. Some substances are incorporated into the biomass of the bacteria that carry out the denitrification, but are a negligible proportion in relation to the amount of NO3 that is removed.

In this case, very little inorganic material will be bound in bacterial biomass as organic matter because the process is slow and inefficient. As for the biomass, it follows the usual rule - around 20% bacterial biomass. 80% as dissolved inorganics in the water column.

3) P does not have a gaseous phase like N does. Therefore, I believe that PO4 follows the same rules that I try to explain in point 1.

My 20% biomass and 80% dissolved inorganic should be taken with a pinch of salt. Some organic substances are difficult to break down and then remain as difficult to break down DOC in the water - we usually call them yellow substances but the common name is humus.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Warm-blooded animals have mostly 90% loss - cold-blooded animals like fish is normal said to have 80 % loss compared with the energy and nutrition on food they eat. For heterotrophic bacteria - I do not know but the loss is probably around these figures.



I think it is very important to distinguish between trace elements (yes all elements for that matter) in the water column and in dead organic matter. If you look at the whole system (water column + dead organic matter) there is no export method that does not involve loss either chemically bound or bound in new biomass - IMO

If we instead concentrate on trace elements in the water column - the ones we can measure - I am quite convinced that 1 and 2 are feasible and also with methods that provide the system with new trace elements and other inorganic substances

1) Organics in the water - both dissolved and as particulate organic matter can be expressed as BODx there BOD stands for Biological Oxygen Demand and x for the actual days the test is run. The microbes "eat" the organic matter - transform around 20 % to its own biomass and release the other 80 % as inorganic substances - most as dissolved inorganic - including inorganic P, N, C and most of the other substance that is Incorporated in organic matter. All of this happens fast when Oxygen is present. A filter of some type with a fast flow of oxygen rich water will speed up this process and also release inorganic substances into the water. But 20 % of the original organic matter is transformed into new bacterial biomass and can be exported out from the system with help of rinsing the filter.

However - its not valid for all traces and pollutants. Some of them are toxic to many bacteria and therefore the bacteria must be able to transform these into - for them - harmless products - usually this means making them fat-soluble and therefore bio-accumulate them into the biomass in fat depots. Mercury is one such pollutant that bio-accumulates, as are copper and cadmium.

For example, metallic mercury is toxic to most bacteria - they then convert it into methylmercury which is not toxic for them and can be stored in the biomass or bind into humus.

This method is a rather slow export method but can be done with a biological filter that is rinsed now and than - it takes away maybe 20 of the traces but on the other hand it also release new traces into the aquarium from the organic leftover in the tank.

The bottom line is that microbiological decomposition (mineralization) does not take many substances from the water - instead, the process adds substances to the water from the decomposed organic material.

2) NO3 can be removed from the water with classic denitrification. In this case - most of the NO3 is not used as a "normal" nutrient that will be Incorporated in bacterial biomass - instead will it replaces the oxygen in the bacterial cell's metabolism (combustion)

The bottom line is that classical denitrification is species-specific and removes only NO3 from both the water and the entire system - in that process nothing else is removed. Some substances are incorporated into the biomass of the bacteria that carry out the denitrification, but are a negligible proportion in relation to the amount of NO3 that is removed.

In this case, very little inorganic material will be bound in bacterial biomass as organic matter because the process is slow and inefficient. As for the biomass, it follows the usual rule - around 20% bacterial biomass. 80% as dissolved inorganics in the water column.

3) P does not have a gaseous phase like N does. Therefore, I believe that PO4 follows the same rules that I try to explain in point 1.

My 20% biomass and 80% dissolved inorganic should be taken with a pinch of salt. Some organic substances are difficult to break down and then remain as difficult to break down DOC in the water - we usually call them yellow substances but the common name is humus.

Sincerely Lasse

Let’s take a realistic scenario and see where that leads us.

I have a reef tank where I want to reduce the dissolved organics in the water.

What would you have me do to reduce the dissolved organic matter (or N or P) that will not reduce bioavailable trace elements such as iron or copper?

 

[Treefer32]

I would challenge the questions though, is there not a peak - consistent amount removed per day. Do bacteria always increase in numbers all the time? Colonies should peak and then stay consistent. Sure, they die and get exported through skimmers and reefmats, etc. But the colony if it's at 5 trillian bacteria cells, tomorrow isn't going to surge to 6 trillion then the next day 7 trillion infinitely. Unless there's a reason to do so aka more resources, food, and surface area.

I have a denitrator and the output from it goes straight to the intake of my skimmer. I have not changed the media in the denitrator in over 2 years. I suspect it has a max colonization of bacteria.

The argument against removing trace elements along with other bad players is somewhat moot. By managing the frequency of exports, consumption rates through natural processes - aka reducing / increasing photoperiod on refugiums and ATSes, Increasing or reducing skimmer rates, using / not using roller mats, frequency of water changes and amounts per change. We could in theory manage trace element consumption.

I would argue, we don't have reasonable means to do so and that is the issue. If there was a probe that gave me real time statistics on trace elements present in the water at any given time. We could be running the most amazing reefs ever and monitor which trace elements get consumed faster and which ones stick around to manage dosing and exports.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would challenge the questions though, is there not a peak - consistent amount removed per day. Do bacteria always increase in numbers all the time? Colonies should peak and then stay consistent. Sure, they die and get exported through skimmers and reefmats, etc. But the colony if it's at 5 trillian bacteria cells, tomorrow isn't going to surge to 6 trillion then the next day 7 trillion infinitely. Unless there's a reason to do so aka more resources, food, and surface area.

I have a denitrator and the output from it goes straight to the intake of my skimmer. I have not changed the media in the denitrator in over 2 years. I suspect it has a max colonization of bacteria.

The argument against removing trace elements along with other bad players is somewhat moot. By managing the frequency of exports, consumption rates through natural processes - aka reducing / increasing photoperiod on refugiums and ATSes, Increasing or reducing skimmer rates, using / not using roller mats, frequency of water changes and amounts per change. We could in theory manage trace element consumption.

I would argue, we don't have reasonable means to do so and that is the issue. If there was a probe that gave me real time statistics on trace elements present in the water at any given time. We could be running the most amazing reefs ever and monitor which trace elements get consumed faster and which ones stick around to manage dosing and exports.

The amount of trace elements removed daily certainly could be fairly stable. Removing a fixed amount of new growth macroalgae per day to offset any rise in N and/or P could do just that.

 

[Lasse]

The part that normally is calculated as BODx in a water is the labile dissolved organics and particulate organic matter that will be reduced by a fast flowing bio filter and maybe 20 % will be biomass that include traces and other compounds - But the rest of the labile dissolved organics and particulate organic matter that caught in the filter will be released as dissolved inorganics.

Part of the DOC is difficult to degrade and to include that part, the term COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand is used. COD includes bpde BODx and the part that is difficult to degrade for microorganisms. The ratio between COD and BOD is usually between 1.3 - 2.5 in municipal wastewater. The higher number usually indicates chemicals in the wastewater. I don't know the ratio in aquarium water but I would guess the lower number or even lower ratio. However in old mature aquariums without regular WC - the ratio probably is higher.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Unless there's a reason to do so aka more resources, food, and surface area.

According to heterotrophic bacteria - space is no limited factor. Many of them can change between aerobic and anaerobic processes - with other words they can form multidimensional aggregates

I have a denitrator and the output from it goes straight to the intake of my skimmer. I have not changed the media in the denitrator in over 2 years. I suspect it has a max colonization of bacteria.

My DSB that is a heterotrophic denitrator with flow from the bottom to the top have been working for more than six years now - no cleaning. But I can still control the process by how much labile organic carbon (ethanol) I add. This bed is still limited by the amount of labile DOC present in the water. But its large - approximately 40 L of coral sand and the flow area is 160 cm² - sand depth 25 cm

Sincerely Lasse