Lanthanum Chloride + Tangs + Socks

[SoCalVictor]

I'm considering dosing Lanthanum Chloride to drop my phosphate level. I do have quite a few tangs so I'm paranoid after reading the various reports of tang deaths.

In the times that folks have reported tang deaths, its not clear if they dosed it into a sock or not. I've yet to find a confirmed case of someone dosing Lanthanum Chloride into a sock and still having tang deaths. Has anyone seen that?

 

[gbroadbridge]

I'm considering dosing Lanthanum Chloride to drop my phosphate level. I do have quite a few tangs so I'm paranoid after reading the various reports of tang deaths.

In the times that folks have reported tang deaths, its not clear if they dosed it into a sock or not. I've yet to find a confirmed case of someone dosing Lanthanum Chloride into a sock and still having tang deaths. Has anyone seen that?

It's not just a sock - it's a sock < 10 micron which are not common.
Devil in the details and all that.

 

[mcarroll]

I've yet to find a confirmed case of someone dosing Lanthanum Chloride into a sock and still having tang deaths. Has anyone seen that?

Maybe the question is also: Is it worth the (or any) risk?

Are you chasing numbers, or solving a real problem? (Obviously I dunno, just suggesting the question.)

 

[joseph scott]

It’s not just the sock being the correct micron. It’s also having a slow drip so that all lanthanam is used before it can flow through the sock. I had a bad algae problem and tried the lanthanam, lost a fox face, yellow tang, and flame hawkfish. The fish that survived were radiant wrasse, Melanarus wrasse, maroon clown, 3 flame angels, yellow tail damsel, and a smiths blenny. I have no idea why some fish survived while other died but all of them were breathing hard for
A while. I was so angry at myself.

 

[UMALUM]

I went through just about a whole bottle of tm elimi phos rapid and had not a single casualty.

Achilles
Naso
Regal
Desjardini
4 chromis
6 springeri
2 clowns
2 flame hawks
1 coris
1 melanarus

The best way I found to dose it was to turn the return off for an hour and drip it next to the skimmer. When I used a 10 it must have still slipped through because I would find build-up on the display glass = magic eraser. If you turn off the return it can't get to your fish. Strip the sump volume and test.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I dosed very carefully into a skimmer that discharged into progressive socks. I documented damage to a scopas tang on several occasions.

 

[UMALUM]

If it found its way to your display I would venture you weren't careful enough.

 

[BeanAnimal]

If it found its way to your display I would venture you weren't careful enough.

Somewhat obtuse and rhetorical, no?

Phosphate was over 1.0 ppm (closer to 2.0). The lanthanum was heavily diluted and dripped extremely slowly into the skimmer body, with discharge filtered through 50, 30 10 micron socks in series.

I spent the better part of a year working with lanthanum, logging a full notebook full of tests. In the end, even at dosing levels that took weeks to reduce phosphate to any measurable extent, damage was readily visible and cumulative during dosing periods. The dosing rate and concentration were far lower than what Yaiullo and others were using and the filtration of effluent far more robust.

Any lower rate would have been ineffective, and more filtration wholly impractical. So yes, if the goal was to avoid all LaCl exposure, not using it at all would have accomplished that.

 

[56longroof]

Have you tried other methods? Lanthanum would be my very last option with the risks it carries. I've had great results with Rowaphos.

 

[Gjedde]

Dropped from 2.15 to .1 over two months. Dumped 30 ml into my skimmer every now and then. One chocolate tang, fat and happy as ever.

 

[UMALUM]

Somewhat obtuse and rhetorical, no?

That would all depend on how you interpret common sense?

Allowing a fish to be exposed to levels detrimental most likely wasn't the lanthanums fault.

 

[areefer01]

If one is interested in using Lanthanum Chloride then I would strongly urge them to use their favorite search engine and read an archived thread on its use going back to around 2008 if I remember correctly. RC has a great thread spanning pages with hobbyist use of it and associated risk(s) it brings including how it was applied. The use of it isn't anything new.

BeanAnimal laid out his experience and use case. I believe that is sound advise and if I remember correctly he was also a participant in that thread I noted above. We don't know why some animals are affected vs those that are not. He noted the Scopas tang which is in the Zebrasoma Genus and appears to be the one more ofted reported to have issues.

Knowing is half the battle while the other is the hobbyist trying to decide what is an acceptable risk.

Oh - one more tidbit. High phosphates are not necessarily bad. I have run them as high as 2.1 ppm with my current levels measuring 1.13. No algae. I understand in todays climate we are lead to believe it is a scary number but prior to a test kit we didn't really care about it. Of course I understand things evolve...

Anyway my point is to know as much as you can, get educated on the risks, and then decide if it is something you want to deploy.

 

[SoCalVictor]

Thanks for the replies so far. I can appreciate that details matter. e.g. Dripping into a 5 micron or less sock, slow drip of a diluted solution.

I also thought it had to do with how high the phosphate was. I saw that in a few instances where there were casualties, originally, the phosphate was higher (and no visible damage to fish), but once the phosphate levels were much lower, the casualties started to appear. The theory was that the LaCl did not bind right away to phosphate inside the sock and bound to phosphate elsewhere, maybe somewhere in the DT. But reading BeanAnimal's account seems to have disputed that theory.

Yes, my phosphate is quite high and imbalanced with my nitrate which is causing hair algae and cyano issues. GFO isn't make enough of a dent, which is why I wanted to experiment with using LaCl to lower it to a level that I can use GFO to maintain.

 

[BeanAnimal]

That would all depend on how you interpret common sense?

Allowing a fish to be exposed to levels detrimental most likely wasn't the lanthanums fault.

Your responses are straw men built for an argument. I’ve never deferred responsibility. I used the chemical and accept the outcome. Sharing my experience is part of that responsibility so others can evaluate risk.

Common sense involves examining results and learning from collective experience. I am of the opinion that careful dosing only minimizes risk. Especially within the scope of what the average aquarist can implement at a high enough dose to have a meaningful effect.

Careful dosing; I starting dosage below what Joe Yaiullo and others were using at the time. I also employed more filtration than recommended, stopping dosing fully after witnessing an adverse affect on my fish. I iteratively started and stopped, lowering the dose and increasing mechanical filtration each time and still witnessed adverse effects.

Take my experience of leave it, but your comments add nothing beyond an attempt at provocation.

 

[BeanAnimal]

But reading BeanAnimal's account seems to have disputed that theory.

I am not disputing the theory, but rather indicating that I can't be sure what the actual mechanism or parameters for damage are.

There is some evidence that it could be free lanthanum reacting with phosphate at the gill plate. There is other evidence that it could be precipitated particulate clogging the gill plate for some reason, chemical or mechanical. I have not done research on the subject for a long time.

Yes, my phosphate is quite high and imbalanced with my nitrate which is causing hair algae and cyano issues. GFO isn't make enough of a dent, which is why I wanted to experiment with using LaCl to lower it to a level that I can use GFO to maintain.

@Garf what has been your method? Offline, yes?

 

[backbayreef]

I’ve been dosing LC (Brightwell Phosphate-E) for almost 8 years now — got many tangs! Currently I’m dosing 22mls/day, spread across 4 hours on my 1yo 450gal tank with 13 tangs, angels, and other fish - no issues. Dosing into refugium before the skimmer chamber. Phosphate is maintained at 0.11ppm.

In other tanks (also with many tangs) I use PhosphateRx and dose directly into high flow area, before skimmer, no socks — no issues.

YMMV - good luck!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Do those products have actual listed LaCl concentrations?

 

[backbayreef]

Do those products have actual listed LaCl concentrations?

I can’t find the actual source but many places I’ve looked indicated that they are LC-based products (not sure about the concentration though). BW said that it’s “proprietary” so not sure idiots like me can decipher…

https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/phos...n amazingly,inactive and easily filtered out.
https://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/phosphat-et.php

 

[BryanM]

I'm considering dosing Lanthanum Chloride to drop my phosphate level. I do have quite a few tangs so I'm paranoid after reading the various reports of tang deaths.

In the times that folks have reported tang deaths, its not clear if they dosed it into a sock or not. I've yet to find a confirmed case of someone dosing Lanthanum Chloride into a sock and still having tang deaths. Has anyone seen that?

I dosed LC in to a 1 micron filter sock for months trying to reduct phosphate levels.

I never had an issue and I have 1/2 a dozen tangs.

You will burn through filter socks quickly, but I wanted to make sure non escaped.

 

[Garf]

what has been your method? Offline, yes?

Yes, if any harm comes to my wife's yellow tang that's in my tank, I'm mince meat. For what it's worth when freshly introduced, lanthanum phosphate/carbonate particles are so fine, I'd be surprised if any filter sock would remove all of them. However, particle size increases with contact/reaction time.