Lanthanum Chloride + Tangs + Socks

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I’m not certain it is clear that socks make a difference. It is hard to imagine how they would hurt, and there’s no reason to not use them, but I personally would also not assume they prevent the tang issue.

 

[BeanAnimal]

FWIW, I’m not certain it is clear that socks make a difference. It is hard to imagine how they would hurt, and there’s no reason to not use them, but I personally would also not assume they prevent the tang issue.

I would tend to support the hypothesis that may not prevent the issue with Tangs.

Here is a thought, feel free to poke hoes in it.

If the the precipitate is LaPO4 - and pH is the only reasonable thing to break the precipitate back into phosphate and reactive Lanthanum - would it be possible that local acidity at the gill plate could cause this reaction, allowing the reactive lanthanum to react with that highly sensitive tang gill plate?

Sorry for the poor wording... walking the dogs while typing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would tend to support the hypothesis that may not prevent the issue with Tangs.

Here is a thought, feel free to poke hoes in it.

If the the precipitate is LaPO4 - and pH is the only reasonable thing to break the precipitate back into phosphate and reactive Lanthanum - would it be possible that local acidity at the gill plate could cause this reaction, allowing the reactive lanthanum to react with that highly sensitive tang gill plate?

Sorry for the poor wording... walking the dogs while typing.

You mean particulates getting to the gills, dissolving, and then the lanthanum binding? I can’t claim that doesn’t happen, but the pH would need to be pretty low, and free lanthanum may get there to do its dirty work without ever being a particulate.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You mean particulates getting to the gills, dissolving, and then the lanthanum binding? I can’t claim that doesn’t happen, but the pH would need to be pretty low,

I assume that at a local (micro) scale there would be a pH drop as CO2 is exchanged from the blood at the gill membrane. I don't know enough about gill biology to understand much more than that. As I said, on and off over they years I have searched for an explanation to what I observed.

I would agree, that free lanthanum could also be the problem. I was just wondering if already-reacted lanthanum could also pose an issue in some cases. In other words, is part of the issue that some people observe partly pH driven as well?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I assume that at a local (micro) scale there would be a pH drop as CO2 is exchanged from the blood at the gill membrane. I don't know enough about gill biology to understand much more than that. As I said, on and off over they years I have searched for an explanation to what I observed.

I would agree, that free lanthanum could also be the problem. I was just wondering of already reacted lanthanum could also pose an issue in some cases. In other words, are part of the issue that some people observe partly pH driven as well?

Lower pH (and phosphate) may reduce the rate at which lanthanum phosphate precipitates, so both low could allow more free La to get to tangs.

The pH may not be especially low at gill surfaces:

Considering that marine waters have a pH of 8.3–8.4 and a half-life of ferrous iron is only ∼2 min (Millero et al., 1987), their occurrence here is particularly unusual given that the pH of the surfaces of the gills is typically alkaline (pH ∼8.0) (Lewis and Morris, 1986).

 

[BryanM]

What I think I remember is that LC binds around the 5 micron size, but maybe I just made it up in my head, and I felt good using a 1 micron sock to combat the issue.

Either way I didn't lose a tang, and dosed LC for 6 months trying to combat phos.

I suspect it worked, but I never tried to test beyond the .9 blinking, and finally "gave up" and moved to GFO.

After GFO it quickly reduced, but I suspect LC helped along the way quite a bit.

 

[schooncw]

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

I’d look for a 5 micron, that’s what I used. Having said that, don’t think I’ll ever use LAN again.

 

[tangyluv]

I add it straight into my FT with my blonde mask and PBT, as well as with previous tanks with tanks. Never an issue and I use higher concentrated seaklear for pool…

 

[BeanAnimal]

Seaklear was the product that I used.

 

[Pals]

I have brought my Phosphate down in my 100G LPS tank from around 2.0 to 0.1ppm within 48 hrs by adding between 7.5ml to 50ml of Phosphat-E (lanthanum I believe) over several doses last week. Zero casualties (Blue tang, chronic, clownfish, large sailfin tang). Tried to observe very closely. At most, the small damselfish looked a bit lethargic but that was night time.
My tank has no mechanical filter and no filter sock. The cloudiness just cleared up after few hours. I’m running a BBK 200 Int skimmer as the only filter along with some siporax biomedia.
Total dose added is around 100ml. Corals look happier except for a plate coral that looks retracted. Very glad with the discovery of this product.
One thing I’m doing differently is that I dilate each dose into 2 litres of RODI water and pour the solution into the skimmer intake.

 

[Pals]

IMO, GFO is rather inconvenient (need for rinsing, brown particles escaping into the sump from the FR, replacing the GFO at intervals, etc). Worse still, the amount of phosphate level reduction is not predictable.
I’m actually contemplating to use the same method for phosphate control in my 300g SPS dominant tank but there are 7 yellow tangs inside for which I have read about the risk of harmful effects from using Lanthanum.
I’ll probably try and dose it slowly into the skimmer port.

 

[schooncw]

IMO, GFO is rather inconvenient (need for rinsing, brown particles escaping into the sump from the FR, replacing the GFO at intervals, etc). Worse still, the amount of phosphate level reduction is not predictable.
I’m actually contemplating to use the same method for phosphate control in my 300g SPS dominant tank but there are 7 yellow tangs inside for which I have read about the risk of harmful effects from using Lanthanum.
I’ll probably try and dose it slowly into the skimmer port.

If your PO is bound to your rock-like my heavily rocked LPS dominant 120-very soon after the LAN removes it from the water column, it will equalize, as more PO will be released from the rock and the continuous swing in water chemistry and the cure may be worse that the condition. I believe stability is key and after my experience, will never use LAN again.

 

[UMALUM]

If your PO is bound to your rock-like my heavily rocked LPS dominant 120-very soon after the LAN removes it from the water column, it will equalize, as more PO will be released from the rock and the continuous swing in water chemistry and the cure may be worse that the condition. I believe stability is key and after my experience, will never use LAN again.

The key is to not have phosphate bound to anything. Heavily saturated rock serves as a breeding ground and continuous nutrient supply for bryopsis and valonia. There's no evidence fluctuations in phosphate have any negative affect as long as it's kept available. On the other hand there's plenty of research on the negative affects it has in numbers.

I'd like to debate the guy who introduced the word stability to the hobby.
My guess is he was / is a salesman of some kind.

 

[Pals]

My 100G has no live rocks. Only LPS corals, skimmer and biomedia (which traps phosphates).
The phosphates bound LAN has two places to go - either stuck at the biomedia or go into the skimmate. In any case, they should have become inactive for the LPS corals. I just started my LAN journey and would hope to learn more. One thing for sure is that measurable phosphate levels or at 1ppm or higher even if stable is more detrimental to the corals including soft corals in my experience. My fish on the other hand could tolerate phosphate levels even 5ppm and looked ok.

 

[schooncw]

The key is to not have phosphate bound to anything. Heavily saturated rock serves as a breeding ground and continuous nutrient supply for bryopsis and valonia. There's no evidence fluctuations in phosphate have any negative affect as long as it's kept available. On the other hand there's plenty of research on the negative affects it has in numbers.

I'd like to debate the guy who introduced the word stability to the hobby.
My guess is he was / is a salesman of some kind.

The key is to not have phosphate bound to anything. Heavily saturated rock serves as a breeding ground and continuous nutrient supply for bryopsis and valonia. There's no evidence fluctuations in phosphate have any negative affect as long as it's kept available. On the other hand there's plenty of research on the negative affects it has in numbers.

I'd like to debate the guy who introduced the word stability to the hobby.
My guess is he was / is a salesman of some kind.

The key-in your view-maybe not to have PO bound to anything but easier said than done, on 33 year old heavily rocked system. That and if you think reduction of PO is the only concern using LAN, I think you are mistaken.
Use of LAN risks precipitation out as lanthanum phosphate, can clog mechanical filters, can interfere with calcium and alkalinity, has toxicity concerns and can also disrupt the balance of trace elements.
I’m relatively sure that guy that introduced the word “stability” to the hobby was a marine biologist or degreed as such, like myself. Also, pretty sure you would lose that debate.
Here’s a picture of my 33 year old LPS dominant system and the PO is at a constant 1.0 and NO3 usually at 50-75.

 

[Pals]

I personally feel there shouldn’t be a need to worry about phosphate soaked into LR. The molecules in the water are constantly in motion to move towards dynamic equilibrium. Removal of phosphate in the water column using LC means more will be released from the LR. If the process continues, at some point, the phosphate in the LR will be depleted. As I mentioned, I have dumped both undiluted and diluted LC into the tank and experienced no fatalities or casualties so far. No filter sock and no mechanical filter. Only a skimmer. Caveat is that my phosphate level has not bottomed out. Hence I can’t comment on the detrimental effects of free unbound LC on fish.

 

[schooncw]

I personally feel there shouldn’t be a need to worry about phosphate soaked into LR. The molecules in the water are constantly in motion to move towards dynamic equilibrium. Removal of phosphate in the water column using LC means more will be released from the LR. If the process continues, at some point, the phosphate in the LR will be depleted. As I mentioned, I have dumped both undiluted and diluted LC into the tank and experienced no fatalities or casualties so far. No filter sock and no mechanical filter. Only a skimmer. Caveat is that my phosphate level has not bottomed out. Hence I can’t comment on the detrimental effects of free unbound LC on fish.

I used 5 micron socks, yet still saw the precipitate in my sump and in my mechanical filtration-no ill effect on fish- and my alk was swinging a tad too much for my liking. My goal WAS to diminish the PO bound in the rock but soon observed that the cure was seemingly more harmful that the disease, at least with this system and unlike the "expert" that first commented on what I said and found my next comment humerous, It is obvious to me that my corals are better of at a high PO with stable, constant water chemistry.

 

[Pals]

I honestly think that the precipitate is too fine for any fine filter sock to catch. In my chemistry days a high school student, the material that might be able to catch these tiny particles is filter paper. A better bet could be to slow drip feed LC into the skimmer intake.
I just started dosing Phosphat-E 10x diluted into my 300G tank through the ozone port of my BBK Int 300 Skimmer through a doser last night. Concurrently I had removed my FR containing Rowaphos. Feeling great as I have freed up precious space in my sump. Next to go is another FR that contains biopellets.
So far the 7 YTs, AT, a few other tangs and anthias seem quite normal. My plan is to increase the dose further until I can bring down phosphate level from 0.18ppm to 0.06 ppm.
Have also tried MB7, Nitraphos Minus, NP Pro, ProBio S, refugium, etc in the past 6 months - none of these are as effective and provided certainty of how much reduction in Phosphate PPM.

 

[Pals]

Just to share. While all inhabitants (tangs, chromis, damsel) in my LPS fish tank are doing great with direct dosing into the sump, a fish died in my other 300G tank this morning after I started dosing LC two days ago. He was active and feeding very well as of last night
It’s a juvenile flame angel. The other larger flame angel and the rest of the fishes (Yellow Tangs, Achilles Tang) seem normal and active still.
Both tanks do not have mechanical filters. What I don’t t understand is that I took extra precautions of dosing into the skimmer intake and 10x dilution thru a RedSea doser and yet there is falality. Only limitation of the RedSea doser is that it does not do continuous dosing and max dose frequency is 24x per day. I’m going to further dilute the solution and dose more frequently using 2 RedSea dosers.

 

[TheDuude]

I seem to have a ton of po4 in my LR and have been dosing 12ML of phosphate e diluted in 1000ML and dripped into 1 micron sock every other day for a couple weeks. On the occasions I have sat and watched my fish I have noticed distress in both my yellow tangs while dosing. Complete loss of appetite, heavy breathing, and other symptoms like twitching and swimming strange.

I have also noticed both YTs have started to show signs of HLLE since I began dosing.

Really wanted this to be the solution to my po4 issues but think I'll be back to the drawing board. Not going to keep adding something to my tank that is clearly harming my fish.