Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If your statement is true, I wonder if thoroughly rinsing MP to reduce dust would reduce the increase of Al reading on an ICP.It showed up so quickly because it is most likely ceramic dust. Which will show up as Aluminum on an ICP test.
I am also very curious of this, especially since the OP is implementing the Triton Method (minimal/no water changes).If you remove them can you let us know if the aluminum concentration gets lower over time?
What would be a better solution if MP leaches.
A couple quick questions for Doctor.Farley
Will cuprazorb remove Al3+ from water?
Are any other soft corals affected by Al3+
What compound did you dose to cause that close up response?
Is that with no water change in 6 weeks?ICP test got back today. I have seen reports of people saying Marine Pure block releases some form of Al. It does based on ICP tests before and after placement of marine pure block in sump of my 700 gallon tank. Below is 11-14-2017 test and have several tests before this without reported Al
ICP test today after running marine pure block for 6 weeks.
It's not all that clear that Marine Pure blocks are indeed leaching aluminum. At least not in significant amounts.
As noted, increased amounts of aluminum will usually show up on an ICP test if you place Marine Pure blocks in your aquarium. But ICP tests break everything down into the most basic elements. What the blocks are likely releasing is relatively inert ceramic dust (alumina silicate dust).
Reasons to suspect alumina silicate dust rather than aluminum:
BRS studies showed the amount of aluminum showing up on an ICP test was several times greater relative to the total volume of Marine Pure material for the "dustier" blocks. Namely, the very thin blocks. For the same amount of material, the thin blocks released something like 4 times as much aluminum. If the blocks were actually leaching aluminum, the amount of aluminum released would be roughly proportional to the amount of ceramic material added to the tank. Which is not the case. The spheres released much less aluminum than either block shape. The blocks are extruded shapes which are then cut to size. The cutting process clearly degrades the integrity of the block. The spheres are molded shapes and are much more stable.
Ceramic flower pots will release aluminum at very low and at very high pH levels. Plants in ceramic flower pots will experience obvious aluminum toxicity at low and high pH levels. Plants in ceramic flower pots do not however exhibit symptoms of aluminum toxicity at pH values in the 7.6 to 8.3 ranges. Ceramic materials (alumina silicates) are rather inert and non-reactive at pH values normally seen in a reef aquarium. Bacteria growing on flower pots also does not appear to slow the release of aluminum at low and high pH values. At a pH of 8.0 or so, a Marine Pure block would at worse leach aluminum very, very slowly.
Aluminum toxicity is not something an organism will usually recover from. Plants exposed to high levels of aluminum will continue to decline as long as the source of aluminum remains in place. The plants do not respond poorly at first and then regain health. And most organisms find high levels of aluminum to be toxic. So the fact that just select organisms (like mushroom corals and sponges) react negatively and then recover is not something that would probably happen if the Marine Pure blocks were leaching aluminum. The leaching would continue, the effects would get worse over time and quite a broad range of organisms would likely eventually suffer. Suddenly releasing a bunch of ceramic dust into the aquarium could however temporarily irritate certain corals - which could then recover as the dust slowly settles out. Ceramic dust can be a powerful irritant and is considered a hazard even for humans.
You can visibly see dust fall off of the Marine Pure blocks.
BRS studies also showed a spike of silica on ICP tests when aluminum levels jumped. Which would also be consistent with a sudden cloud of alumina silicate dust.
Many, many people use Marine Pure blocks without seeing any long-term elevated levels of aluminum. I personally use the spheres and have no detectable aluminum. Many folks using the thin blocks (and to a lesser extent the thick blocks) do, however, experience short-term elevated levels of aluminum on an ICP test soon after placing the blocks. And many also notice short-term coral irritation.
I believe largely inert dust is mostly what is showing up on ICP tests. The effect of dumping a bunch of dust into the aquarium is consistent with what most people experience when they place a Marine Pure block in their sump.
What would be a better solution if MP leaches.
Finally, the comments on organisms not recovering if it was soluble aluminum seems to be at odds with my tests on corals using soluble aluminum. They did recover.
I’m also not sure that it ultimately makes a difference what form it takes if it is irritating corals.
For a kineticaly slow dissolution, one would expect that it is related to surface area, and the thicker a piece, the less surface area is near the outer edge of the block, and hence readily diffusable out of it.
(W)hen I studied Phosguard for aluminum release, ... even very fine particulate filters left most of the aluminum in solution.
Many people find them too effective and nitrate goes too low. Do you know your nitrate level?
This is from your article. It doesn't sound like the corals are recovering. At least not as long as the corals remain exposed to aluminum.
.
If Marine Pure blocks are leaching aluminum, then it is a long-term exposure issue. If it is ceramic dust, then it is a short-term exposure issue.
Kiln-fired alumina-silicate material is very different from Phosguard. Phosguard is meant to be reactive in order to bind with phosphate. I honestly don't see the value in comparing the two materials.
MP suggests thoroughly rinsing the media before use to rid it of dust. Are people just dropping that dusty block right into the tank?
Also, can't carbon absorb any aluminum?
I wonder if placing a block in a bucket of rodi with a powerhead blasting through it would help to clean it out?
My nitrates are 30~ hard to judge between 20 and 40 on my Red Sea test.
So Scott, I will address the points you just made shortly, but lets look at some actual silicon and aluminum data from Triton where people are testing marine Pure. I think it provides evidence that the material released is not a particulate containing both Si and Al.
In this thread relating to the BRS test:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/i...brstv-investigates.307515/page-7#post-3820366
You stated:
"If you just look at the spheres it would appear the ceramic material is roughly 90% silica and 10% alumina. Which is unlikely. The block gives you a ratio of 80% silica to 20% alumina. Possible. And the plate is something like 55% alumina and 45% silica. Also possible. But I feel certain Marine Pure is using a single formula - at least for the square shapes. If you average the 3 shapes you get a ratio of roughly 70% silica and 30% alumina - which is a very common ratio for ceramic materials."
Here's the raw data:
Aluminum
Control with no marine pure 1.64 ug/l
Large marine pure block 51.00 ug/l
Marine pure plate 174 ug/l
Marine pure sphears 32.00 ug/l
Silicon
Control Si - 174 ug/l
Block Si - 380 ug/l
Plate - 313 ug/l
Spheres - 544 ug/l
As you note, there's a lot of silicon released.
You have some handwaving arguments about why the Al/Si ratios are not the same for the different shapes, but you ignore an obvious possibility: that the are not actually particulates but dissolved materials, and after release they are prone to different processes that remove them from the water.
Nevertheless, let's assume all the aluminum and silicate rise in those tanks is particulat, and accept your 70% silica number.
Now lets look at other people with similar tests.
Jason does some testing here, where he observed his leather to cycle just like mine with soluble aluminum dosing:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/how-much-aluminum-will-it-leach-lets-guess.247034/
His starting water
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/how-much-aluminum-will-it-leach-lets-guess.247034/page-7
Al 0 ug/L
Si 88 ug/L
After a few weeks, he found:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/how-much-aluminum-will-it-leach-lets-guess.247034/page-9
Si 43.7 ug/L
Al 19 ug/L
So if the aluminum is from particulates in the water, one would have expected Si to rise. It did not. It declined. The only explanation that can save the particulate hypothesis with 70% silica is that the the background soluble Si in the water declined to almost nothing during the test and the particulate Si is what is left. While I cannot prove that didn't happen, it seems to require one to look for unusual explanations to try to preserve the particulate hypothesis.
FWIW, none of these values are close to the limit of detection and accurate quantitation published by Triton:
https://www.triton-lab.de/fileadmin/user_upload/triton-lab/TRITON_LOD.pdf
I do continuous water changes of 2.5 gallons a day.Is that with no water change in 6 weeks?
Question - can't we just ask the manufacture if aluminum is somehow in the marine pure product or what could be leaching / releasing it? Show them the test results. I do not use any of the dosing methods (triton, etc) but was considering the use of marine pure blocks in the sump to set my heater on or to place between chambers. I have a mature and old golden leather. After reading this thread this morning tells me I won't be following through with that idea...
Just wondering what their response is or was.