My thoughts on nitrite.

[DrZoidburg]

Is there a particular reference he used? May be easier to find.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Is there a particular reference he used? May be easier to find.
Each line had a specific reference - too much to type out. Try Wise and Tomasso 1989. Acute toxicity of nitrite to red drum effect on salinity journal of the world aquaculture society.

 

[DrZoidburg]

Any hobbyist that keep red drum though at around 1.018? I think I have read that one before and another where he is used as a reference. Acute tolerance of juvenile Florida pompano, Trachinotus carolinus L., to ammonia and nitrite at various salinities Who keeps pompano at 1.018 and less. In my opinion though all good material. I only asked because that is an expensive book. I was hoping to maybe find the research citations publicly available.

 

[Lasse]

I think that we can agree that NO2 in general is not as acute toxic in saltwater as it is in fresh water. I would not panic if I read 1 or 2 ppm in one of mine old aquaria - just try to fix the problem. But - I would never ever advise another person to put in a new fish in an aquarium that have these nitrite concentrations - especially in the start. This concentration of nitrite indicate a stalled cycle and to introduce a fish will mean that you add another amount of ammonia to the aquarium - every time you feed your fish - it will be converted into new nitrite and if the second stage (NO2-> NO3) is blocked - you will accumulate 2.5 ppm more nitrite for every 1 ppm ammonia that is converted. If I read rising nitrite levels - my first step will be to stop feeding till I have control over the situation - but the good thing with saltwater compared with fresh water is that you have more space to navigate in.

In many threads here at R2R I can read - my ammonia is zero but mine nitrite level are out of the chart. or more times in newly started aquarium - my nitrate level is out of the chart - high nitrate concentrations in a new fresh start is mostly caused by nitrite interference in the nitrate analyze and reflect the nitrite concentration.

The last years there have been a raised amount of comments like - you are fine - nitrite is not toxic in saltwater - your cycle is completed - you can stock fish and other organisms. This - IMO - a misuse of the fact that nitrite is not as acute toxic in saltwater as in freshwater. Some people take investigation of LC-50 during 72 hours as an evidence that nitrite is not toxic - the only scientific result a LC-50 test for 72 hours show is that during these 72 hours - 50 % of the tested population died - it is a test of acute toxicity during 72 hour not of toxicity in the long run.

IMO - and now I will be rather harsh - these type of advises are unethical, irresponsible as well as idiotic.

One thing is if the nitrite concentration rise in a established tank - you have time to react and fix the problem but to put in animals in water with already high nitrite levels (stalled nitrification cycle at step 2) is just...............

IMO - a start of an aquarium is best done by adding very, very small amounts of ammonia (we are talking about levels around 0.01 ppm or lower) - using a seeding technique (used rocks, sand, water filtrated over unfertilized soil, bottled nitrification bacteria, old water with particles and so on) and slowly rise the frequency of the small ammonia addition. I normally do this with help of a small fish that I feed very sparsely - see my fifteen steps - but if you want to do it fishless - it works too but it is only trace amounts of ammonia you should use. These amounts is impossible to measure with hobby tests but after three weeks it should be very low nitrite levels. I have done this with help of a fish for many years - and I have never ever seen any nitrite spikes. Addition of high amount of ammonia or rutten shrimp method will only create nitrite spikes and stalled aquariums. There is some evidences that high ammonia levels will by itself inhibit the second step - nitrite to nitrate

IMO - a good working nitrification cycle is a and o for a well working aquarium on the bacteria level - any disturbances in the nitrification cycle (noted by nitrite measurements) indicate probably problems in the future.

What is a good nitrite concentration - I do not really know but my aquariums has always been between 0 and 0.05 ppm with 0.05 as the "alarm" concentration. Is important to note that the concentration can vary during the day - with the "spikes" around 1 hour - 2 hour after a heavy feeding. A nitrite sampling should be taken as long as possible after the latest feeding - often means just before next feeding:D. For nitrite measurement - I use Hannas ulr marine nitrite checker at home (measure in ppb (µg/L) but there is good testing kit from others too.

This thread discuss the matter too


Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

Your ability to continually disregard six years of collected outcomes in false cycle study threads and positive nitrite study threads is disappointing. Pico reefs got about that warm of a welcome from the top reefers of the day too

Not Eric B though he was very insightful

I'm seeing refusal to branch out, make live time tests to supplement your experience and published materials loosely impacting this matter. The way you address fifty pages of findings that oppose your summary above is simply to discount it. We have zero, zero problems in this thread but since it's reef aquariums you discount it, and refuse to ever make a counter version of your own design.

Patterns here disprove your assertions above

How to unstick any seemingly stuck cycle

Updated Cycling Science in Action This is a testless reef tank cycling thread, the only one from any board. If you ever had trouble with reef tank cycling in the past, you won't any longer after working some jobs with us. chances are you are using/about to use a method of reef tank cycling...

www.reef2reef.com

We use reef tank cycles to study reef tank cycles, message any entrant for follow up. You use data written not about reef cycles and move to blanket- rule but we'll never have patterning in later years there that will be different from these starting years of patterning.


We apply opposite rules to how you see biofilter establishment and we earned a zero loss rate zero unhappy rate and 100% compliant start date rate and zero stuck cycle rate

Every stuck cycle post on the internet is false. They're not using seneye, and i know you devalue seneye you'll devalue anything that isn't a formal chemistry reference.

This leaves zero room for new findings with the habit to reject post patterning as valid data. The methods you advocate are part of the old cycling science approach that separated sellers from buyers along the lines of filter establishment and it created and maintained a false buying impulse out of fear for a consequence we show above to not exist.

False concern over nitrite drives false bottle bac unneeded sales to a massive degree worth millions of dollars, you don't intend to be part of that system but advocating for nitrite compliance like you do, with stated consequence we show to not exist above, is directly part of that sales mechanism the bottle bac makers seize upon for word of mouth marketing.

They never talk about nitrite mis testing and response (do you?)

We get told of consequences that don't happen if we take time to loosely inspect


I truly seriously wish I had a nickel for every time a bottle bac sale occurred because someone nitrite on an api test

But if I could have a penny for every time they did it because api showed .25, I'd rather take that cut

Factoring nitrite in a cycle specifically removes the predictable start date from any cycle approach. That creates a market gradient when factoring sellers who never never stall, and never miss a booth proofing date against scared buyers who flinch at every api test ran and will buy the offsets, the insurance against that bacterial loss.

It's false science i can spot it in pattern from web posts. Bottle bac for cycling is used once, in dry states, but not used in repeat

It's levying lots of power to a param we can't even test for accurately, and from Randy's perspective is chemically neutral. We'll press on in our current manner till a better patterned example of reef tanks is posted

*one day nitrite digital testing will define completion dates accurately and solve that part of the hitch... but on that day it's still chemically neutral and they'll have spent hundreds on a device to measure an inert param it seems

 

[Lasse]

Yea - and you disregard at least 50 years of scientific studies of the nitrification cycle. Seneye can only (if at all - it is a hobby test) detect NH3 - not NH4, NO2 or NO3. The nitrification cycle is a two part cycle - NH3/NH4 -> NO2 and NO2 -> NO3 and if it show elevated NO2 levels it has stuck between the two processes - the NH3/NH4 -> NO2 part will still work but it is only result in elevated levels of NO2 if the second process does not work - period.

I´m sorry but I´m stuck with science

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Roberto1998]

Thanks for this thread, I learned a lot of useful information. But I would not compare the level of nature and the built environment.

 

[brandon429]

My approach to cycling is the rare one, the vast majority of cyclers we can track for disease outcomes followed the classic approach of waiting for full zero nitrite. It took fallow and quarantine beyond that initial cycling goal to run the fish disease forum daily as i read it


Waiting for nitrite compliance as 90% of all dry cyclers do still required further disease control and prevention methods. We can't claim its harmful when related to the common degree of ammonia or a degrading table shrimp most people use in cycling.

 

[Lasse]

Waiting for nitrite compliance as 90% of all dry cyclers do still required further disease control and prevention methods.

And I wonder why............. I have heard - but I can´t verify it with 100 working threads - that living rock may content nitrifying bacteria......

followed the classic approach of waiting for full zero nitrite.

Do you have nitrite measurements to prove that statement

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

But if I could have a penny for every time they did it because api showed .25, I'd rather take that cut

Now you come with false statement - as I know - very few report their nitrite levels - they report their total ammonia concentrations and they often show a false result of 0.25 ppm. Do not report apples when you count pears.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ClownWrangler]

IME nitrites are one of those things that only exist in any measurable amount for a brief period during cycling and if you blink, you miss it. Toxic or not, it is easily avoidable by cycling a tank with a small bio load. I have only had deaths thought to be from nitrite poisoning during QT. Basically ammonia creeping up, but not spiking, then the tank cycles the next day and the fish suffers sudden death with no symptoms the day before. It would not be logical to blame Ammonia for this. Perhaps it could have something to to with the abrupt transition in itself and the coexistence of Ammonia and nitrite. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but experimental evidence tends to be quite limited as well unless you test all types of fish under all possible conditions. I think certain fish, like flame angels are more sensitive than others, such as clownfish

 

[GeoSquid]

No. Thats what algae is for!

 

[ClownWrangler]

The first thing they are going to ask is; are there similar studies already published? When I answer yes (see above) then my application would be denied.

That's counterproductive. Science is not science without repeatable, independently verifiable results. Findings from a single study or organization should always be taken with a grain of salt, without exception.

 

[ClownWrangler]

Certainly controlled studies can be helpful - that's where I got the data from that shows nitrite is non-toxic to marine fish under real world conditions.

I'm a bit confused by that statement. It would be hard to find high nitrites under real world conditions aside from a partially cycled aquarium. Did you mean to say under lab conditions?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

That's counterproductive. Science is not science without repeatable, independently verifiable results. Findings from a single study or organization should always be taken with a grain of salt, without exception.

Not when it involves killing animals - then you need to demonstrate the probable results outweigh the cost to the animals in terms of mortality. The job of an IACUC is to regulate that use. You just can’t go in front of them and say you want to test toxic limits of some compound when there are already many references that show this data.
Jay

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I'm a bit confused by that statement. It would be hard to find high nitrites under real world conditions aside from a partially cycled aquarium. Did you mean to say under lab conditions?

That is exactly my point! All of the toxic nitrite scenarios came from spiked samples, NOT real world cases (much lower levels, even during the worst case cycling). Since we aren’t spiking our tanks with sodium nitrite, we don’t have to worry about it from natural sources, the concentration is below the level that has any effect on marine fish.
Jay

 

[Dr_Carl]

I wouldn't say it is not toxic. Even if acute or lethal it is still toxic. Found a few places for example that listed 96 hr, and 24 hr Lc50's. Which 50% of test subjects died within that time frame. Most are similar from 5 to upwards of 3000mg/L where 50% are dead in that time. That is marine fish. The safer ranges from less than .5mg/L to 15 mg/L for inverts and less than 5mg/L to 50mg/L fish in one article. Safer though still toxic. I have seen on here some that let it go to over 10mg/L. Saying one would never get to toxic levels is just false. Temperature matters cold water species are much more sensitive. To add when the temperature rises the toxicity increases to nearly double in most at usual aquarium temperatures because the fish need to take in more oxygen. It is also another unknown in common kept fish whether some fish take more nitrite via their stomach than through gills. Which would negate the effects chloride has on making nitrite absorption rates into body safer. Not to mention other variables or chemical reactions that increase toxicity as well as side effects caused even if they did not die. Some of the places I found only listed a few commonly kept fish and inverts. None were very comprehensive lists. Realistically would one want to risk a several hundred dollar fish to a possible 50% chance of survival right out of the gate without solid data? Even risk a 15% chance on top of all the other probabilities? Whether it be interfering with biological functions, increased susceptibility to disease/parasites or outright death. I would be a lot more convinced if anyone can find me Lc2's (2%) or lowest observed adverse effect levels/concentration. I would like the greatest chance of survival, long life, and good health for my pets. Until then I will personally test and control nitrite when cycling new or dealing with die off cycles.

Totally agree Dr. Z!!

EPA also puts limits on nitrates for human intake. My local water company was having issues controlling nitrates due to all the farms in my community and there was a rash of puppies dying from the bad water quality.
It was so bad that the FBI began an investigation.

https://www.azfamily.com/archives/e...cle_20be48cd-6d5a-56fe-bd14-54489e17efc8.html

 

[DrZoidburg]

That is exactly my point! All of the toxic nitrite scenarios came from spiked samples, NOT real world cases (much lower levels, even during the worst case cycling). Since we aren’t spiking our tanks with sodium nitrite, we don’t have to worry about it from natural sources, the concentration is below the level that has any effect on marine fish.
Jay

A power out causing funny things, a dead fish, snail, clam etc that isn't found for a day or two, over stocking a few new fish, overfeeding, a disease outbreak, a cycle problem with fish, or algae die off. Sometimes causing high levels persisting a few days. Sometimes all of the above happen and more than once in a reef keepers tank time. Not a real world situation? Yes I agree that it would never get to lc50 test levels in available documents that lack tons of fish people here keep. If you did read clownfish, rabbitfish research papers you see gill damage, and other effects that may not be reversible at test levels that do happen sometimes for a few days. Also each day if its not addressed it becomes more and more toxic in either test. Say 10% damage after 3 days then a while down the road 10% more damage, and as many times as it might happen. Then you have 35% gill damage X years later at what point does this not hurt or without our knowing kill the fish? That is only an example for a fish with middle of the road sensitivity. What about other fish like an angelfish, anthia, eel or anything that is not as middle of the road sensitive. Call me crazy but I would not subject a 500$ angelfish to this or a 10 $ chromis. Spiking the level to 10mg in a lab test with sodium nitrite does compare to a natural source because in water sodium nitrite dissociates. In marine aquarium dominant most reactive cation is sodium so you would naturally have sodium and nitrite floating around. Also aside from toxicology studies of just nitrite what about the other chemical biproducts from organic reactions? Some of which are way more toxic and more persistent what are they doing? Back to post 1 this is exactly why I personally will test and remediate if necessary just saying I want best health for my pets. (not a cycling argument, trying to sell anyone on a test kit, or method) Sorry if I am repeating my self a lot but I would mainly just like to point out that by definition a toxic substance is one that causes damages. Some you see here in solid proof at occurring levels so that is a real world situation, and sodium nitrite is natural. What is your definition of toxicity why is it so different from how I am interpreting this? Just trying to understand your perspective.

 

[Lasse]

IME nitrites are one of those things that only exist in any measurable amount for a brief period during cycling and if you blink,

IME - a normal concentration in many aquarium there I have measure it is around 0.0 - 0-0.04. Not any toxic levels but it high enough to interference with nitrate measurements.

Once again - in this discussion - it is very important to use the phrase acute toxic then anyone refer to LC-50 studies. you can´t put a = between acute toxic and toxic - IMO.

With methods to start an aquarium like rotten shrimp and high spikes of total ammonia - very high nitrite concentrations can be measured if the second step not working. For every ppm addition of NH3/NH4 around 2.6 ppm nitrite will be formed (1 ppm NH4 = 14/18 (0.78) ppm NH4-N -> 0.78 ppm NO2-N = 0.78 x 46/14 (3.29) NO2 = 2,6 ppm NO2). In a newly started aquarium - there is no photosynthetic processes taking up total ammonia and if the second step stall (which is likely at high NH3 / NH4 concentrations) all addition of ammonia will be temporary stored as NO2 (before the second step starts) One can obtain very high concentrations with these methods of starting an aquarium. A shrimp contain around 20 % proteins. 1 g shrimp contain 0.2 g protein. Proteins nitrogen concentration is in average 16% - it means that every 1 g of a shrimp contain around 0.032 g N. Total converted into NH4 (ammonium) - it will be 0.041 g NH4. 0.041 g NH4 will be 0.134 g NO2. It means that every gram of shrimp total broken down will rise the NO2 concentration in 100 L (26 gallon) of water with around 1.34 mg/L (ppm). A normal swedish shrimp (for consumption) have a weight of around 10 gram (small) to nearly 15 g (large). If - the nitrification cycle stalls at the second step all of these NO2 will be stored temporarily (till the second step starts and my experiences says that the second step is digital - either on or off in a start)

IMO it is ruthless to say that nitrite concentrations are of no concern with the start methods that are common in the US and therefore - you do not need to wait to a fully completed nitrification cycle before you put in fish if you use these methods. There is methods that not create these nitrite spikes but all of them are build of adding very small amounts of NH3/NH4 on a daily basis either using a fish very, very sparely feed during the first three weeks or a very, very small but raising addition of chemical NH3/NH4 (we are talking about 0.001 ppm/day or less in the start) and also daily seeding of nitrification bacteria.

As @DrZoidburg mentioned above - there is situations there NO2 concentrations fluctuate in a working aquarium and because I follow my NO2 concentrations over time and can see a clear fluctuation. I have done NH3/NH4 and nitrite studies at fish farms that clearly shows that ammonia production is knit to feeding and it starts with rising NH3/NH4 concentration around the time for the first feeding followed by rising NO2 concentrations after half an hour (grass carp, rainbow trout and walking catfish). In eal farms - the nitrite concentration is delayed with around 1 hour probably depending on the construction of the stomach and intestine. This is real world measurements during daily work. You can not compare the concentrations between a aquarium and and a fish farm but you can compare the working principles.

For me regular measurements of nitrite is a part of my husbandry and when I have a baseline of nitrite concentrations I can use these as a first indication of going south because the second step of nitrification process is very sensitive for toxic substances. An remember - your population of second step nitrification organism are not higher than the daily production of nitrite allow. A fast rise in nitrite production will result in to less "hungry" mouths and therefor a rise in unprocessed nitrite until the the population have grow. The second step nitrifiers are rather slow growers (to be a bacteria) - double time around 12 - 24 hours.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jay Hemdal]

A power out causing funny things, a dead fish, snail, clam etc that isn't found for a day or two, over stocking a few new fish, overfeeding, a disease outbreak, a cycle problem with fish, or algae die off. Sometimes causing high levels persisting a few days. Sometimes all of the above happen and more than once in a reef keepers tank time. Not a real world situation? Yes I agree that it would never get to lc50 test levels in available documents that lack tons of fish people here keep. If you did read clownfish, rabbitfish research papers you see gill damage, and other effects that may not be reversible at test levels that do happen sometimes for a few days. Also each day if its not addressed it becomes more and more toxic in either test. Say 10% damage after 3 days then a while down the road 10% more damage, and as many times as it might happen. Then you have 35% gill damage X years later at what point does this not hurt or without our knowing kill the fish? That is only an example for a fish with middle of the road sensitivity. What about other fish like an angelfish, anthia, eel or anything that is not as middle of the road sensitive. Call me crazy but I would not subject a 500$ angelfish to this or a 10 $ chromis. Spiking the level to 10mg in a lab test with sodium nitrite does compare to a natural source because in water sodium nitrite dissociates. In marine aquarium dominant most reactive cation is sodium so you would naturally have sodium and nitrite floating around. Also aside from toxicology studies of just nitrite what about the other chemical biproducts from organic reactions? Some of which are way more toxic and more persistent what are they doing? Back to post 1 this is exactly why I personally will test and remediate if necessary just saying I want best health for my pets. (not a cycling argument, trying to sell anyone on a test kit, or method) Sorry if I am repeating my self a lot but I would mainly just like to point out that by definition a toxic substance is one that causes damages. Some you see here in solid proof at occurring levels so that is a real world situation, and sodium nitrite is natural. What is your definition of toxicity why is it so different from how I am interpreting this? Just trying to understand your perspective.

It is easy to implicate a chemical as causing chronic issues, much more difficult to prove it. I hear this about formalin all the time: "Every tang I've treated with formalin has died within two years". That simply isn't causation, only coincidence. There are no studies that I have found that indicate any short or long term ill effects from nitrite in marine fishes. The only thing alluded to is the idea that nitrite, in the spiked samples, is actually toxic from ingestion. The salt blocks the uptake through the gills, but marine fish still drink water. When the nitrite levels are spiked to tens of times higher than is ever seen in aquariums, the fish swallow enough to show toxicity.

Jay