Results from my home study phosphate binding kinetics

[JonasRoman]

Hi reefers


This experiment is an attempt to investigate the dual mechanisms of phosphate binding to calcium carbonate surfaces within a marine environment. The experiment aims to differentiate between rapid, reversible surface adsorption and long-term, irreversible crystallization. I have posted my study/article as a pdf.
Summary: The results demonstrate that while a significant portion of phosphate binds loosely and can desorb rapidly, approximately 57% of the total bound phosphate undergoes a slower transition into a stable, insoluble phase (likely hydroxyapatite), effectively permanently sequestering the phosphate within the calcareous matrix.

Include as pdf below

/Jonas Roman, Sweden

 

[Rocks reef]

This was a very good read. What a great experiment to conduct, it makes sense when one is dosing phosphates.

 

[JonasRoman]

This was a very good read. What a great experiment to conduct, it makes sense when one is dosing phosphates.

Thanks for feedback:-)

/Jonas

 

[Rocks reef]

I see questions a lot asking why their phosphates aren't increasing when they are dosing them to bring levels up. This article will better educate on the binding effects.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Hi Jonas -

Is this something that you designed, tested and interpreted, or was this an LLM generated, interpreted and documented experiment?

 

[MnFish1]

"
Summary: Under typical marine aquarium conditions, approximately half of the phosphate
absorbed by calcium carbonate rock becomes permanently sequestered within the rock
structure, provided sufficient time is allowed for the stable crystallization phase to occur."

OK - nice experiment BTW - but - that means (unless I'm misreading) 1/2 of the PO4 is hanging out somewhere else - potentially causing problems. Where did the rest go? - Could have been washed away>

 

[BeanAnimal]

"
Summary: Under typical marine aquarium conditions, approximately half of the phosphate
absorbed by calcium carbonate rock becomes permanently sequestered within the rock
structure, provided sufficient time is allowed for the stable crystallization phase to occur."

OK - nice experiment BTW - but - that means (unless I'm misreading) 1/2 of the PO4 is hanging out somewhere else - potentially causing problems. Where did the rest go? - Could have been washed away>

But was it a well designed and controlled experiment with nice clean measurements and data and scientifically sound conclusions?

Or is it another example of someone taking a couple of Hanna checker readings, feeding the numbers and the story they wanted to hear into ChatGPT, and letting the AI synthesize a “scientific paper” that is loosely correct but fundamentally wrong on the methods and interpretation?

Because the latter is what I see, none of it stands up to scrutiny.

 

[EnterName]

First of all: I absolutely love the effort you are putting in.

Very interesting read, I will have a closer look later to double check if something could have skewed the results in a certain direction, but on a first glance the numbers appear reasonable. Maybe a second saltwater solution with a different phosphate concentration would have been interesting, but this would have probably significantly increased the costs for the experiments.

Btw, have you seen my feedback regarding your other phosphate study?

Thank you very much for your efforts!

 

[JonasRoman]

Hi Jonas -

Is this something that you designed, tested and interpreted, or was this an LLM generated, interpreted and documented experiment?

It was me that designed, tested and interpreted. (What is LLM generated ?)

Jonas

 

[JonasRoman]

First of all: I absolutely love the effort you are putting in.

Very interesting read, I will have a closer look later to double check if something could have skewed the results in a certain direction, but on a first glance the numbers appear reasonable. Maybe a second saltwater solution with a different phosphate concentration would have been interesting, but this would have probably significantly increased the costs for the experiments.

Btw, have you seen my feedback regarding your other phosphate study?

Thank you very much for your efforts!

Thanks so much for feedback. Sorry not sure I have. Will check asap

 

[JonasRoman]

But was it a well designed and controlled experiment with nice clean measurements and data and scientifically sound conclusions?

Or is it another example of someone taking a couple of Hanna checker readings, feeding the numbers and the story they wanted to hear into ChatGPT, and letting the AI synthesize a “scientific paper” that is loosely correct but fundamentally wrong on the methods and interpretation?

Because the latter is what I see, none of it stands up to scrutiny.

Not sure I follow you. I did this study, designed and performed it. I have a semiprofesional lab as I develop measure instrument for this hobby. Po4 here was performed by my own MTE which is newly calibrated with ref solutions from Hach.
In my main profession as surgeon I am used to read and write articles in this way. I have no intention to publish this as a true scientific paper. This is just for us. For that it requires more work



/Jonas

 

[JonasRoman]

"
Summary: Under typical marine aquarium conditions, approximately half of the phosphate
absorbed by calcium carbonate rock becomes permanently sequestered within the rock
structure, provided sufficient time is allowed for the stable crystallization phase to occur."

OK - nice experiment BTW - but - that means (unless I'm misreading) 1/2 of the PO4 is hanging out somewhere else - potentially causing problems. Where did the rest go? - Could have been washed away>

The other half is going back and forth according to the equilibrium for the more loose bridging connections.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Not sure I follow you. I did this study, designed and performed it. I have a semiprofesional lab as I develop measure instrument for this hobby. Po4 here was performed by my own MTE which is newly calibrated with ref solutions from Hach.
In my main profession as surgeon I am used to read and write articles in this way. I have no intention to publish this as a true scientific paper. This is just for us. For that it requires more work



/Jonas

Thank you for the candid response.

I asked because there have been a recent rash of AI generated "science" posts and "papers" and this experiment and conclusions left me with some questions:

How do you know the phosphate released with acid represents only the “irreversible, crystallized” fraction? The acid also dissolves the substrate and that would release any remaining surface adsorbed phosphate.

Which leads me to question how we would know the “stable fraction” vs just deeper surface adsorption?

Also, typical aquarium pH is ~8.3 or lower, while this experiment used ~8.6. So with the use of RO water, it’s unclear how this parallels real in-tank behavior. Wouldn't both the elevated pH and the RO step desorb more phosphate than would occur in a real tank?

 

[BeanAnimal]

The other half is going back and forth according to the equilibrium for the more loose bridging connections.

What about the part that is rinsed away? Was the concentration of the rinse solution measure pre-post transfers?

 

[EnterName]

@Daniel@R2R It's really none of my business, but wouldn't it be time to grant Jonas his well earned R2R Research badge? :)

He has contributed several times now:

• Effect of frozen food on Phosphate
• N:P development during blackouts in presence and absence of Dinoflagellates
• and now Phosphate binding kinetics

Or does it simply not show up for me for some reason?

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Done!

 

[JonasRoman]

Thank you for the candid response.

I asked because there have been a recent rash of AI generated "science" posts and "papers" and this experiment and conclusions left me with some questions:

How do you know the phosphate released with acid represents only the “irreversible, crystallized” fraction? The acid also dissolves the substrate and that would release any remaining surface adsorbed phosphate.

Which leads me to question how we would know the “stable fraction” vs just deeper surface adsorption?

Also, typical aquarium pH is ~8.3 or lower, while this experiment used ~8.6. So with the use of RO water, it’s unclear how this parallels real in-tank behavior. Wouldn't both the elevated pH and the RO step desorb more phosphate than would occur in a real tank?

Hi. Good questions. My views of this one by one
1) prior to acidification the po4 was only 0.01 a prolonged period, meaning the loose bound po4 was totaly released. Loose bound do not need that acidity to be relewse but just the concentration gradient that I had prior to the acidification with RO water.
2) ph was some higher to maximise crystalisation and loose binding po4 mimic a tank running co2 scrubber. I agree that with a lower ph probably some lower absorption, but I still believe the ratio quick/fast, hard/loose bound is similar. I raised with na2co3 so to be honest after equilibrium with co2 in air the ph was probably back to 8.3 the last days of the long term trial

Many thanks for the input
Jonas

 

[JonasRoman]

What about the part that is rinsed away? Was the concentration of the rinse solution measure pre-post transfers?

No. I didnt. Maybe I should :-)
My believe with rinsing was to just rinse of remnants of water, not any chemical bounds. Rinsing water was tap water, to avoid that rinsing removed any chemical bound po4. And rinsing was like 60 seconds.

Jonas

 

[JonasRoman]

Done!

Million thanks

 

[JonasRoman]

@Daniel@R2R It's really none of my business, but wouldn't it be time to grant Jonas his well earned R2R Research badge? :)

He has contributed several times now:

• Effect of frozen food on Phosphate
• N:P development during blackouts in presence and absence of Dinoflagellates
• and now Phosphate binding kinetics

Or does it simply not show up for me for some reason?

Appreciate