B-Ionic -> Triton

JVU · May 12, 2018

Hi, I’m considering switching from using B-Ionic (with few water changes and no trace testing) to the Triton method (which would include their Core7 additives and their ICP testing with almost no water changes).

Everything is doing fine in my mixed reef, I just like the more explicit and scientific nature of the Triton method, am somewhat worried about trace element depletion, and wouldn’t miss water changes. Cost isn’t a make-or-break issue for me, but I’m going to try to compare that since I couldn’t find anywhere online where someone has before.

A big issue when trying to compare is that although both additives claim to add all major, minor, and trace saltwater elements, we aren’t actually told what trace elements/concentrations they have. I presume that the Triton additives are more complete since they use an extra bottle, are designed to replace water changes, and back it up with ICP testing for a bunch of elements. At least Triton probably contains everything they test for, and is balanced for use with a large refugium (which I have). For these somewhat hand-waving reasons I’m leaning toward Triton.

So normalizing for alkalinity as both systems do, my take-away from other online discussions including one here is:

- Assuming combining Triton 3a + 3b, Triton has 15% more concentrated alkalinity than B-Ionic.
- Current cost difference on BRS: Triton 2 L alkalinity is $47, B-Ionic 3.8 L (1 gal) alkalinity is $31.
- So accounting for the difference in concentration and cost, Triton is about 2.5 times as expensive as B-Ionic for the same amount of alkalinity.
- I’m not counting savings in fewer water changes and extra cost of ICP testing plus additives recommended by the testing, since both are very subjective how often to do. Probably would make Triton quite a bit more expensive since I don’t do many water changes now anyway.

Also for the conversion, since the combined Triton 3a+3b is 15% more concentrated than B-Ionic A, I was planning this to start:
- Currently I’m dosing 58 ml per day B-Ionic A, dosed equally throughout the day by a dosing pump.
- So rounding a bit this would be 50 ml per day Triton 3a+3b, and 25 ml of each of parts 1 and 2.
- Daily testing of alkalinity to dial it in.

Anyway I was hoping to see if this logic and math looks approximately correct to you guys/gals.

Randy Holmes-Farley · May 12, 2018

FWIW, B-ionic is not a trace element additive, despite having those elements (and I expect they have all that you'd care about).

It is not intuitive for many folks, but having an element does not actually mean it raises it. It might even lower it. Many commercial two parts and the original Balling just keep the method itself from lowering these elements, not supplementing them against organisms taking them up.

I discuss that issue here:

The Many Methods for Supplementing Calcium and Alkalinity - REEFEDITION

One issue that has confused some reef keepers, however, is the presence of trace elements. Assuming that these products are actually formulated with every ion such that a true natural seawater residue remained (let’s call this the “ideal” product), then it will necessarily contain such ions as copper. Since copper is elevated in some reef tanks, and is toxic to many invertebrates, reef keepers have wrongly criticized this method as adding more copper. That’s actually not what would happen. Since these products leave a natural seawater residue, and since copper may be elevated in concentration in many reef tanks relative to seawater, then using these “ideal” products will actually LOWER copper levels because when the increase in salinity is corrected, the copper will drop.

For example:

You have copper in your aquarium at 4 ppb and salinity of S=35.

You add a two part additive that over the course of a month raises salinity to S=36, and raises copper to 4.02 ppb.

Then you correct the salinity back to S=35 by diluting everything in the tank with fresh water, and you get a final copper concentration of 3.9 ppb.

Does this happen in real products and not “ideal” products? I have no idea. But the statement by manufacturers that it contains all ions in natural ratios, including copper, should not be viewed as a concern that it is exacerbating a heavy metal problem.

The rise in salinity of these products over time can be very roughly calculated, though there are several reasons why this calculation is only an estimate. For every 1000 meq of alkalinity added in this fashion (and the matching amount of calcium) these products will deliver on the order of 60 grams of other ions to the tank. In a tank with a low calcification demand (defined later to be 18.3 thousand meq of alkalinity per year in a 100 gallon tank (0.4 dKH/day)) this effect will raise the salinity by 3 ppt per year (compared to a normal salinity of S ~35). In a high demand tank (defined later to be 219 thousand meq of alkalinity per year in a 100 gallon tank (4.4 dKH/day)), the salinity will rise by 35 ppt in a year, or approximately doubling the salinity. Consequently, the salinity should be monitored closely in using these types of additives, especially in a tank with high calcification rates.

JVU · May 12, 2018

Thanks Randy, I’ve seen your discussion on that before but good to get a refresher.

So going by the claims of the 2 companies:
- B-Ionic is “formulated to provide all other major, minor, and trace elements in the proper ratios to duplicate the composition of synthetic seawater” presumably to mitigate the dilution effect and losses to skimming. But not actually increasing the levels or accounting for biological usage.
- Whereas Triton contains higher levels to allow for biological and nonbiological usage/loss while still maintaining seawater levels, and is thus more properly an additive.
- Neither one should be greatly affected by the dilution issue you were discussing as far as I can tell.

So anyway, what do you think about the rest of my original post?

Thanks

Randy Holmes-Farley · May 12, 2018

Both Triton and B-ionic have the same dilution issue, and that is the sole reason B-ionic has those elements, but presumably Triton adds more beyond that.

I think Trying the Triton method is a fine idea. I have no reason to think their additives will give better results than B-ionic if you used a trace element mix along with it, which is really all Triton is.

Comparing costs is, as you suggest, complicated when issues like testing vs water changes are considered.

There’s no perfect answer, but I do like the idea of controlling trace elements individually.