Boiling tank water releases phosphate

[Dan_P]

The evolution is exponential. Give it a couple of months.

I use ChatGPT as a knowledgable friend. The friend doesn’t know everything and I don’t believe all the answers are correct, but the discourse is useful. Sometimes I just need a starting point for thinking things though.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It’s far from perfect but it is surprisingly accurate. For simple questions of this type it is certainly good enough.

I disagree, and in my forum I’d rather not keep fact checking AI responses that have been shown here in the past to be wrong.

In any case, I believe I can give correct answers and don’t want folks posting AI responses unless the purpose is to ask if it is correct.

 

[Subarcticreef]

I disagree, and in my forum I’d rather not keep fact checking AI responses that have been shown here in the past to be wrong.

In any case, I believe I can give correct answers and don’t want folks posting AI responses unless the purpose is to ask if it is correct.

Fair enough

 

[PharmrJohn]

I asked ChatGPT and this is the answer. But are any of these found in sea/tank water?

Several types of molecules can release a phosphate group when heated, typically through thermal decomposition. Some of these include:

1. Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP): ATP can decompose and release inorganic phosphate (Pi) upon heating, although this process is more commonly associated with enzymatic hydrolysis.

To add even more, ATP is, as stated, broken down to Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP), then it can be broken doen even further to AMP (Adenosine Monophosphate)

 

[Subarcticreef]

I guess the most reasonable explanation to the heat sensitive fraction of phosphate is released from organisms of various types. As suggested, a critical experiment would be to filter the tank water through a 0.22 micron filter that I unfortunately don’t have access to currently. I need to wait until I do the next ICP analysis.

But, as Randy pointed out, the phosphate measurements that I get without heating are in good agreements with what I see in ICP which suggests that the heat sensitive fraction can be removed through filtering.

 

[East1]

Fauna Marin writes about this, here

Further phosphate sources in the aquarium are solids such as precipitates, rotting corner spaces and organic compounds in the water. In our laboratory we measure both the total phosphate value (P) and the reactive phosphate (PO₄³⁻). We calculate and measure these values with a very precise method. The ratio of the two values results in an interesting measuring factor or deposit effect value. This value corresponds as a factor to the measured difference of the total phosphate and the orthophosphate. You can also perform this test at home. Please find these instructions in our download area („heat test according to Schuhmacher“).

They further set out a test for phosphate after microwaving the water available here as a pdf

 

[Solo McReefer]

It’s far from perfect but it is surprisingly accurate. For simple questions of this type it is certainly good enough.

No

 

[PharmrJohn]

In general, we do not need ChatGPT for chemistry in this forum. It is wrong often enough to not be reliable.

Ya got that right. My Daughter was just railing about how AI explanations are fought with inaccuracies. Her specific complaint had to do with Archiology. But we're just at the beginning. In the not so distant future it'll be a valuable resource I'm sure.

 

[Subarcticreef]

No

I beg to differ.

 

[Dan_P]

I guess the most reasonable explanation to the heat sensitive fraction of phosphate is released from organisms of various types. As suggested, a critical experiment would be to filter the tank water through a 0.22 micron filter that I unfortunately don’t have access to currently. I need to wait until I do the next ICP analysis.

But, as Randy pointed out, the phosphate measurements that I get without heating are in good agreements with what I see in ICP which suggests that the heat sensitive fraction can be removed through filtering.

I could not repeat your observation with my aquarium water. I measured 0.54 ppm PO4 before and after heating.

Have you repeated your test to make sure it wasn’t an error, e.g., sample contamination?

 

[Dan_P]

Fauna Marin writes about this, here



They further set out a test for phosphate after microwaving the water available here as a pdf

Could not open the link.

 

[Christoph]

The effect is due to hydrolysis of organic phosphates or desorption by particulates (including phytoplancton, bacteria, etc). Cells rupture at this temperature and release their contents.

This effect is very noticeable when the orthophosphate value in the tank is low. However at high phosphate levels (like Dan_Ps) the contribution will be small.

 

[Dan_P]

The effect is due to hydrolysis of organic phosphates or desorption by particulates (including phytoplancton, bacteria, etc). Cells rupture at this temperature and release their contents.

This effect is very noticeable when the orthophosphate value in the tank is low. However at high phosphate levels (like Dan_Ps) the contribution will be small.

Would love to see aquarium data supporting this idea, especially how large the effect might be. I could find this a useful test.

Is your comment about my results referring to test precision?

As for being noticeable at a low phosphate concentration, the OP saw the effect at 0.2 ppm which is not exactly low. Would you expect a three fold increase at 0.2 ppm and no increase at 0.5 ppm? Not making a lot of sense to me.

 

[Subarcticreef]

I could not repeat your observation with my aquarium water. I measured 0.54 ppm PO4 before and after heating.

Have you repeated your test to make sure it wasn’t an error, e.g., sample contamination?

Yes. Have repeated it. Looks reliable. Apparently Fauna Marin made the same observation (see above).

 

[Dan_P]

Yes. Have repeated it. Looks reliable. Apparently Fauna Marin made the same observation (see above).

OK. Great!

What were the results of the repeated test, unheated and heated?

Unfortunately, Fauna Marin provides no information of the concentration range for their observation, nor whether they observed this effect in freshwater or saltwater. The factor range might only apply to low phosphate levels, not above 0.1 ppm.

A factor of 3 (0.6/0.2) according to Fauna Marin would mean your aquarium is a cyanobacteria heaven. Is it?

 

[Subarcticreef]

OK. Great!

What were the results of the repeated test, unheated and heated?

Unfortunately, Fauna Marin provides no information of the concentration range for their observation, nor whether they observed this effect in freshwater or saltwater. The factor range might only apply to low phosphate levels, not above 0.1 ppm.

A factor of 3 (0.6/0.2) according to Fauna Marin would mean your aquarium is a cyanobacteria heaven. Is it?

It was essentially the same (0.2/0.6)

Nope. No cyanos as far as I can see

 

[Dan_P]

It was essentially the same (0.2/0.6)

Nope. No cyanos as far as I can see

Thanks for answering my questions. I am intrigued with your findings and will try this method on my experimental aquaria.

By the way, the more I think about the Fauna Marin factor, the ratio of phosphates measurements discussed above, the more that I think it might be nonsense. What I am refering to are the ideas expressed by the different ratios. Since there are an infinite number of ways one can achieve a ratio of 3, say 0.6/0.2 or 0.06/0.02, the ratio as such would be meaningless with regard to reflecting some condition in the aquarium. On top of this, the notion that a ratio of phosphates predicts cyanobacteria growth seems to be unfounded. Enticing aquarists to double the number of phosphate test they perform is good marketing. It could double the sales of phosphate kits

I wonder why boiling aquarium water never caught on.

 

[East1]

Thanks for answering my questions. I am intrigued with your findings and will try this method on my experimental aquaria.

By the way, the more I think about the Fauna Marin factor, the ratio of phosphates measurements discussed above, the more that I think it might be nonsense. What I am refering to are the ideas expressed by the different ratios. Since there are an infinite number of ways one can achieve a ratio of 3, say 0.6/0.2 or 0.06/0.02, the ratio as such would be meaningless with regard to reflecting some condition in the aquarium. On top of this, the notion that a ratio of phosphates predicts cyanobacteria growth seems to be unfounded. Enticing aquarists to double the number of phosphate test they perform is good marketing. It could double the sales of phosphate kits

I wonder why boiling aquarium water never caught on.

There are infinite ways to express the ratio, but the ratio is showing something clear in your water - the tanks with a higher P value after the heat test show that the tank has physical phosphate stores present in the water (or most likely in the sandbed) that can fuel cyano very easily. This may not be present in tanks that are well skimmed and filtered, and where the nutrient ratios of N are adequate for coral growth this may not allow cyano to take over, but having excess nutrient stores like this do increase the risk.

This could look like a tank that will release huge clouds of brown sludge when the sandbed or areas under the rock are disturbed.

this excerpt from @Hans-Werner here:

Nevertheless I think that the Oscillatoria sp. we frequently find in aquaria grows in mats. I have found mats with 20 ppm NO3 and the "fertilization" with urea. There may be single filaments when the growth is very sparse but for the beginning I would assume that this Oscillatoria grows in mats if there is a substantial density of filaments, no matter what the nutrient conditions are. If there are no mats there are not enough filaments which means not enough cyanobacterial cells. Just watch without being prepossessed by any thoughts. After you are sure what you have seen it is time to look for theories.

This Oscillatoria sp. can move. Under the microscope you can see swinging movements but they can also perfom gliding movements. If you watch them thoroughly I think you will see that they do not disperse their mats at night but are really going into the bottom gravel to make use of high nutrient loads of interstitial water.

You may determine the ratios meaningless however similar can be see with the ratios of N addition - in a tank that has propensity to grow cyano, adding amino acids during the photoperiod particularly will cause an increase in cyanobacteria.

Whilst to someone with a test kit the ratios may lack value, in a biological sense it is the ratios that determine the safe zone for corals to grow, and what kinds of algae will proliferate. It's unlikely the average reefer will find this because it would require a large number of variations of water chemistry including some that cause excess algae and is not at all what we strive for as a 'display tank', however in a tank with the ability to alter meaningfully the ratios (including being able to remove the sandbed or give it a 'rip clean') and dose various forms of N in ammonium, nitrate/urea and amino form, one can change the kinds of algae that will grow fairly confidently.

Ultimately it's ratios of everything in the water that provide a safe coral growing environment, many of us know this from ratios of alk:cal:magnesium for example and how imbalances can cause hyperplasia, but the same holds true for the lower concentration elements and particularly the N ratio in a tank.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

There are infinite ways to express the ratio, but the ratio is showing something clear in your water - the tanks with a higher P value after the heat test show that the tank has physical phosphate stores present in the water (or most likely in the sandbed) that can fuel cyano very easily.

If the most or all of the released P is from organisms such as bacteria that broke up and were hydrolyzed, I'd be wary of implicating any of the released P as being available to spur cyano.

 

[Dan_P]

There are infinite ways to express the ratio, but the ratio is showing something clear in your water - the tanks with a higher P value after the heat test show that the tank has physical phosphate stores present in the water (or most likely in the sandbed) that can fuel cyano very easily. This may not be present in tanks that are well skimmed and filtered, and where the nutrient ratios of N are adequate for coral growth this may not allow cyano to take over, but having excess nutrient stores like this do increase the risk.

This could look like a tank that will release huge clouds of brown sludge when the sandbed or areas under the rock are disturbed.

this excerpt from @Hans-Werner here:



You may determine the ratios meaningless however similar can be see with the ratios of N addition - in a tank that has propensity to grow cyano, adding amino acids during the photoperiod particularly will cause an increase in cyanobacteria.

Whilst to someone with a test kit the ratios may lack value, in a biological sense it is the ratios that determine the safe zone for corals to grow, and what kinds of algae will proliferate. It's unlikely the average reefer will find this because it would require a large number of variations of water chemistry including some that cause excess algae and is not at all what we strive for as a 'display tank', however in a tank with the ability to alter meaningfully the ratios (including being able to remove the sandbed or give it a 'rip clean') and dose various forms of N in ammonium, nitrate/urea and amino form, one can change the kinds of algae that will grow fairly confidently.

Ultimately it's ratios of everything in the water that provide a safe coral growing environment, many of us know this from ratios of alk:cal:magnesium for example and how imbalances can cause hyperplasia, but the same holds true for the lower concentration elements and particularly the N ratio in a tank.

This doesn’t really address the fact that ratios can be created an infinite number of ways, like 0.6/0.2 or 0.06/0.02. And why would 0.06 and 0.6 ppm mean the same thing to cyanobacteria growth?