Copper in a reef aquarium discussion.

Is it possible that all LPS looks fine but only acros are effected by elevated copper levels?

Just ordered some of this product to see if it helps with my acro STN. It waxes/wanes it seems I wonder if it concurs with my water changes...
 
Last edited:
Will running Cuprisorb pull anything out of the water that my corals need? for instance, if I run a ton of GFO it will cause harm to my SPS, will something similar occur with Cuprisorb?
 
Will running Cuprisorb pull anything out of the water that my corals need? for instance, if I run a ton of GFO it will cause harm to my SPS, will something similar occur with Cuprisorb?
I called Sachem myself and you should have no issues whatsoever, is a different media than GFO, The best way to use is in a high flow area. The higher the flow the better. If you also run the cupisorb in a reactor and filter the new saltwater before you do a water change would be the ultimate way. Remember is easily regenerated.
 
These questions are bugging me on this topic...

Does copper accumulate in our systems anywhere such as rock or sand?

Why are more people not experiencing tank crashes if so many of us use the same salt and do not remove excess copper? I would think that if the salt mix was to blame then you would be seeing tank crashes consistently and within a small sample of time.

Also, if copper is present in our systems in amounts enough to harm wouldn't these aquariums experience death across all lines of invertebrate such as pods?

I was under the impression that copper in high enough concentrations kill invertebrate (and eventually everything) pretty indiscriminately which is why it is used as dip.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps they're not causing tank crashes, perhaps it's STN on our acros, not killing them but causing problems, THAT happens constantly. You see posts about it all the time. I think it's possible that there is a certain percentage of salt buckets get mixed with a slightly elevated copper or heavy metal level, which causes STN on a few colonies. Maybe not but it's in the realm of possibility.

My other question is, will Cuprisorb pull out metals that our coral need?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps they're not causing tank crashes, perhaps it's STN on our acros, not killing them but causing problems, THAT happens constantly. You see posts about it all the time. I think it's possible that there is a certain percentage of salt buckets get mixed with a slightly elevated copper or heavy metal level, which causes STN on a few colonies. Maybe not but it's in the realm of possibility.

My other question is, will Cuprisorb pull out metals that our coral need?
Unfortunately I did not get a straight answer on this, with dosing the main elements I don't think that would be a problem. Good question.
 
These questions are bugging me on this topic...

Does copper accumulate in our systems anywhere such as rock or sand?

Why are more people not experiencing tank crashes if so many of us use the same salt and do not remove excess copper? I would think that if the salt mix was to blame then you would be seeing tank crashes consistently and within a small sample of time.

Also, if copper is present in our systems in amounts enough to harm wouldn't these aquariums experience death across all lines of invertebrate such as pods?

I was under the impression that copper in high enough concentrations kill invertebrate (and eventually everything) pretty indiscriminately which is why it is used as dip.
I agree with you, but after years of seeing perfect SPS tanks crash without any explanation I tend to think is copper accumulation. When doing a water change you also dose an approximate 0.015-0.045 ppm copper, that copper binds on GFO copper and rocks. No one knows what conditions make the copper go back in the water column, some would be a drop in Ph and other factors that are unknown. I have seen a 250g with tons of huge colonies go south without any explanation, all you need is some ammonia to develop, due to copper poisoning and killing certain animals such as snails etc very sensitive to copper. There are no low range accurate test kits at this time. If our parameters were perfect than nothing would die in our tanks :)
 
I agree with you, but after years of seeing perfect SPS tanks crash without any explanation I tend to think is copper accumulation. When doing a water change you also dose an approximate 0.015-0.045 ppm copper, that copper binds on GFO copper and rocks. No one knows what conditions make the copper go back in the water column, some would be a drop in Ph and other factors that are unknown. I have seen a 250g with tons of huge colonies go south without any explanation, all you need is some ammonia to develop, due to copper poisoning and killing certain animals such as snails etc very sensitive to copper. There are no low range accurate test kits at this time. If our parameters were perfect than nothing would die in our tanks :)

Either way, Steve, I think i'm going to run some cuprisorb in my tanks once in a while. Really can't hurt can it?

:)
 
I was thinking about this thread last night because of the "Are water changes necessary" thread...

If what Steve suspects is true (about Copper accumulation in tanks due to synthetic salts leading to unexplained system crashes) then the effect that the Cu accumulation has should be lessened by NOT water changing as much...correct?

Steve have you thought about this factor when looking into this problem and have you found any evidence contrary or in support of this statement? Is this the reason you stated earlier that you may be looking into changing your water less often?
 
Water changes are necessary. Water changes reduce accumulated waste ions. Water changes replenish elements used by the biological filter as well as metabolized by our captive marine pets. A decent marine salt will "recharge" the closed system with high quality fresh salt water that is ionically balanced.

There are several brands of marine salts that vary in copper content from batch to batch. Levels of Cu in these brands can range from: 0.15 ppm to 0.24 ppm. (0.15 ppm. of Cu is the treatment dose required to cure ich. 0.15 ppm. or more of Cu can kill sensitive invertebrates.) These same brands, from time to time can test for ammonia at 0.25 ppm or more.

There has been enough discussion on various marine aquarium web sites that detail the brand names of these offending marine salts in the last few years. As one might think, these brands should be avoided.

As speculated by others, using various chemical filters in an effort to lessen the water change routine can actually cause negative chemical shifts within the marine aquarium. E.g. Some chemical filter(s) can bind heavy metals. If pH drops, accumulated copper can be released into the marine aquarium.

The KEY is to use a decent marine salt. And perform regular water changes.

A decent marine salt will not add: copper, other heavy metals, ammonia, silicates etc.

I.e. We have one commercial customer with dozens of aquariums totaling an 8000 gallon system. They change 150 gallons of salt water each week. They employ a variety of chemical filter mediums. At the same time they are adding various supplements to replenish ions removed by the chemical filter mediums.

After a quick look at how this customer maintains their aquariums, it was evident they are "running on the fly". E.g. No clue as to the ionic content of all 78 elements found in NSW. They simply test for Ca, Mg, Alk, No2, No3, NH4. When nitrate increases, they added more "nitrate" resin. If water turns yellow, they added more carbon. Then added a bevy of liquid and powder supplements.

For some months their fish and corals looked very good. Then the inevitable occurred. Their fish continued to look good. (They keep fish for an average of 1-3 weeks prior to sale then restocking). However costly corals that were for sale / on display for over 6-8 weeks began to appear in poor health. Large or show pieces of very costly corals that were kept for over 2 months began to die off.

The owner refused to acknowledge the possibility that various chemical filters were actually releasing accumulated metals. This shop uses and promotes the approach of chemical filtration and supplementation vs. simple water changes.

When testing for copper it is essential to use a copper test kit that will not give false positive test results if other attributing factors are in play.

When using a marine salt it is essential to use a brand that does not contain elements in dramatically disproportionate amounts (vs. NSW) that can give false positive test results with some brands of copper test kits.
 
Water changes are necessary. Water changes reduce accumulated waste ions. Water changes replenish elements used by the biological filter as well as metabolized by our captive marine pets. A decent marine salt will "recharge" the closed system with high quality fresh salt water that is ionically balanced.

There are several brands of marine salts that vary in copper content from batch to batch. Levels of Cu in these brands can range from: 0.15 ppm to 0.24 ppm. (0.15 ppm. of Cu is the treatment dose required to cure ich. 0.15 ppm. or more of Cu can kill sensitive invertebrates.) These same brands, from time to time can test for ammonia at 0.25 ppm or more.

There has been enough discussion on various marine aquarium web sites that detail the brand names of these offending marine salts in the last few years. As one might think, these brands should be avoided.

As speculated by others, using various chemical filters in an effort to lessen the water change routine can actually cause negative chemical shifts within the marine aquarium. E.g. Some chemical filter(s) can bind heavy metals. If pH drops, accumulated copper can be released into the marine aquarium.

The KEY is to use a decent marine salt. And perform regular water changes.

A decent marine salt will not add: copper, other heavy metals, ammonia, silicates etc.

I.e. We have one commercial customer with dozens of aquariums totaling an 8000 gallon system. They change 150 gallons of salt water each week. They employ a variety of chemical filter mediums. At the same time they are adding various supplements to replenish ions removed by the chemical filter mediums.

After a quick look at how this customer maintains their aquariums, it was evident they are "running on the fly". E.g. No clue as to the ionic content of all 78 elements found in NSW. They simply test for Ca, Mg, Alk, No2, No3, NH4. When nitrate increases, they added more "nitrate" resin. If water turns yellow, they added more carbon. Then added a bevy of liquid and powder supplements.

For some months their fish and corals looked very good. Then the inevitable occurred. Their fish continued to look good. (They keep fish for an average of 1-3 weeks prior to sale then restocking). However costly corals that were for sale / on display for over 6-8 weeks began to appear in poor health. Large or show pieces of very costly corals that were kept for over 2 months began to die off.

The owner refused to acknowledge the possibility that various chemical filters were actually releasing accumulated metals. This shop uses and promotes the approach of chemical filtration and supplementation vs. simple water changes.

When testing for copper it is essential to use a copper test kit that will not give false positive test results if other attributing factors are in play.

When using a marine salt it is essential to use a brand that does not contain elements in dramatically disproportionate amounts (vs. NSW) that can give false positive test results with some brands of copper test kits.

This must be a typo? I would have expected the levels reported for salt mixes to have been expressed in ppb. (1000x less).
While a bit dated I found Feature Article: Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study, Part I — Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog quite good. Is there anything similar but perhaps more up to date?
 
Last edited:
Jsut to be clear .15 ppm = 150 ppb. What salt mixes have levels of cu in the range of 150 to 240 ppb? Ins't this number is 10x too high? Perhaps we missed a zero in there ->.015 ppm to .024 ppm?
 
Last edited:
I ask that the moderators of R2R do not delete this post. I am not promoting or demoting any brand of marine salts.

There has been reference to a marine salt study in this thread. This post is to offer information not yet posted regarding this study.

This post offers information regarding various marine salts that are not only high in heavy metals (lead, nickel, aluminum) but vary greatly in the levels or amounts of minor components/elements (Mo, Mn, Li).


0.15 ppm is the treatment level used with CuSo4 for ich. This is not a typo.

There are marine salts that have this amount or more from time to time. This is common knowledge amoung marine aquarium keepers that post their concerns on various web sites. That is the basis for this thread.

The Inland "study" cannot be taken serious. This was performed in the back room of a small shop that closed shortly after they posted their "study". If we look over the Inland "study", we see that two or three packages of salts (same brand) were mixed together Vs. having each packaged tested for consistency.

When generating a truly independent test (of any kind), a certified/qualified testing laboratory be employed. There must be a 'chain of custody' that details exactly where each sample was procured, who and how it was handled until the solutions were prepared. Detailed information must be provided as to exactly what equipment was used, the testing procedure and how the solutions were mixed. A PhD or lab director should sign off the final test.

None of this was offered in the Inland "study". It was simply two guys that got some salts, mixed various packages (of the same brand) together as they openly admitted they could not afford independent testing of multiple samples.

Thus far the only independent marine salt test is the S-15 Report(tm). The S-15 Report(tm) has received a lot of "heat" because only a few read the entire report. Fewer comprehended the ramifications of these results. Those that openly opposed the independent results perhaps had a vested interest in one or more brands of marine salts that did not score well vs. NSW. (Those that cryed the loudest were sellers of brands that did not compare well to NSW).

Although the S-15 Report(tm) is dated, it is still the only reliable source of information that detailed the consistency and relationship of various brands of marine salts to NSW.

IMO, several brands of marine salts evaluated in the S-15 Report(tm) have gone down in over all quality. This can be corroborated with this thread. Better aquarium keepers continue to post on web sites with concerns of excessive levels of heavy metals (specifically copper) in a few brands of marine salts being promoted into the home aquarium industry today.

I do not want to reopen a can of worms, so I will offer this once.

The S-15 Report(tm) was commissioned by Global Scientific Publications. GSP was a group of international aquarium professionals. GSP was created for the sole purpose of testing as many brands of synthetic sea water / artificial sea water / marine salts as possible. Their goal was to learn why there is a high drop out rate amount marine aquarium hobbyists. Perhaps compromised initial salt water was one or more of the attributing factors associated with the perplexing attrition rate in the marine aquarium hobby. Aqua Craft Products was not part of Global Scientific Publications.

GPS secured unopened, untampered packages of various brands of marine salts. These were sent directly to a highly qualified independent laboroatry. When multiple samples of one brand of marine salt were to be tested, it was essential that different size packages of the same brand be tested. Best if multiple packages/sizes of the same brand were procured from different international locations. (Different size packages would indicate different production days. Thus showing any inconsistencies within one brand.

These packages were sent to one lab. for hydration with -0- water. When the solutions were prepared, a split sample was sent to another lab. E.g. One lab. tested one sample. The other lab. tested the same sample. The results were compiled by the first lab.

GPS's initial intent was to publish a book with all of the test procedures employed by the independent laboratories. When the test results were finalized it was realized that a book would not be a good seller, as the results would be splashed all over the internet.

It is unknown how many people were approached to purchase the finalized test results? Aqua Craft Products was contacted for possible purchase of this completed work.

It was of great concern to GPS and later to Aqua Craft Products that if this information was purchased by a business or group or someone that did not what this information offered to the general public, this body of work would have been supressed.

After review, Aqua Craft Products purchased the sole rights for this work. Aqua Craft Products and GSP entered into a contractual agreement. Aqua Craft Products reserved the right to be the only source for this independently generated information.

It was a forgone conclusion that the majority of internet readers would not read through the entire body of work and simply plague whoever offered this with a plethora of questions. GPS did want to deal with countless inquires such as... what about this... what about that... etc.

Several individuals actually contacted the independent laboratory and asked specific quesitons about the S-15 Report(tm). They were given no information for two reasons:
1) They were not the contracting customer and had no rights to privy information.
2) Aqua Craft Products called the completed test the S-15 Report(tm) and neither lab. was familiar with this terminology.

These and countless other questions were put into the lap of Aqua Craft Products. All related information regarding this ground breaking test has been and continues to be posted on our web site.

If there are those that cannot find this information, send me a PM and I will furnish a link to this meaningful information.
 
Young Frankenstein a light bulb just went off in my head!!! I wonder if this is why i cannot keep a single SPS coral? All of my SPS start off great then fizzle out. What I mean is they brown out and RTN within about a week or two.

My satosa is starting to brown out too.

Can you recommend a test kit for me?
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top