Does Prime actually "Detoxify" free ammonia, NH3?
- Thread starter taricha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OP
OP
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
- What state or country do you live in
- Mississippi
Thanks, fun read.
not to be that guy, but....
The ammonia decrease (example 13) was verified by a salicylate test - without any consideration as to whether it is being interfered with (and reducers interfere).
The saltwater toxicity test (example 8) where one group got saved by the product and the other group died - they made sure to say that the temp was 77, but they never bothered to mention, much less control the pH between the two groups.
The freshwater toxicity test (example 11), again pH was neither controlled nor measured.
Maybe they just forgot to record/report the most important variable in determining the portion of ammonia that's NH3.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Wrong. LOL - show me evidence that 99.99 percent of 'stuff' we do - 'proves' it does what we say it does. Go talk to Paul B - or someone about QT. I showed you plenty of science. I disagree completely with your methods. You dont follow instructions on the products (doubling doses of thiosulfate, etc etc etc ). Thats not science. You ignore every comment (including from Seneye). Thats not science. Your experiments (again are laudable) - but not science, not scientific, not reproducible - and your arguments are not convincing (to me). Once again - the conclusion you can POTENTIALLY draw - is that Using our methods, there is no evidence that Prime reduces free ammonia. You have done no toxicity studies. The rest is just inference. You are inferring because you used tests - not based to be used in the way you are - that Prime does not detoxify ammonia. Its siimply not true. Maybe you'll learn something for the next group of experiments (which are eagerly awaited). Look at some of the comments about the exerpiments on other forums. There is far from universal agreement on your conclusions. I'm not going to waste my time looking for evidence - when you cant answer simple questions.
When you do your next experiments - don't buffer anything, dont double dose anything, don't infer anything - just follow the directions. Perhaps try to contact the manufacturers of the tests to be certain that the methods you're using actually are designed and will or will not prove/disprove what you're trying to say.
The bottom line - nothing here says, suggests, etc - that Prime cannot be used to detoxify ammonia. Show me the in vivo testing that shows that thiosulfates save fish? If there are few - does that mean we should not use dechlorinator. LOL
MnFish1
10K Club member
And vice versa. I'm glad you're doing more experiments. You still haven't answered the one question - why do water treatment facilities that add chloramine to their water recommend adding not only thiosulfate - but also an ammonia detoxifier? Its very simple. Of course - it goes against your theories. Hopefully your next experiments will explain it.
OP
OP
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
- What state or country do you live in
- Mississippi
I goofed in an earlier post here, and have edited it.
It's about whether we'd even notice if a product "detoxified" ammonia in chloramine or not.
I quoted a section of a study that said....
"the mean acute toxicity value for 32 freshwater species was c. 2.3 mg NH3–N/L compared with 1.5 mg NH3–N/L for 17 seawater species. For the five most sensitive species the values were 0.79 mg NH3–N/L and 0.68 mg NH3–N/L for fresh water and sea water respectively."
Ammonia in estuaries and effects on fish
this is too low, and the larger context of the paper indicates this is unclear or a typo, and it's the TOTAL AMMONIA value. The correct values for NH3-N are the ones quoted elsewhere, like RHF article and in another place in the paper...
"The toxicity of unionized ammonia (96 h LC50) to freshwater fish is in the range 0.068–2.0 mg/L NH3–N
(EIFAC, 1970; Seager et al., 1988; Russo & Thurston, 1991). Acute toxicity for marine species is in the range 0.09–3.35 mg/L NH3–N depending on species, temperature and pH."
I also went through the calculation showing that the maximum allowable chloramine (4ppm) is capable of producing 1.09 mg/L total ammonia nitrogen which is 0.06 mg/L NH3 at pH 8.0 or 0.14 mg/L NH3 at pH 8.4.
So to me it's an open question if a hobbyist would actually notice if their water treating product did anything to the ammonia in chloramine. (it is safely assumed every dechlorinator dechlorinates chloramine, so the issue is reduced to ammonia)
If it's a brand new tank / quarantine, with no biofilter (and none that gets established within 4 days), no light driven photosynthesis, water that is kept at mid 8's pH, max allowable chloramine, and very sensitive fish, then its possible that the hobbyist could notice the effect of the ammonia from chloramine. But do those tight qualifiers actually apply to any noticeable number of hobbyist situations? Does the hobby actually deal with the most NH3-sensitive fish and put them in that situation?
The biggest variable here is the actual sensitivity of specific hobby fish. And I'm finding it hard to pull any data on that question.
If anyone sees LC50 NH3 values for common hobby fish drop them in here. That would really help evaluate this question.
It's about whether we'd even notice if a product "detoxified" ammonia in chloramine or not.
I quoted a section of a study that said....
"
Ammonia in estuaries and effects on fish
this is too low, and the larger context of the paper indicates this is unclear or a typo, and it's the TOTAL AMMONIA value. The correct values for NH3-N are the ones quoted elsewhere, like RHF article and in another place in the paper...
"The toxicity of unionized ammonia (96 h LC50) to freshwater fish is in the range 0.068–2.0 mg/L NH3–N
(EIFAC, 1970; Seager et al., 1988; Russo & Thurston, 1991). Acute toxicity for marine species is in the range 0.09–3.35 mg/L NH3–N depending on species, temperature and pH."
I also went through the calculation showing that the maximum allowable chloramine (4ppm) is capable of producing 1.09 mg/L total ammonia nitrogen which is 0.06 mg/L NH3 at pH 8.0 or 0.14 mg/L NH3 at pH 8.4.
So to me it's an open question if a hobbyist would actually notice if their water treating product did anything to the ammonia in chloramine. (it is safely assumed every dechlorinator dechlorinates chloramine, so the issue is reduced to ammonia)
If it's a brand new tank / quarantine, with no biofilter (and none that gets established within 4 days), no light driven photosynthesis, water that is kept at mid 8's pH, max allowable chloramine, and very sensitive fish, then its possible that the hobbyist could notice the effect of the ammonia from chloramine. But do those tight qualifiers actually apply to any noticeable number of hobbyist situations? Does the hobby actually deal with the most NH3-sensitive fish and put them in that situation?
The biggest variable here is the actual sensitivity of specific hobby fish. And I'm finding it hard to pull any data on that question.
If anyone sees LC50 NH3 values for common hobby fish drop them in here. That would really help evaluate this question.
OP
OP
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
- What state or country do you live in
- Mississippi
simplest answer is that they are relating to the public the best available info at their disposal (and it seems there's a lot out there that's wrong), not advising based on any specific tests they've done, or any insider knowledge of Prime's ingredients or how it functions.
Correct me if I'm wrong and they say they are advising that based on specific tests they've conducted on fish. That just seems kind of out of their ballpark as a water treatment facility to be testing products on saltwater fish.
Our data is reproducible. The fanciest thing we've used is the seneye, and I don't have that - I'm mostly just using seachem disks. Like I said earlier, get some of the disks, some prime, ammonia drops, measure and control the pH and you'll see the same thing. As you mentioned earlier in the thread, we're not even the first people to measure this and find no detectable decrease in NH3, (precisely because the lack of effect is reproducible).
And yes, you've said you'll doubt our results regardless of what we do until you see fish subjected to NH3. If I ever see a reason to do that - maybe find a product that unequivocally works, I'll pm you the results (not post them in a fish forum). Don't hold your breath. Nothing I've seen says it's worth trying. There are no tests that show NH3 was decreased by Prime at controlled pH.
Hah! We're way too far along in this discussion to pretend controlling pH doesn't matter or is optional in the context of NH3.
Malcontent
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,225
- Reaction score
- 1,200
Cardinal tetra ammonia tolerance.
MnFish1
10K Club member
I think you're completely asking the wrong questions.
And you're not answering my question which once again: "Why do water treatment facilities across the country (that use chloramines) recommend using not only a dechlorinator as well as an ammonia detoxifier?" Perhaps your answer is that you dont know, fine. But instead of trying to re-invent the science by calculating - maybe it would be prudent to take a couple minutes and call one of them and ASK? Because my guess is they SHOULD have the science - and I do not think they have an agenda favoring NH3 detoxifiers.
As you relate above your calculations about ammonia toxicity were incorrect (no problem - I've certainly made mistakes with math/chemistry calculations). One of the problems with alot of the 'papers' - and 'guidelines' is that they say 'ammonia'. They do not say 'free ammonia' or Total ammonia, but just 'ammonia'. So then when one talks about PPM or PPB or toxicity, it becomes extremely difficult as to exactly what they are talking about.
When do most people use Prime here? IMHO - a QT tank. after an ammonia alert shows up. Most of the rest probably use RODI water - with the chloramine removed by carbon. Some people use it for an emergency I suppose. Prime is heavily used in Fresh water. Becasue people use tap water - and some tap water (like one of the references I posted) has quite a high pH (>9). So - if I had a tank with a pH of 6 - I wouldn't be worried about 'free ammonia'. If I had a tank with a pH of 8.5 or 9 - I probably would be (especially since the government recommends that I be worried about it).
As to the toxicity of ammonia in fish - here you go - I've posted this article before - when we were talking about reducing ammonia (total) - in the 'bacteria in a bottle thread' - which at the start - most people thought was 'a myth' - but then it was shown to work, after the experiments were done the correct way.
Ammonia and nitrite toxicity to false clownfish Amphiprion ocellaris - Aquaculture International
False clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris, is one of the most commercialized fish species in the world, highly produced to supply the aquarium market. The high stocking densities used to maximize fish production can increase ammonia and nitrite to toxic levels. In this study, A. ocellaris juveniles...
link.springer.com
MnFish1
10K Club member
There is a lot of data out there about the toxicity of ammonia in fish - scores of articles - most in freshwater. Alot are in ponds/streams - where obviously they aren't going to be adding additives in favor of increasing water flow. But there are several in fresh and saltwater aquaria. There are a lot of data about the toxicity of Chloramine, etc. For example in the one article I posted (from Massachusetts) - they mention humans (of course) as well as birds, dogs, cats, aquariums (most of the time was on aquariums). They must have studied the science out there - and based their recommendations on those results.simplest answer is that they are relating to the public the best available info at their disposal (and it seems there's a lot out there that's wrong), not advising based on any specific tests they've done, or any insider knowledge of Prime's ingredients or how it functions.
Correct me if I'm wrong and they say they are advising that based on specific tests they've conducted on fish. That just seems kind of out of their ballpark as a water treatment facility to be testing products on saltwater fish.
Our data is reproducible. The fanciest thing we've used is the seneye, and I don't have that - I'm mostly just using seachem disks. Like I said earlier, get some of the disks, some prime, ammonia drops, measure and control the pH and you'll see the same thing. As you mentioned earlier in the thread, we're not even the first people to measure this and find no detectable decrease in NH3, (precisely because the lack of effect is reproducible).
And yes, you've said you'll doubt our results regardless of what we do until you see fish subjected to NH3. If I ever see a reason to do that - maybe find a product that unequivocally works, I'll pm you the results (not post them in a fish forum). Don't hold your breath. Nothing I've seen says it's worth trying. There are no tests that show NH3 was decreased by Prime at controlled pH.
Hah! We're way too far along in this discussion to pretend controlling pH doesn't matter or is optional in the context of NH3.
You are wrong - I never mentioned that a water treatment facility based what they wrote based on direct tests they did on 'fish' (or birds, cats, dogs, humans, etc). BUT - since they say the chemicals are safe for everything except aquaria, they must be basing it on SOMETHING, and my guess is that they (using much more sophisticated equipment than Seachem disks) - measured ammonia levels after dechlorination at different pH and chloramine concentrations - and compared the NH3 levels to levels that have been shown to be toxic to fish. I doubt they are going to the Ampule website to decide how to make public health recommendations.
Your data is reproducible. Fine. I disagree with your methods. You aren't (in many/most) of your experiments following the recommendations of the dechlorinators, the ammonia tests, etc). You're doubling thiosufate, and quadrupling Prime, and using a Seneye (which the company says should not be reliable with Prime), and a number of other things. You then buffer the pH - without knowing whether part of the 'detoxifying part of Prime' is 'lowering pH. I.e. you're not following directions. All of those little tweaks you're doing (with the best of intentions) - are not following manufacturers directions for the testing or preparation of the samples. So - I will say it again. Assuming ALL of your testing is 'correct' - the best you can say is 'The Seachem test kit (alert and other' do not allow one to see a significant change in free ammonia. It says nothing about whether Prime (or any other product) 'detoxifies' ammonia). IMHO.
PS - you said something untrue in your post above. I never said I wouldn't 'trust your results unless you subject fish to NH3'. I said - 1). I do not entirely trust your results because of your methodology and 2). The correct way to 'prove' that something detoxifies something is an in-vivo experiment. Without that, the most you can say (Again, IMHO) - is that the tests you've done with Seachem products show no reduction in Free Ammonia. 3). I've also suggested that you contact the company (I would call them) - and ask them to do a review of your experiment - that maybe they could either give you a suggestion why you're correct, some help with designing some other confirmatory experiments, or saying it looks like you're doing everything right, we don't know', etc etc. I'm glad you emailed them.
If you read nearly every scientific article there is at least a couple paragraphs that outline the research done in years past, and then a rationale for why the new study is being done. Thats part of what my brain is missing here. (Kind of a pro/con introduction of why more research is needed - A kind of 'review of the literature'. Additionally, there is usually (at the end) - some kind of 'our results tend to show' XYZ, however it may be that these results are explained by ABCDE, and more studies are needed. You jump right from testing Seachem alert badges to 'Prime does not detoxify ammonia'. Once again - your results do not support that statement.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 7,571
- Reaction score
- 7,962
This question is a ridiculous distraction to the topic we are discussing. The topic is “Prime does not reduce ammonia concentration. Ammonia concentration is linked to the severity of its toxicity, therefore Prime is not an effective ammonia detoxifier”
Misdirecting and distracting is a common debate tactic. Give it a rest.
MnFish1
10K Club member
"Two methods can be used to remove chloramine from water to be used in aquariums or ornamental fish ponds: addition of specific agents, which will remove chloramine and ammonia, or use of granular activated carbon (GAC) filter. A home test kit may be purchased to test the aquarium water for total chlorine and ammonia. Most pet stores sell dechlorinating agents and recommend their use. It may take more dechlorinating agent and more time to remove chloramine than chlorine.
Ammonia can be toxic to fish, although all fish produce some ammonia as a natural by-product. Commercial products are available at pet stores to remove excess ammonia. Biological filters, natural zeolites and pH control methods are also effective in reducing the toxic effects of ammonia. Ammonia removal is especially important at high pH, because at a higher pH, ammonia is more toxic to fish. Chloramine can also be removed by using a GAC filter. It is important to allow the appropriate amount of contact time for chloramine removal using that method (Kirmeyer et al., 2004).
What you seem to fail to see - is that YOUR METHODS and thus YOUR CONCLUSIONS MAY be wrong (MAY IS EMPHASIZED). And what I've said is - lets assume your RESULTS are 'correct', there are more than one possible explanation for the results - 1) either Prime does not lower free ammonia (i.e. you're thesis is correct), 2)Prime lowers free ammonia but not to the degree shown in your tests. 3). Seachem's test kits are not that great at testing free ammonia changes in the degrees you're using - but Prime can still be used to 'detoxify' ammonia. (i.e. Seachem tests are poor indicators of free ammonia). 4). There is some other confounding variable.
So, there, - I admitted (for the 10th time) I said you might be correct. There is IMHO - an equal chance or more - that your conclusions are incorrect.
Ammonia can be toxic to fish, although all fish produce some ammonia as a natural by-product. Commercial products are available at pet stores to remove excess ammonia. Biological filters, natural zeolites and pH control methods are also effective in reducing the toxic effects of ammonia. Ammonia removal is especially important at high pH, because at a higher pH, ammonia is more toxic to fish. Chloramine can also be removed by using a GAC filter. It is important to allow the appropriate amount of contact time for chloramine removal using that method (Kirmeyer et al., 2004).
Yes - you're doing an excellent job distracting from an important question - which is basically the solution to doing an in-vivo test (which you do not want to do) - If the products do not work - why does every water treatment system recommend a method to remove ammonia both when starting new aquaria as well as large water changes. As @taricha has already said - small water changes probably produce very little ammonia - and it will be handled by the biological filter. LOL. Its not a ridiculous distraction.
What you seem to fail to see - is that YOUR METHODS and thus YOUR CONCLUSIONS MAY be wrong (MAY IS EMPHASIZED). And what I've said is - lets assume your RESULTS are 'correct', there are more than one possible explanation for the results - 1) either Prime does not lower free ammonia (i.e. you're thesis is correct), 2)Prime lowers free ammonia but not to the degree shown in your tests. 3). Seachem's test kits are not that great at testing free ammonia changes in the degrees you're using - but Prime can still be used to 'detoxify' ammonia. (i.e. Seachem tests are poor indicators of free ammonia). 4). There is some other confounding variable.
So, there, - I admitted (for the 10th time) I said you might be correct. There is IMHO - an equal chance or more - that your conclusions are incorrect.
A couple of questions:
- Does binding NH3 prevent or limit its detection by the various test methods used? Yes or No?
- Does binding NH3 prevent or limit its uptake in fish? Yes or No?
- Did the testing performed demonstrate that Prime did or did not bind NH3?
MnFish1
10K Club member
The answer - it depends (supposedly) on which test you use, the detection limits, margin of error, etc - of the test.
Unknown. Its one method it could be 'detoxified'
It (to my reading) was faulty in that various chemicals used were no where near what would be used in a normal aquarium - and there were post test adjustments to pH. Also I'm not sure the Seachem alert badges were allowed to 'sit' long enough to generate a complete response. And lastly - according to Seachem (at least my interpretation) - one cannot do these tests this way.
The good news is - there are plenty of companies out there that claim their product does the same thing. With patents describing the ingredient.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 7,571
- Reaction score
- 7,962
In principle, no. In practice yes. The water treatment products like Prime also neutralize hypochlorite and interfere with the total ammonia test, indicating a concentration of ammonia lower than what it actually is. Then, depending on the nature of the ammonia binder, the high pH of total ammonia tests may destroy the ammonia binder, giving a concentration that indicate no binding.
Measuring free ammonia does not suffer from these interferences. Ion selective electrodes and their cousin ammonia sensing films work by selectively allowing the ammonia to permeate through a membrane and alter the pH of the sensing device which is then correlated to free NH3 concentration. In this case, the ammonia binders do not interfere ammonia measurement and there are no chemicals to interfere with any bound ammonia.
Yes
The tests that we performed used three different calibrated ammonia sensing films in saltwater and no reduction of ammonia was observed, i.e. no binding. These results were replicated multiple times and the sensing films were unaffected by being exposed to Prime, specifically, they continued to detect ammonia, kept there calibration, and their response time stayed the same. What occurs in freshwater was not investigated.
OP
OP
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
- What state or country do you live in
- Mississippi
Thanks for these good questions.
@Dan_P answer above is accurate and concise so I'll let myself ramble and expand on a couple of things.
3. Total ammonia testing showed no evidence of decreased total ammonia - some level of lower color occurs, but this can be shown to be from the dechlorinator interference - not reduced ammonia. Still detected the majority of the ammonia added to the solution. This was true with both API and Red Sea total ammonia tests.
NH3 sensing gas-permeable films are directly measuring the toxic NH3.
Seachem Alert badges, Seneye films (in or out of the electronic device), and seachem multi-test disks all say that the NH3 amount is unaffected by Prime.
This was true at low <0.5ppm or high 2+ppm total ammonia. It was true at minimum recommended Prime dose, high recommended (5x) dose, and at overdoses above the recommended amounts.
That is to say....
Tests that show ammonia - total or the more relevant free (nh3) being unchanged in saltwater due to Prime:
API (total), Red Sea (total), Seachem Alert (free), Seneye - in or out of electronic reader (free), Seachem multi-test disks (free).
Tests that show ammonia - total or free being bound by Prime in saltwater:
none
2. If (free) NH3 were bound, yes, it would be prevented from entering the fish. The permeability to tissues (and NH3 films) is limited to the gaseous NH3 form. Changing the molecule in any way - to NH4+, NO2, NO3, N2, to any amino acid, to sulfamate etc. would largely or totally prevent it from passing into fish tissues. It also would totally prevent its detection by NH3 films. We've run these compounds (not every amino acid - but a handful of good candidates) vs NH3 films, and they are totally undetected.
But let me go further. Even if a product had magic "detoxifying" pixie dust in it, and upon addition to the water it left every NH3 molecule as NH3 (did not change the concentration), but made the NH3 magically unable to enter a fish, that still would not solve toxicity. All organisms generate internal NH3. And it moves mostly by diffusion from high concentration to low, so even if not a single molecule of the high NH3 in the water entered the fish, the fish would still suffer toxic NH3 internally because fundamentally, you can't passively remove NH3 from the blood into high NH3 water outside. That would be breaking some very fundamental physics / chemistry laws of how things work.
1. See Dan's answer. Some forms that NH3 could be "bound" into could plausibly register on total ammonia tests (NH4+ fully detected, amino acids partially detected), but this is not the case for NH3 films.
TLDR: if you want an accurate concise answer, Dan's got you covered. If you want something more ramble-y I'm here for ya.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Thanks - I think this is a much better way of stating your results. I know I have seemed to criticize your work - I think its important to look at products and how they work. I believe that (except for using the Seneye improperly (according to them) there is a suggestion that either Prime does not work as expected - or that their testing is not sensitive enough to tell these things. It is my intent to do a more in-vivo test - with Prime - and Amquel and a totally different ammonia test (i.e. not a Seachem test) and post the results. Before doing so will post the proposed methods - so people can rip them apartThanks for these good questions.
@Dan_P answer above is accurate and concise so I'll let myself ramble and expand on a couple of things.
3. Total ammonia testing showed no evidence of decreased total ammonia - some level of lower color occurs, but this can be shown to be from the dechlorinator interference - not reduced ammonia. Still detected the majority of the ammonia added to the solution. This was true with both API and Red Sea total ammonia tests.
NH3 sensing gas-permeable films are directly measuring the toxic NH3.
Seachem Alert badges, Seneye films (in or out of the electronic device), and seachem multi-test disks all say that the NH3 amount is unaffected by Prime.
This was true at low <0.5ppm or high 2+ppm total ammonia. It was true at minimum recommended Prime dose, high recommended (5x) dose, and at overdoses above the recommended amounts.
That is to say....
Tests that show ammonia - total or the more relevant free (nh3) being unchanged in saltwater due to Prime:
API (total), Red Sea (total), Seachem Alert (free), Seneye - in or out of electronic reader (free), Seachem multi-test disks (free).
Tests that show ammonia - total or free being bound by Prime in saltwater:
none
2. If (free) NH3 were bound, yes, it would be prevented from entering the fish. The permeability to tissues (and NH3 films) is limited to the gaseous NH3 form. Changing the molecule in any way - to NH4+, NO2, NO3, N2, to any amino acid, to sulfamate etc. would largely or totally prevent it from passing into fish tissues. It also would totally prevent its detection by NH3 films. We've run these compounds (not every amino acid - but a handful of good candidates) vs NH3 films, and they are totally undetected.
But let me go further. Even if a product had magic "detoxifying" pixie dust in it, and upon addition to the water it left every NH3 molecule as NH3 (did not change the concentration), but made the NH3 magically unable to enter a fish, that still would not solve toxicity. All organisms generate internal NH3. And it moves mostly by diffusion from high concentration to low, so even if not a single molecule of the high NH3 in the water entered the fish, the fish would still suffer toxic NH3 internally because fundamentally, you can't passively remove NH3 from the blood into high NH3 water outside. That would be breaking some very fundamental physics / chemistry laws of how things work.
1. See Dan's answer. Some forms that NH3 could be "bound" into could plausibly register on total ammonia tests (NH4+ fully detected, amino acids partially detected), but this is not the case for NH3 films.
TLDR: if you want an accurate concise answer, Dan's got you covered. If you want something more ramble-y I'm here for ya.
... Thanks for all the work guys. I continue to strongly believe that (through whatever mechanism) Prime helps especially in 'new tanks' - with no bio-filter as well as freshwater tanks with a high pH. I also believe that. there is more than one 'ingredient' in Prime as compared to some opinions here.
Again - thanks for all your work
OP
OP
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
- What state or country do you live in
- Mississippi
No response on this in two weeks.
I sent this email and got (automated) confirmation that it was recieved on 10/2. And another (automated) confirmation three days later "Sorry for the delay..." etc.
But nothing else. So no enlightening discussions with seachem techs to share.
I sent this email and got (automated) confirmation that it was recieved on 10/2. And another (automated) confirmation three days later "Sorry for the delay..." etc.
But nothing else. So no enlightening discussions with seachem techs to share.
Anyway, I put together the simplest possible demonstration I could think of for the issue, and sent it to Seachem, to see if there's some path for unexpected clarity....
subject: Treating my Tap water with Prime, and the free ammonia multi-test
"Good morning.
I'm trying to understand how to make sure Prime is binding any NH3 there might be in the tap water I use for my reef tank.
I was wondering if the below pictures were consistent with the expected behavior of Prime and the NH3 sensing disks, or if one of the products is not working as it should, and I should get it replaced?
I took my tap water (low chloramine but detectable, about 0.5ppm on salicylate total ammonia test) and put it in 500mL beakers. One was just the tap water, one got Thiosulfate in excess (40ppm) to release the NH3, and the 3rd got a double dose of Prime. I used the Ammonia multi-test NH3 sensing disks to check. They were pulled out to photograph after being stirred in the samples for 2 hours, and the pH was measured.
This seems good, I think. Does everything look right? The Thiosulfate released measurable NH3, and the Prime almost none (tiniest bit of blue, less than in untreated tap water). It appears that Prime is indeed binding almost all the NH3 released by dechlorinating the tap water chloramines.
Then I buffered each beaker of tap water with a mL of saturated baking soda water, adjusted the pH to ~8.5 with a little dilute HCl, and let the NH3 sensing disks remain in the solution, stirring occasionally. I pulled out the disks to photograph them after 5 hours at the new buffered pH.
Is this picture consistent with how Prime and the NH3 sensing disks should work? Or do I need to get a replacement for one or both of them? Did Prime re-release bound NH3 when the water was buffered to pH ~8.5?"
We'll see if the response offers clarity other than what's already pretty clear.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
"Binding" ammonia does not have any clear definition, so it is not possible to answer the question.
IF you tell me what you mean by bind, I'll answer the questions.
FWIW, I know of materials that will "bind" ammonia/ammonium and reduce the toxicity (e.g., certain zeolites), and others that will bind ammonia and not reduce the toxicity (say, acetate, where the binding is simple ionic binding) that will not end up appreciably reducing free ammonia. .
Last edited:
