Is .057 phosphate high?

reeffirstaid

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
449
Reaction score
85
Location
Maryland
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I usually use a liquid test kit, that reads my phosphates at .02 or .03. I got a Hanna low range phosphorus checker, and it read 57 ppb which converts to .057 ppm. Is that high?
 
No, thats normal range. Range sits from .05 to .01.
 
I usually use a liquid test kit, that reads my phosphates at .02 or .03. I got a Hanna low range phosphorus checker, and it read 57 ppb which converts to .057 ppm. Is that high?

You are reading it wrong if you have the HI-736 which reads in ppb of PHOSPHORUS, not phosphate. If you have 57ppb of phosphorus, you actually have 0.175ppm of phosphate which is very, very high.

The formula to convert the reading on the ULR checker to ppm of phosphate is [ULR Reading] * 95 / 31 / 1000 = PPM Phosphate
 
You are reading it wrong if you have the HI-736 which reads in ppb of PHOSPHORUS, not phosphate. If you have 57ppb of phosphorus, you actually have 0.175ppm of phosphate which is very, very high.

The formula to convert the reading on the ULR checker to ppm of phosphate is [ULR Reading] * 95 / 31 / 1000 = PPM Phosphate

this is the correct formula or you can take your reading XXXppb * 3.066/1000 to get a pretty accurate number. But your levels are very very high. As a guideline, I don't like my reader to read any higher than 15ppb.
 
You guys are right, the website where I got the formula I used is incorrect. I will re-test and see what is going on. I find it hard to believe my phosphate level is that high, as my tank runs biopellets, but all the other websites I looked at, show the formula you guys have, except the one I first found.
 
BTW thanks guys. I added a zeovit reactor (which is still cycling) to my tank not long ago, a removed my GFO reactor. I was getting some cyanobacteria in my frag tank (which is attached to my main system) and thought it was just the zeovit cycling. I tested phosphate with my test kit, and it looked like .03, but colors on some of these kits are tricky to match up, which is why I bought the Hanna meter. I went ahead and put my GFO reactor back online, which will hopefully pull the phosphate down to a more acceptable level. Does anyone know, can zeovit reactors leech phosphate during cycling?
 
BTW thanks guys. I added a zeovit reactor (which is still cycling) to my tank not long ago, a removed my GFO reactor. I was getting some cyanobacteria in my frag tank (which is attached to my main system) and thought it was just the zeovit cycling. I tested phosphate with my test kit, and it looked like .03, but colors on some of these kits are tricky to match up, which is why I bought the Hanna meter. I went ahead and put my GFO reactor back online, which will hopefully pull the phosphate down to a more acceptable level. Does anyone know, can zeovit reactors leech phosphate during cycling?

The phosphate drop-test kits are garbage - it isn't going to confirm your Hanna results. My Salifert kit will read 0.00 all the up to 0.12ppm of phosphate and the Red Sea Pro isn't much better reading 0.00 up to around 0.08ppm. You can't compare the results you get with the Hanna to the drop tests. The Hanna is accurate to +/-5ppb which is 0.15ppm of phosphate whereas the drop kits have error 5x that before you factor in human error and lighting for reading the results.
 
I have a Hanna 713 phosphate checker and my phosphate is at .57 is that high
USER_SCOPED_TEMP_DATA_MSGR_PHOTO_FOR_UPLOAD_1626482310913_6821961262593794422.jpeg
 
I have a Hanna 713 phosphate checker and my phosphate is at .57 is that high
yes
Typically anything over .1ppm is considered high. You should also be aware the low range checker you are using is not as accurate compared to the ultra low range checker 774. Good number to shoot for would be .05ppm the 713 checker has a .04ppm error range while the ULR 774 has a .02 error range. Much better for accurate readings around the .05ppm target.

What are your nitrate levels? Perhaps your nitrate is low and your photosynthetic organisms and algae are unable to utilize the phosphate.
 
If you say your tank is fine between .1-.3 and it's working then keep doing what you are doing. No one is saying you can't go over .1 but when someone new asks if their phosphate is high at .57 or what range they should be looking for then yes .02 - .1 is what most would say is a good range and over .1 is getting on the high side.

Funny I don't see anyone here advocating chasing numbers or making rapid changes either..
 
This should help phosphorus to phosphate conversation table.

Did mine today read 1ppb so 0.003 just fed reed roids and will test tomorrow, no doubt it will read around the 12-15 mark.

Screenshot_20210509-200703_Polaris Office.jpg
 
Mine reads .57 and my war coral is dying
I missed a zero....sorry, I meant to say .05 - .1, but with that said, in my early days of this nano my war coral sustained HUGE phosphate swings....I literally had "1.0" ppm couple times. But it usually was spiking up around .7 daily....took me awhile to get the nano under control. lol. He also grew (somehow) inside a giant patch of GHA that is all gone now.
 
I missed a zero....sorry, I meant to say .05 - .1, but with that said, in my early days of this nano my war coral sustained HUGE phosphate swings....I literally had "1.0" ppm couple times. But it usually was spiking up around .7 daily....took me awhile to get the nano under control. lol. He also grew (somehow) inside a giant patch of GHA that is all gone now.
It's driving me nuts. I'm using gfo and phosphate pads and water change every 3 days. Nothing
 
I’ve seen threads here filled with people advocating .2 .3 even .5. Phosphates seem to be a very personal choice and there’s examples of success with a wide range of levels. Just keep things stable and corals can adapt. If they couldn’t we wouldn’t be able to keep any in a tank out of the ocean
 

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