Prime Does Not Remove Ammonia

[Dan_P]

See the problem here - is that you are assuming that you are growing 'biospira biofilms'. No clue at all whether you are or not, But its a comment

Right, I could be growing little fairies. They must have contaminated my bottle of BioSpira when I wasn’t looking.

 

[LRT]

Haha, let’s get off track. I am growing and testing BioSpira biofilms and I am not so sure they stay fully active when the ammonia is depleted. I need to do much more work to clarify this. Also, I am no longer certain about where the ammonia oxidizing activity is occurring during the first 2-4 weeks of cycling. We say the surface but my data suggests otherwise. I need much more data to straighten this out.

Dan this is killing me. Can we get a hint at what the data is suggesting? Im probably way off but thinking water column or substrate? Hope to see findings on that!

 

[Dan_P]

Dan this is killing me. Can we get a hint at what the data is suggesting? Im probably way off but thinking water column or substrate? Hope to see findings on that!

Happy to share.

 

[MnFish1]

Dan, could you zoom in on the Y-axis for me here?





To be clear, MnFish1 said this a few times in a few threads that we did this, but it isn't the case. I didn't use any seneye or seachem or any other film device to "measure" the absurdly high NH3 in the samples that was needed to kill amphipods. Of course those sensitive films are maxed out well before anything approaching that range.
I determined NH3 by careful stock addition and calculation / pH control. I plopped a seneye disk in each sample just as a check that no huge reduction of ammonia occurred. They all stayed very blue with or without Prime. That only says there was "lots" of NH3. The "measurement" part, was that amphipods stopped swimming normally at the same time frame and died in the same time frame with X ppm ammonia or X ppm of ammonia + a linearly scaled matching dose of Prime - that was the NH3 "measurement" part.



Yeah, at least ammonia coming from tap water chloramine. Prime will make the NH3 sensing films show clearly lower NH3 in the seachem films than they do if you dechlorinate with thiosulfate. i.e. The NH3 coming from the chloramine is significantly lowered by Prime....BUT

...if you measure pH you'll find that the reduced NH3 is due to lower pH from dechlorinating with Prime than with thiosulphate. And when you add a small amount of buffer to bring them to the same pH (8.2 when I did it), Prime disks color back up indistinguishable to the ones in the samples dechlorinated by thiosulphate. That is, simply correcting/controlling the pH makes prime indistinguishable from the zero effect of thiosulphate for removing the NH3 generated by dechlorinating tap water chloramine.

So yes Prime offers significant NH3 reduction in tap water by lowering pH. Buffer/correct pH to SW levels and the NH3 reduction disappears.



This was my experience from looking into it. I found no "live food" type organisms available that had published LC50 NH3 concentrations anywhere in the realm of plausible concentrations of interest in hobby systems. Not even ammonia - dosed cycling ones.

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrect) that you(and I dont know if it was dan (or taricha_) had stated that to get a toxic level for (your test organism - which I think was amphipods) I'm not going to go back to each thread -but my interpretation (and no offense to you) was that the amphipod experiment that I'm talking about - required - a pH of 8.6 and and 8 PPM of ammonia that is not supported by any of the test kits you used. In other words - when I contacted seachem - and seneye -neither documented the ability to read parameters in this range.

NO Offense - go ahead call them - prove me wrong

 

[LRT]

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrect) that you(and I dont know if it was dan (or taricha_) had stated that to get a toxic level for (your test organism - which I think was amphipods) I'm not going to go back to each thread -but my interpretation (and no offense to you) was that the amphipod experiment that I'm talking about - required - a pH of 8.6 and and 8 PPM of ammonia that is not supported by any of the test kits you used. In other words - when I contacted seachem - and seneye -neither documented the ability to read parameters in this range.

NO Offense - go ahead call them - prove me wrong

If I may intercede a bit here. Cant speak on seachem but the work Dan has done with Seneye that many of us can cosign as to observing much of what he has seen in comparison to lab grade equipment and all. Its clear certain things are being held back as far as testing and results. Maybe its intellectual property or trade secrets or all of the above but Dan is doing some great work here. Just have to look a little closer. All loves and respects to all.

 

[SMSREEF]

Right, I could be growing little fairies. They must have contaminated my bottle of BioSpira when I wasn’t looking.

 

[LRT]

I really like Wapner for that

 

[taricha]

prove me wrong

I can't! You are absolutely right! It is complete nonsense to make a measurement at super high ammonia/pH with a seachem or seneye film. They just max out, and you couldn't possibly get a good number from a fully blue film.
(and you'll be pleased to know neither myself or Dan ever did such a thing.)

I'm not going to go back to each thread...

Lol, you really should, though.

I mean, you've now posted in at least four separate(1) different(2) threads(3), saying(4) repeatedly(4 again) that I used a seneye or seachem film to make a measurement in absurdly high ammonia and high pH, as an example of why my or Dan's measurements are invalid.

Aren't you curious enough to check the original post you've criticized so much to make sure I actually used a seneye or seachem film to determine lethally high ammonia like you keep saying I did?

 

[MnFish1]

I can't! You are absolutely right! It is complete nonsense to make a measurement at super high ammonia/pH with a seachem or seneye film. They just max out, and you couldn't possibly get a good number from a fully blue film.
(and you'll be pleased to know neither myself or Dan ever did such a thing.)



Lol, you really should, though.

I mean, you've now posted in at least four separate(1) different(2) threads(3), saying(4) repeatedly(4 again) that I used a seneye or seachem film to make a measurement in absurdly high ammonia and high pH, as an example of why my or Dan's measurements are invalid.

Aren't you curious enough to check the original post you've criticized so much to make sure I actually used a seneye or seachem film to determine lethally high ammonia like you keep saying I did?

1. Yes - you did a study with Amphipods - in which you had a pH of 8.6 or so - and 12 ppm ammonia (total) - I never said that ALL of the studies done were with a high ammonia level. BTW the comment I made was based on what Seneye and Seachem said about the use of their products. I am well aware that most of the studies you did were with 1 ppm ammonia +/-. My other comment was that Seneye specifically said that it would not be accurate after using Prime.
2. As to this experiment - you are mis-stating the conclusions and the experiment itself. It was not designed to 'find a number'. It was designed to compare what happens with 2 Seachem alert disks in FRESHWATER - one containing prime the other not. The starting free ammonia concentration was not 'lethal' it was between 4 and 8 ppm, the disks did not 'max out' - as you can see by the chart below. Instead they showed an 'alert level'. Both of them about the same suggesting that Prime did not lower free ammonia concentration. more ammonia was added - but the pH was low (as it was RODI) - and again - both disks showed an alert/alarm level (they were not Maxed out) - and there was no difference between Prime and No Prime THIS is the experiment. If Prime did something 'immediately' the disk containing Prime would have been a different color right?. The pH was then raised, the free ammonia was then at alarm++ level. The disk was nearly at the top - but again - that doesn't matter. If Prime was doing anything, the level would have been lower in the Prime containing water.
3. This is why in the conclusion I mentioned this issue in the limitations - and stated that I was going to repeat the experiment adding ammonia maybe 0.5 ppm every couple of hours - and comparing the Disks response over a longer time. The next time I will buffer the water to pH 8 (which is about 1.5 TSP to each pitcher).

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

2. As to this experiment - you are mis-stating the conclusions and the experiment itself. It was not designed to 'find a number'. It was designed to compare what happens with 2 Seachem alert disks in FRESHWATER - one containing prime the other not. The starting free ammonia concentration was not 'lethal' it was between 4 and 8 ppm, the disks did not 'max out' - as you can see by the chart below. Instead they showed an 'alert level'. Both of them about the same suggesting that Prime did not lower free ammonia concentration. more ammonia was added - but the pH was low (as it was RODI) - and again - both disks showed an alert/alarm level (they were not Maxed out) - and there was no difference between Prime and No Prime THIS is the experiment. If Prime did something 'immediately' the disk containing Prime would have been a different color right?. The pH was then raised, the free ammonia was then at alarm++ level. The disk was nearly at the top - but again - that doesn't matter. If Prime was doing anything, the level would have been lower in the Prime containing water.

I'm confused about this paragraph. Are you discussing an experiment you did? Where is it written up?

The conclusion is that Prime had no apparent effect?

 

[MnFish1]

I'm confused about this paragraph. Are you discussing an experiment you did? Where is it written up?

The conclusion is that Prime had no apparent effect?

The experiment is written up in the 'Experiment forum'. I posted the link earlier in the thread.

EDIT - and it was done - because you and others questioned whether Prime might work in freshwater - and not saltwater.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm confused about this paragraph. Are you discussing an experiment you did? Where is it written up?

The conclusion is that Prime had no apparent effect?

And - yes - the conclusion - in this situation - Prime had no apparent effect on free ammonia. Which supports the theory that 1) Prime does not lower free ammonia or 2) the tests we're using are not appropriate.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Which supports the theory that 1) Prime does not lower free ammonia or 2) the tests we're using are not appropriate.

Except that Seachem says the test device used is suitable. They must be wrong about one or the other (or both).

 

[MnFish1]

Except that Seachem says the test device used is suitable. They must be wrong about one or the other (or both).

Yes - I agree - On the phone - Seachem stated the alert badge is not the preferred way to analyze free ammonia (in the presence of prime). They recommend the multitest. This at least was my understanding. This experiment was a quick/easy way to determine whether the Alert badge (which was clearly reading correctly) - showed any difference. As reported - it did not.

Their (paraphrased - hopefully correctly) comments were that the badges/test kits are not designed to measure levels that do not occur in natural tanks (same with Seneye).. One problem when studying this is that, for example, when studying Dr. Tim's, the drops recommended often way overshoot the actual ammonia thats supposed to be there (according to @Coxey81).

There have been comments made that I have been unfair - in commenting on Taricha's and Dan's work. The comments related to using doses/amounts of prime that were far higher than recommended in a 'real tank' (at times - NOT EVERY TIME).

 

[MnFish1]

Except that Seachem says the test device used is suitable. They must be wrong about one or the other (or both).

As I said - before - it might depend on the levels. As @Dan_P has said its extremely difficult to 'see' a color change when the total ammonia is 1 ppm (a change in the free ammonia).

The seneye would seem to be the perfect way to measure this - but they do not recommend using the instrument in the presence of prime.

 

[Dan_P]

As I said - before - it might depend on the levels. As @Dan_P has said its extremely difficult to 'see' a color change when the total ammonia is 1 ppm (a change in the free ammonia).

The seneye would seem to be the perfect way to measure this - but they do not recommend using the instrument in the presence of prime.

Did Seneye say why they don’t recommend with Prime? Is Cloramx OK?

 

[MnFish1]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

PS - here is what the website says:

Does Ammonia Alert® properly detect toxic ammonia in the presence of Prime?
A: If the Prime® has not complexed with the ammonia yet it will detect it, but it won't detect it if the Prime® has already complexed it (which makes sense because when Prime® has complexed with the ammonia it is no longer toxic). If you want to know the total ammonia level (free, ionized and complexed) you would need to run a Total Ammonia Test (like with our MultiTest Ammonia)

It is possible in the experiment I did - that I did not wait long enough - I have heard its best (with the alert) - to wait up to 2 hours - whereas I waited 10 minutes.

 

[MnFish1]

Did Seneye say why they don’t recommend with Prime? Is Cloramx OK?

They said 'various additives' can affect the slide on the seneye - thus they do not support its use in the presence of prime. I did not ask about Cloramx. What might be interesting is to test Ammolock (with API) - as they say on their bottle - that API tests can detect the difference. "AMMO LOCK ammonia detoxifier is now detectable by API Ammonia Test Kits."

 

[taricha]

2. As to this [MnFish1] experiment - you are mis-stating the conclusions and the experiment itself. It was not designed to 'find a number'. It was designed to compare what happens with 2 Seachem alert disks in FRESHWATER

I didn't reference or your experiment at all. I haven't read it yet. I was referring only to the amphipod test I did that you've repeatedly criticized.

What might be interesting is to test Ammolock (with API) - as they say on their bottle - that API tests can detect the difference. "AMMO LOCK ammonia detoxifier is now detectable by API Ammonia Test Kits."

I did look at Ammo Lock quickly.
The effect looked just like Prime etc. No NH3 decrease as measured by seachem film (multi-test disks), and a small but clear decrease in API salicylate total ammonia result (like Prime) that's indistinguishable from the interference caused by a dechlorinator (which Ammo lock contains - see MSDS)

I didn't spend too much time on Ammo Lock. One can only measure "zero" so many times before he gets bored and moves on.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

PS - here is what the website says:

Does Ammonia Alert® properly detect toxic ammonia in the presence of Prime?
A: If the Prime® has not complexed with the ammonia yet it will detect it, but it won't detect it if the Prime® has already complexed it (which makes sense because when Prime® has complexed with the ammonia it is no longer toxic). If you want to know the total ammonia level (free, ionized and complexed) you would need to run a Total Ammonia Test (like with our MultiTest Ammonia)

It is possible in the experiment I did - that I did not wait long enough - I have heard its best (with the alert) - to wait up to 2 hours - whereas I waited 10 minutes.

Yes, I've read the Seachem info saying the alert badge is suitable for measuring free ammonia when Prime is used.

Dan and others demonstrate it is not showing a change. Hence Dan's proper conclusion in the title of this thread.

Might the world be more complicated than we or Seachem understand? Certainly.