What’s using the flouride?

[Righteous]

Has there been any consensus or evidence presented about what might be using fluoride in our reef tanks? I’ve run a large number of both Triton and Oceamo ICP tests, and consistently find that fluoride is consumed in my tank on a steady basis. Scanning the forum it seems to be fairly common now that people are checking with ICP.

Is it chemically possible for a process like remineralization that occurs with teeth to be occurring with coral skeletons?

 

[Dan_P]

Has there been any consensus or evidence presented about what might be using fluoride in our reef tanks? I’ve run a large number of both Triton and Oceamo ICP tests, and consistently find that fluoride is consumed in my tank on a steady basis. Scanning the forum it seems to be fairly common now that people are checking with ICP.

Is it chemically possible for a process like remineralization that occurs with teeth to be occurring with coral skeletons?

In an aquarium, the loss could just be the precipitation of calcium fluoride.

 

[rtparty]

Nothing is "using" it. It is being "used" randomly and by accident. RHF has talked about this many times

....and Dan answered before I hit reply

 

[KrisReef]

Can you post a picture of your fishes teeth?

 

[Righteous]

Nothing is "using" it. It is being "used" randomly and by accident. RHF has talked about this many times

....and Dan answered before I hit reply

I don’t think that’s been established. If we’re seeing only calcium fluoride precipitation by accident it’s possible; but it could also be occurring with biological use as well. So if a large percentage is random precipitation, it would be hard to determine biological activity. Anecdotal evidence (which I always take with a huge grain of salt) is that maintaining NSW levels seems to help with coral health (I’ve noticed the same). So if that’s the case then possibly something other than random accident is occurring; even if we can’t figure out what.

 

[Righteous]

Also want to note that fluoride is definitely found in coral skeletons.

This article talks about how skeletons of Acropora remain more exposed after calcification than stylos.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.1c11434

So I would assume that like tooth enamel, voids in the exposed skeleton as the aragonite crystalizes, (caused by lower pH), might be filled by flouride ions?

 

[rtparty]

Also want to note that fluoride is definitely found in coral skeletons.

This article talks about how skeletons of Acropora remain more exposed after calcification than stylos.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.1c11434

So I would assume that like tooth enamel, voids in the exposed aragonite crystals caused by lower pH might be filled by flouride ions?

Again, Randy has gone over this in depth many many many times. There is no use for fluoride in our systems

 

[rtparty]

Randy's Elements to Dose

In a previous article I discussed my thoughts on trace elements https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/randys-thoughts-on-trace-elements.951/ This article expands on that discussion by providing specific guidance for all elements one might dose. First, some explanation. I have listed many elements as...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Righteous]

I’ve never seen Randy say something like “it has no use” unless he was certain. In fact in that article you link Randy highlighted flourine as “experimental to dose” meaning it might be having an effect and isn’t harmful to see.

His point as I understand is that we don’t have enough data about things like strontium etc that get taken into coral by accident to say for sure one way or another. Which is frankly why I’m bringing it up again; as science moves forward and we have more data, and we have more data from aquarists doing ICP and monitoring coral changes and health, we can reevaluate open areas of question.

So I believe it’s still an open question, not a “it is proveably of zero use; and allowing it to bottom out is okay”. Normally Randy says “certainly NSW levels are preferred”

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Also want to note that fluoride is definitely found in coral skeletons.

This article talks about how skeletons of Acropora remain more exposed after calcification than stylos.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.1c11434

So I would assume that like tooth enamel, voids in the exposed skeleton as the aragonite crystalizes, (caused by lower pH), might be filled by flouride ions?

Chemicals in a skeleton say nothing about whether they are needed or useful in the skeleton, or just accidental incorporations as uranium is.

I list fluoride dosing as experimental here:

Randy's Elements to Dose

In a previous article I discussed my thoughts on trace elements https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/randys-thoughts-on-trace-elements.951/ This article expands on that discussion by providing specific guidance for all elements one might dose. First...

www.reef2reef.com

Craig Bingman has a very old article on Fluoride here:

Aquarium Frontiers On-Line: Biochemistry In The Aquarium

 

[Righteous]

So I’ve read all of these articles before and Craig’s quoted research is from the 80s and 90s. Primarily what I was asking is if anyone has heard anything new. Craig says “It is at present unclear if fluoride promotes the health of corals or other calcifying organisms, or if it affects calcification in either a positive or negative manner.” I think he’s a little more clear that fish teeth benefit.

Randy, I think you’re saying the consensus hasn’t changed much over the last 30 years or so, and is still at “we don’t know”? Craig stated “It has been historically difficult to construct a rigorously zero fluoride diet for experimental animals”. I would also assume that accidental precipitations also cause confounding issues.

But “we dont know” is great. It’s what moves science forward. But based on at least @rtparty response (and I have seen others), some aquarists believe its been proved to not be needed. That stance for a topic that is an open question is the opposite of helpful in moving the reef hobby forward.

I think if that’s all we have to go on; then based on some common sense about fluoride’s roll in teeth remineralization for acid damage, it’s presence in all vertebrates skeletons (even if 100% accidental), a significant percent of reefers showing positive health effects, and our current access to quantification via ICP, I would think the consensus should be we should be dosing or water changes to maintain NSW.

Obviously it’s possible that the usage is all accidental, but I don’t see an argument for keeping dosing to NSW as just experimental. What would be the reason to dose strontium then? (it’s beneficial to other organisms, but is that beneficial to our coral health?)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

So I’ve read all of these articles before and Craig’s quoted research is from the 80s and 90s. Primarily what I was asking is if anyone has heard anything new. Craig says “It is at present unclear if fluoride promotes the health of corals or other calcifying organisms, or if it affects calcification in either a positive or negative manner.” I think he’s a little more clear that fish teeth benefit.

Randy, I think you’re saying the consensus hasn’t changed much over the last 30 years or so, and is still at “we don’t know”? Craig stated “It has been historically difficult to construct a rigorously zero fluoride diet for experimental animals”. I would also assume that accidental precipitations also cause confounding issues.

But “we dont know” is great. It’s what moves science forward. But based on at least @rtparty response (and I have seen others), some aquarists believe its been proved to not be needed. That stance for a topic that is an open question is the opposite of helpful in moving the reef hobby forward.

I think if that’s all we have to go on; then based on some common sense about fluoride’s roll in teeth remineralization for acid damage, it’s presence in all vertebrates skeletons (even if 100% accidental), a significant percent of reefers showing positive health effects, and our current access to quantification via ICP, I would think the consensus should be we should be dosing or water changes to maintain NSW.

Obviously it’s possible that the usage is all accidental, but I don’t see an argument for keeping dosing to NSW as just experimental. What would be the reason to dose strontium then? (it’s beneficial to other organisms, but is that beneficial to our coral health?)

It’s a fine idea to maintain everything at natural levels, whether it has a known use or not.

But that is tedious, and I recommend picking and choosing what has apparent utility.

As to testing, since what folks care about is whether they should dose it or let it drop at will, it’s not hard to test supplemented vs depleted water. That’s how I tested iodine on macroalgae. But the question is who is going to spend the time and effort.

Since you mention it as being similar, I also do not recommend strontium except if one keeps those rare animals that are known to use it.

 

[taricha]

Randy, I think you’re saying the consensus hasn’t changed much over the last 30 years or so, and is still at “we don’t know”?

I'll give you another answer, just in case you like it better.
Some SPS keepers suggest the association that F helps with blue coloration.
However no experiments have been done that would attempt to demonstrate that. And I'm not even aware of any attempt to explain a hypothetical mechanism where F would participate in blue pigmentation.

Also, I really like to keep my indoor air at 0.9% Argon for my dogs and cats. Ensures that it's at natural levels - like the air they would get in the wild.

 

[Righteous]

Also, I really like to keep my indoor air at 0.9% Argon for my dogs and cats. Ensures that it's at natural levels - like the air they would get in the wild.

That’s a great analogy actually. So let’s take it a little further. I’m sure you love your dogs and cats but raise the stakes a bit higher. Would you be willing to live and have your love ones live in a house with 0% argon (perhaps replaced with nitrogen) for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps you might initially answer yes, assuming that argon is inert.

Now let’s present research that argon affects human GABA receptors and thus has neurological effects, along with other organ protecting effects.

Argon reduces the pulmonary vascular tone in rats and humans by GABA-receptor activation - PubMed

Argon exerts neuroprotection. Thus, it might improve patients' neurological outcome after cerebral disorders or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, limited data are available concerning its effect on pulmonary vessel and airways. We used rat isolated perfused lungs (IPL) and precision-cut...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Would this data change your mind in regard to living in an apartment or house with 0% argon. We can’t prove that it will adversely affect their health over the long run. But would you now be willing to risk it based on that lack of knowledge and data of biological effects? Also let’s not forget evolution. Organisms have evolved with a certain percentage of argon in the atmosphere, and certain concentrations of fluoride in the seawater for billions of years. And often when the environment is not biologically controlled for, changes in that environment affect organisms in both positive and negative ways because evolution is slow to deal with rapid changes.

Now obviously we’re talking about corals, and not human beings so the stakes are not the same. But in a risk analysis we’d also look at cost.
Would it not seem prudent to spend maybe $100 a year on dosing to prevent what may be several hundred or thousands of dollars of loss to expensive coral. Given that coral health research gets a minuscule fraction of the funds as human health, we may never get close to the data we have on even argon with human health.

And for the record, I’m not arguing that we just start dosing anything. Only that fluoride has some known biological uses, and we have a reasonable hypothesis that it may play a role, along with anecdotal evidence. Personally I did see color improvement in Acropora. I can’t tell you if it was blue, or what, but obviously we know all sorts of coral health changes can affect coloration in different ways, even if we can’t pinpoint it.

Anyway, I’m not arguing that everyone should be dosing flouride, because, frankly, I don’t know. But I do think we should still make sure we are curious, that we are still asking questions about it, and being scientific about it. Until we have a falsifiable hypothesis, it’s best to remain skeptical of both claims fluoride is important and unimportant.

I initially posted this because I couldn’t find anything substantial one way or the other and was hoping there was more up to date info. It’s a shame we are asking some of the same questions 30 years on. I think what would be most helpful is to try and push for more data and experimentation. Perhaps try and get ICP companies involved in open data sharing and experimental data collection and working with the research community.

 

[rtparty]

I'll give you another answer, just in case you like it better.
Some SPS keepers suggest the association that F helps with blue coloration.
However no experiments have been done that would attempt to demonstrate that. And I'm not even aware of any attempt to explain a hypothetical mechanism where F would participate in blue pigmentation.

Also, I really like to keep my indoor air at 0.9% Argon for my dogs and cats. Ensures that it's at natural levels - like the air they would get in the wild.

Wait, I thought it was potassium for blues? Or is potassium for purples?

Fluoride doesn’t turn my teeth blue….but the studies have shown fluoride in drinking water correlates to lower IQ levels. So there is that

 

[Righteous]

Fluoride doesn’t turn my teeth blue….but the studies have shown fluoride in drinking water correlates to lower IQ levels. So there is that

Maybe my fluoride toothpaste has gone to my brain and made me infatuated with fluorine. I think it’s the most exciting element.



I haven’t gotten around to sniffing it though like the chemists he mentions

 

[taricha]

Wait, I thought it was potassium for blues? Or is potassium for purples?

Fluoride doesn’t turn my teeth blue….but the studies have shown fluoride in drinking water correlates to lower IQ levels. So there is that

heh. Now I don't remember what the anecdotal effect is supposed to be either.

That’s a great analogy actually. So let’s take it a little further. I’m sure you love your dogs and cats but raise the stakes a bit higher. Would you be willing to live and have your love ones live in a house with 0% argon (perhaps replaced with nitrogen) for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps you might initially answer yes, assuming that argon is inert.

I did, touche. My joke was insufficiently researched.
I imagine there are some trace gases in air that have no effect despite being present in every breath we've ever taken. And I think that analogy holds for some trace elements in seawater as well.

I agree that there are probably more useful trace element than those few that have been demonstrated to be useful, considering how difficult it is to demonstrate usefulness.

 

[Reefahholic]

I think it’s obvious that corals are up-taking some if not a lot of it. Colors are becoming more vivid and distinct after depleted levels are brought up.

We’ve talked about all the different possibilities of what else may be happening, but I don’t think anyone is willing to go on the record and say they’re 100% certain that Fluoride has no significant benefits when it comes to color, growth, or health.

There’s been several positive anecdotal reports that are consistent with each other from well known pros.

We know it’s in seawater and found in coral skeletons which may mean nothing, or could be significant. More research needs to be done to confirm.

I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting anything negative is occurring from dosing. I’d rather get that element in there until I learn it’s not needed or harmful vs assuming it’s not needed and you’re hindering different processes that yield better growth rates. If there were negative reports I’d think twice before dosing, but it’s been quite the opposite. Only positives.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think it’s obvious that corals are up-taking some if not a lot of it. Colors are becoming more vivid and distinct after depleted levels are brought up.

We’ve talked about all the different possibilities of what else may be happening, but I don’t think anyone is willing to go on the record and say they’re 100% certain that Fluoride has no significant benefits when it comes to color, growth, or health.

There’s been several positive anecdotal reports that are consistent with each other from well known pros.

We know it’s in seawater and found in coral skeletons which may mean nothing, or could be significant. More research needs to be done to confirm.

I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting anything negative is occurring from dosing. I’d rather get that element in there until I learn it’s not needed or harmful vs assuming it’s not needed and you’re hindering different processes that yield better growth rates. If there were negative reports I’d think twice before dosing, but it’s been quite the opposite. Only positives.

Count me beyond skeptical. If we add together all the different things you claim make corals more colorful, folks adding all these things must have a technicolor dream tank relative to similar tanks not doing so.

Can you cite what corals in what tank became more colorful when suddenly dosing only fluoride?

One obviously cannot count any results from folks who suddenly began dosing many things, as folks following the trendy icp dosing schemes typically do.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

We know it’s in seawater and found in coral skeletons which may mean nothing, or could be significant. More research needs to be done to confirm.

Who do you propose test all of your hypotheses?