Toxicity of salt mixes. Interesting stuff.

[clamm]

Could be marketing B.S. The Doctor how published the study could be hired by one of the participants. Its worth a read anyway. Im interested your opinions on the results.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.htm

 

[JustDavidP]

Darn...there goes my aspirations to become a sea urchin farmer *sigh*

I'm wondering if there has been any follow up? That was from 2003 right? It'd be interesting to see if any of the salt formulas have changed, any secondary studies done with something other than urchins. Whether or not IO has sued *L* Just a' wondering....

D

 

[Fingolfin]

Luckily I just switched to Crystal Seas lately.

 

[Moe_K]

Inland Reef was suuposedly still doing a salt study.
Not sure if they finally dropped it, but even after the store closed Matt said he was going to finish the study.

 

[clamm]

I thought they did release finding thus far. Ill see if I archived it somewhere. It wasn't completed however, but they got pretty far if memory serves.

 

[Greg Hiller]

There is/was a LOT of debate about this article. There are numerous questions about how this study was done. One thing that is known is that many salt mixes have low levels of ammonium in them due to the fact that ammonium is a common contaminating counter ion in many of the salts that are used to make an artifical salt water mix. In a normal functioning aquarium the very small amount of ammonium is quickly converted into non-toxic nitrate, or in some cases nitrogen. So in a normal tank, low levels of ammonium would not really matter. In a sterile glass jar they WOULD matter...a lot. There were other problems with the testing as well as I recall. Randy H-F as I recall had a lot to say about this study. The debate went on and on......

 

[redpaulhus]

Wasn't this what led to the talk at MACNA by Dr Hovanec from Marineland ?
The discussion (the audience participated, at least the chemically astute portion of the audience, and it was far from a monologe !) was quite spirited and lively.

I seem to recall the phrase "junk science" and a discussion of whether the bio-assay used in the Shimek study failed to meet established guidelines (too small a sample set, etc)

I think this is the official article that discussed the same material:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2004/feature.htm

To be honest I thought there was going to be a follow up article or study but I haven't seen anything.

 

[Chuck Spyropulos]

The sample size for the testing was way too small and the test procedures were not uniform over all of thetanks that were tested.....also Shimek recommended some obscure brand of salt....Crystal Marine Bioassay or something. Many people switched to it.....like lemmings, and ended up with a lot of bleached coral! My advice is, if you are using a good quality salt and things are going well for you....then stick with it.

 

[Chuck Spyropulos]

junk science

I seem to recall the phrase "junk science" and a discussion of whether the bio-assay used in the Shimek study failed to meet established guidelines (too small a sample set, etc)

I agree totally......but......
You can say that here, but don't criticize the good doctor on RC.. I did and I told him that he should be more responsible in his research, especially when recommendations are made by him, which many people "lemmings" take as "gospel"

He then proceeded to BAN me on Reef Central...true story!

 

[Matt L.]

That who correlation and causation thingy

Darn...there goes my aspirations to become a sea urchin farmer *sigh*...

I agree with Greg completely. I reused myself from the argument, partly because I realized before entering the fray that this was just one small study in an area that needs a lot of work.

In science, rarely does one study establish anything. Usually, decades of work and a myriad of studies are required to draw any definitive conclusion.

The only thing Dr. Ron's study reveals is that certain seawater mixes appear to be more toxic to this one species of sea urchin than other species, and nothing more.

Nor does Dr. Ron intend for it to imply anything more.

Personally, I don't like live assay studies, but Dr. Ron had little choice as with toxicological studies in general. So by using sea urchins, Dr. Ron is not out of line in terms of appropriate toxicology research. We mammals usually use mice, rats, bunnies, etc. to test toxicity.

Dr. Ron does need to reproduce the results, and others must independantly agree. It would also be beneficial to see toxicity towards some other organisms, and the suggestions Greg made. Although I trust* Dr. Ron, I would finally need to see who funded this study.

My only qualm is that people on RC don't see these studies for what they are: just one piece of the puzzle. Instead, they flip out, swearing off whatever salt got the lowest results. This isn't the appropriate response. If your salt is working for you, good. Just keep using it until all the evidence is in.

Matt

* See Chuck's Post

 

[~Flighty~]

If I read the study correctly the aquarium water A was from a tank using rodi and IO (closer to what we experience because it is from a tank rather than a steril environment) and the urchins did quite well. I could give a flip about what goes on in a steril glass with a salt mix if there is evidence that it doesn't correlate to actual tank use.

That being said, I think the scientific look at this stuff is great and the peer review that we all do after a study like this only makes us think and learn more about husbandry. I commend him. You can't really blame him for the "lemming effect".

Now how do I go about getting paid to research pretty fishies.

 

[Matt L.]

...I told him that he should be more responsible in his research, especially when recommendations are made by him, which many people "lemmings" take as "gospel"

lol!

Seriously, though, the trouble from this article raises a serious issue in the reefkeeping community: scientific responsibility. I would dare say that it is the single most critical issue next to conservation.

You are right, Chuck, in that those "experts" using their scientific background (whether or not it is even related to what they are discussing!) in this hobby must exercise the same level of scientific responsibility in the hobby they would in their actual line of work.

And that responsibility includes never letting the conclusion in a study be taken for more than what it is, and never, ever, ever making recommendations based on your own results.

These "experts" publish in hobby and trade magazines, often with very good and creative work, and often without any intent whatsoever that their findings be taken for more than they are.

These hobby and trade magazines are good reading and they serve their place very well, but they are not scientific journals. They are not even close. As far as I can tell, there is no peer review in these magazines. There is no transparency of funding. The studies performed are valuable, but often limitted based on resources (not researcher's ability), and therefore almost always "incomplete" or "inadequate" to draw any conclusions from.

I don't want to draw dark conclusions about some of these "experts", but I am positive that they are fully aware of the lemmings with wallets Chuck mentions. As such, I believe strongly that as a whole, the publishing "experts" must be more clear in the limitted conclusions that can be drawn from their findings. Of course, if they did, the reader would go: "Well what good is that study then?" Welcome to science

Matt

 

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Yes, I think that some of these "experts" are more interested in getting published and getting paid "retirement" income or "second" income than they are in science.

But, if you use common sense, you can usually tell the difference between say a "Martin Moe" and a " Dr. Shimek". People that are not in the science disciplines just need to realize that they still need to question anything they read unless it is a widely accepted conclusion proven or at least supported by multiple independent analyses, conducted over a large number of test cases and controlled via detailed experimental procedures.

 

[Matt L.]

But who's Martin Moe

People that are not in the science disciplines just need to realize that they still need to question anything they read unless it is a widely accepted conclusion proven or at least supported by multiple independent analyses, conducted over a large number of test cases and controlled via detailed experimental procedures.

Bingo.

 

[Aquaman_68]

Read this article that was posted earlier in this thread. The proof is here!!! Crystal sea was the only one that tested high for aluminum!!! interesting....

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2004/feature.htm

 

[Matt L.]

...Crystal sea was the only one that tested high for aluminum!!! interesting....

I can't tell if you're joking, but the Aluminum content of this sea mix is still much lower than Natural Seawater!

It seems each of the different salt mixes experiences one trace element greater than NSW, but it differs from salt mix to salt minx.

I'm glad these folks did a study and qualified their results appropriately:

It must be realized that the data herein are only for one sample of each product at one time and subsequent analysis may produce different values. This could be especially acute for any natural seawater product because of biotic and abiotic environment factors such as rain, algae blooms, ship traffic off the near coast, etc. In fact, trace elements in synthetic sea salts would probably vary less over time because manufacturers of these products have more control over the raw materials used to make the product compared to the total lack of control over the natural oceanic environment.

However, this study demonstrated several important conclusions in regards to comparing synthetic sea salts to natural seawater that should be of major importance to marine aquarists:

• most synthetic sea salts do not have high levels of many trace elements,
• natural seawater is not automatically a safe alternative to synthetic sea salts when it comes to comparing amounts of trace elements in the two solutions,
• past comparisons of synthetic sea salts to natural seawater are flawed because they compared synthetic sea salts to a hypothetical natural seawater that is not available to the majority of marine hobbyists, and
• synthetic sea salts are quite acceptable for long-term use in marine aquaria when considered from the viewpoint of not adding detrimental concentrations of trace elements to the system.

 

[clamm]

good reads guys, this is the 1st salt study I have read and I have tanken in with a grain of...I wont say it, in general these kinds of studies are great for the hobbiest,but im sure they all have their bias's

 

[Greg Hiller]

The funny/strange thing about the article by Hovanec and Coshland was that it was supposed to be part I of a series. They were going to publish more details about the major and minor ions in the water as well. I was interested in this because years ago there was a similar analysis by Craig Bingman. His results were different still, but it was a LONG time ago. As I recall two minor elements that were missing from Instant Ocean at the time (according to his analysis) were bromine and flourine (in the forms of bromide and flouride ions).

I called the makers of IO directly and asked them about whether they added either of these ions to their mix. They said no. Reason being that if you add (this is according to them or others I don't know for sure whether it's true) bromide to your salt mix and you are using ozone you can creat hypobromite (similar, again, I think, to hypochlorite [bleach]) and the critters in your tank will not thank you for it. The IO guys said that they were not adding flouride because they figured most municipal water systems had about 1 ppm flouride in the water anyhow. They said they might start adding it however since a lot of people are using RO/DI systems.

After hearing from them (since I was not using ozone) I started adding bromide and flouride (as sodium bromide and sodium flouride) directly to all batches of IO I made up, I added sufficient of each to bring up to NSW level, assuming the starting level was zero. After hearing about the zero Br and Fl, Bob Stark (ESV) also decided to come out with a Br and Fl supplement that I believe he still sells. There was some chatter on Compuserve's Fishnet forum about this time that maybe the reason so many people were having a problem with RTN at the time was due to the lack of Br and Fl (not really sure I buy this either!, but I imagine it sold some bottles of supplement for Bob!!).

Anyhow, the article from Hovanec and Coshland was supposed to be part I of a series. I joked recently on Randy's Reef Chemisty forum that perhaps IO didn't do so well in the testing for the other elements so they may have decided not to publish the rest!!

 

[clamm]

Greg, did you see any difference after adding those 2 back in.

The funny/strange thing about the article by Hovanec and Coshland was that it was supposed to be part I of a series. They were going to publish more details about the major and minor ions in the water as well. I was interested in this because years ago there was a similar analysis by Craig Bingman. His results were different still, but it was a LONG time ago. As I recall two minor elements that were missing from Instant Ocean at the time (according to his analysis) were bromine and flourine (in the forms of bromide and flouride ions).

I called the makers of IO directly and asked them about whether they added either of these ions to their mix. They said no. Reason being that if you add (this is according to them or others I don't know for sure whether it's true) bromide to your salt mix and you are using ozone you can creat hypobromite (similar, again, I think, to hypochlorite [bleach]) and the critters in your tank will not thank you for it. The IO guys said that they were not adding flouride because they figured most municipal water systems had about 1 ppm flouride in the water anyhow. They said they might start adding it however since a lot of people are using RO/DI systems.

After hearing from them (since I was not using ozone) I started adding bromide and flouride (as sodium bromide and sodium flouride) directly to all batches of IO I made up, I added sufficient of each to bring up to NSW level, assuming the starting level was zero. After hearing about the zero Br and Fl, Bob Stark (ESV) also decided to come out with a Br and Fl supplement that I believe he still sells. There was some chatter on Compuserve's Fishnet forum about this time that maybe the reason so many people were having a problem with RTN at the time was due to the lack of Br and Fl (not really sure I buy this either!, but I imagine it sold some bottles of supplement for Bob!!).

Anyhow, the article from Hovanec and Coshland was supposed to be part I of a series. I joked recently on Randy's Reef Chemisty forum that perhaps IO didn't do so well in the testing for the other elements so they may have decided not to publish the rest!!

 

[redpaulhus]

The funny/strange thing about the article by Hovanec and Coshland was that it was supposed to be part I of a series. They were going to publish more details about the major and minor ions in the water as well.

Good, I'm not the only one who remembers that - I was afraid I was starting to imagine more than just invisible friends !