Trace Element Additives contain copper?

[rhastareefer]

It is a reason to maintain salinity.

I"m asking that question based off the fact that you stated keeping salinity at S=35 while dosing 2-part actually dilutes elements over time due to needing to correct back from increased salinity (S=36 diluting with fresh water back to S=35) over the course of a month of 2-part (or months further diluting). Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

This is important to me as I've recently had to correct for this exact issue with my salinity hitting S=40 and I ONLY dose Bionic 2-part. I just got everything back to S=36 (where I like it, stritcly by just pulling a couple cups of water out of the display a day and allowing the ATO to drip fresh to top off) and now you have me wondering if I should order an ICP test or just do a few water changes. Again, your time/knowledge is appreciated.

 

[Bernie King]

How much? Please don’t assume all copper is bad.

I had 17 ppb copper at one point and did not have apparent issues nor did it concern me.

I checked with Hanna checker and it was 0.01

 

[Bernie King]

Used this checker!

 

[C. Eymann]

Used this checker!

View attachment 1640557

Thats a HI702 high range checker, I was using Hannas HI747 low range checker getting .07-.09 after conversion.

However, even when using the low range checker- apparently like Randy said they are not accurate I guess?


If thats the case, how about their ULR phosphorus checkers that are so widely used in the hobby?

 

[rhastareefer]

If thats the case, how about their ULR phosphorus checkers that are so widely used in the hobby?

People want to measure what they're concerned about and trust Hanna's name... we all know most of their checkers aren't THAT precise. That's why most people only recommend a couple of them that are (like their Alk and Po4 checkers).

 

[C. Eymann]

People want to measure what they're concerned about and trust Hanna's name... we all know most of their checkers aren't THAT precise. That's why most people only recommend a couple of them that are (like their Alk and Po4 checkers).

I actually dont find their alk checkers to be that great after having issues with reagent "floaties" and discrepancies between bottles, I have been a fan of their hi736 and 774 PO4 checkers though.

Their calcium checkers are not trustworthy. they haven't been for many years.

Just surprised at randys claim that their 747 LR Cu is wholly inaccurate.

Im also confused that he stated seawater's Cu level is .00015ppm in one post


Then in another post in this thread he stated it was .00004ppm


???????

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I"m asking that question based off the fact that you stated keeping salinity at S=35 while dosing 2-part actually dilutes elements over time due to needing to correct back from increased salinity (S=36 diluting with fresh water back to S=35) over the course of a month of 2-part (or months further diluting). Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

This is important to me as I've recently had to correct for this exact issue with my salinity hitting S=40 and I ONLY dose Bionic 2-part. I just got everything back to S=36 (where I like it, stritcly by just pulling a couple cups of water out of the display a day and allowing the ATO to drip fresh to top off) and now you have me wondering if I should order an ICP test or just do a few water changes. Again, your time/knowledge is appreciated.

I think there’s a misunderstanding. If you use a full element two part like B-ionic, there’s no reason to do water changes. Rather, it acts like doing a tiny water change every time you use it and then adjust the salinity. It is exactly adding the elements that are diluted. At least that is the claim.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I actually dont find their alk checkers to be that great after having issues with reagent "floaties" and discrepancies between bottles, I have been a fan of their hi736 and 774 PO4 checkers though.

Their calcium checkers are not trustworthy. they haven't been for many years.

Just surprised at randys claim that their 747 LR Cu is wholly inaccurate.

Im also confused that he stated seawater's Cu level is .00015ppm in one post


Then in another post in this thread he stated it was .00004ppm


???????

Don’t get caught up with exact numbers for any trace element. They can vary a lot (More than a factor of ten) with depth and location. That is one reason different references can give different values. Are you asking about whole ocean average? Surface seawater? Reef water? Where? Etc.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I actually dont find their alk checkers to be that great after having issues with reagent "floaties" and discrepancies between bottles, I have been a fan of their hi736 and 774 PO4 checkers though.

Their calcium checkers are not trustworthy. they haven't been for many years.

Just surprised at randys claim that their 747 LR Cu is wholly inaccurate.

Im also confused that he stated seawater's Cu level is .00015ppm in one post


Then in another post in this thread he stated it was .00004ppm


???????

I did not claim the device is wholly inaccurate. It may be fine for its intended use to medicate fish. It is not accurate at the very low end of its range.

 

[C. Eymann]

I did not claim the device is wholly inaccurate. It may be fine for its intended use to medicate fish. It is not accurate at the very low end of its range.

The HI747LR is not for medicating fish like the HR as its range is only up to .9ppm

range 0-999ppb
with a resolution of 1ppb

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The HI747LR is not for medicating fish like the HR as its range is only up to .9ppm

range 0-999ppb
with a resolution of 1ppb


View attachment 1642204

I am not in a position to really say what the manufacturer intent is for the device, but it reads plenty high (up to 1 ppm) to medicate fish with copper.

 

[C. Eymann]

I am not in a position to really say what the manufacturer intent is for the device, but it reads plenty high (up to 1 ppm) to medicate fish with copper.

hmmm but it also reads pretty low? with a 1 ppb claimed resolution?

Again, just trying to get a general acceptable range?
In one post you said .00015, and .00004 in another ? obviously reef waters are what we are trying to replicate.
Can you give a average amount found in NSW? and give a source for the info? thanks!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

hmmm but it also reads pretty low? with a 1 ppb claimed resolution?

Again, just trying to get a general acceptable range?
In one post you said .00015, and .00004 in another ? obviously reef waters are what we are trying to replicate.
Can you give a average amount found in NSW? and give a source for the info? thanks!

Resolution means nothing. That's just how many digits the device shows, not whether they are meaningful.

Accuracy is claimed to be +/- 10 ppb, so 10 ppb (0.01 ppm) is no different than zero.

And that assumes perfect user procedures.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

hmmm but it also reads pretty low? with a 1 ppb claimed resolution?

Again, just trying to get a general acceptable range?
In one post you said .00015, and .00004 in another ? obviously reef waters are what we are trying to replicate.
Can you give a average amount found in NSW? and give a source for the info? thanks!

That's not a useful goal since the devices we use, including normal ICP, cannot detect low enough to detect copper in NSW. For reference, last time I checked, the Triton limit of detection for copper by ICP was 1.2 ppb (well above the NSW levels shown below).

Some discussion of copper in seawater (do not rely on old papers that may be contaminated by collection techniques):

Determination of isotopic composition of dissolved copper in seawater by multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry after pre-concentration using an ethylenediaminetriacetic acid chelating resin

Determination of isotopic composition of dissolved copper in seawater by multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry after pre-concentration using an ethylenediaminetriacetic acid chelating resin

Copper is an essential trace metal that shows a vertical recycled-scavenged profile in the ocean. To help elucidate the biogeochemical cycling of Cu i…

www.sciencedirect.com

"The seawater copper (Cu) concentration ranges from 0.5 to 6 nmol L−1 and has a nutrient-like distribution that is influenced by scavenging. In the ocean, >99.7% of Cu is strongly complexed by organic ligands which maintains free Cu2+ ion concentration at around 10−14 mol L−1 "


Note that:
0.5 nmole/L = 32 ng/l = 0.03 ug/L (ppb) = 0.00003 ppm
6 nmole/L = 380 ng/L = 0.4 ug/l (ppb) = 0.0004 ppm

This paper shows copper values with depth, with about 1 nM (64 ng/L = 0.06 ug/L = 0.00006 ppm) near the surface

http://boyle.mit.edu/~ed/PDFs/Lee(2011)ACA686_93.pdf

 

[C. Eymann]

That's not a useful goal since the devices we use, including normal ICP, cannot detect low enough to detect copper in NSW. For reference, last time I checked, the Triton limit of detection for copper by ICP was 1.2 ppb (well above the NSW levels shown below).

Some discussion of copper in seawater (do not rely on old papers that may be contaminated by collection techniques):

Determination of isotopic composition of dissolved copper in seawater by multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry after pre-concentration using an ethylenediaminetriacetic acid chelating resin

Determination of isotopic composition of dissolved copper in seawater by multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry after pre-concentration using an ethylenediaminetriacetic acid chelating resin

Copper is an essential trace metal that shows a vertical recycled-scavenged profile in the ocean. To help elucidate the biogeochemical cycling of Cu i…

www.sciencedirect.com

"The seawater copper (Cu) concentration ranges from 0.5 to 6 nmol L−1 and has a nutrient-like distribution that is influenced by scavenging. In the ocean, >99.7% of Cu is strongly complexed by organic ligands which maintains free Cu2+ ion concentration at around 10−14 mol L−1 "


Note that:
0.5 nmole/L = 32 ng/l = 0.03 ug/L (ppb) = 0.00003 ppm
6 nmole/L = 380 ng/L = 0.4 ug/l (ppb) = 0.0004 ppm

This paper shows copper values with depth, with about 1 nM (64 ng/L = 0.06 ug/L = 0.00006 ppm) near the surface

http://boyle.mit.edu/~ed/PDFs/Lee(2011)ACA686_93.pdf

Thank you clearing that up and the indepth explanation!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you clearing that up and the indepth explanation!

You're welcome.

Happy reefing.