# CaMg(CO3) aka Dolomite for remineralization?



## MichaelJ (23 Aug 2021)

Hello, I was playing around the rotala dosing calculator and noticed CaMg(CO3) also known as Dolomite limestone.  Is anyone using this (in part) for remineralization ? I am wondering if there are any drawbacks/benefits from this particular compound?
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Zeus. (23 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> wondering if there are any drawbacks



Well had a quick google and didn't find anyone selling it as a salt 😬


----------



## MichaelJ (23 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Well had a quick google and didn't find anyone selling it as a salt 😬


Hi @Zeus. Would this work: Dolomite Lime - Pure Dolomitic / Calcitic Garden Lime ?


----------



## Zeus. (23 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Zeus. Would this work: Dolomite Lime - Pure Dolomitic / Calcitic Garden Lime ?


I can not see no reasons why not, the fact its on Rotala means its probably fine to use, I would run it passed @dw1305 and @X3NiTH first, its not one we added to the IFC calculator either, but we could do


----------



## MichaelJ (23 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> I can not see no reasons why not, the fact its on Rotala means its probably fine to use, I would run it passed @dw1305 and @X3NiTH first, its not one we added to the IFC calculator either, but we could do


@Zeus. Sounds good.  Yes, my idea was to use Dolomite (instead of Epsom Salt (MgSO4) that I am currently using) in combination with the Gypsum salt (CaSO4 that I am currently using as well) to get a little more GH (Calcium and Magnesium contents) while reducing my TDS/conductivity a bit further and simplify my water prep routine a bit. I don't know if that all adds up as I also believe the CO3 part of the Dolomite might raise my KH and possibly pH as well.  Let's see if @dw1305 or @X3NiTH have anything to add.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jolt100 (23 Aug 2021)

Dolomite has very low solubility in water so using the sulphates is probably the better option . 
I have tried it in the past, when i was working we bought it in truckloads, but never noticed any increase in KH.

Cheers


----------



## dw1305 (23 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> Yes, my idea was to use Dolomite


It isn't really soluble. It is an <"evaporite mineral">. If you buy some it will look like pink talcum powder. Traditionally the pinker the colour the  more magnesium it contained, but I don't know the truth of this. 


jolt100 said:


> but never noticed any increase in KH.


It should give you about 17 dKH, it is still mainly CaCO3.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ (23 Aug 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> It isn't really soluble. It is an <"evaporite mineral">. If you buy some it will look like pink talcum powder. Traditionally the pinker the colour the  more magnesium it contained, but I don't know the truth of this.
> 
> ...


Hi @dw1305  Thanks for that answer and background info. I think I will just stick to my current approach - just thought I would ask, as I just saw it in Rotala - it probably shouldn't be in there if its not really a feasible option for tank water remineralization.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (24 Aug 2021)

It’s easier to source and use pure CaCO3 and MgCO3 for water remineralisation than mined Dolomite Powder which is better used on soils as it is slow release over time due to the action of rain, also because it’s not a pure source it will come with unknown quantities of other minerals.

If you want me to post my mineralisation routine here using CaCO3 and MgCO3 (and other minerals) then just ask!


----------



## MichaelJ (24 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> It’s easier to source and use pure CaCO3 and MgCO3 for water remineralisation than mined Dolomite Powder which is better used on soils as it is slow release over time due to the action of rain, also because it’s not a pure source it will come with unknown quantities of other minerals.


Hi @X3NiTH  Thanks for the reply, that is good to know.  

My WC water is a mix of ~40% tap and ~60% RO.  My Tap water comes out at "0" GH due to our water softener (using KCl), so I am only using compounds that increases GH and not KH, as that would increase if I were to use CaCO3.  So for a while now I've been mixing MgNO3, K2PO4, CaSO4 and MgSO4. which also gives me more than enough of NPK for my low-tech tanks (The residual K from the water softener is pretty high so the 40% tap water is my main source of Potassium).
I am still keeping my eye out for alternative compounds that would allow me to lower the my overall conductivity (TDS) while maintaining my Ca Mg levels, but I suspect I probably took it as far as I can with what I am doing now.  And most importantly, fish, shrimps and plants are all seemingly happy!  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (24 Aug 2021)

For the amount of control over the water parameters you appear to want and are already in it to 60% RO I’d be going full hog and just take it up to 100%, at that point you’ve got a completely blank slate and you can do whatever you want. My perspective is that I treat the water as total nutrition and make it up as such, if there’s something plants need then I add it, how much depends on which water body I want to replicate for the overall parameters.


----------



## MichaelJ (24 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> For the amount of control over the water parameters you appear to want and are already in it to 60% RO I’d be going full hog and just take it up to 100%, at that point you’ve got a completely blank slate and you can do whatever you want.


Hi @X3NiTH  Thats true. And that is what I did in the past actually. I wanted to reduce the time spend on WC's in my two 151L (40 US Gallon) tanks and still be doing 40-50% per week (previously only doing 20% weekly), but making 100-150L of RO water per week (50-75L per tank) quickly became less than practical. My RO system makes about 15L/hour so thats 8-10 hours for making water + hundreds of liters of waste water down the drain. It was a great simplification when I was told I could use KCl in my water softener instead of NaCl  as that pretty much gives me the KH and K that I need when mixed 40/60 with the RO water - and almost cut my RO production time in half at the same time. All our indoor taps runs through the softener so I was forced to do 100% RO before switching over to KCl - due to the arctic winters here in Minnesota using the outdoor taps wouldn't work for almost half the year anyway.  If I would want to switch over to using only RO water I would definitely have to upgrade my RO system.



X3NiTH said:


> My perspective is that I treat the water as total nutrition and make it up as such, if there’s something plants need then I add it, how much depends on which water body I want to replicate for the overall parameters.


Yes, thats more or less what I am trying to accomplish as well.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Soilwork (24 Aug 2021)

Hello,

Someone who actually uses dolomite here.

It isn’t pink, it’s white and can be purchased on eBay.  It’s used as a food additive to increase calcium and magnesium.

It certainly helps with plants that can use carbonates.  I notice this very easily since my tap water is very soft.

It makes the tank water cloudy for a few hours because already alluded to, it’s not very soluble.

_Edit_ Dolomite and dolomite lime as far as I am aware are different.  

Regards CJ


----------



## Soilwork (24 Aug 2021)

Dolomite lime is pink, I’ve seen it at the garden centres.


----------



## Soilwork (24 Aug 2021)

@Xenith I’m sorry to hijack the thread but I’d love to here your CaCo3 and MgCo3 mix.

I tried very unsuccessful raising dKH with potassium bicarbonate but literally everything single one of my Malaysian Trumpet Snails closed up and didn’t move.  I cleared with massive water change until snails came out again then dosed KHCO3 again to confirm.  Fish were fine until I did another large water change then they began displaying signs of TDS shock.


----------



## MichaelJ (24 Aug 2021)

Soilwork said:


> Hello,
> 
> Someone who actually uses dolomite here.
> 
> ...


@Soilwork Thanks for chiming in. I didn't see the powder form as a dietary supplement. Interesting! Perhaps its also more "purified" in that form and not containing "unknown quantities of other minerals" as @X3NiTH mentioned. It will still raise the KH as its mostly CaCO3 though so it's not a viable option for me as I don't want my KH to increase above what I am getting from the tap water I am mixing in.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Soilwork (24 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> @Soilwork Thanks for chiming in. I didn't see the powder form as a dietary supplement. Interesting! Perhaps its also more "purified" in that form and not containing "unknown quantities of other minerals" as @X3NiTH mentioned. It will still raise the KH as its mostly CaCO3 though so it's not a viable option for me as I don't want my KH to increase above what I am getting from the tap water I am mixing in.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



thats fair 
My tap water TDS ranges from 30-90ppm so to quote Darrel, there aren’t many ions of any description in there.  I don’t use co2 so I’d like a little bit of GH and KH.

Regards 
CJ


----------



## NotoriousENG (25 Aug 2021)

Soilwork said:


> Dolomite lime is pink, I’ve seen it at the garden centres.


Interesting, I have a bag of garden lime that claims to be dolomatic and it's grey-white little pebbles. Makes me wonder what it actually is.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305 (25 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


Soilwork said:


> It isn’t pink, it’s white





Soilwork said:


> Dolomite lime is pink, I’ve seen it at the garden centres.


I don't think the pink colour is anything to do with the magnesium (Mg) (or calcium (Ca)) content, I assume it is another mineral (impurity) within the source rock. Both pure magnesium carbonate (MgCO3) and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) are white powders.

I know the Italian <"Dolomite mountains"> have pink limestone. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15 (25 Aug 2021)

I always use dolomite gravel as substrate,  so dosing is never in my consideration nor necessary.






						Magnesium in tap water
					

Hi guys,  I was reading an interesting threat on using epson salts as part of the EI regiem and that Gh of tap water may not be a mix of calcium and magnesium.  So I did some digging on Severn Trent's webpage and found that magnese is 1.1 parts per BILLION. I can't find anything relating to...



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## Soilwork (25 Aug 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> I don't think the pink colour is anything to do with the magnesium (Mg) (or calcium (Ca)) content, I assume it is another mineral (impurity) within the source rock. Both pure magnesium carbonate (MgCO3) and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) are white powders.
> ...



Thanks Darrel,
You are likely right.  I’m not sure why it’s pink myself it’s just something I’ve noticed and the main reason I stayed away from it.

Regards 
CJ


----------



## Soilwork (25 Aug 2021)

tiger15 said:


> I always use dolomite gravel as substrate,  so dosing is never in my consideration nor necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know of people who do this also.  
Regards CJ


----------



## X3NiTH (25 Aug 2021)

Soilwork said:


> @Xenith I’m sorry to hijack the thread but I’d love to here your CaCo3 and MgCo3 mix.



The easiest way to do this is point you in the direction of the Reconstituters thread here in the forums. Not just a recipe but also the reasoning behind it, lots of word salad to enjoy!


----------



## MichaelJ (25 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> The easiest way to do this is point you in the direction of the Reconstituters thread here in the forums. Not just a recipe but also the reasoning behind it, lots of word salad to enjoy!


@X3NiTH Looks like a really educational read - thanks for posting!


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

How about Ca Gluconate as an alternative to CaSO4 ?  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (29 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> How about Ca Gluconate as an alternative to CaSO4 ?



Yup!


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Yup!


Since I don't see a much of references to anyone actually using it, I am wondering if there are any particular drawbacks I should consider? According to Rotala I would need about 2.5 times the Ca Gluconate amount to reach the same Ca ppm compared to CaSO4.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (29 Aug 2021)

I haven’t used it myself but I have contemplated it’s use. There shouldn’t be any drawbacks to using, it will be easily plant available because it’s loosely chelated to a sugar molecule which the plant can utilise for its carbon content, sugars are heavy molecules hence the much increased weight needed in comparison to the sulphate. You wouldn’t sweat dosing Ferrous Gluconate for plants so the same should be said for calcium. The only time you will have a problem is if Calcium is already at saturation point in the water and when the chelate breaks down the excess Calcium will precipitate out (you will unlikely meet this criteria on purpose).


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> I haven’t used it myself but I have contemplated it’s use. There shouldn’t be any drawbacks to using, it will be easily plant available because it’s loosely chelated to a sugar molecule which the plant can utilise for its carbon content, sugars are heavy molecules hence the much increased weight needed in comparison to the sulphate. You wouldn’t sweat dosing Ferrous Gluconate for plants so the same should be said for calcium. The only time you will have a problem is if Calcium is already at saturation point in the water and when the chelate breaks down the excess Calcium will precipitate out (you will unlikely meet this criteria on purpose).


Hi @X3NiTH  Thanks for the explanation! I am currently targeting 32 ppm of Ca for my 151L tanks, so that shouldn't be problem versus saturation.
Very, very nice! Using Ca Gluconate will essentially shave off 26 ppm of TDS coming from the "excessive" sulphate in the CaSo4 (Which I already have plentiful from my Magnesium (MgSo4)) dosing.  I am trying to optimize the water a bit for my shrimps - they need a good amount of calcium but also prefer relatively low conductivity... dang hard to please... I believe the Tetras will benefit from it too as they are from mostly low conductivity environments as well 
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (29 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Which I already have plentiful from my Magnesium (MgSo4)) dosing.



Nothing stopping you doing a bit of trailblazing and supplementing with Magnesium Gluconate, again something else I have considered.


----------



## X3NiTH (29 Aug 2021)

Think of it this way, usually you would expect that the majority of mineralisation in water would be determined by precipitation flowing over geology that releases elements into water but this is not always the case you have to take into consideration that the release of elements from the decay of plants that didn’t make it will add to the water chemistry, there’s a smorgasbord of compounds to choose from and as long as they have Chelatory properties then beneficial ions could be bound up with it like Calcium and Magnesium. Your not only limited to sugars like Gluconate you can consider Tannates also of which Calcium and Magnesium can be bound to this huge molecule. I don’t think you would want to remineralise with only one compound but you could certainly make a blend of everything if your goal was to reduce the hallmarks of pollution from Sulphates and Chlorides. The Amazon is a bunch of dead plants sitting on top of a whole pile of sand so the Major cations are probably being delivered firstly by silicates and then supplemented by precipitation washing the breakdown products of dead plants down the river (dead everything actually, doesn’t just have to be plants decaying, include the whole animal kingdom for the region right down to unicellular life, heck even Stardust counts!).


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Nothing stopping you doing a bit of trailblazing and supplementing with Magnesium Gluconate, again something else I have considered.


@X3NiTH  I guess I need _some_ sulphate in there as well and I am really only adding 8 ppm through my MgSo4 dosing where I get 6 ppm of Mg... the rest of my Mg (3 ppm) comes from Mg(NO3).  But I'll check into it!


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Think of it this way, usually you would expect that the majority of mineralisation in water would be determined by precipitation flowing over geology that releases elements into water but this is not always the case you have to take into consideration that the release of elements from the decay of plants that didn’t make it will add to the water chemistry, there’s a smorgasbord of compounds to choose from and as long as they have Chelatory properties then beneficial ions could be bound up with it like Calcium and Magnesium. Your not only limited to sugars like Gluconate you can consider Tannates also of which Calcium and Magnesium can be bound to this huge molecule. I don’t think you would want to remineralise with only one compound but you could certainly make a blend of everything if your goal was to reduce the hallmarks of pollution from Sulphates and Chlorides. The Amazon is a bunch of dead plants sitting on top of a whole pile of sand so the Major cations are probably being delivered firstly by silicates and then supplemented by precipitation washing the breakdown products of dead plants down the river (dead everything actually, doesn’t just have to be plants decaying, include the whole animal kingdom for the region right down to unicellular life, heck even Stardust counts!).


Fascinating and makes a lot sense!
​


----------



## X3NiTH (29 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> I guess I need _some_ sulphate in there as well



A non zeroing value ideally as plants do need some, a persistent couple of parts per million would likely be sufficient. The goal after all is to reduce the overall conductivity not the total nutrition.


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> A non zeroing value ideally as plants do need some, a persistent couple of parts per million would likely be sufficient. The goal after all is to reduce the overall conductivity not the total nutrition.


Just for the heck of it I ordered Magnesium Gluconate as well... I can use half the dose of MgSO4 and add Mg Gluconate for the remaining Mg... saving me an additional 4 ppm    My plants, fish and shrimps will be bathing in sugar water


----------



## Oldguy (31 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> CaMg(CO3)


If you want to add Mg ions why not just use magnesium sulphate. Epson salts, cheap, readily available and soluble. You would know just how much you per adding.

Check your water supplier for an analysis of your water. A lot of USA waters already contain magnesium salts as well as calcium salts.


----------



## MichaelJ (31 Aug 2021)

Oldguy said:


> If you want to add Mg ions why not just use magnesium sulphate. Epson salts, cheap, readily available and soluble. You would know just how much you per adding.


@Oldguy True, and thats what I am using right now. Mg(SO4) and Mg(NO3) as well as CaSO4 and KH2PO4 all mixed together during my WC water prep (40/60 Tap/RO mix) - my tap water is very high on K so I dont need any additional potassium.  The whole point of the experiment of changing out the Mg(SO4) and CaSO4 for Mg Gluconate and Ca Gluconate, as mentioned in post #29 above, is to enable me to shave off some conductivity (TDS).  I hope it works out with the Gluconate compounds, if not, I will go back to the SO4 based compounds. 



Oldguy said:


> Check your water supplier for an analysis of your water. A lot of USA waters already contain magnesium salts as well as calcium salts.


My tap water is softened with KCl, so that essentially comes out at "0" GH.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (1 Sep 2021)

Got the Calcium Gluconate today (pure and food grade) - is not my usual WC day, but I did a solubility test in a 5 gallon bucket. It definitely takes longer to dissolve vs. CaSO4, but no big deal (still far easier than Equilibrium), after fully dissolved everything comes out pretty consistent with the numbers from Rotala. I did 6 grams in a 5 gallon bucket and it came out at 4 GH... perfect! Cant wait to use it on Friday when I do my WC's. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Oldguy (1 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> shave off some conductivity (TDS)


An interesting experiment. I used to be concerned about TDS but now that  I have become wedded to the EI regime I no longer test. The plants and fish are fine.

We have a water softener, put in by a previous owner, but it has not been charged for over twenty years.  Our water is moderately soft (must have been a good salesman) but has little or no magnesium (typical of UK waters) therefore add a little of the sulphate to my rain water/ tap water blend for water changes.

All the best with your endeavors.

P.S. I assume that you do not have a bypass tap on your water softening system, we do so our drinking water is straight from the mains.


----------



## MichaelJ (1 Sep 2021)

Oldguy said:


> An interesting experiment. I used to be concerned about TDS but now that  I have become wedded to the EI regime I no longer test. The plants and fish are fine.


Hi @Oldguy Actually,  I am probably quite well in line with EI weekly (definitely above on PO4 and K), so I am good on fertilizer.  At the end of the week my TDS hovers around 275... which is about 15 ppm above what my 40-50% WC water is - I mix the whole weekly dose of NP (not K) with the remineralization (I only remineralize for GH aiming at Ca ~32 ppm and Mg ~10 ppm), and  40% of my WC water which is from the tap provides the KH and Potassium I need. I am now dosing micros the day after WC - I used to add it within an hour or so, but the Iron and Phosphate tend to bind, making it harder for the plants to access the Iron - as I understand it.


Plants and livestock are all doing great. So switching over to the Gluconate based Ca and Mg compounds is merely an experiment to see if I can get rid of the excessive sulphate (not entirely, as I will still aim for 2ppm of Sulphate  by mixing in a bit of MgSO4). With that, I should be able to reduce my TDS to around 245-250 - which is somewhere around the ideal for my Neocaridina davidi shrimps according to the shrimp experts and it definitely wont hurt my tetras either - as all of those are from habitats with low conductivity (which affects osmotic pressure, metabolism etc.).  So lets see how it works out. Perhaps I'm wasting my time, but it's worth trying I think, and none of this will compromise the plants - hopefully 

In general, I like TDS as a good indicator of the tanks health - if it creeps up over time its a good indication that waste is building up due to lacking maintenance. I only started to look at TDS around 9 months ago when I got a TDS meter for Christmas   ... to my surprise both my tanks had TDS in the neighborhood of 1500 ppm (surprisingly, plants and fish was apparently doing fine, but I don't think it would have been sustainable) ... at that time I was doing only 20% WC per week with some lapses, so I probably had a tremendous amount of waste build up plus I was doing pure RO water with Equilibrium, Acid and Alkaline buffers in proportions that was out of wack... Fortunately,  thanks to the experts on UKAPS I got it all straightened out and probably saved my tanks 



Oldguy said:


> We have a water softener, put in by a previous owner, but it has not been charged for over twenty years.  Our water is moderately soft (must have been a good salesman) but has little or no magnesium (typical of UK waters) therefore add a little of the sulphate to my rain water/ tap water blend for water changes.
> 
> All the best with your endeavors.


Thank you!



Oldguy said:


> P.S. I assume that you do not have a bypass tap on your water softening system, we do so our drinking water is straight from the mains.


All water throughout our household runs through our resin based water softener (using Potassium salts) - no exceptions. Our outdoor taps do not however, but since those are shut off almost 6 months a year because of the arctic winters here in Minnesota its not practical to rely on those, otherwise I would probably just use 40/60 and add NPK and call it a day.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (8 Sep 2021)

Hi @X3NiTH  I did a WC on Friday using the Ca and Mg Gluconate compounds as remineralizers instead of CaSO4 / MgSO4. I decided to only use it in one of my tanks first - just to error on the safe side in case I would notice any unanticipated side effects. Immediately I noticed that the water was a slightly cloudier than I normally experience, somewhat excepted and it all cleared up pretty quickly, so no problem there.
I waited a couple of hours before I added the traces (which is mostly Iron 0.28 ppm to be somewhat exact. I dose traces twice per week). A few hours later, after adding the traces, the tank looked like someone had poured a gallon of whole milk into the tank    However, by Monday morning the tank had mostly cleared up and everything seems fine.

Now, given the reaction in the first tank, I decided to postpone the WC in my second tank until Monday (actually, until the first tank had cleared up) and skip the KH2PO4 dosing (just to somewhat rule out the Iron <-> Phosphate reaction) and wait a full 24 hours before adding the traces. This morning (Tuesday) still no negative reaction and the water was crystal clear and then I went ahead and added traces and ... boom! ... A few hours later the tank was as cloudy as the first tank was after adding the traces. I have no doubt the tank will clear up over the next 48 hours, so I am not panicking - I got plenty of fine Bourbon around to self-medicate in case that happens 😄 ...

Of course, I can't totally rule out the Phosphate <-> Iron reaction because my phosphate levels are intentionally pretty high in both tanks, but I haven't seen this reaction for a very long time (not since using high doses of Seachem Iron... and that wasn't even this bad) and never after switching over to DIY dosing, and I haven't changed my trace mix or KH2PO4 dosing... In fact, I am still using the same trace bottle I mixed a couple of months ago, and I always shake the bottle well before dosing.

With the first tank, I thought that it perhaps could be a bacteria bloom (caused by the Gluconate?) , but I would rule that out as well as the reaction obviously seems to coincide with adding the traces in both cases - and at very different time intervals.

TDS checks and checked out as excepted, both in the tanks and in the WC water prep buckets, so I am pretty certain that this is not due to getting the dosing of the Gluconate compounds or any other compound wrong.

So, my guess is that it might be something with the traces (Iron) reacting with the Ca Gluconate and/or Mg Gluconate that is causing the water to go milky?

Also, I am wondering if having the tanks clearing up means_ all is good _- i.e. will the dosed Iron be available for the plants by then?

One solution is that I might have to split my trace dosing up in say 6 doses throughout the week instead of two large doses in order to avoid this reaction - if that makes any sense? That is probably going to be my next experiment. It will probably still happen to some extent, but with 1/3 the dose it might not be an issue.

Again, I am not too worried as I am confident the second tank will clear up over the next 48 hours, just like the first tank did - and livestock appears to be doing fine in both tanks! ... although the fish might be wondering why I am _clowning_ around with chemicals 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (8 Sep 2021)

Interesting!

If the fogging of the water develops over a couple of hours and not an instantaneous precipitation reaction on first addition then it could be traces accelerating a bacterial bloom feeding on the Gluconate.

I’m not going to discount precipitation reactions or iron jumping chelates then precipitating, you would have to test for the presence of Iron and Phosphate pre and post addition to see if there was a change in amounts.

You can null test for biological reactions by using a sterile environment using the same water chemistry as in the tank but hasn’t seen any biological processes, dose the additives and check for reactions, if there is a reaction then it’s a chemical process.

It might be worth getting hold of test kits for both Iron and Phosphate so you can monitor any rate of change.

I’m gonna order up some Calcium and Magnesium Gluconate and perform some standalone tests to compare.


----------



## MichaelJ (8 Sep 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Interesting!
> 
> If the fogging of the water develops over a couple of hours and not an instantaneous precipitation reaction on first addition then it could be traces accelerating a bacterial bloom feeding on the Gluconate.


Hi @X3NiTH  Interesting. I did find a tiny reference to bacterial bloom on Reef central - Apparently Calcium Gluconate compounds are commonly used among reefers - such as Seachem Reef Calcium

Also I was speculating that the Gluconate, with all its Carbon and Hydrogen atoms  is essentially a lot of carbohydrates, would essentially be bacteria food causing the bloom - on the other hand the carbohydrates could also be beneficial for plants(?). I suppose if it is a bacterial bloom it wouldn't be a good thing as it could potentially bring oxygen to critical low levels especially overnight and cause waste build up when the bacteria dies off.



X3NiTH said:


> I’m not going to discount precipitation reactions or iron jumping chelates then precipitating, you would have to test for the presence of Iron and Phosphate pre and post addition to see if there was a change in amounts.
> 
> You can null test for biological reactions by using a sterile environment using the same water chemistry as in the tank but hasn’t seen any biological processes, dose the additives and check for reactions, if there is a reaction then it’s a chemical process.


I see - you mean such as adding the traces (in relative proportions) to my WC prep bucket and see if it clouds up?... thats a good idea!


X3NiTH said:


> It might be worth getting hold of test kits for both Iron and Phosphate so you can monitor any rate of change.


I was wondering about this myself. I don't have an Iron test kit, but ordered this from Seachem last night.



X3NiTH said:


> I’m gonna order up some Calcium and Magnesium Gluconate and perform some standalone tests to compare.


That would be awesome - Would be great to have a 2nd take on this and a chemists assessment of the situation.

Well, I am going to do another WC in my first tank Friday and 2nd tank Saturday and then spread out the trace dosing over the week to see if that changes the situation.  If not, I will probably change back to the CaSO4  or find some compromise dosing between the Ca Gluconate and CaSo4 and keep the Mg Gluconate - So there are plenty of things to try... I hope it works out though.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (9 Sep 2021)

Hi @X3NiTH , I did the null test as you suggested:

Test 1. Added only Ca Gluconate (6.5 grams to reach 32 ppm of Ca) to a 5 US gallon bucket of tap water (my tap is "0" GH as it goes through a KCl resin softener as mentioned)... I had it sitting for about an hour to let the Ca Gluconate dissolve completely (i.e. stirring it once in a while until I couldn't see any residue at the bottom). After that I added 1/8th the amount of trace I would add to my 40 Gallon tanks, and let it sit for a couple of hours. No cloudy or milky reaction at all.

Test 2. Filled a 2nd bucket with tap water and this time I added ALL the compounds I added to my last WC water (Ca and Mg Gluconate’s, KH2PO4, Mg(NO3), MgSO4 and Prime ) I had it sitting for an hour to let everything dissolve. After that I added the trace, and let it sit for a couple of hours. Still no reaction at all.

Of course, this test is still rather inconclusive as the chemical markup in my tanks is obviously somewhat different - including pH, temperature etc.  And I didn’t mix in RO water with the tap water as I usually do. So this test comes with a number of uncertainties except for the bacterial load which is probably very near zero in my tap water compared to the tanks.

I am starting to lean strongly towards the reaction being a biological reaction (a bacterial bloom of sorts) rather than a chemical reaction.  It’s just really strange (to me at least) that it had to coincide with adding the trace in both instances, but there must be a trigger there I guess.

I still have the two buckets sitting just to see how it might evolve by tomorrow morning - as of now (writing this post) its already been sitting there for 6 hours and still no adverse reaction in either of the buckets.

Well, the good news is that my 2nd tank is almost cleared up by now and livestock in both tanks still appears to be fine.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (10 Sep 2021)

Good job on the null test!

You could run the external positive null test for completeness with water drawn from the tank at water change and redosing Gluconate up to 64ppm Calcium and add more trace to feed any bacteria in the water column to gain a positive result of blooming, bloom strength if detectable will be much less than if the water has gone through the filter a few times because that’s where the excess growth in the water column will mainly come from. It’s not entirely necessary to run this test as you already have a positive result in the tank but if its one more itch to scratch then scratch it!

If you want to inhibit the bloom effect (for oxygen safety) you could run UV on the filter outlet.

Btw totally not a chemist, potions book maybe!


----------



## MichaelJ (11 Sep 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Good job on the null test!



Hi @X3NiTH  Thank you. I had the buckets sitting over night as mentioned. One bucket I left with the lit off (Test 1 with only the Ca Gluconate) and the other I put the lit on (Test 2 - with all the compounds). In the afternoon (Thursday - about 24 hours after doing the test) I could definitely tell that bucket 1 was getting really cloudy while bucket 2 was still clear (it had the lit on..). In the night both were pretty much equally clouded up. With some scummy gunk on the surface that almost feel like soap...   Now, I do not know if the same thing would happen if I would just leave a bucket of tap water sitting for 24-36 hours. I am running that test at the moment - I don't except it to cloud up or build up similar scummy gunk... but let's see.

I think the evidence is strongly in favor of a bacterial bloom. And it also made me think that back in the day when I was (over)dosing Seachem Iron (which is Fe Gluconate as it turns out), I _might_ have experienced a bloom rather than the aforementioned Fe <-> Phosphate reaction. Pure speculation of course.

I am going to do my WC's and maintenance today and use a mix of Ca Gluconate and CaSO4 instead of the full 6.5g of Ca Gluconate only, as I did before.

On a positive note, when I did the regular 2nd weekly trace dosing in the tanks on Thursday (a day later than usual) I did not get a negative reaction and both tanks are remaining crystal clear. Water parameters for both tanks (KH,GH,pH,TDS) are all in line with expected values.  I received the Iron test kit, so I will check for that as well and see what indicative measure I get - don't know what level of reliability I am supposed to expect.



X3NiTH said:


> You could run the external positive null test for completeness with water drawn from the tank at water change and redosing Gluconate up to 64ppm Calcium and add more trace to feed any bacteria in the water column to gain a positive result of blooming, bloom strength if detectable will be much less than if the water has gone through the filter a few times because that’s where the excess growth in the water column will mainly come from. It’s not entirely necessary to run this test as you already have a positive result in the tank but if its one more itch to scratch then scratch it!


Good idea - I will try that too.



X3NiTH said:


> If you want to inhibit the bloom effect (for oxygen safety) you could run UV on the filter outlet.


Yes, I do actually have UV filters (two 9W Green Killing Machine) - They are not in the tanks at the moment. I took them out quite a while ago, but they might be worthwhile to put in if I experience a strong bloom again.



X3NiTH said:


> Btw totally not a chemist, potions book maybe!


Thats close enough 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (12 Sep 2021)

Hi @X3NiTH  Just a quick update on the Gluconate experiment.  I did my WCs, but left out the Ca Gluconate, but still went with the small dose of Mg Gluconate. Now, after reading a tangential post by @ceg4048 I am starting to think the Gluconate might be a bad idea... I am referring to this post - specifically the comments on carbohydrates. Well, I was kind of alluring to that idea when I originally said my fish and plants would be bathing in sugar water, but I obviously didn't understand the implications  ... if these reactions are in fact correlated.

Also, the bucket I left overnight with just tap water (lit off, same conditions) didn't develop any cloudiness, so no surprise there.

I haven't dosed traces after the WCs yet but will update the thread when that happens.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (13 Sep 2021)

Added the Traces (mostly Iron) to my tanks today - no reaction that I can tell... Of course, there might still be a bloom, but its not enough for me to perceive visually.  So for now, I think I am just going to go with the Mg Gluconate for my partly Mg dosing (I also use Mg(NO3) for N and Mg), skip the Ca Gluconate altogether and just use CaSO4 for my Ca dosing. Wish I could avoid the 26 ppm of Sulphate with the CaSO4, but still  better than the CaCl that gave me 58 ppm of Cl for the same ppm (32) of Calcium. Well, was well worth trying. I still would like a somewhat better understanding of the interactions.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (15 Sep 2021)

The answer below was posted in an unrelated thread Just thought I would add this here as it was a Q/A related to this discussion about the Gluconate compounds:



> ceg4048 said:
> I've looked at that thread and it seems like a good possibility that the cloudiness may be due to bacterial reaction. I don't know exactly which tank bacteria can directly metabolize gluconate as opposed to glucose. There is a difference in the metabolic pathways when comparing the two.
> It could be innocuous but generally I'm not really a fan of supporting large bacterial colonies simply because they typically are aerobic and so take oxygen away from the fish and plants.
> Also, I'm not really sure what the residue of this gluconate metabolism would be. Whatever it is, it should be gotten rid of, and this might suggest an endless water change loop (maybe). So if you are doing all this for shrimp there could be a downside. I might have missed it somewhere along the way and you may have rejected it for some reason, but CaCl is a great way to increase Ca without increasing the KH, and Mg, well, you don't really need much of this stuff for plants at all (maybe for shrimp again?). Mg just has to be non-zero, so a little bit of Epsom Salts is all you need from a plant perspective.
> Plants accrue the micronutrients within the leaves and these metals never move from the leaf, so if the dosing is regular next week the leaves will have more of everything than they do this week. I'm also not sure what the aversion is to high SO4 either, unless it's another shrimp thing. It could be that you're overthinking the scheme. Unless the shrimp species is something out of the ordinary I don't think it's necessary to optimize the water's content to this level of precision.


Yes, this was all mostly a shrimp _and_ shrimplet thing, by trying to get rid of the additional Chlorides and Sulphates that the tanks won't really benefit from anyway, as far as I understand. With CaCl I couldn't really get my TDS down to the level I was aiming at while retaining the ~7 GH and NPK dosing, that is why I switched over to CaSO4, which shaved off quite a bit of the TDS and that actually has worked out just fine - by switching from CaCl to CaSo4 I essentially traded the 57 ppm of chloride with 26 ppm of sulphate, while keeping the same amount (32 ppm) of Ca.
I randomly discovered the Ca Gluconate and asked around if that would be an option. No one around here seem to have tried it and I couldn't find good references elsewhere of anyone using Gluconate based compounds in freshwater tanks - except for Gluconate combined with Fe (which supposedly improves the availability / plant uptake of the Iron?) and I was further speculating (yes, overthinking I guess...) that the carbon content of the Gluconate could be beneficial for the plants as well (?), so I thought it would be worthwhile to take a shot at using Ca Gluconate (and a small amount of Mg Gluconate). I didn't work out the way I had hoped. The bloom/cloudiness was obviously not pleasant to deal with, not to mention the fear of jepodizing the livestock and plants due to oxygen depletion if the cloudiness was indeed caused by a bacterial reaction. So I am back on CaSO4 and will stick to that. My remineralization scheme is actually very simple - 4 compounds mixed with my weekly Tap/RO water gives my tanks all the Ca,Mg and NPK that they need.

Thanks a bunch for taking a look at this.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (16 Sep 2021)

Where to begin ?

Okay I had a deeper delve into quite a few disparate papers (unfortunately as per usual I didn’t save the links) what could be happening with regard to the use of Gluconated compounds and chemical stability in the presence or absence of bacteria and water chemistry. One of the papers specifically discussed longevity in solution comparing the chelates of Gluconate, EDTA and Nitrilotriacetic acid.

What I found as a likely cause in this situation is that the bacteria mainly responsible for the bloom is likely Anaerobic in nature and the chemical process that we see with the bloom is conversion of Sulphates into Sulphides, the Sulphide of Magnesium (a paper discussed Magnesium Sulphate as having a high affinity for this process) is an Opaque White crystal, this Magnesium Sulphide will decompose over time in water to Hydrogen Sulphide, and Magnesium Hydroxide which will both further decompose. This process is already happening in any anaerobic areas within the substrate of the tank and that the Gluconate and added traces has fuelled its activity and increased its presence or reaction ability enough that conversion of sulphate to sulphide is visible within the water column, the activity of this bacteria doesn’t consume oxygen as it is toxic to it so any free anaerobes in the water column should be short lived providing the environment is well oxygenated and thus an oxidising environment.

The paper on the Chelates Gluconate, EDTA and NTA showed stored degradation was only a problem for long term viability in the presence of anaerobes when the solution was sulfonated. The degradation of Gluconate was well on the way to complete within 100 hours of dosing when anaerobes and sulphates were present in the solution.

Anecdotaly Bee Shrimp Mineral GH+ for remineralisation of water for Crystal shrimp contains only the Chlorides of Calcium and Magnesium, whether this is a deliberate choice to use these compounds to reduce anaerobic activity and hydrogen sulphide production in the substrate where gasses can form pockets and concentrate only to be released when disturbed by the activity of something digging is anyone’s guess, price usually drives everything but not always and sometimes the minutia of how things work is too much info for some folks who tune out thinking it’s just marketing talk.

Regarding remineralisation your not stuck with Sulphates if you want to reduce their content. You can increase the complexity of the water makeup by blending different compounds together to reduce there being one overriding side compound.

If we want to replicate nature then we need to provide mineralisation from all sources from the demineralisation of geology entering an ecosystem through to the biological process that act on this available chemistry which itself will return to chemistry when biological processes end, ad infinitum, as long as something further up the system is dying then other processes downstream will take advantage whether positive or negative. 

A little bit of this and a little bit of that gets you to your ideal values whatever they may be. Which substances to choose from to form the blend would be at the easiest as single compound mixes or multi compound. Some compounds will have direct effects immediately upon addition that may shift the alkalinity or acidity of a solution thus its pH, some compounds will have effects that cause precipitation whether immediately or long term through biological or chemical processes and as you have discovered the Gluconate compounds can have unforeseen effects through it’s interaction with biological systems.

The simplest and most easily available compounds for hardness remineralisation are the Carbonates, Sulphates and Chlorides some are more soluble than others.

Here is the Extended Stallard Terniary diagram showing the majority of the worlds rivers and where they plot with regards to TDS rise and chemical makeup.



			https://www.ukaps.org/forum/attachments/b328bd67-c009-419e-875d-e050e545d656-jpeg.148392/
		


The scheme doesn’t take into account organic derived mineralisation it’s primarily action through geology but does show plots for polluted rivers which likely arises through anthropogenic activity.

As demonstrated we’ve seen deriving the majority of mineralisation through a compound like Gluconate that has a high affinity for biological action may not be immediately problematical for biology but it may swing the balance in favour of one specific activity that may or may not have negative outcomes with possible potential harmful consequences ie a bacterial bloom derived either through aerobic bacterial action scavenging excess oxygen to the detriment of higher life forms or anaerobic bacterial action that breaks down polluting compounds that may produce short lived toxic intermediary products (ie Hydrogen Sulphide) at too high a value.

Focusing attention on Calcium compounds and aiming to reduce Carbonate, Sulphate and Chloride these can be reduced by supplementing with other compounds, the Gluconate we have discovered has clouding issues through a bacterial process (? Only in the presence of Sulphates and anaerobes). Calcium Hydroxide can be used but because of its ability to strongly moderate pH then it needs to be neutralised with an acid, if the acid comes as a more complex compound with Calcium then it can boost desired calcium levels also, this could be Calcium Citrate. Calcium Acetate can moderate pH also being a base but it has an equilibrium reaction in aqueous solution forming Acetic acid thus neutralising the pH moderation to a degree. More Calcium acid can be found in Calcium Tannate which is a chelated form of Calcium. If we look further to chelated compounds Calcium we would have to include EDTA, DTPA, etc. All ways to add available Calcium and this is not limited to Calcium supplementation you can fit this to any other element as long as they are soluble at the pressures, temperatures and pH we see in a typical body of aquarium water.

Too much of one thing maybe bad but careful alternate supplementation may reduce its overall effect.


----------



## MichaelJ (16 Sep 2021)

@X3NiTH  Thank you for a very comprehensive answer and doing the research. There is a bunch of info here to digest - and while a lot of it is beyond my rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, I do think I get the gist of it. I will follow up with some additional questions and comments when I get a bit more time to digest it.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ (17 Sep 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Where to begin ?
> 
> Okay I had a deeper delve into quite a few disparate papers (unfortunately as per usual I didn’t save the links) what could be happening with regard to the use of Gluconated compounds and chemical stability in the presence or absence of bacteria and water chemistry. One of the papers specifically discussed longevity in solution comparing the chelates of Gluconate, EDTA and Nitrilotriacetic acid.
> 
> What I found as a likely cause in this situation is that the bacteria mainly responsible for the bloom is likely Anaerobic in nature and the chemical process that we see with the bloom is conversion of Sulphates into Sulphides, the Sulphide of Magnesium (a paper discussed Magnesium Sulphate as having a high affinity for this process) is an Opaque White crystal, this Magnesium Sulphide will decompose over time in water to Hydrogen Sulphide, and Magnesium Hydroxide which will both further decompose. This process is already happening in any anaerobic areas within the substrate of the tank and that the Gluconate and added traces has fuelled its activity and increased its presence or reaction ability enough that conversion of sulphate to sulphide is visible within the water column, the activity of this bacteria doesn’t consume oxygen as it is toxic to it so any free anaerobes in the water column should be short lived providing the environment is well oxygenated and thus an oxidising environment.



Does this essentially mean that if my tanks would not have had a high sulphate content (which they did, because I was using CaSO4 and MgSO4 for quite a while before trying out the Ca and Mg Gluconate) I wouldn't have gotten the Anaerobic reaction or bloom (assuming that is what it was) ?  If so, the bloom could just be a short term reaction that would disappear after a couple of consecutive weekly water changes as the sulphate content gets lower?




X3NiTH said:


> The simplest and most easily available compounds for hardness remineralisation are the Carbonates, Sulphates and Chlorides some are more soluble than others.
> 
> Here is the Extended Stallard Terniary diagram showing the majority of the worlds rivers and where they plot with regards to TDS rise and chemical makeup.
> 
> ...


Very interesting.


X3NiTH said:


> As demonstrated we’ve seen deriving the majority of mineralisation through a compound like Gluconate that has a high affinity for biological action may not be immediately problematical for biology but it may swing the balance in favour of one specific activity that may or may not have negative outcomes with possible potential harmful consequences ie a bacterial bloom derived either through aerobic bacterial action scavenging excess oxygen to the detriment of higher life forms or anaerobic bacterial action that breaks down polluting compounds that may produce short lived toxic intermediary products (ie Hydrogen Sulphide) at too high a value.
> 
> Focusing attention on Calcium compounds and aiming to reduce Carbonate, Sulphate and Chloride these can be reduced by supplementing with other compounds, the Gluconate we have discovered has clouding issues through a bacterial process (? Only in the presence of Sulphates and anaerobes). Calcium Hydroxide can be used but because of its ability to strongly moderate pH then it needs to be neutralised with an acid, if the acid comes as a more complex compound with Calcium then it can boost desired calcium levels also, this could be Calcium Citrate. Calcium Acetate can moderate pH also being a base but it has an equilibrium reaction in aqueous solution forming Acetic acid thus neutralising the pH moderation to a degree. More Calcium acid can be found in Calcium Tannate which is a chelated form of Calcium. If we look further to chelated compounds Calcium we would have to include EDTA, DTPA, etc. All ways to add available Calcium and this is not limited to Calcium supplementation you can fit this to any other element as long as they are soluble at the pressures, temperatures and pH we see in a typical body of aquarium water.


I am not inclined to use anything that changes alkalinity/KH or pH, as I am ok with that as it is. But I will be ready to try alternatives. For now I am just going to stick to the CaSO4, but still use the relatively small amount of Mg Gluconate.  Which didn't cause any adverse effects after my last WC.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (17 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Does this essentially mean that if my tanks would not have had a high sulphate content (which they did, because I was using CaSO4 and MgSO4 for quite a while before trying out the Ca and Mg Gluconate) I wouldn't have gotten the Anaerobic reaction or bloom (assuming that is what it was) ? If so, the bloom could just be a short term reaction that would disappear after a couple of consecutive weekly water changes as the sulphate content gets lower?



Very possibly if aneorobes are involved and it’s temporary precipitate formation through biological action then the bloom may be much less apparent if Sulphates are limited. This would need to be tested.



MichaelJ said:


> I am not inclined to use anything that changes alkalinity/KH or pH, as I am ok with that as it is.



That’s totally fine.

Depending on what you want to achieve you can remineralise with novel compounds that in combination allow you to limit any one compound being dominant. In essence the creation of water where you have complete control over all relevant parameters (pH, GH, KH) where the compounds used are intermediary compounds generally present in the remains of end of life processes where they are seen by current life processes as available nutrition. The novel compounds discussed above contain carbon amongst other elements and it is the thing that’s in the shortest supply which all life processes need to grow tissue, supplying compounds that increase carbon availability personally I don’t see this as a bad thing, some folks add Gluteraldehyde based supplements which have biocidic properties to increase their carbon content in their tanks regularly, this is generally not seen as a bad thing either so there should be zero problem supplementing this with natural carbon containing compounds that may come with beneficial major ions like Calcium and Magnesium.

At the end of the day it is usually best to keep things simple which not only reduces potential for error and unforeseen side effects but also overall workload.


----------



## MichaelJ (23 Sep 2021)

Hi @X3NiTH  just wanted to provide a quick up update on the Iron test... Seachem Iron Test consistently shows my iron level is slightly above 0 ppm - definitely below 0.1 ppm.... I am currently dosing ~0.55 ppm of Iron weekly... (actually the mid week dose yesterday) and there are zero signs of Iron deficiency in my tanks. I think either the test is flawed or the plants absorbed it in less than 24 hours - or I just did the test plain wrong (I am sure I followed every step precisely as prescribed, but I guess you never know).

EDIT: Updated the picture of the tank with an exposure that much better reflects the actual light level / intensity.






Cheers
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (23 Sep 2021)

There is the chance that plants have uptaken the Iron but you have to take into account the chelate in use with Iron, the shortest lived common chelate in use with iron is the Gluconate, has a very short half life especially under light as it’s photosensitive. The other chelates EDTA and DTPA (photosensitive) and EDDHA longevity depends on the pH, EDTA starts to half life above pH 6.5 and DTPA at ph7, EDDHA is good up to pH 9 before it half life’s but it can tint water pink which can be undesirable.

I dose 0.1ppm FeGluconate and 0.05ppm FeDTPA together and 24hrs later I measure 0.025ppm which will be very likely all FeDTPA, still enough to cover the plants for the day until a new dose goes in 24hrs later. You always want some available to ensure no deficiencies, you appear to be accomplishing this with your current dose.

If you want to show what the tank looks like to the eye then post a pic with the exposure more to what your eyes see.


----------



## MichaelJ (24 Sep 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> There is the chance that plants have uptaken the Iron but you have to take into account the chelate in use with Iron, the shortest lived common chelate in use with iron is the Gluconate, has a very short half life especially under light as it’s photosensitive. The other chelates EDTA and DTPA (photosensitive) and EDDHA longevity depends on the pH, EDTA starts to half life above pH 6.5 and DTPA at ph7, EDDHA is good up to pH 9 before it half life’s but it can tint water pink which can be undesirable.


@X3NiTH Very interesting. I am not entirely sure I understand half-life in this context. When you say "starts to half life above pH 6.5" what does this imply? that it somehow "decay" and only half will be available to plants after a certain amount of time?  My current trace fertilizer is an EDTA chelate and I am in the process of switching over to Nilocg Plantex CSM+B which also uses EDTA.      



X3NiTH said:


> I dose 0.1ppm FeGluconate and 0.5ppm FeDTPA together and 24hrs later I measure 0.025ppm which will be very likely all FeDTPA, still enough to cover the plants for the day until a new dose goes in 24hrs later. You always want some available to ensure no deficiencies, you appear to be accomplishing this with your current dose.


How do you measure your Fe content?  If I am reading this correctly, your dosing 0.6 ppm Fe each day?...that's almost 10 times EI weekly?



X3NiTH said:


> If you want to show what the tank looks like to the eye then post a pic with the exposure more to what your eyes see.


Controlling the exposure on an iPhone camera, especially when photographing a low light aquarium, is still way more difficult than it is supposed to be.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (24 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> If I am reading this correctly, your dosing 0.6 ppm Fe each day?...that's almost 10 times EI weekly?



Dang missed a 0.0 there, I’ve edited the above message to the correct value which should read 0.05ppm FeDTPA.


----------



## MichaelJ (25 Sep 2021)

@X3NiTH  Ok, I guess the half life above is referring to the bio availability of the Fe being a function of water pH for non-photosensitive chelates...  Now, what I don't understand is, why use EDTA if the Fe it's already _half gone_ at pH 6.5 ? 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (25 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Now, what I don't understand is, why use EDTA if the Fe it's already _half gone_ at pH 6.5 ?



When you dose at pH 6.5 it won’t immediately lose half its potency, it will take a period of time. If you are just over the pH threshold for stability of the EDTA chelate when you dose it then you can expect the half life period to be around 24hrs, the higher the pH then the shorter the half life period, I don’t have any graphs to show this effect but I’m pretty sure there will be one out there somewhere. 

If your tank spends any significant time above pH 6.5 then you can supplement in a stronger chelate like DTPA so that the Iron is more available at the higher pH than if using EDTA alone.

I use a mixture of Iron Gluconate and DTPA, the Gluconate serves the plants Iron immediately after dosing until it’s gone due to it instability, the DTPA is being used so that there is still some available to the plants the next day when micro isn’t dosed.


----------



## MichaelJ (25 Sep 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> When you dose at pH 6.5 it won’t immediately lose half its potency, it will take a period of time. If you are just over the pH threshold for stability of the EDTA chelate when you dose it then you can expect the half life period to be around 24hrs, the higher the pH then the shorter the half life period, I don’t have any graphs to show this effect but I’m pretty sure there will be one out there somewhere.


Hi @X3NiTH  OK, that makes sense... yes, it would be awesome to see a graph or a piece of math that shows this. I will look around and post if I find any.



X3NiTH said:


> If your tank spends any significant time above pH 6.5 then you can supplement in a stronger chelate like DTPA so that the Iron is more available at the higher pH than if using EDTA alone.
> 
> I use a mixture of Iron Gluconate and DTPA, the Gluconate serves the plants Iron immediately after dosing until it’s gone due to it instability, the DTPA is being used so that there is still some available to the plants the next day when micro isn’t dosed.


My pH in both my tanks is hovering around 7.4 so I guess its a fairly quick fall off when I dose.  Thanks for the education on this.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## X3NiTH (25 Sep 2021)

Actually here’s a graph for Iron EDTA






Note that most Iron Chelate complexes we use are usually between 9% and 13%, 11% being very common. Also note the graph is for a concentrate and not very highly diluted tank dose in the sub parts per million.

Here’s the graph for the chelate availability as a function of pH.


----------



## MichaelJ (26 Sep 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> Here’s the graph for the chelate availability as a function of pH.
> 
> View attachment 174718


Hi @X3NiTH  Fascinating... That is indeed a very steep negative gradient for EDTA...  It would be great to be able to see a curve for the realistic ppm availability, that we are facing, over time given the dosing at a certain pH.  Reading up on the topic (mostly less applicable agriculture related research) I get the impression that you pretty much don't have any iron available for the plants at a pH of +7.0 after a very short amount of time ...  which sounds very unlikely as most of our tanks would  have a severe Iron deficiency if so.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (21 Nov 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> My tap water is softened with KCl, so that essentially comes out at "0" GH.


Hi @MichaelJ 

Doesn't the addition of the potassium ion raise GH? Or does the chloride ion negate its effects for some reason?

Just interested.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (21 Nov 2021)

Hi Everyone,

I dug out the following - just in case anyone wanted to read a bit more. It's a 'conversation' between members of _The Krib_ from 23 years ago, including Dr. Greg Morin...



			Iron gluconate
		


JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (21 Nov 2021)

X3NiTH said:


> You can null test for biological reactions by using a sterile environment using the same water chemistry as in the tank but hasn’t seen any biological processes, dose the additives and check for reactions, if there is a reaction then it’s a chemical process.


Hi @X3NiTH 

I'd be interested in knowing more about how you create a sterile environment. This is something that I've tried in aquatics but in a different situation. I was trying to create an environment in which nitrification could not occur. If my memory serves me well, I kept pH well below 7.0 and made no attempt to reduce lighting. I do believe I also ran a UV-C sterilizer throughout the experiment. I'll try to dig out my notes to confirm these details. Obviously, the use of a UV-C sterilizer is not possible if dissolved organics and iron are critical to the experiment.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> Doesn't the addition of the potassium ion raise GH?


Hi @jaypeecee   It definitely raises the conductivity (TDS). When I measure the GH of my softened tap water with the API Test Kit it is consistently "zero". That is, it I see a change reaction on the first drop. if I increase the test tube to 10 ml instead of 5 ml, I still get a reaction on the first drop, so I assume it's very close to zero or 0.5 GH at most.  Last time I checked the city water that is fed into our house it was somewhere around 12 GH/12KH - it can vary quite a bit over the year actually - I have measured ~20 GH at some point (didn't measure KH at that time - the GH and KH  always measures very close here).

I believe from the ion exchange in the KCL resin we end up with about 14ppm of K+ for each 17ppm of CaCO3. So in our case our softened water contains 168 ppm of K.  I usually mix in around 30-40% tap-water to my WC mix which is essentially the only source of K I provide my tanks... but that's 50-67 ppm of K per week, but could be as much as 112 ppm of K per week at times when the GH/KH is in the 20 range...   

EDIT: Another thing that I haven't quite figured out (or forgot about); Is that the softened water still comes out at 12 KH... (and "zero" GH as said), but when I mix it in with my RO water and do WCs I read about 3-4 KH (30-40% tap/ro mix) - as excepted, but when I measure my tanks after a day or two after WC I never see a KH reading above the 1-2 KH range. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (21 Nov 2021)

Hi @MichaelJ 

It's just dawned on me that you must be using an ion-exchange resin to soften your water. I was thinking that you simply added KCl to your tap water. My bad! 

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I dug out the following - just in case anyone wanted to read a bit more. It's a 'conversation' between members of _The Krib_ from 23 years ago, including Dr. Greg Morin...
> 
> ...


This is indeed a very interesting conversion.


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Nov 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> It's just dawned on me that you must be using an ion-exchange resin to soften your water. I was thinking that you simply added KCl to your tap water. My bad!
> 
> JPC


Oh I see. It is indeed an iron-exchange resin based water softener. All the tap water inside our house is softened - including the kitchen, which I believe is usually excluded by law in Europe.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (22 Nov 2021)

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> Doesn't the addition of the potassium ion raise GH?


No, K+ a monovalent cation, and dGH is a measure of multivariate cations.


MichaelJ said:


> It definitely raises the conductivity (TDS).


It will do, because basically you've swapped one Ca++ (or Mg++) ion for two K+ ions. The cation exchange is <""Strong Acid" exchange"> so the anions remain unchanged, but both CaCl2 and K(H)CO3 are soluble salts, so you don't get "scale" deposits. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (22 Nov 2021)

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> I dug out the following - just in case anyone wanted to read a bit more. It's a 'conversation' between members of _The Krib_ from 23 years ago, including Dr. Greg Morin...
> 
> Iron gluconate


I'm not sure Dr Morin's comments add a lot, in many ways it just reads like a precursor to Seachem's later advertising campaigns. This is what Dr Morin says about FeEDTA.


> _....... Caution was urged as overdosing E.D.T.A could lead to the nutrients actually being sucked out of the plants, leading to collapse. Most of us,  when dealing with E.D.T.A., use it in a form where it has already been  associated with the nutrient ions." This is the crux of the matter. If EDTA sucks nutrients (cations) out of plants, how likely is it that if one adds  EDTA with a nutrient (Iron) that the plant is going to pluck it right back?  If the EDTA can pull the nutrients out, then clearly the EDTA is the stronger of the two in this tug of war..._


and this was the reply from "Roger Miller": 


> ....... EDTA-chelated iron (as well as DTPA chelates and a few others) have been in horticultural use for decades with a record of apparent effectiveness. Either the chemical industry has foisted a huge hoax on the agricultural, horticultural and hobby industries and we've all been naively duped or EDTA chelated iron is biologically useful.  I tend to think that EDTA-iron is useful.


and "erewobe" from the University of Manitoba:


> ....... No, in countless experiments over many years, research has clearly shown that chelated Fe:EDTA can deliver adequate amounts of iron for maximal growth rates. In my own experiments I have found that 0.2 to 0.9 uM FE:EDTA (0.1 to 0.5 ppm) will suppport relative growth rates of between 75 to 300 (1 to 4 day doubling time)........


and they pretty effectively dismantle him and his argument.  This was from Karen Randall


> I'd suggest that people do what I usually advocate anyway.  Watch your plants.  If they look like they are suffering from an iron deficiency, (which, BTW, won't show up as slower growth at first, but as chlorotic new leaves.  This will be apparent in fast growing plant species first)..........


cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ (22 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> No, K+ a monovalent cation, and dGH is a measure of multivariate cations.
> 
> ...


Hi Darrel, Thanks for that..  I think I understand the Ca/Mg part as it pertains to GH.  So the reason I am still measuring ~12 KH in the softened water is because my (API KH) test kit is essentially measuring the CO3 and not CaCO3 content. Since whatever CaCO3 I had in the un-softened water turns into KCO3 ?

Could this also somehow explain why I usually see a drop in KH when I measure a day or two after WC?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (22 Nov 2021)

Hi Darrel (@dw1305)



dw1305 said:


> I'm not sure Dr Morin's comments add a lot, in many ways it just reads like a precursor to Seachem's later advertising campaigns.





dw1305 said:


> ...and they pretty effectively dismantle him and his argument.



Do I therefore take it that FeEDTA is every bit as good as ferrous gluconate? Indeed, is the latter inferior to FeEDTA?

Thanks in advance.

This is good stuff. I know very little about chelators.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (22 Nov 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> No, K+ a monovalent cation, and dGH is a measure of multivariate cations.


Hi Darrel (@dw1305)

Of course! What on earth was I thinking? Thanks for correcting me. I guess I'm too old to go back to school! 

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (22 Nov 2021)

> Dr. Morin:  The problem with EDTA chelation is that it is too strong and the plants have a very difficult time "cracking the nut" to get the iron out. Gluconate complexation is not as strong so it is much easier for the plants to extract the needed iron. Both chelates and complexes give an overall charge neutral species. The gluconate also (like EDTA) helps to keep the iron in solution longer than if the iron were free.


I thought that was an interesting comment - but appears to be less of a concern.


X3NiTH said:


> I dose 0.1ppm FeGluconate and 0.05ppm FeDTPA together and 24hrs later I measure 0.025ppm which will be very likely all FeDTPA, still enough to cover the plants for the day until a new dose goes in 24hrs later. You always want some available to ensure no deficiencies, you appear to be accomplishing this with your current dose.


I think @X3NiTH's approach of _hedging the bets _on Iron availability is worth considering, especially if we are dosing EDTA and are running our tanks close to or above 7 pH or when other factors that may prevent optimal utilization of the iron exists (I.e. running UV filters - which may or may not be a problem).





Regards,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (22 Nov 2021)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> Do I therefore take it that FeEDTA is every bit as good as ferrous gluconate? Indeed, is the latter inferior to FeEDTA?


Ferrous gluconate is a "weaker" chelator than FeEDTA, so Fe++(+) ions are more available, but also more likely to form insoluble compounds. It probably all comes down to how hard your water is. In very soft water you can add ferric chloride (FeCl3.nH2O) and those Fe+++ ions will remain plant available, but in harder water they are going to be mopped up and form <"insoluble oxides, hydroxides, carbonates and phosphates">.


X3NiTH said:


> You likely need to dose an Iron chelate that is more appropriate for this water hardness and pH, for longer term persistence something like DTPA or EDDHA works well, alternatively you can dose more of a shorter term chelate Iron supplement like Ferrous Gluconate which can quickly break down but is highly plant available and full of nutrition, the Gluconate chelate is a fully biodegradable long chain carbon molecule.


* edit What @MichaelJ says.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hufsa (22 Nov 2021)

Maybe an interesting sidenote, one of the big boys (burr740) on plantedtank.net has experienced some plants doing better when using both DTPA and gluconate


----------



## dw1305 (23 Nov 2021)

Hi all, 


Hufsa said:


> has experienced some plants doing better when using both DTPA and gluconate


I can see you might have a situation where a combination might be of value, but it would be a pretty marginal gain and largely aesthetic. 

I actually add FeEDTA on a fairly regular basis now, purely because Fe deficiency is where the <"Duckweed Index"> has some limitations, in that by the time the <"deficiency is obvious">, it takes a while before new, healthy leaves grow. 

If you look at @Zeus. 's <"Future of aquascaping"> image, you can see what can happen as iron availability is turned off and on. 

cheers Darrel


----------

