Nitrite

[popsock]

Quote:

Aquarists' concerns about nitrite are usually imported from the freshwater hobby. Nitrite is far less toxic in seawater than in freshwater. Fish are typically able to survive in seawater with more than 100 ppm nitrite! Until future experiments show substantial nitrite toxicity to reef aquarium inhabitants, nitrite is not an important parameter for reef aquarists to monitor. Tracking nitrite in a new reef aquarium can nevertheless be instructive by showing the biochemical processes that are taking place. In most cases, I do not recommend that aquarists bother to measure nitrite in established aquaria.

What do you think of that?

[brucey]

Well, he mentions fish but what about corals. I bet not many corals or inverts would put up with 100ppm of nitrite. But he is correct in saying that in an established aquaria it really isn't neccessary to check for ammonia or nitrite unless you notice that a fish has disappeared or something looks amiss in your tank. Nitrate is the factor that tends to accumulate and the one that most of us forget about . .

JMO
Brucey

[nasotang]

Originally posted by popsock@Jul 26 2005, 00:11
Quote:

In most cases, I do not recommend that aquarists bother to measure nitrite in established aquaria.


hmmm 100ppm never! if it was nitrate we were talking about then they would live in that quite happly! a agreee with this though! :thumbsup: Nick

[Will]

its afffects are less lethal in salt water, but still the fish have not adapted to handle it, at this level the nitrite will still affect the haemoglobin in the fish blood and severly affect the oxygen carrying potential that it has.


on a contriversal level though, i do remember reading that nitrate has no adverse affect on corals !!
but its only due to algae growths from the increased levels that cause the problems and phosphate is far more of a problem than nitrate ever would be as this works on the chemical level, but nitrate has no chemical influnce on the corals

[Mikey]

I thought Randy Holmes Farley was a chemist, not a marine biologist??

(May be wrong on both counts!! :lol: )

[Glenn@home]

Its interesting to see everyone commenting on the figures rather than the general statement that its not necessary to get anal about nitrite.

Im not sure he is advocating maintaining levles of nitrites at any particular level, simply that fish can tolerate relatively high levels. On the basis that the aquaria is established then would nitrite be of any interest at all?

If you have high nitrite levels isnt it likley that you have high nitrate levels and possibly ammonia too?

It does state in established aquaria though which is a key point i believe.

Out of interest where is this taken from?

Glenn

[popsock]

This is a quote from Randy Holmes Farley.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/index.htm

[Glenn@home]

Cheers

for the link, I have read the paper before, put into context of the paper I am not sure it says anything contraversial.

GLenn

Edit meant to say i do measure no2/3 monthly or so, but i cannot say that the small changes i observe make any noticeable difference to the tank inhabitants.

[uda]

Originally posted by popsock@Jul 26 2005, 01:11
Quote:

What do you think of that?

B011ocks :lol:

Seriously, I'm guessing that his point is that it's not AS toxic in saltwater but it's still toxic.

Typical chemist giving LC50's :D In other words if less than 50% of the test subjects died in 'X' hours then the nitrite was rated as not toxic :o

Assuming no cumulative effects then worst case a biologist would take the LC50 and divide by between about 10 and 100 to get an "acceptable" level. Better still would be a level at which no effects could be seen.

There's a fairly good study on clowns reported here:

Nitrite and clowns (http://www.petsforum.com/cis-fishnet/seascope/99SS1605.htm)

They found 100ppm caused death in 40% of the individuals tested and that levels of above 10ppm caused the fish to be "very lethargic and breathing hard".

The "non-toxic" thing seems to have come from studies of food fish and also from the point of view of "dead=bad:live=good".

How appropriate is it to compare the amount of nitrite that will outright kill a tough devil like a common eel in 96 hours to the amount of nitrite we should be happy longterm with in a marine reef tank?

[Glenn@home]

Andrew

I take it that you would advocate monitoring nitrite levels as a matter of routine in establised aquaria then?

GLenn

[uda]

Glenn,

Yes, I would advocate monitoring pretty much everything in an established aquarium.

To an extent the more established the tank the more stock you have relying on you and the harder it would be to get back to where you are. So you could argue paranoia is more justified here than with a "new" tank.

I agree with what you are saying in that a high level of nitrite has no business in an established tank. It's not very likely that the wings are going to fall off a plane, however I would be a little worried if nobody kept checking them ;)

[Glenn@home]

I think one of the problems is when we say established tank what do we mean?

Speaking for myself my tank isnt really established even though its been up and running for three years now. I wont bore you with the details of why im where i am (now that makes a change doesnt it :lol: ) but for this reason i do monitor these parameters but do note that they dont change much other than tending towards zero on the test kit scale.

Clealry for other people their tanks would be considered established in far shorter a period in but of course there are others who never reach the stage I am at before either getting a new tank and starting over, or giving up.

I am often concerned that someone is considered or considers themselves as experienced and their tank established on what in reality might be a false premise, e.g. time served, keeping aparticular critter alive, etc.

Personally I think we should be much more circumspect about what we consider established and experienced. I have often said in the past that IMHO established means set up for minimum 3 - 5 years, experience is much more about what an individual does with the information they have gathered rather than simply keeping something alive and growing for a period of time.

An interesting point though about what parameters are important. On one side i can see Randy's point, but then again would i want to go down the road of trusting my eyes that changes werent afoot whihc could lead to something disasterous happening? I guess for the price of the test kit its not worth the pontential loss

JMHO

Glenn

[lenny]

in my own experiece i have found high nitrate in reef tanks tend to change the colour of the corals due to the algae growth inside the corals. May not be the case but just an observation in my own tank. low nutriants keep corals at original colour whereas high nutriants change them. :) lenny

[uda]

Glenn,

Having had this conversation many times with customers about their "established" tanks which have been set up for "ages" (3 weeks ;) ) I couldn't agree more.

Constant (good) test results are great, if boring, and we still keep doing them in the hope that they may spot a problem before the stock does.

It's just like insurance, most of the time you couldn't care less but every now and then it's really quite handy.

Besides it makes a cool graph for the office wall :D

[popsock]

I would actually say that something like an Ammonia Alert device (or test kit) is more important to check on a regular basis. Unless your tank has been nuked there's going to be lots of bacteria to convert NH3 to NO2 and NO2 to NO3, so catching it at the Nitrite stage is a bit late IMO with any damage already being done by Ammonia.

[Glenn@home]

Pop

TBH i dont and test for ammonia and havent since my tank had completed the initial cycle.

I think that all things being equal, the detection of ammonia is unlikely unless you have a fatality or overdose with food which wold be a specific event and would possibly be difficult to detect with a routine test.

I cannot be certain, but i would have thought that for the fatality to result in a signficant amount of ammonia to be present in the water would require something quite signficant in relation to the tank size.

So in my 6x2x2 a single hgermit owuldnt cause a problem, on the other hand the demise of my 4 inch regal probably would.

Personally I would not be concerned about measuring ammonia unless doing it constantly which i presume that ammonia alert does?

I think the thing with nitrite and notrate is that in a sense they accumalate in the tank or at least can and therefore monitoring them regularly will indicate the 'health' of the tank.

If you can detect ammonia then its likley that the other two by products are irrelevant.

Id be interested to hear what Andrew has to say on this issue.

Glenn

[uda]

Glenn,

Ammonia alerts are a constant free ammonia monitor. As popsock says, very handy as an "Oh dear" type device in the event of a major filtration disaster.

I was thinking more longterm and less acute I suppose.

In our customers' water tests we usually only see ammonia in very newly setup tanks or after a major disaster. But nitrate/nitrite are often present in both newly setup and well established tanks.

What concerns me is that their effects are chronic and can occur at very low levels. In other words with an ammonia problem the dead fish tend to give it away but with a nitrite/nitrate problem you might not 'see' anything obvious. At low levels, for both fish and corals these compounds are an added stressor. In books figures of 10 to 50 ppm nitrate are regarded as "acceptable", but we know fine well that pretty much any has a seriously negative impact on coral growth.

That coral that isn't doing too well or that fish that died after only a few months could well be the casualties.

A rise in nitrate/nitrite tells you that something is "not right" hopefully before it does any real harm. A rise in ammonia is panic stations.

[popsock]

FYI Nitrite and pH Alerts are being created by Seachem at the moment.

[Glenn@home]

Andrew

A rise in nitrate/nitrite tells you that something is "not right" hopefully before it does any real harm. A rise in ammonia is panic stations.

Basically this is what i was getting at but probably didnt explain it well.

Glenn

[SCOOB]

Originally posted by popsock@Jul 26 2005, 19:18
FYI Nitrite and pH Alerts are being created by Seachem at the moment.
ooh, that could be interesting. a ph alert for those who can't afford a probe set-up. imagine how much simpler life would be if they developed ones for ca, kh, mg and the like. you could have them all lined up on the front glass of your sump and at a glance know exactly what was going on.

[wise owl]

Well i know for a fact that 1ppm of nitrite is enough to send my clowns on a hunger strike.....so clearly they arn't happy, and if i allowed it to continue at that level i'am sure they would eventually get ill and die...., so this 100ppm sounds like a load of *******s to me as well... <_<

tho i feel in most cases if you have a nitrite reading you prob have an ammonia issue too.....which reminds me does anyone know of an ammonia test kit that actually works in saltwater well ???....i have the salifert kit and its absolutly bloody USELESS... :angry: it just goes milky whatever and impossible to see what colour you have...seems okay in freshwater tho.

Paul.

[Garry thomas]

There's no excuse for a nitrite reading at any level in our tanks other than initial cycling where you will obviously get a reading. Although ammonia is not what this thread is about i will give my 10 p's worth. Once a tank is established (cycled) you should never show ammonia or nitrite readings however small! If that is the case something is a miss.

[Glenn@home]

Whilst in principle i would agree with you Gary, I am far from convinced that in truth most people achive this situation.

Bearing in mind how 'good' test kits are to use and interpret, I have to be honest and say that i doubt many of the results that get posted.

Of course it may be that my set up is the only one which has never reached zero for no2/3 and po4, somehow I doubt it.

But i would re-iterate I agree with the concept and the objective of having readings of zero for the parameters in question.

JMHO

GLenn

[dod]

I really don't know if nitrite is as toxic to marine fish as it is to freshwater fish, but there is quite a bit known about nitrite toxicity to freshwater fish, and in more salty solutions nitrite is believed to have to compete with chloride ions at the site of uptake on the gills. I think that it is difficult to test, as many freshwater fish won't take to well to salty conditions, and the reverse is proabably true for marine fish.

The UDA folks had some interesting comments, although it's worth pointing out that the way in which the tests are reported (i.e. LC50s etc, concentration resulting in death of 50% of test subjects) is usually a function of the test. A concentration for no effects in a very short test (a few days) would probably be a very unreliable measure in most cases.

And finally my thoughts on the need to monitor nitrite - I don't think that its necessary (although I do include it in the tests that I do myself). This is probably a fine policy whilst things are all good and well, the extra information might just be handy in the event of a problem. Nitrite is essentially just an intermediate between ammonia and nitrate, so if you know these you could probably guess the nitrite reading

Dod

[JasandJules]

I don't monitor Ammo or Nitrite regularly at all, and when I do, Nitrite is always zero.. Ammonia I have no idea, all those shades of green look the same to me, but I assume it is zero as my fish are ok...... I work on the principle that I correctly cycled the reef tank (even waited for a second ammo spike) and so there should be, with slow stocking, enough bacteria to cope with the waste.

I hope I am not too wrong..

The other point I would make is, so what if fish "can" survive in 50ppm nitrite. There is a huge difference between thrive and survive. Let's face it, humans can survive some pretty awful conditions too, but would you want to live in them if you could avoid it??! We should be, as a matter of course, keeping toxic chemicals as low as possible, to give the fish/corals a Healthy environment to live in.......

[uda]

Originally posted by dod+Aug 17 2005, 22:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dod @ Aug 17 2005, 22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think that it is difficult to test, as many freshwater fish won't take to well to salty conditions, and the reverse is proabably true for marine fish.[/b]

I think I can help you here, as this has been done in common eels. The results were pretty much as expected. Nitrite was far more toxic to the common eels in freshwater than it was in salt water. Very handy having a fish that can do both!

Work has also been done on the effects of 'tonic salt' addition on nitrite toxicity in freshwater fish. As you say it's a competition thing with chloride ions. Chloride seems to reduce nitrite toxicity even at very low levels, typically 10 chloride : 1 Nitrite is enough.

Originally posted by dod@Aug 17 2005, 22:05
The UDA folks had some interesting comments, although it's worth pointing out that the way in which the tests are reported (i.e. LC50s etc, concentration resulting in death of 50% of test subjects) is usually a function of the test. A concentration for no effects in a very short test (a few days) would probably be a very unreliable measure in most cases.

LC50's are much loved by chemists, I suppose even they can tell whether an animal is dead or not, meow :P I agree with you LC50's are often a function of poor tests.

Which is why they are hated by environmental/biological types for being pretty much useless. In a 'real' situation knowing that 'x' ppm of some pollutant kills 50% of test subjects in 24 hours doesn't really help much/at all.

For example. How do you figure out a 'safe' level from the following data? "One teaspoon of rat poison kills 50% of average subjects in 24 hours"

So does half a teaspoon kill 50% in 48 hours? What happens if we give 1/4 of a teaspoon a day for a week? Or is 0.001ppm in drinking water for life safe?

You are right looking for the concentration which has no observable effect is far more difficult. But IMO it's far more important. Just taking a short term LC50 and saying that anything below that value is "acceptable" is simply B011ocks. If R-H-F actually said that then he should be ashamed of himself. As JasandJules put it there's a huge difference between survive and thrive.

<!--QuoteBegin-dod@Aug 17 2005, 22:05
Nitrite is essentially just an intermediate between ammonia and nitrate, so if you know these you could probably guess the nitrite reading[/quote]

Unfortunately it's not a one way street, nor is it even certain that the ammonia will wind up as nitrite and/or nitrate. So you'll still have to keep doing the nitrite tests, guessing just won't work.

Andrew (UA)

[dod]

You are right looking for the concentration which has no observable effect is far more difficult. But IMO it's far more important.

I think that there is a far more important issue than the no effect level for an individual animal or species, and this is whether or not any of the other species might be even more sensitive.

Knowing what levels of a particular substance are harmful to a clown fish, for example, would probably not give any indication as to whether or not corals or other very different creatures might react to the same stuff.

A no effect level for one (or even more) species does not mean that everything will necessarially be safe even if the levels of nitrite (or any other substance) are below the no effect level.

Cheers,

Dod
:wacko:

[ickypimp]

I think that the key point here that hasnt (as far as i can see) been made is this...

Sure our tank enhabitants cant tolerate some nitrite, however will they thrive or merely exist in this substandard environment ???

Surely the whole point of practicing good animal husbandry is to provide water chems that mimick as closly as possible those of the natural habitat

Now i challenge Randy Holmes Farley to go sample reef water from anywhere in the world and find nitrite in such abundance

Exactally he wont... so you shouldnt either in your tank