Washing Your Bio
- Thread starter benzjamin13
- Start date
In regards to residual chlorine and tap water, Dr. Stephan Tanner is talking out of his ass.
The residual chlorine level as it leaves the tap can be anywhere from 0, to 3 ppm+. (in North America) And that is not even considering the residual from chloramine, a residual that is not affected by "gassing off" etc.
As I have already expressed several times, what may work for one individual, and their set up, in their city, and their tap water, may wipe a tank out a few counties over. And that is not even considering the global nature of MFK, that has members world-wide.
Yes, most likely not all of the bio-bacteria will be killed off, even at elevated levels of chlorine, but it won't just bounce back in an hour or two, either. Why on earth would anyone want to subject their fish to that? It's like saying a little bit of second hand smoke won't hurt an infant. Really? Y'all do understand that many municipalities now use chloramine. Right? With chloramine it's quite possible to have the same residual at your tap, as it leaves the plant. Where I live the water from our treatment plant is piped to various cities, the furthest one an hours drive from here. And guess what, when it arrives that water still contains disinfectant!
Chlorine is a toxin to bacteria, that's why they use it for disinfection. Obviously the levels of disinfectant residual is going to be lower in some areas, and much higher in others. At higher levels it will kill a good percentage of the bacteria in your filters. The longer they are exposed, the more it will kill.
I feel like I just landed in the twilight zone.
Hopefully anyone reading this thread uses some common sense, and makes damn sure that they know what the residual level is coming out of their tap, before they follow anyone's advice.
The residual chlorine level as it leaves the tap can be anywhere from 0, to 3 ppm+. (in North America) And that is not even considering the residual from chloramine, a residual that is not affected by "gassing off" etc.
As I have already expressed several times, what may work for one individual, and their set up, in their city, and their tap water, may wipe a tank out a few counties over. And that is not even considering the global nature of MFK, that has members world-wide.
Yes, most likely not all of the bio-bacteria will be killed off, even at elevated levels of chlorine, but it won't just bounce back in an hour or two, either. Why on earth would anyone want to subject their fish to that? It's like saying a little bit of second hand smoke won't hurt an infant. Really? Y'all do understand that many municipalities now use chloramine. Right? With chloramine it's quite possible to have the same residual at your tap, as it leaves the plant. Where I live the water from our treatment plant is piped to various cities, the furthest one an hours drive from here. And guess what, when it arrives that water still contains disinfectant!
Chlorine is a toxin to bacteria, that's why they use it for disinfection. Obviously the levels of disinfectant residual is going to be lower in some areas, and much higher in others. At higher levels it will kill a good percentage of the bacteria in your filters. The longer they are exposed, the more it will kill.
I feel like I just landed in the twilight zone.
Hopefully anyone reading this thread uses some common sense, and makes damn sure that they know what the residual level is coming out of their tap, before they follow anyone's advice.
…….. and while I am on this chlorine/chloramine residual rant, below is part of discussion I had with Seachem reps 3 years ago when they decided to dumb down their water treatment directions due to consumers not being able to do math. After discussing this further in private with Dr. Greg Morin, the head chemist & CEO of Seachem, he added more detailed instructions on their FAQ page for Safe.
………………...
Before reading the following please understand that I post this information with the intention to help, not hinder Seachem. I am a very loyal customer of Seachem products, including both Prime & Safe, and have been for many many years. I'm also very well informed when it comes to treating tap water, both chlorine, and chloramine systems.
In Canada, Health Canada has established a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) for chloramines in drinking water of 3.0 mg/L (3000 µg/L). This MAC is based on a risk evaluation for monochloramine only, as mono-chloramine is usually the predominant chloramine and as information on dichloramine and trichloramine toxicity is insufficient to establish guidelines for these two compounds.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/chloramines/index-eng.php
In the USA , the EPA has a standard (the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level or MRDL) and a health goal (the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal or MRDLG) for chloramine. The enforceable MRDL is the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. The MRDLG is the level of a drinking water disinfectant, below which there is no known or expected risk to health. EPA sets the standard as close to the health goal as feasible, while considering technology, treatment, cost, and risk tradeoffs. In the case for chloramine, the MRDL and MRDLG are the same. (4.0 mg/l or 4.0 ppm)
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectants.cfm
American Water Works Association recommends a goal of 2.0 mg/L combined chlorine residual for water leaving the treatment plant and a level of 1.0 mg/L combined chlorine throughout the distribution system.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/chloramines/index-eng.php
The average municipal water system maintains residual monochloramine concentrations around 2 mg/L (range: 1.5 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L).
http://www.wqa.org/Portals/0/Technical/Technical Fact Sheets/2014_Chloramine.pdf
3.1 Water
Typical chloramine concentrations of 0.5–2 mg/litre are found in drinking-water supplies where chloramine is used as a primary disinfectant or to provide a chlorine residual in the distribution system (26). Chloramine residuals in the USA range from 0.6 to 5.0 mg/litre; 75% of utilities have finished water with chloramine residual levels between 1.0 and 3.0 mg/litre entering the distribution system.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/monochloramine.pdf
© World Health Organization 2004
Some specific examples of actual chloramine levels found in drinking water located in the USA.
Portland Oregon 2015 Drinking Water Quality Report
Maximum levels of total chlorine residuals from chloramine detected: 2.02 - 2.72 ppm.
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/244813
San Francisco CA 2013 Water Quality Report
Chloramine residual levels average 2.2 ppm, with a high range of 2.9 ppm.
http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634
San Diego CA 2013 Water Quality Report
Disinfectant Residual (Chloramine) distribution system average 2.2 ppm, with a high range of 4.1.
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/wq13.pdf
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 2014 Report
An average of 1.8 ppm chloramine was reported (no maximum level given?)
http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/annual/waterreport/2014results/metro.htm
Houston TX 2013 Water Quality Report
An average of 1.96 ppm chloramine, and a maximum level of 3.8 ppm
http://www.publicworks.houstontx.gov/sites/default/files/images/utilities/wq2013.pdf
Kansas City 2014 Water Quality Report
An average of 2.27 ppm Chloramine, with a maximum level of 3.07 ppm
https://www.kcwaterservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2014WQR1.pdf
Miami Florida
An average of chloramine residual in the main system of 2.5, with a high range of 4.2 ppm, and the Aventura (Norwood) system showing an average of 3.1 ppm, with a high range of 4.0 ppm
http://www.miamidade.gov/water/library/reports/water-quality-2014.pdf
Philadelphia
Philly has its tap water sourced from three different water treatment facilities, which across the entire distribution area average out at 1.98 ppm, with a high range of 3.8 ppm.
http://www.phila.gov/water/wu/Water Quality Reports/2014WaterQuality.pdf
Fairfax VA
An annual chloramine residual of 2.8 ppm, with a high of 4.1 ppm.
https://www.fcwa.org/waterqualityreport.pdf
Washington DC
Highest running annual average, 3.0 ppm chloramine, with a high range of 4.2 ppm.
https://www.dcwater.com/news/publications/DC_Water_Annual_WQReport_2014.pdf
So someone please explain to me how treating for 1.0 ppm chloramine is going to be effective for everyone on the planet that uses this product, let alone your customers based in various locations within the USA? The answer is there is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL for these types of questions, one has to have a local water disinfectant base number to start with before they can calculate the quantity of water conditioner such as Seachem Safe required.
There is no possible way on earth that one can make a blanket statement such as "the typical chlorine/chloramine concentrations across many municipalities ", equates to 1.25 mg/l or 1.25 ppm. That's junk science, total nonsense, and you all know it. If you don't know it, spend some time checking out some of the larger municipalities that are using chloramine as their main treatment for disinfection.
I can assure you that what you will find is that most run between 2.0 - 2.5 ppm chloramine. not 1.25 ppm as you are suggesting. Even from a sales perspective it's bad advice, as Seachem is shorting themselves on sales. For chlorine you are probably slightly closer to the mark as chlorine begins to break down the moment that it enters the system. The same does not hold true for chloramine. In other words if the chloramine levels are 2.0-2.5 ppm when leaving the treatment facility, it will retain that strength for many miles while being piped to residential homes. Even homes 50 miles away from the source.
If one is going to go way out on a limb and suggest dosage rates in a "one dose fits all" manner, then as previously suggested it would be far safer to target a level of 2.5 ppm chloramine, or inform consumers to first check with their local water treatment facility.
………………...
Before reading the following please understand that I post this information with the intention to help, not hinder Seachem. I am a very loyal customer of Seachem products, including both Prime & Safe, and have been for many many years. I'm also very well informed when it comes to treating tap water, both chlorine, and chloramine systems.
In Canada, Health Canada has established a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) for chloramines in drinking water of 3.0 mg/L (3000 µg/L). This MAC is based on a risk evaluation for monochloramine only, as mono-chloramine is usually the predominant chloramine and as information on dichloramine and trichloramine toxicity is insufficient to establish guidelines for these two compounds.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/chloramines/index-eng.php
In the USA , the EPA has a standard (the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level or MRDL) and a health goal (the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal or MRDLG) for chloramine. The enforceable MRDL is the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. The MRDLG is the level of a drinking water disinfectant, below which there is no known or expected risk to health. EPA sets the standard as close to the health goal as feasible, while considering technology, treatment, cost, and risk tradeoffs. In the case for chloramine, the MRDL and MRDLG are the same. (4.0 mg/l or 4.0 ppm)
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectants.cfm
American Water Works Association recommends a goal of 2.0 mg/L combined chlorine residual for water leaving the treatment plant and a level of 1.0 mg/L combined chlorine throughout the distribution system.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/chloramines/index-eng.php
The average municipal water system maintains residual monochloramine concentrations around 2 mg/L (range: 1.5 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L).
http://www.wqa.org/Portals/0/Technical/Technical Fact Sheets/2014_Chloramine.pdf
3.1 Water
Typical chloramine concentrations of 0.5–2 mg/litre are found in drinking-water supplies where chloramine is used as a primary disinfectant or to provide a chlorine residual in the distribution system (26). Chloramine residuals in the USA range from 0.6 to 5.0 mg/litre; 75% of utilities have finished water with chloramine residual levels between 1.0 and 3.0 mg/litre entering the distribution system.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/monochloramine.pdf
© World Health Organization 2004
Some specific examples of actual chloramine levels found in drinking water located in the USA.
Portland Oregon 2015 Drinking Water Quality Report
Maximum levels of total chlorine residuals from chloramine detected: 2.02 - 2.72 ppm.
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/244813
San Francisco CA 2013 Water Quality Report
Chloramine residual levels average 2.2 ppm, with a high range of 2.9 ppm.
http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634
San Diego CA 2013 Water Quality Report
Disinfectant Residual (Chloramine) distribution system average 2.2 ppm, with a high range of 4.1.
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/wq13.pdf
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 2014 Report
An average of 1.8 ppm chloramine was reported (no maximum level given?)
http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/annual/waterreport/2014results/metro.htm
Houston TX 2013 Water Quality Report
An average of 1.96 ppm chloramine, and a maximum level of 3.8 ppm
http://www.publicworks.houstontx.gov/sites/default/files/images/utilities/wq2013.pdf
Kansas City 2014 Water Quality Report
An average of 2.27 ppm Chloramine, with a maximum level of 3.07 ppm
https://www.kcwaterservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2014WQR1.pdf
Miami Florida
An average of chloramine residual in the main system of 2.5, with a high range of 4.2 ppm, and the Aventura (Norwood) system showing an average of 3.1 ppm, with a high range of 4.0 ppm
http://www.miamidade.gov/water/library/reports/water-quality-2014.pdf
Philadelphia
Philly has its tap water sourced from three different water treatment facilities, which across the entire distribution area average out at 1.98 ppm, with a high range of 3.8 ppm.
http://www.phila.gov/water/wu/Water Quality Reports/2014WaterQuality.pdf
Fairfax VA
An annual chloramine residual of 2.8 ppm, with a high of 4.1 ppm.
https://www.fcwa.org/waterqualityreport.pdf
Washington DC
Highest running annual average, 3.0 ppm chloramine, with a high range of 4.2 ppm.
https://www.dcwater.com/news/publications/DC_Water_Annual_WQReport_2014.pdf
So someone please explain to me how treating for 1.0 ppm chloramine is going to be effective for everyone on the planet that uses this product, let alone your customers based in various locations within the USA? The answer is there is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL for these types of questions, one has to have a local water disinfectant base number to start with before they can calculate the quantity of water conditioner such as Seachem Safe required.
There is no possible way on earth that one can make a blanket statement such as "the typical chlorine/chloramine concentrations across many municipalities ", equates to 1.25 mg/l or 1.25 ppm. That's junk science, total nonsense, and you all know it. If you don't know it, spend some time checking out some of the larger municipalities that are using chloramine as their main treatment for disinfection.
I can assure you that what you will find is that most run between 2.0 - 2.5 ppm chloramine. not 1.25 ppm as you are suggesting. Even from a sales perspective it's bad advice, as Seachem is shorting themselves on sales. For chlorine you are probably slightly closer to the mark as chlorine begins to break down the moment that it enters the system. The same does not hold true for chloramine. In other words if the chloramine levels are 2.0-2.5 ppm when leaving the treatment facility, it will retain that strength for many miles while being piped to residential homes. Even homes 50 miles away from the source.
If one is going to go way out on a limb and suggest dosage rates in a "one dose fits all" manner, then as previously suggested it would be far safer to target a level of 2.5 ppm chloramine, or inform consumers to first check with their local water treatment facility.
I didn't post with the intention to convince anyone of its validity.
The OP asked "who else does this?" I raised my hand.
I am an experienced aquarist who has done this for many years. But, I know how.
MY tanks dont crash, my discus are healthy and strong, wild fish fine, my new altums doing great.
I will continue to wash my bio-media in tap, change it out for new every 4 years, and use my mechanical media strictly as mechanical.
The OP asked "who else does this?" I raised my hand.
I am an experienced aquarist who has done this for many years. But, I know how.
MY tanks dont crash, my discus are healthy and strong, wild fish fine, my new altums doing great.
I will continue to wash my bio-media in tap, change it out for new every 4 years, and use my mechanical media strictly as mechanical.
And I have no problem with that, Amy. You stated; "I didn't post with the intention to convince anyone of its validity. ", yet if you go back and read which posts you "liked", it seems that you have certainly weighed in on the subject.
I'm not pointing any fingers here, other than to those who promote this as being a non issue across the board. Nor am I attempting to tell anyone how to do anything in their fish tanks, I am simply playing devils advocate, of what can take place in some peoples set ups that have higher disinfectant residuals, especially those on chloramine systems. I've seen the results of chloramine toxicity first hand. Our city switched from chlorine to chloramine approx. 20 yrs ago, and I made it my mission to understand the difference early on.
I would like to think that an experienced aquarist with many years of keeping fish would add a disclaimer, or warning, or some kind of caveat to their comments. The science behind all of this is not just some kind of fish keeping commandment. I'm not trying to be right, or telling anyone what they do is wrong. I'm just attempting to make sure that anyone new to fish keeping and/or may not understand some of this doesn't wipe their bio-media out by doing something that was easily avoidable.
I'm not pointing any fingers here, other than to those who promote this as being a non issue across the board. Nor am I attempting to tell anyone how to do anything in their fish tanks, I am simply playing devils advocate, of what can take place in some peoples set ups that have higher disinfectant residuals, especially those on chloramine systems. I've seen the results of chloramine toxicity first hand. Our city switched from chlorine to chloramine approx. 20 yrs ago, and I made it my mission to understand the difference early on.
I would like to think that an experienced aquarist with many years of keeping fish would add a disclaimer, or warning, or some kind of caveat to their comments. The science behind all of this is not just some kind of fish keeping commandment. I'm not trying to be right, or telling anyone what they do is wrong. I'm just attempting to make sure that anyone new to fish keeping and/or may not understand some of this doesn't wipe their bio-media out by doing something that was easily avoidable.
I’ve always done tap water myself. My tap was on a well for the longest time. Since having city water which comtains chlorine I’ve stopped. Similar to you, I didn’t have an issue for 10+ years.
Hello; Yes it does. So some will be on surfaces other than a dedicated bio-media we fish keepers pick.
Hello; So some will be on surfaces other than a dedicated bio-media we fish keepers pick.
Hello; We did add several disclaimers.
Hello; Here is another question I have thought about regarding the topic of bio-media. I gather from reading posts and threads the better dedicated bio-media is loaded with pores or some other features which increase the overall surface area. This makes sense as the film of bb will have plenty of places to colonize. No problem there.
The question is what prevents these very small pores or surface irregularities from becoming clogged up over time? I get that at first water can flow pretty freely in and thru all these spaces but will they not eventually be covered or the holes stopped up?
I use for example the intake tubes of my HOB filters. Given many months to years I find the inner surfaces of these tubes to have a build up of a sticky film. A film that is clearly more than a microscopic film of sessile bacteria. I am not sure what the film is made of. The film can be fairly thick. Maybe it is layers of bacteria growing on top of each other and making layers sort of like how a coral reef grows. Thus only the top layer is active. At any rate it occurs to me that such a film (whatever it is made of) will smother the fine surfaces of bio-media and if this is true then all the little pores and such become of no use as a surface for the bb.
The question is what prevents these very small pores or surface irregularities from becoming clogged up over time? I get that at first water can flow pretty freely in and thru all these spaces but will they not eventually be covered or the holes stopped up?
I use for example the intake tubes of my HOB filters. Given many months to years I find the inner surfaces of these tubes to have a build up of a sticky film. A film that is clearly more than a microscopic film of sessile bacteria. I am not sure what the film is made of. The film can be fairly thick. Maybe it is layers of bacteria growing on top of each other and making layers sort of like how a coral reef grows. Thus only the top layer is active. At any rate it occurs to me that such a film (whatever it is made of) will smother the fine surfaces of bio-media and if this is true then all the little pores and such become of no use as a surface for the bb.
