Permanent Damage from Temporary Exposure to Ammonia

[roundar]

I'm looking for studies on the long term effects of temporary exposure to toxic Ammonia. I respect everyone's opinion, but I'm not interested in "I think it creates scar tissue that can't be used anymore." Or, "I've had plenty of fish exposed to some ammonia and had no problems, they lived a long time." Unless of course it's backed up by scientific evidence. I think information is key in this hobby(as well as nearly all others.) And the more we know, the better decisions we can make for our fish!

So, any articles or books with credible authors would be greatly appreciated.

 

[jcolon]

Sounds good, I'd be interested to find what information is out there.

Here's one source I looked at when I was first starting.
Fish Poop and You: A Primer - Aquarium Forum

Good luck!

 

[eco23]

There are also a lot of variables that change the level of toxicity regardless of the ppm such as pH, salinity and temperature. This link has a chart that shows the varying degrees.
Bio-Elite FAQ Nitrogen and Fish

Deep Seven's chart is better, lol. vvv

 

[Deep Seven]

Ammonia Toxicity

I thought that was pretty interesting write up on acute toxicity, doesn't talk about long term effects of survivors though.

 

[roundar]

There are also a lot of variables that change the level of toxicity regardless of the ppm such as pH, salinity and temperature. This link has a chart that shows the varying degrees.
Bio-Elite FAQ Nitrogen and Fish

Here is another one devoted entirely to the topic:
Ammonia Toxicity

It's interesting to me that this information is out there, but the idea persists that .25ppm Ammonia in any circumstance will kill a fish.

lol, Nice link Deep Seven.

 

[eco23]

Here is another one devoted entirely to the topic:
Ammonia Toxicity

It's interesting to me that this information is out there, but there is still outrage at fish-in cycling (even when done correctly.) And the idea persists that .25ppm Ammonia in any circumstance will kill a fish.

lol, Nice link Deep Seven.

I don't remember hearing it ever mentioned that .25 will automatically kill a fish...in fact, that is the level we recommend maintaining for a fish-in cycle.

 

[roundar]

Sounds good, I'd be interested to find what information is out there.

Here's one source I looked at when I was first starting.
Fish Poop and You: A Primer - Aquarium Forum

Good luck!

That's a great post jcolon. I wish the author sited some of the information or something. Either way it appears to be a very informative look at cycling, and appears to come from the same point of view that "It's bad because we say it is."(as he says in the article) is no longer sufficient.

 

[severum mama]

I don't remember hearing it ever mentioned that .25 will automatically kill a fish...in fact, that is the level we recommend maintaining for a fish-in cycle.

But not because it isn't harmful, just because it's the lowest measurable threshold with most test kits.

 

[eco23]

But not because it isn't harmful, just because it's the lowest measurable threshold with most test kits.

Agreed , I should have said maximum level as opposed to level to maintain.

 

[roundar]

It's so interesting that you say that though, because as we can see, .25ppm ammonia is NOT toxic assuming the PH is below ~8.1

 

[severum mama]

I don't know enough about chemistry to know whether I should trust that chart. It's my understanding that it would be LESS toxic, not that it isn't toxic.

And many folks do have pH above 8.1.

 

[eco23]

To save myself some typing, I'm just going to copy and paste the same PM I just responded to yours with so my position is understood correctly-

We had pretty much the same discussion yesterday in a thread. IMO, there is a major difference between an experienced hobbyist who has the commitment to maintain a safe environment for the fish while the tank is being cycled, compared to a novice who is unaware of the challenges and the commitment required to do so. When people come on the board asking cycling questions, they generally (but not always) tend to be inexperienced with the process other than what the pet store has told them. That is why with new, inexperienced members I view fishless cycling as the only 100% safe method of cycling a tank. Of course for those of us who know what they're doing, fish-in, using seeded media or silent cycling is always a viable option. With living animals and novice fish keepers who are often unsure of their own commitment level, I think a better safe than sorry method is always the best idea.

 

[jcolon]

Here is another one devoted entirely to the topic:
Ammonia Toxicity

It's interesting to me that this information is out there, but the idea persists that .25ppm Ammonia in any circumstance will kill a fish.

That's a great site ... I forgot I had it bookmarked until now. A few months after first seeing it ... It makes more sense.

I'm guilty of telling newcomers that 0.25ppm starts to get into a danger (toxic) zone. Only because knowing human nature and complacency (same thing with my students) .. if I were to try and explain it can depend on pH and temp .. etc ... TMI ... in one ear out the other.

The way I figure, give newcomers a target number to avoid going over.

 

[eco23]

I don't want to generalize novices into one group...but as I said before, the key to preventing any potential long term damage from toxins is commitment.

For example, every kid wants a puppy. For the first couple weeks they'll be happy to feed them, pick up their poo, walk them daily, etc... But how long does it take before they don't have the same interest in picking the poo out of the yard and getting the leash out for a nightly walk?

A new fish keeper may be fully dedicated to changing water every day for a while, but as the novelty wears off, pwc's can tend to start getting less frequent for many of them. As I said before, I'd personally prefer seeing a first time fish keeper witness the nitrogen cycle first hand with an empty tank.

 

[jcolon]

To save myself some typing, I'm just going to copy and paste the same PM I just responded to yours with so my position is understood correctly-

We had pretty much the same discussion yesterday in a thread. IMO, there is a major difference between an experienced hobbyist who has the commitment to maintain a safe environment for the fish while the tank is being cycled, compared to a novice who is unaware of the challenges and the commitment required to do so. When people come on the board asking cycling questions, they generally (but not always) tend to be inexperienced with the process other than what the pet store has told them. That is why with new, inexperienced members I view fishless cycling as the only 100% safe method of cycling a tank. Of course for those of us who know what they're doing, fish-in, using seeded media or silent cycling is always a viable option. With living animals and novice fish keepers who are often unsure of their own commitment level, I think a better safe than sorry method is always the best idea.

Good point eco23. I agree 100%

I would recommend fish-less cycle to half the people I know if they wanted to start the hobby. Back in Jan .. I had NO CLUE about cycling ... PERIOD. Thankfully ... I at least researched and learned about cycling ... so I at least understood not stocking the tank with dozens of large (size and bio-load) fish at once.

Seriously .. how many people do we know that wouldn't understand cycling even if they read this entire thread. I can think of a few I know.

 

[roundar]

As mentioned in PM's, I can appreciate that point of view. This thread however is about finding scientific evidence that supports the theory that temporary exposure to ( reasonable levels of ) ammonia has non-negligible long term effects.

 

[jcolon]

As mentioned in PM's, I can appreciate that point of view. This thread however is about finding scientific evidence that supports the theory that temporary exposure to ( reasonable levels of ) ammonia has non-negligible long term effects.

Good point .. You did mentioned about keeping the info with scientific verification. I think so far my link, Eco23's link and the ammo toxicity charts is a start.

 

[severum mama]

Who determines what is a "reasonable level"? The reason I recommend keeping it at .25 or under is that, if you can avoid potential damage by keeping exposure as low as possible, IMO you should. Not trying to start an argument by the way. Interesting thread.

 

[eco23]

As mentioned in PM's, I can appreciate that point of view. This thread however is about finding scientific evidence that supports the theory that temporary exposure to ( reasonable levels of ) ammonia has non-negligible long term effects.

Understood, but this discussion will always lead to the topic of different forms of cycling which is, at the core, what we are discussing. The only evidence I've seen disputing negative effects are based within very strict water chemistry of specific pH and temp ranges. Nowhere near enough, in my opinion, to advocate the fact it is generally safe at low levels.

 

[roundar]

Who determines what is a "reasonable level"? The reason I recommend keeping it at .25 or under is that, if you can avoid potential damage by keeping exposure as low as possible, IMO you should. Not trying to start an argument by the way. Interesting thread.

No, I understand completely. The science I'm hoping will tell us 'reasonable level.' What I actually meant in that case however was I realize that dousing a fish in ammonia obviously would have long term effects, more specifically, death. But the real question is, If a fish is exposed to .75ppm toxic ammonia, when the ammonia is removed, will the fish return 100% to there original health. And I've said before, I agree completely w/ keeping it as low as possible. Especially when in doubt.

EDIT: I would disagree that "at the core" we're discussing how to cycle :/ . In fact, this chemistry IS the core. How we cycle and make other decisions is what comes out of that information.