Ammo lock trouble. High ammonia readings. help?!

[Delapool]

Sometimes quick and easy isn't always best. Isn't that what we are trying to do? Raise our fish to our best ability?

Well I think that is an interesting point you raise - however do you have an example specific to ammo lock? I'm curious because I would certainly stop using it if there is a problem with it.

 

[Delapool]

This is my point. Most people know that a water change is better for reducing ammonia (dilution) and most people know a healthy filter will control ammonia (biological filtration) but i really don't see what the problem with prime or ammolock is. The whole zeolite and cutting tap water seems excessive to me when there is a perfectly good 'conditioner' that dechlorinates and bonds harmful toxins. I would actually be more wary of adding meds to my tank than prime or ammolock.

Plus one here - I don't see why I would go to this effort. Look forward to enlightenment - good discussion.

 

[Delapool]

Most places would suggest prime is good for new tanks. As many places suggest the use of ammo lock in an emergency on a cycled system(to save lives)

I stick by my original point, biased against chemicals.
(Never used anything other than meds and occasionally carbon chips)

However, I have taken the time to read up on ammo lock (again), I still say while it is in use, you can't make an accurate test for nh3 at any point. In such conditions a specific nh3 kit is needed. It does change back after time agreed but there is no way of knowing the % of change while the chemical is in the water course. It is safe up to 10 times overdose (according to API independent test, university of Georgia, medical micro biology)
Now. To know precisely the volume of water and the precise dose of ammolock, that is not so easy in an uncontrolled environment. Medical grade measuring equipment very often isn't in every fish keepers arsenal.
I can't find any data on its fall off rate, I can't find anything about dissipation. Once added it's there until removed (carbon/water changes)

I know the rough volumes of my tanks, not the precise volumes, I think that's why a lot of meds etc. have an overdose acceptance calculated in.

As you disrupt the cycle you could get the nitrite spike again which is just as deadly, so you push the problem into next week, by its use the only thing you gain is time.

The best control for ammonia in my mind is extra effort and water changes. The problem is usually, too many fish, too much food, not enough filter capacity, not enough water changes, a dead fish.
Cycle through that list first, then consider the action needed to correct the imbalance.

99% of the time a water change or 10 will fix it. (This includes cleaning filters/substrate etc.)
For the basic water change, this will be up to 3 times a day to maintain things for maybe a month or until tests prove satisfactory.


(I use pond de-chlorinator inc. chloramines, heavy metals) it has no effect on ammonia in the tank except to disassociate chlorine from ammonia, this happens before water is added to tank with no recorded problems. (Yet) (RO/tap mix)

Sorry for the extra post, getting lots of crash reports. You mentioned that it can removed by carbon - was this from the website? Would be very keen to know as have wondered on this.

 

[J.Mcpeak]

My research for you (various sources)

Ammonia type clean up products, liquid chemicals, (same basic ingredients)

Quoted reference,
"It is a known ammonia binder patented for aquarium use by John F. Kuhns and sold as "Amquel" by Kordon and "ClorAm-X" by Reed Mariculture, among others.

Ammonia's reaction with hydroxymethanesulfonate is mechanistically complicated, possibly involving decomposition to formaldehyde and reformation to the product aminomethanesulfonate. The simplified overall reaction is believed to be:

NH3 + HOCH2SO3- à H2NCH2SO3- + H2O

"What ultimately happens to the aminomethanesulfonate in the aquarium is not well established"

http://www.labchem.com/tools/msds/msds/LC24990.pdf

http://www.apifishcare.com/pdf/3337...SVendors_2014_February_14_02-58-17-004_AM.pdf


"Sodium hydroxymethanesulfinate, (HOCH2SO2Na, HMS) is relatively stable in aqueous alkaline environments, but rapidly decomposes in acidic medium to give a variety of products that include sulfur dioxide. A detailed kinetic and mechanistic study of the decomposition of HMS in slightly acidic medium has shown a process that produces dithionite, S2O2-4, which is preceded by an induction period which persists for as long as molecular oxygen is present in the reaction solution. The complete consumption of molecular oxygen is a prerequisite for the formation of S2O2-4. Among some of the intermediates detected in the decomposition of HMS is the sulfite radical, SO-3. Comparisons are made between the decomposition mechanisms of thiourea dioxide (aminoiminomethanesulfinic acid) and HMS."
Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

"Inorganic chloramines, free chlorine and organic chloramines are chemically related and can change into one another easily. These compounds cannot be found in isolated form. Inorganic chloramines are not persistent, however, these compounds are more persistent than freely available chlorine compounds. Research has shown that the half-lives of inorganic chloramines can vary from one minute to 23 days, depending on the circumstances.

How are chloramines produced?

Chloramines are frequently produced by adding ammonia to water containing free chlorine (HOCl or OCl, depending on the pH). The ideal pH value for this reaction is 8,4. this means the water is slightly alkaline.

Reaction mechanism:
NH3 (aq) + HOCI -> NH2Cl + H2O

When the reaction takes place three kinds of inorganic chloramines can be formed. The pH value determines which kind of chloramines is formed. Trichloramines mainly form when the pH value is 3 or below. When the pH value is 7 or above, dichloramine concentrations are highest.
The amounts of chlorine and ammonia in the water also influence the origination of chloramines. The chlorine/ ammonia rate is ideally 6:1. During chloramine production the rate is usually 3-5:1. When ammonia concentrations are higher, more di- and trichloramines are formed.
Organic chloramines can also be formed during these reactions. Organic chloramines cannot be distinguished from other chloramines, using standard chloramine analysis methods."

 

[J.Mcpeak]

Sorry for the extra post, getting lots of crash reports. You mentioned that it can removed by carbon - was this from the website? Would be very keen to know as have wondered on this.

No sir? I think you misread me.
I said I USE carbon. That's my chemical. Doesn't leech when full. Saves me a 400 litre change after any action on my big tank, although regular courses of maintenance are carried out. I may use it once per year.
The only regular products I use are filter wool/floss and a water conditioner, tetra pond+ or similar and food for plants/fish. That's worked for me since day 1.

Carbon is known to remove meds post course, it is the reason why they suggest you remove it prior to administration of medical products. Can be used to remove discolouration from tannic acids etc. if you deem them unsightly. Again though it is not a necessary product. Just something I have in my possesion. The first box was bought years ago when I first started using bogwood. I sometimes use it after meds on display systems or in an emergency if the fish show signs of stress with meds.

 

[J.Mcpeak]

This is my point. Most people know that a water change is better for reducing ammonia (dilution) and most people know a healthy filter will control ammonia (biological filtration) but i really don't see what the problem with prime or ammolock is. The whole zeolite and cutting tap water seems excessive to me when there is a perfectly good 'conditioner' that dechlorinates and bonds harmful toxins. I would actually be more wary of adding meds to my tank than prime or ammolock.

It means, pre prepared water is better to add to a system.
That is water of a known quality.
I guess it depends how much your fish are worth and how easy it is for you to replace them. Mine are not worth the risk, I can't simply replace them, I'd need to either pay lots for big fish or wait 8 years again to get my shoal.

The fish are not exposed to anything that may prematurely kill or injure them.

RO is my way of controlling hardness (gh/Kh/pH) nothing more at this point. I re-mineralize with tap. If I was being overly cautious I wouldn't cut with tap water, I'd use a Kh/gh powder set and RO. Same as many marine keepers, RO+salt mix=sea water. (This is how I keep my puffer alive)

 

[Caliban07]

It means, pre prepared water is better to add to a system.

That is water of a known quality.

I guess it depends how much your fish are worth and how easy it is for you to replace them. Mine are not worth the risk, I can't simply replace them, I'd need to either pay lots for big fish or wait 8 years again to get my shoal.



The fish are not exposed to anything that may prematurely kill or injure them.



RO is my way of controlling hardness (gh/Kh/pH) nothing more at this point. I re-mineralize with tap. If I was being overly cautious I wouldn't cut with tap water, I'd use a Kh/gh powder set and RO. Same as many marine keepers, RO+salt mix=sea water. (This is how I keep my puffer alive)

Not the old 'I love my fish better than you love your fish' response? Not helpful

The data sheets you provided for ammolock were an interesting read and I will definitely be more cautious when thinking about adding chemicals to my tank. Although there did seem to be a few 'possibly's' 'believed to be's' and 'not well established's'. The data sheet on your choice of dechlorinator is impressive also.

However, I will continue to advise people in the getting started thread to use these products as a secondary measure to water changes when there are elevated levels of ammonia in their tanks which are imminently dangerous.

I also realise that it is not practical for all aquarists in the hobby to prepare water in the way that you choose to do either due to knowledge, time or cost. You may argue why keep fish if you cannot provide these conditions for them? Maybe their fish are not worth as much to them?

You could also ask why keep fish prisoners in a glass case for 8 years? But these questions would not be helpful or have a place on this forum, I hope!

Suggesting that your excessive methods are not cautious enough is also demeaning to the beginner aquarist and ignorant of standard practice.

Carling don't do fish keepers.....

 

[Hobgob]

Not the old 'I love my fish better than you love your fish' response? Not helpful

Suggesting that your excessive methods are not cautious enough is also demeaning to the beginner aquarist and ignorant of standard practice.

...

I don't think this is what the poster meant. It's simply that some people have to order their fish and only come available for a certain time and cost a fair penny. For instance if someone had a Molly or similar commonly found fish. He would not go to the same measures as a person with a peacock base or $500 breeding pair of discus. Not simply because he doesn't love the fish as much but because his fish are easily obtainable and not worth the same amount and not as sensitive.

And his practices are not excessive by any means and they are very common. I've seen local people have 400gallon tubs filled with water and peat as a holding tank just to lower the ph and have a constant stable water going in the tank. A lot less chance of ph swings this way. You may think this is excessive but you didn't pay 700 for 6 wild green discus and that's just the start of this person tank.

 

[J.Mcpeak]

I didn't want the argument I was questioned!

Not the old 'I love my fish better than you love your fish' response? Not helpful

The data sheets you provided for ammolock were an interesting read and I will definitely be more cautious when thinking about adding chemicals to my tank. Although there did seem to be a few 'possibly's' 'believed to be's' and 'not well established's'. The data sheet on your choice of dechlorinator is impressive also.

However, I will continue to advise people in the getting started thread to use these products as a secondary measure to water changes when there are elevated levels of ammonia in their tanks which are imminently dangerous.

I also realise that it is not practical for all aquarists in the hobby to prepare water in the way that you choose to do either due to knowledge, time or cost. You may argue why keep fish if you cannot provide these conditions for them? Maybe their fish are not worth as much to them?

You could also ask why keep fish prisoners in a glass case for 8 years? But these questions would not be helpful or have a place on this forum, I hope!

Suggesting that your excessive methods are not cautious enough is also demeaning to the beginner aquarist and ignorant of standard practice.

Carling don't do fish keepers.....

? That's what you took from that! <basically my response!
(My fish your fish isn't the point, please, I can't say anything here that isn't rude) <just trying to laugh that off! don't get irate!

I think there are easier and safer ways. It's that simple, I was questioned so I replied. I would promote zeolite based products but not in a tank.

I used stress zyme at the beginning.

I started off with no knowledge. If you think by me passing on that knowledge is somehow demeaning, I have no reply to that. I am critical of my own method, how is that demeaning?

Standard practice doesn't involve regular additions of chemicals!

Water change, filter maintenance, that's standard practice.
The fish on the most part can adapt and thrive in a wide variety of conditions, that's quite helpful given water changes a lot daily/annually.

I prepare water in the safest way I can, it all started over L030 plec. My water wasn't good enough for that fish. The fact I use the cheapest methods I can for most products I use rules out your cost issue.

I thought exactly that before I got fish, it's cruel to keep a fish in a box. That's why I try my best. I thought the same when I kept polecats, so I took them hunting because it's what they do. Same way people walk dogs.

There are many unknowns on that chemical, you have noticed that, I don't add something that possibly is maybe an unknown.

Promote water changes and regular maintenance. If you don't have time make time or select a hobby more suited to your free time.
Bucket out bucket in, 10 minutes? Filter 10 minutes? So maybe 30 minutes a week per tank. That's the time you wait for an oven dinner to cook. It's also easier and cheaper long term and carries no unknown possibly maybes.

Edit-
I did like the carling don't do fish keepers, that's a winner!

 

[Caliban07]

I don't think this is what the poster meant. It's simply that some people have to order their fish and only come available for a certain time and cost a fair penny. For instance if someone had a Molly or similar commonly found fish. He would not go to the same measures as a person with a peacock base or $500 breeding pair of discus. Not simply because he doesn't love the fish as much but because his fish are easily obtainable and not worth the same amount and not as sensitive.

And his practices are not excessive by any means and they are very common. I've seen local people have 400gallon tubs filled with water and peat as a holding tank just to lower the ph and have a constant stable water going in the tank. A lot less chance of ph swings this way. You may think this is excessive but you didn't pay 700 for 6 wild green discus and that's just the start of this person tank.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Caliban07]

? That's what you took from that! <basically my response!
(My fish your fish isn't the point, please, I can't say anything here that isn't rude) <just trying to laugh that off! don't get irate!

I think there are easier and safer ways. It's that simple, I was questioned so I replied. I would promote zeolite based products but not in a tank.

I used stress zyme at the beginning.

I started off with no knowledge. If you think by me passing on that knowledge is somehow demeaning, I have no reply to that. I am critical of my own method, how is that demeaning?

Standard practice doesn't involve regular additions of chemicals!

Water change, filter maintenance, that's standard practice.
The fish on the most part can adapt and thrive in a wide variety of conditions, that's quite helpful given water changes a lot daily/annually.

I prepare water in the safest way I can, it all started over L030 plec. My water wasn't good enough for that fish. The fact I use the cheapest methods I can for most products I use rules out your cost issue.

I thought exactly that before I got fish, it's cruel to keep a fish in a box. That's why I try my best. I thought the same when I kept polecats, so I took them hunting because it's what they do. Same way people walk dogs.

There are many unknowns on that chemical, you have noticed that, I don't add something that possibly is maybe an unknown.

Promote water changes and regular maintenance. If you don't have time make time or select a hobby more suited to your free time.
Bucket out bucket in, 10 minutes? Filter 10 minutes? So maybe 30 minutes a week per tank. That's the time you wait for an oven dinner to cook. It's also easier and cheaper long term and carries no unknown possibly maybes.

Edit-
I did like the carling don't do fish keepers, that's a winner!

I re-read your post now and you're right I completely read that wrong. I thought the 8 years bit was implying that your fish have survived so far for 8 years because of how you keep your water. Then it just spiralled from that.

I'm really sorry about that.

 

[J.Mcpeak]

I re-read your post now and you're right I completely read that wrong. I thought the 8 years bit was implying that your fish have survived so far for 8 years because of how you keep your water. Then it just spiralled from that.

I'm really sorry about that.

(like the Simpsons matey, hah hah)

No love lost. Don't apologise it isn't necessary. (Phew) just a misunderstanding then, that's all.

(I hope they have survived because of my water, I hope yours survive because of your water and all of you people, the same thing goes)

 

[Caliban07]

(like the Simpsons matey, hah hah)



No love lost. Don't apologise it isn't necessary. (Phew) just a misunderstanding then, that's all.



(I hope they have survived because of my water, I hope yours survive because of your water and all of you people, the same thing goes)

8 years for a shoal of fish though! My word. To be honest. If I had the time. I would try to ensure that I could make the water suit my fish. I know why this is beneficial and I know that fish can adapt to most water sources.

I don't use any chemicals other than tetra aqua safe (which I am now going to have to check the data sheet for)

I have been a tad hap hazard with meds lately which I have jacked in. I now do 50% water changes twice a week excessive!

I do personally believe that a good portion of people that use r/o water do it because they have to and I wouldn't consider r/o water standard practice. i think to many people, Using r/o by choice would be considered excessive considering the amount of fresh starters and the types of fish they/we keep and their starting knowledge and the adaptable range of these fish.

I may have some questions for another thread after ruining this one if you would care to answer

 

[J.Mcpeak]

8 years for a shoal of fish though! My word. To be honest. If I had the time. I would try to ensure that I could make the water suit my fish. I know why this is beneficial and I know that fish can adapt to most water sources.

I don't use any chemicals other than tetra aqua safe (which I am now going to have to check the data sheet for)

I have been a tad hap hazard with meds lately which I have jacked in. I now do 50% water changes twice a week excessive!

I do personally believe that a good portion of people that use r/o water do it because they have to and I wouldn't consider r/o water standard practice. i think to many people, Using r/o by choice would be considered excessive considering the amount of fresh starters and the types of fish they/we keep and their starting knowledge and the adaptable range of these fish.

I may have some questions for another thread after ruining this one if you would care to answer

(The clown shoal should live another 12-20+years) reports confirm over 30 years total but not often.

My story for RO, you'll like this, impulse buy, L030. Went off colour. Hard water hater. I learned fast to keep that fish, the unit cost way more! Now I have it to use, before the unit I made lots of tests at that time using pH minus, no idea what I was doing! So I learned some stuff about fish, I'm not bright I use auto spell!

I started out with danio sp.

This thread, I don't think it was ruined, we shall let the mods decide! I think it has been enlightening, maybe mild wandering off topic but otherwise ok.

Maybe the original poster could decide?

Tetra safe, active ingredient EDTA. For use in Biological applications.

http://whatsinproducts.com/app/webr...20012018 MSDS Tetra Pond Aqua Safe 120303.pdf

ETHYLENEDIAMINETETRAACETIC ACID DISODIUM SALT DIHYDRATE (02194822) - MP Biomedicals

 

[Delapool]

Thanks for all the information, some interesting reading. Bearing in mind I'm quickly reading on the train - I'm afraid I'm not seeing any reason to stop using ammo lock and this would not change regardless of the cost of the fish. What am I missing - are the chemical ingredients substantially different / dangerous for the dose rates we use in aquaria? Water conditioners are not all equal?

 

[Caliban07]

Thanks for all the information, some interesting reading. Bearing in mind I'm quickly reading on the train - I'm afraid I'm not seeing any reason to stop using ammo lock and this would not change regardless of the cost of the fish. What am I missing - are the chemical ingredients substantially different / dangerous for the dose rates we use in aquaria? Water conditioners are not all equal?

I can understand what j.mcpeak is saying. It is his preference not to use these products due to the chemicals used in them and the unknown effect on fish. It would seem he doesn't trust tap water all that much either. I can understand his thinking for both and yes any unknown should probably be treated seriously especially when you have very expensive fish that are difficult to replace.

This is just his preference though Dela. J.mcpeak has made a valid point but since there is little to suggest that these products actually harm fish I wouldn't worry about it too much. People use prime all the time, is there any real way to determine if they live shorter lives to those fish that arn't exposed to prime? Yes but will it ever be tested- probably not.

I would probably still only use ammo or prime as an absolute emergency in a new setup. Basic dechlirinator to me would be preferable.

 

[threnjen]

J.Mpeak thanks for taking the time to find that patent! That is really interesting info.

One thing I have been trying to research is whether zeolite "prefers" NH3. I've found and read quite a few studies on it and it was usually fed an ammonium solution of NH4 in lab studies (how do they keep it as NH4 I am curious). I haven't seen any evidence that it take in the NH3 first (but I also haven't seen anything that specifically tested this). Based on this I think in a setup where TAN is high, the chemical is still the best bet to ensure that the NH3 specifically is being neutralized.

 

[Delapool]

I can understand what j.mcpeak is saying. It is his preference not to use these products due to the chemicals used in them and the unknown effect on fish. It would seem he doesn't trust tap water all that much either. I can understand his thinking for both and yes any unknown should probably be treated seriously especially when you have very expensive fish that are difficult to replace.

This is just his preference though Dela. J.mcpeak has made a valid point but since there is little to suggest that these products actually harm fish I wouldn't worry about it too much. People use prime all the time, is there any real way to determine if they live shorter lives to those fish that arn't exposed to prime? Yes but will it ever be tested- probably not.

I would probably still only use ammo or prime as an absolute emergency in a new setup. Basic dechlirinator to me would be preferable.

Thanks for the information. Much appreciated as instead of 'one of anything' showing up at the lfs, we are now sometimes spoiled for choice with 3 options!

I'll read through the data sheets more carefully this weekend - interesting stuff.

 

[J.Mcpeak]

The answers I hope!

Zeolite study, test removal TAN. Page 4. 100% (breakthrough) after 33 hrs.

http://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/TREATMENT-OF-LANDFILL-LEAHCATE-USING-ZEOLITE.pdf


Toxic NH3 ammonia can be remove or detoxified by products such as Prime, Ammo Lock, or Amquel but this is a short term solution to proper bio filtration.

Copied from,
Aquarium Nitrogen Cycle | Cycling Methods | Ammonia & Nitrates

Ammonia calculator
Nitrogen-Ion Conversion Chart

Zeolite vs heavy metals study (mind bending chemistry)

http://www.yourncdinfo.com/clinoptilolite-heavy-metal-cations-removal.pdf

Zeolite data sheet
http://www.zeolite-products.com/ktml2/files/uploads/msds.pdf

 

[J.Mcpeak]

J.Mpeak thanks for taking the time to find that patent! That is really interesting info.

One thing I have been trying to research is whether zeolite "prefers" NH3. I've found and read quite a few studies on it and it was usually fed an ammonium solution of NH4 in lab studies (how do they keep it as NH4 I am curious). I haven't seen any evidence that it take in the NH3 first (but I also haven't seen anything that specifically tested this). Based on this I think in a setup where TAN is high, the chemical is still the best bet to ensure that the NH3 specifically is being neutralized.

I hope this helps you on your quest!