So What The Hell are they puting in the water NOW!

[neilm]

I work for a local government in south east queensland.  One of the earlier posts which alarmed me said that

'Councils had doubled the amount of chlorine or chloramine added to its treatment processes'.

I decided to check to see if there was any truth to this comment.  I hope to have an official release from the water agency for my Council soon (media relations rules etc), but without naming names, I have been informed that BCC and the shire to its immediate north have not altered their dosing programs at all as a result of the lower water levels.  BCC uses chlormamine (mono) to treat its water while the other council uses chlorine.  The other Council's concentration of free chlorine will typically vary between 0.1mg/L to up to 2mg/L.  The main factor affecting this concentration is the water user's proximity to either the water treatment plant or a disinfection booster station.  I guess that what this highlights is that where you live can be a contributing factor to what you may need to do to treat your water, but if you have been undertaking a treatment regime, and not moved, and something is happening to your fish, then it probably isn't going to be the water.

For what it's worth, I don't add chemicals to my water but I will be probably looking at implementing an ageing process similar to that described by Theo earlier in this thread.  Theo, will a six pack cover the cost of me coming out to look at your setup?

Cheers
Neil

[mjscookie]

Theo -

Isn't the neutralisers acting as a catalyst; speeding up a reaction that would naturally occur? I'm assuming that the producers of these products know what the by-products are?

So, ammonia is produced (or actually they are not exactly sure what is being produced)? Isn't this what is being produced in your non-catalysed reaction
(a qucik stab - you get h20, ammonia and Cl).

Except, your reaction takes upto 21 days to proceed to completion. So from what I see, yes aging your water by your technique provided enough energy to remove chlorine, and also enough energy to remove chloramines, but the removal of chloramines in VERY slow.

You then add water with chloramines to your system wherby this reaction continues for ~21 days, wheryby you are getting chlorine and ammonia by products.


Now, this question arises, why aren't your fish dead?
1) They could be fairly tolerant to chloramine
2) You don't recieve chloramine in your water supply
3) You recieve chloramine in your supply, but it's at such a low concerntration, that it's effectively all removed by your method (howerver not completely)

Cheers Mitch

[DeagonTheo]

As I said before, I'm not a chemist, I'm a hobbiest, with a lot of experience. I have bred a lot of fish, among these are Gold Comps, Black Calvus and Siamese Fighters, these are all egg layers and the resulting fry almost microscopic and Fighters and Calvus are very touchy as far as water conditions go.

My area in Brisbane receives Chloramines in the water supply, I know this, because the Council says so. About 18 months ago I ran out of aged water and broke one of my taboos, I put straight tap water into the sytem very slowly and added nuetralizer, within 5 minutes and less than 2 percent of the water changed, the Black Calvus fry started spinning around(not very Chloramine tollerant), I immediately stopped adding water. I lost about 10 fry out of 100 plus. So I know I've got Chloramine in the water.

When I add aged water to the sytem, I do it as fast as my 1800 lph pump will allow me, I have never lost any fry or seen any spinning around. In the very small Calvus fry tanks I have done over a 50 percent water change this way with no ill effects.

Like I said, I'm not a chemist, I understand about water chemistry as far as the hobby goes, but thats about it. I do know what works.

Theo

Class dismissed

[gasnitro]

[quote:39f72cd3ba]I would say to most people, you really cant afford to not age your water, but if you want to keep blasting your fish with a cold stream of poisonous gas, and feel good about doing so, than by all means, just keep traumatising your fish, I'm sure they wont mind.
Have a good day.
Theo[/quote:39f72cd3ba]

so for what i understand all you need to do is take Theo advise and just age your water then blast them with Chloramines instead :lol:
your fish will love you for it. Ask Theo he knows apparently a good fish keeper but misleading information i beleave.
 thats the advise he is giving or did i misunderstand :?

[ancalimon]

[quote:7064f498f9="mjscookie"]Theo –
[/quote:7064f498f9]
Mitch,
I don't want to answer for Theo, but it appears that you are half responding to my post and as such I will jump in.  

Theo, please feel free to answer this as well

[quote:7064f498f9="mjscookie"]
Isn't the neutralisers acting as a catalyst; speeding up a reaction that would naturally occur? I'm assuming that the producers of these products know what the by-products are?
[/quote:7064f498f9]

Most neutralisers such as Sodium Thiosulfate (Na2S2O3) only target the chlorine component by binding it up into hydrochloric acid and a salt.

Na2S2O3 + 4HOCl + H2O > 2NaHSO4 + 4HCl
Na2S2O3 + HOCl > Na2SO4 + S + HCl
2Na2S2O3 + HOCl > Na2S4O6 + NaCl + NaOH

Note that all these chemicals are normally "bad" for fish (sodium sulphate...)

Now how does it get this HOCl?  Because NH2Cl is dissolved in water which will have the Cl+ ions in association with H20 and a small amount will be HOCl.  Also NH2Cl + H20 <>  NH3 + HOCl is not stable hence the reaction proceeds in either direction (depending on pH, temperature etc).

Hence the Thiosulfate scavenges the HOCl leaving the NH3.  Which is why you often see people saying "It only removes the Chlorine".  This is true, it removes the HOCl (which is the normal form of oxidising agent chlorine is present in).  It doesn't remove the chloride ion from the water though, just changes it's chemical signature a bit.

So you answer your question, it doesn't act as a catalyst.  There is a chemical reaction occurring.

[quote:7064f498f9="mjscookie"]
So, ammonia is produced (or actually they are not exactly sure what is being produced)? Isn't this what is being produced in your non-catalysed reaction
(a qucik stab - you get h20, ammonia and Cl).
[/quote:7064f498f9]

The "non-catalysed reaction" is simple chemistry.  To make chloramine, you add NH3 to HOCl at a particular concentration and temperature.  This creates NH2Cl (plus some water - for monochloramine).  But this molecule is chemically unstable.  It eventually (after a week or two or three depending on what the water it is in is doing) becomes NH3 + HOCl.  Of course, some of these will convert back into NH2Cl.  But as we are all familiar with "chlorine is emitted from water".  That is because HOCl scavenges it's H+ ion from water (so you end up with H + OH which typically with Na forms HOCl and NaOH), so you have a equilibrium of HOCl + HCl + H20 <> H20 + Cl2.  And the Cl2 eventually floats of into the atmosphere as it dissolves out of the water.

Since is all is a lossy system (ie/ Cl2 is lost all the time) adding energy (through agitation and heat) will encourage the stability of the reactions to break down.  Hence lots and lots of Cl2 is emitted.

So in "normal" chlorinated water, you only have one step.  In chloraminated water you have two steps, with the first perhaps double the time.

[quote:7064f498f9="mjscookie"]
Except, your reaction takes upto 21 days to proceed to completion. So from what I see, yes aging your water by your technique provided enough energy to remove chlorine, and also enough energy to remove chloramines, but the removal of chloramines in VERY slow.
[/quote:7064f498f9]

If it takes (say) 5 days for chlorinated water to lose it's chlorine to equivalent to the local atmosphere, and it takes (say) 21 days for chloraminated water, it take 21-5 = 16 days for the "breakdown" of the chloramine to occur.

However with water aging, it normally takes a day (or less depending on total chlorine) for the chlorine to be lost.  So extrapolating this to chloramine, 21/5 = 4.2 days for the equivalent reaction.  Of course this depends on various factors but what it suggests is that a week of vigorous agitation will work.  This is something that many years of experience have told people.

Note that this doesn't take into account the NH3, but since this is also a dissolved gas (in association with water you get other reactions but this is by the by) and it wants also to come out of the water (as the atmosphere above the water normally is low in NH3  I am unclear how long this would take, but as my nitrate reading on my aged water is very, very low, I would suspect that it has been emitted.

[quote:7064f498f9="mjscookie"]
Now, this question arises, why aren't your fish dead?
1) They could be fairly tolerant to chloramine
[/quote:7064f498f9]

Possible.  It is highly likely that our fish are more tolerant of dealing with low oxygen that we give them credit for.  I know that Australian native fish are tolerate of a wide range of conditions.

[quote:7064f498f9="mjscookie"]
2) You don't recieve chloramine in your water supply
[/quote:7064f498f9]

Possible.  But Theo lives in Deagon.  Rod Pick lives in Robertson. I live in Ipswich.  Three different areas, three different concentrations of chloramine.  Yet the same method works.

[quote:7064f498f9="mjscookie"]
3) You recieve chloramine in your supply, but it's at such a low concerntration, that it's effectively all removed by your method (howerver not completely)
[/quote:7064f498f9]

In which case all the above chemistry works that much faster.

caio
Graeme

[DeagonTheo]

How can I be a good fish keeper, if I keep blasting my fish with Chloramines, wouldnt I be a bad fish keeper, and if I'm that bad, how come I've sold my fry all over Australia.
Theo

[gasnitro]

Theo you took it the wrong way i said you are a good fish keeper from what I have herd reports on but why not take some precautions from Chloramines that's all I am saying. we can all over look things and we all will at some time but we also need to be open for ideas and suggestions.
i beleave with evidence that i have read that the Chloramines need to be delt with. this is my choice and my opinion it is up to those who read to make up there own minds with the ideas given by all members and my choice is both if and when possible.
i too must have bad fish also as i run a UV
i too never had white spot before but for a little precaution why not.

[Sigmaphile]

[quote:a118137e3d]Possible. But Theo lives in Deagon. Rod Pick lives in Robertson. I live in Ipswich. Three different areas, three different concentrations of chloramine. Yet the same method works. [/quote:a118137e3d]

Beaudesert here.
Works for me too.
But I guess the combined experience of our fishkeeping isn't enough for some people. :roll:
I say each to their own. I KNOW it works so I will keep doing it and saving a little bit each time I do water changes and put it into new fish. :lol:

[here fishie fishie]

Sorry Steve{Gingerbeer} I will do better next time.

All information shows that chlorine is easily removed by airation.{we believe that} As for chloramines well, most studies say if you leave the water to sit then "can" take weeks.{some believe that}
Well chlorine can be removed by simply attaching a showerhead to the hose. Chloramine is highly unstable as a pure form. However its quite stable in dilute solution & this considerable stability is the basis of its applications.
If you were to believe the calculation shown earlier, 4.2 days give or take how many hours, days??? This is like the never ending story. :lol: I can see where everyone is coming from. Deagon can do his water how he likes. Maybe its a case of more arse than class, it works.  :lol: {tongue in cheek} The joys of fish keeping.  :roll:

[quote:7fe18c01bd]But I guess the combined experience of our fishkeeping isn't enough for some people.  :roll:   [/quote:7fe18c01bd] No need to roll your eyes Phil, I used Ad Konnings as my first source of reference, I would be silly not to follow his word, if I could, wouldn't I? Thanks all the same, I like to follow the book as best I can, so to speak.

The thing is, this post started because of a wrongly worded topic header.  Really, 20 litre water changes once a fortnight. One tank is 6 foot. Who would recommend that? ps; How did the water test go Andrew?

Also to becareful with neutralisers, If too much dechlorinating agent is added to the aquarium, it may bind up all of the oxygen in the water.

Frenchy :D

[DeagonTheo]

Well, this has certainly been a great thread, with some very intelligent input, there is a wealth of information here, I myself have learnt quite a bit. I suppose its up to the individual to use that info and choose a path.

I am of the opinion(and this is just my opinion, that Chlorine and Chloramine reduce water to a very raw state)that by aging the water(the longer the better)that we are somehow letting it get back to its original state, without adding more chemicals(nuetralizers) to upset the balance(Ammonia etc).

If however you feel that neutalizers are the way to go, I would still suggest the use of a drum or other receptacle, that way you can use Frenchies idea of  rolling your own homebrew, with the added chemicals, and still age your water.

Theo

Shakira, Shakira

[here fishie fishie]

I am not the biggest fan of calcium carb Theo. Plus once algae grows over the surface area of the carb it reduces its buffering capacity.

Frenchy :D

[DeagonTheo]

I'm not a great fan either either, but mixed up with Coffs Harbour Pebble it doesnt look too bad, and seems to work, I'm for an easy life.
Theo

[Sigmaphile]

[quote:4deea7bbbd]No need to roll your eyes Phil, I used Ad Konnings as my first source of reference, I would be silly not to follow his word, if I could, wouldn't I? Thanks all the same, I like to follow the book as best I can, so to speak.
[/quote:4deea7bbbd]

FFS Justin.......You read too much. :lol:  :lol:  :wink:  :lol:  :lol:
If what you are doing works, then keep doing it. No need to change on our account.
If it is not, as in the case of the person who started this thread, then it is time for a change. Is good to have options.

[mjscookie]

[quote:a1f2f551ba="DeagonTheo"]Well, this has certainly been a great thread, with some very intelligent input, there is a wealth of information here, I myself have learnt quite a bit. I suppose its up to the individual to use that info and choose a path.

I am of the opinion(and this is just my opinion, that Chlorine and Chloramine reduce water to a very raw state)that by aging the water(the longer the better)that we are somehow letting it get back to its original state, without adding more chemicals(nuetralizers) to upset the balance(Ammonia etc).

If however you feel that neutalizers are the way to go, I would still suggest the use of a drum or other receptacle, that way you can use Frenchies idea of  rolling your own homebrew, with the added chemicals, and still age your water.

Theo

Shakira, Shakira[/quote:a1f2f551ba]


I guess that pretty much wraps it up - Choose whatever method you want one or the other or a hybrid, as long as it works (your fish a happy) stick with it.

I have to agree, this has been a great thread. Anyone want to start a new one with another interesting issue so this forum can begin to resemble a forum NOT a weekend trader..

Now back to the original starter - Savageroo how'd your water tests go?

Cheers Mitch