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

[here fishie fishie]

Sorry that was safe, the conditioner I use. It claims to remove Ammonia, Chloramine & Chlorine. I picked up 3 containers from Bill Smiths with his changing hands sale some months ago. $5 each 8O & I haven't even gone through 1/2 of the first container yet.

Oh Mick this comes from the Central Coast Water Auth2ority

[quote:945cf2e6f9]Won't letting water sit for a few days remove chloramines from tank or pond water?

No. Unlike chlorine, which dissipates when water sits for a few days, chloramines may take weeks to disappear. If you don't want to use a dechloraminating chemical, the next best solution is to install a granular activated filter and allow sufficient contact time. [/quote:945cf2e6f9]

Does anyone really believe what councils say?

Frenchy :D

[mjscookie]

N = 5
2Cl = 14
H = 1

Does this have and double/triple bonds?

From what I see, this is a strong oxidising agent - wouldn't this be useless almost immediately?

Is Cl being released as gas? Wouldn't it be just as likely to form HCl - giving our water a nice acidic edge (+ all the extra OH- ions in solution)

Cheers Mitch

[gasnitro]

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-11/rhf/feature/index.php

[DeagonTheo]

As you can see from the article above, removing Chlorine and Chloramine is a time consuming and complicated subject, made even more complicated by the addition of neutralizers. Some of the alternatives are absolutely frighteningly expensive.

If you are at all worried by these scientific facts, make your life a lot more simple, buy a drum, leave the water in there for a week if you like, with agitation of course, and you wont have any problems whatsoever.

Theo

[mjscookie]

Theo - It suggests 2 methods of removal

Reducing agents
Activated charchol

I may have skipped a bit, but where is your method?

From the rxn, it appears you need some carbon source...


Edit - Theo, neutralisers don't complicate the matter, they make it simpler. What you are doing makes no chemical sense !!!

Mitch

[mjscookie]

Just to follow up on my pervious post -

see:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/chelmon/Rbowkeep.htm

I think this bit sums it up pretty well: "Chloramine is very stable and can not be easily driven off, even by heavy aeration. "

Just for the record. I use prime and always have. Until someone can provide me with some evidence that aeration is actually removing our little friends I suggest use use a neutraliser.

Edit - And, there is this thread- http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200210/msg00613.html

I can keep going if people want.

Edit (2).. I like this one: "Mike Barsotti, director of water quality and production at the Champlain Water District , said he is worried people may forget about the harmful effects of chloramines on fish. Fish owners will have to find a new method of making aquarium-safe water.

"What we have been doing at St. Mike's," McCabe said, "is taking big tanks of water and bubbling some air through them for a couple of days. The chlorine is gone in a couple of days. This won't work with chloramines."

see - http://journalism.smcvt.edu/defender/03.01.06/water.htm

Mitch

I'm assuming you don't have chloramines in your water to start with...If not it appears what you're doing is correct.

[mjscookie]

If you want, I can draw a nice little diagram, use terms as free energy, activation energy, use an analogy of climbing up a hill but not being able to make it to the top....


If your theory is true, why doesn't my chloramines break down while it's being pumped through the pipes. Imagine how little chloramines we have when the pipes from the dams get heated on a hot day. Surely there is more free enrgy in that system then a power head/air pump?


I'm going out tonight in search of my local council worker, who obviously tops up my chloramine level at my mains each night. No wonder our roads are falling apart, poor buggers have to work all night.

Mitch

[here fishie fishie]

Thats why I made this point earlier,

[quote:40aa0edf1a]Interesting age water yet not to bother about chloramines. Why age the water at all then, chlorine which is less of a threat. eg; [color=blue:40aa0edf1a]Malawis could handle upto roughly 30% water change of chlorine water[/color:40aa0edf1a]. Quoted from some book. I would say that figure, would depend on the water supply. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't [color=blue:40aa0edf1a]chloramines lethal to fish[/color:40aa0edf1a] [/quote:40aa0edf1a]
2 parts of that I just posted{in blue} came from Ad Konnings books. 30 years experience with Malawi cichlids, Biologist by profession...thats pretty good experience.
It states; [quote:40aa0edf1a]You can spray the fresh water into the aquarium, which will drive off the chlorine{a gas} dissolved in water. Chloramines cannot be removed by aeration and should therefore be removed or absorbed by specially developed chemicals, the so called water conditioners....{goes on a bit more then}....The water can also be cleaned by passing it over activated carbon. [/quote:40aa0edf1a]

Although with carbon, factors like contact time, freshness & the type of carbon can affect the effectiveness.

[quote:40aa0edf1a]I'm going out tonight in search of my local council worker, who obviously tops up my chloramine level at my mains each night. No wonder our roads are falling apart, poor buggers have to work all night. [/quote:40aa0edf1a] :lol: & good point too.  :idea:

Thats why chorine is added at different stages of the line{Gold coast water for example}. Because chlorine breaks down easy.
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_gcw.asp?PID=155

Frenchy :D

[smiley]

i think weve lost sight of the original argument of whats going wrong with the water. It seems that weve recently had a few people having problems either with white spot or just fish croaking it. Like most its hard to explain especially when there appears to be no major variation in the methods used.

Like all the beginners in this forum, I get confused fish shop say one thing the local breeders tell you something different. But i have noticed one common thread that the losses have occured even with the nuetraliser being used.

All i can say is  better safe than sorry, I was told the same thing about chloride not being easily gotten rid of. That aeration was no longer enough, and started putting in nuetraliser as well. Touch wood, I havent had any of the problems mentioned, but i know one thing im going to inest in some barrels very soon, the water conditions are only going to get worse as the droughts goes deeper.Who knows what is entering our water and in what concentrates.

Remember, we have asked peoples opinions and their methods. So please listen with an open mind, I know a lot of the information I have picked up has saved me many fish and many dollars.Each to their own I say.
FOr example  how many use the rift salt and how many still use Bi card and rock salt. that argument has been going for years

Tks   peter

[mjscookie]

Perhaps, we just have lines of fish that are not only be selected for by colour and shape, but perhaps for chloramine tolerance without us knowing......



White spot, from what I understand can lay dormant and then attack stressed fish. Are your neutralisers old? Did you stuff up with the measurements, did you add water to a bucket, add required amount of neutraliser, agitate, sit for about 1/2 a minute and then add...

Too many variables to single out THE WATER. How many people frequent the forums? How often do fish die? How amny people does it need to happen to to be evidence...I don't know. But you can read a statistics book if you want.


As a newbie, listen to the shop. They wan't all your fish to die. After you're experienced lots of fish dying, you'll either sell off your tank real cheap or ask someone who's not thinking about $$$ or how long til they can knock off and pay the rent. Listen to the people of these forums. We may have contrasting veiws. But thats life. Choose the one that makes more sense and follow that. If it fails, try another. Lifes about learning and we all learn from our mistakes.



Chlorine is easily gotten rid of ! It's chloramine that isn't !!!


Why bother with barels? If you want to expel dissolved gases, add salts and buffer etc. and feel better do it. Otherwise, it's up to you. A good neutraliser if used properly will do the job.



Our drinking water is under constant survallience. If thats something wrong it's recified quickly. Too me, good enough for me to drink, good enough for my fish to live in (when treated with neutralisers). If anything nasty gets in the system, my fish are easily replaced, I aren't !



Bi carb/rock salt. How to use it. Buy a good test kit, read what the lake parameters are, and attempt to match it. Won't get it right straight away, but after a few WC's you'll have the []'s (concerntrations) all perfect. There is really no debate - except bi-carb and rock salts WONT provide trace elements and other goodies some of our more expensive buffers have.


Hope that helps.

Cheers Mitch

[here fishie fishie]

Yep it has drifted away a bit :oops:

I feel I did answer the question at the start. I asked questions of the person, to get what I thought to be the answer. If water changes of 20litres a fortnight are being done, then that is not enough. A 6 foot tank was mentioned. I came to posioning by the large number of deaths, outbreak of diseases & the way one was discribed to off died.

I asked the person to get his water tested to see if that was the source of the problem, as in Nitrates, Nitrites & Ammonia.

Firstly;[quote:ee36c23ec8]As a newbie, listen to the shop. They wan't all your fish to die.[/quote:ee36c23ec8] That comment is full of shit, or maybe you just visit the wrong shops. The object is sales, that you are right. A happy fish keeper is liable to get MTS. A happy fish keeper will also tell there friends too. I used to be a lfs person, I never want anyones fish to die.

As for the home brew, I use marine salt rather than rock salt.
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/aquarium_salts.php

Frenchy :D

[mjscookie]

I'm just happy we have had a debate. It's not that often we get a good thread going with plenty of input and ideas....


I'm probably too early though (waits for Grummy bear to lock this baby)

Mitch

[DeagonTheo]

I know you read the article Mitch but may have skimmed over these bits.

[quote:5a67a21e95]Thiosulfate is also equally suited to dechlorinating free chlorine in water, and it has gained wide use in marine and freshwater aquaria. Unfortunately, the ammonia that is produced as a result of the reaction is still toxic. Consequently, thiosulfate alone is not always adequate for eliminating toxicity from chloramine.[/quote:5a67a21e95]


[quote:5a67a21e95] The reaction of ammonia with hydroxymethanesulfonate is mechanistically complicated, possibly involving decomposition to formaldehyde and reformation to the product (aminomethanesulfonate; shown below).15 The simplified overall reaction is believed to be:

NH3 + HOCH2SO3- à H2NCH2SO3- + H2O

Even more complicated is the reaction of hydroxymethanesulfonate with chloramine, or chlorine (as Cl2 or HOCl). In this case, the products that are formed have not been established. [/quote:5a67a21e95]

It seems to me that these Forums are great for debate, but nobody really absorbs or takes anything away. People seem to be like Lemmings, it doesnt matter how many die, they just keep jumping over the cliff. I could stand up there with a sign saying you are going to die, and they would jump anyway.

I would suggest that the nonbelievers do some tests(which I and many others have done on numerous occasions) or could it be that we are carrying out tests all the time, and our fish are paying the price. Regardless, do the tests, and when you get the results put them up here, so everybody can tear the evidence to shreds, its fun.

Theo

PS: Oh, and forget Carbon

[gingerbeer]

[quote:d45b5d8c25]That comment is full of shit, or maybe you just visit the wrong shops. The object is sales, that you are right. A happy fish keeper is liable to get MTS. A happy fish keeper will also tell there friends too. I used to be a lfs person, I never want anyones fish to die. [/quote:d45b5d8c25]

Gee I hate it when I have to agree with Frenchy.  I hope this doesn't happen too often in my time here :lol:

I walked into my local LFS and I am a convert as I overheard the owner selling a goldfish salts block saying and I quote "you should't need another one of these yet - something must be wrong with your water - could you bring me in a sample"  I will buy form him even if his prices are a bit dearer - actually I haven't even bothered to check his prices against other stores.  (And he had some rocket killies - only males now - I got the only female)

In terms of how we treat our water I know people who are much better aquarists than me who age there water and keep good fish - and people who do the tap straight in and chemical treat - generally double dosing and keep good fish.  I guess there are different ways to achieve the same en.  I am from the stick the hose in and dump a load of Prime in and double dose.  But I do not stock highly - e.g I have got a pair of Aggies in a 6 footer with only an algae clean up crew.  

With white spot be aware there does seem to be different "strains".  

Traditionally white spot is a relatively simple secondary disease pointing to a bigger problem.  (Damn Frenchy was right again when he said initially get the water tested).  

There is however a nasty white spot around that will wipe out even an experienced aquarists fish.  I have posted about treating this before and won't clog this line with a repeat of that info.

Steve

p.s. Good to see a vigorous exchange of ideas.  Great thread.

[ancalimon]

[quote:b9140f1ff0="mjscookie"]Theo, I just can't understand how enough energy is provided to break the chemical bonds. What form is the chlorine in? Cl2?

I'm not having a go, you have had great success and i'm willing to attempt it (cheaper !!!) but it's just the understanding? Why doen't ammonia/ammonim ions dissappear? We are heating the water and agitating it?


Mitch[/quote:b9140f1ff0]

Mitch you do realise that the bond between a single Cl and the N in NH2 is relatively low (technically there are three "chloramines" in potable water - monochloramine (NH2Cl), dichloramine (NHCl2), trichloramine (NCl3) - NH2Cl is the most commonly formed though - depends on the pH which is one of the reasons why SEQ water is tightly controlled to 7.4).  In chemical terms it is unstable.  ie/ left to it's own devices it will disassociate.  Adding energy, any energy is enough to cause the bond to begin to break.  An analogy (not altogether a good one, but it will do) is the dissolved CO2 in soft drink.  It is over saturated.  Left to it's own devices it will naturally dissolve out in say 4 or 5 hours.  However, drop the same bottle, and you have almost an explosive release of CO2 for a minimal energy input.

Don't confuse the word "stable" for the chemical bond.  NH2Cl is an _unstable_ molecule.  But it stays in potable water longer than Cl2, hence in this regard it is more "stable" than Cl2.  Note that the Cl2 bond is very stable, yet Cl2 is "unstable" when dissolved in water.  Don't confuse the many usages of "stable".

What the principle difference between Cl2 and NH2Cl is persistance.  Both have similar bioefficiency (ie/ bacteria killing power, although Cl2 is more reactive, hence "better") however NH2Cl stays in the water a lot longer (nominally 14-21 days versus Cl2's 5-7 days).  Chemistry text books tell you this (although I cannot give you a link as the internet is surprisingly short on detail).

Agitation adds energy and turns over a water column.  This is basic chemistry here, not rocket science.

Councils mainly parrot the same information the world over as it is the accepted wisdom.  Most fish keepers want to use water from the tap instantly.  Councils recognise this and their advice suits this requirement.  Hence why they have odd advice about "boiling" water (who do you know in the hobby hwo does this??) and their recommendations against carbon filtering (most home filters pass water too quickly through them).  Most received wisdom about chloramine is that "it is toxic to fish" without actually detailing why and exactly how.  Even wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine) is short on detail.

Out of interest NH2Cl causes haemolysis in fish (and most aquatic creaturs) by being absorbed directly into the bloodstream via the gills.  So it causes anemia which reduces a fishes ability to absorb oxygen.  It is the same reason why chloramines need to be removed for dialysis machines.

BTW, one of the more detailed councils is San Fransico's (which is a link from Wiki).  They say this about removing chloramine: (http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/13/MSC_ID/166/MTO_ID/399/C_ID/2225/ListID/1)

"Q: How much time will it take for both chloramine and chlorine to dissipate and at what ppm level? Can chloramine and/or ammonia be boiled out of water or dissipated by letting the water sit?

A: While both chlorine and chloramine residuals decrease with time. chloramine takes longer than free chlorine. The chloramine decomposition rate is also affected by the exposure to air and sunlight. Chloramine and ammonia, like chlorine, will eventually dissipate completely over time but it is not practical to let the water sit for these to dissipate. Unlike chlorine, which only takes a few days to dissipate when left to stand, chloramine may stay in water for a few weeks (SFPUC) and ammonia remains in the water even longer. It usually takes days for chloramine to be dissipated when exposed to air and sunlight.

Boiling the water will remove chlorine but it will take much longer to remove chloramine. There are chemicals available that quickly and effectively remove chloramine."

So SEQ councils say "don't boil" not because it doesn't work, but because it isn't practical.  Likewise for putting the chloraminated water in a drum, and agitating it for a week.

Out of interest, Rod Pick (one of the most experienced fishkeepers I have ever met in my life) just agitates his water.

caio
Graeme