Inland Reef / Reefs.org Salt Analysis Project

[liquid]

But what if our test results validate the salt analyses results Dr. Ron used in his article, then what? Nothing will change because those don't believe the study was conclusive will still think so.

If they validate the TDS supplied by the manufacturer, then great. People go on to the next logical step, one being possibly validating Dr. Shimek's testing. Remember, more than one salt is being tested in this study. We could find that a number of salts have the same profile. I'd much rather know that there are multiple salts to choose from than just one manufacturer, wouldn't you?

If our tests dispute the data used in Dr. Ron's study, then what? His study will still be valid in terms of sea urchin larvae survival rates in freshly mixes saltwater. Because what this plan you have will not prove or disprove Dr. Ron's study results.

If they dispute the data used in Dr. Shimek's study, then I would imagine future testing would be planned. I'm sure that Dr. Shimek would be interested in seeing how the manufacturer's TDS' compare to what Inland Reef finds.

Shane

 

[jacmyoung]

Alright then now after reread the initial post, I understand the purpose of this test is to provide an independent study of the metal contents in the salts. I am not too sure how this is relevant to the Dr. Ron's study but obviously his study provoked this new effort.

I continue to support this study but not as enthusiastically as before, and this is why:

If I am a salt distributor, while everyone is on the heavy metal bandwagon thanks to Dr. Ron, I certainly like to get the record straight so I can go about selling the salt with the least metals if possible.

If I am a hobbyist though, I don't really care as much as what is in the salt as what it will do to my tank. If salt B has less metals but still kills my tank faster than salt A, I will not want salt B. Therefore the above study don't really provide me too much other than to satisfy my curiosity.

At least Dr.'s study had more relevance to my tank inhabitants.

 

[Anonymous]

jacy: the issue is finding a valid correlation as to WHY some salts are apparently more toxic than others. If we can find that correlation then we can THEN determine which salts are better to use.

Using the assays provided by a manufacturer isn't good enough to draw any conclusions. Obviously the next step after we have a proper assay done, is to then determine toxicity of the same samples - which is being planned, we are just currently consulting on the best way to make that test and I'm not yet convinced that sea urchin larvae is the best route.

 

[jacmyoung]

Tom, l like what you said, but please realize what you proposed is very different from what was posted by Matt initially. The plan calls for analyses of a long list of metals in every salt we can find. But it is not a toxicity test. And at cost that may go over $13,000, I agree with some others that why spend the limited funds do what the manufactures suppose to do? I agree we prefer a more independent study but our priority is an independent study of the potential toxicity of the salts in our tanks, not an independent study of the chemical analyses of the salts.

 

[Anonymous]

*sigh* this is horse is getting beaten over and over again...

We cannot trust a chemical assay provided by a manufacturer, we have been down that road already okay? COMBISAN Nuff Said.

We cannot take data from a toxicity test and draw any resonable conclusions without a chemical assay of the same salts, to find the REASONs why certain salts were more toxic than others.

We can likely trim the salt list to save $$$ however I would prefer to use as many of the mainstream salts as possible.

Without knowing why a salt is toxic, the who is meaningless, because formulations change. If we do a broad survey we may be able to come with valid data which will improve salt mixes across the board.

 

[jacmyoung]

The beauty of a toxicity test is you don't have to draw any conlcusion, it is by itself conclusive if the test is designed well to represent our tank environment.

The problem I had with Dr. Ron's study was it was not a typical tank environment he tested, otherwise his tests would have been very conclusive, regardless the metal analyses data.

It is also when he tried to draw correlation between the results of the toxicity tests to the questionable metal data that we started to feel uncomfortable.

What I am saying is do the toxocity tests, don't try to draw any correlation, let the conlcusions stand on their own, with the limitations clearly stated so everyone is free to make a decision of his own.

 

[foxstop]

Hi,

Just caught the link JohnL. put up on RC to donate here. (donated $10)
Happy to help.

Can't wait for the results.

Brian

 

[ReeferAl]

FWIW (not much), here's how I image the results of this test being useful.
1. The test shows that the metals content of salt mixes differ considerably from NSW and from each other with some having considerably more HM than others.
2. Someone then steps forward to repeat the larval survival test (or perhaps a survival test on another species?). This time though the test is done with more accurate up-front information. eg. The test can be done using the 3 "worst" salt mixes (highest concentration of HM) and the 3 "best" salt mixes.
3. That test may validate the results of Dr. Ron's study and we can go on from there. Perhaps we could then take a "good" salt and add back quantities of suspected toxins and see what it does to survival.
4. The test has different results and we go back to the drawing board.

Unfortunately it takes alot of time and money to replace folk wisdom and anecdotal findings with facts. In the interest of moving the hobby "to the next level" I think it is worth it. I think I'll go send my donation now.
Allen

 

[AvonleaPA]

Do we have a running total yet of donations?

Just curious.

 

[jacmyoung]

Am I curious to know what metal contents are in most the salts? Of course. In fact I am in the process of testing my own salt and tank water.

But is this the best way to spend the money? no. In most researches, one looks for or experiences effects, before searching for causes, because this is not only a logical way but also the most effective way, not the other way around.

 

[liquid]

In most researches, one looks for or experiences effects, before searching for causes, because this is not only a logical way but also the most effective way, not the other way around.

Well, Dr. Shimek has shown an interesting effect, so now Inland is looking at testing the salts themselves to verify the potential cause to start out with.

Shane

 

[JohnL]

*sigh* this is horse is getting beaten over and over again...

We cannot trust a chemical assay provided by a manufacturer, we have been down that road already okay? COMBISAN Nuff Said.

No, but we could as a second step offer the manufacturers the ability to pay for the analysis of their salt done at a lab we choose and can trust. I mean what is $300 for a manufacturer to pay vs us trying to pay for all these different analysis for the manufacturers. If they decline, maybe they have something to hide. We could still do the testing but have them pay for it. Let's use our money to fund the relevent study that Ron started which is to determine if certain salts are more toxic then others.

 

[MattM]

All -

I have edited the original post in this thread. Please re-read it.

I added two new salts, revised the pricing, proposed additional bio-assay testing, added the donation links, changed the NSW sources, and a few other things I can't remember right now.

I'll try to get Tom to update the tally late tomorrow. Reef Central is collecting money as well, and I don't know if we have those numbers yet.

 

[delafe]

I personally feel that a chemical assay is the first step that must be taken. Once this has been done, if we confirm that the salts which Ron Shimek had the most success with are truely closer to NSW then we have our proof.

If not... We need to find out WHY he got the results he did. There are 2 issues here:

1. Why did he get the survival rates that he did/didn't get.
2. Why were their significantly more deformities in the larvae which developed in Instant Ocean and Coralife.

Also, I would suggest sticking to the major brands of salt along with the ones that got the best results in his experiment. If any other manufacturers want to be included they should fork up the money. If we focus on say 10 samples (6 salts and 4 "controls") we can spend the rest of the money elsewhere.

For starters, I would like a 2 or 3 bags of each salt tested from different lot numbers and the results compared. Let's see how closely the manufacturers stick to their formulas.

I would also like to see each sample tested after it has been run through activated carbon and perhaps even protein skimming for a certain period of time.

BTW: Since our goal is to determine the "quality" of synthetic sea salts I consider any natural sea water and to some extent USED/AGED synthetic salt water as a control.

-Alfred

 

[StevenPro]

If Dr. Shimek repeats the bioassay portion of this test with the analysed salts, I would like to see a request that he instead use an ultrapure RO/DI water for the tests. In followup questions to Habib, Dr. Shimek stated he used store bought, distilled water for mixing the artificial salts. I just do not have the much confidence in the quality nor consistency of water you buy at the grocery store for this kind of testing.

 

[simonh]

I want to raise a few questions although I don't expect anyone to have all the answers yet:

How do the results from the dry assay proposed compare to those from analysis suchas Dr Bingman's?

Habib Sekha of Salifert recently mentioned (in the Chemistry forum at ReefCentral) that he was supprised at the level of variation in a single bag of salt mix when taking few ml samples. How representitive are the samples required by the dry ICP analysis grams/kilograms?

How does mixing time affect the amount of 'toxic' metals in the water? Do these precipitate so aren't even a problem compared to what is in the actual mix?

Now onto some of thoughts on proceeding:

In Dr Bingman's report he tested quite a wide variation of salts yet the trace metals in them were all pretty similar using the same methodology. Likewise in the S-15 report there weren't massive differences at that time between the metal levels in salt mixes (even CS vs IO vs BioSea). In Ron's report we have data using 3 different sources and what is to say the analysis methods aren't the reason for the apparent differences in metal concentrations? Why not get chemical assays done of the 4 salts (or even just the IO and CrystalSea) that Ron used? Whatif all 4 salts when analysed by the same method have roughly the same levels of metals in them? Couldn't we then save alot of money investigating that avenue first?

Also, as yet we don't have a large number of bioassays done on tanks to even see how big the problem is. How does survival compare in tanks that have exclusivley used NSW vs IO ? Do other factors suchas additions from a calcium reactor outwiegh diffferences in salt mixes (my calculations showed this to be a significant input for my tank)?

 

[jacmyoung]

I hope we can at least test the four salts Dr. used in his tests. That will hopefully quickly answer the two questions raised which are very valid, does the salt contents change over time, and are we correct that the manufactures' analyses can never be trusted?

Which ever the results however will not change the results of Dr.'s tests. So if we were to find out the toxicity of the salts in our tanks, better designed toxicity tests are still priority IMHO.

 

[moonpod1]

It'd be nice if you could add in another one of aquacraft's salts, the "Public Aquarium Maintenance Formula".

 

[Anonymous]

Do we have a running total yet of donations?

Just curious.

as I have already said - we will update the tally WEEKLY not daily, not every few days, WEEKLY.

With our current move and what not I simply don't have the time to be constantly posting a running tally here and with $13,000 or so to raise it's going to take awhile.

Like everything else in this hobby - for a good thing to happen it takes time.

 

[saltshop]

Can I ask what is the purpose of spending $600 on testing NSW? This particular substance has been tested to death by oceanographers using proper sample collection and more accurate testing parameters. Parts per trillion is fine, but for potentially toxic elements like lead and mercury you need to go beyond that level. If you absolutely feel the need to test NSW again, may I suggest you collect one sample and have it tested BEFORE you spend money on anything else. You then can compare your results to Pilson to get a variance range...if there is too great of a variance you might want to rethink this a bit. If you go ahead and run all $10,000 worth of tests and the values you have for NSW are not close to those taken by oceanographers on a much larger budget you will in essence have invalidated ALL of the test results and wasted a whole heap of other peoples money. I personally like Simon's idea the best...but it is your test.