If you love your reef tank -This Novelette is a good read

[Neon Reefer]

Reef Aquaria, Chloramines and RODI

I thought that it may be important to have a general discussion on the removal of Chloramines from the water we utilize for our marine aquariums. From a previous discussion and resulting comments it seems although we understand that an RODI system will remove Chloramines, we may not understand all the ins and outs (literally) of the system. So here goes the simple explanation. In an RO system the pre-filter removes the large particles, then the CGAC splits the Cl-NH3chloramine bond, where the CB picks up CGAC fines and other contaminants an in addition the freed Cl ion. But the problem with a simple RO unit is the NH3 ion passes through the RO and must be captured in the DI. But dont stop reading here, because this is only the first page of this novelette. There is more to come and lets look at the more technical aspects.

The chemical analysis according to reef chemist R.F. Holmes explains it as a two-step process as well. He states that, The carbon catalytically breaks the chloramine down into ammonia, chloride, and nitrogen gas C-O + 2NH2Cl à C + N2 + 2Cl- + 2H+ + H2O where the C stands for the activated carbon, and C-O stands for oxidized activated carbon. The result is the production of Ammonia containing Thiosulfates which is not significantly bound by the carbon. Therefore the carbon is not sufficient in its self to protect the reef aquarium from the products formed by the use of activated carbon to remove Chloramines. So now it falls to the RO membrane to remove the Ammonia. And it is now the pH of the water that dictates the effectiveness of the RO membrane to effectively remove the toxic ammonia. At a pH of 7.5 or less the membrane can effectively reduce the ammonia to as little as 0.1 ppm if it is not more than 1.4 ppm is going in. But at a pH higher than this the membrane can swell and allow the ammonia to pass through it with little effect. In either case it is now up to the DI resin to remove the levels of ammonia to the more acceptable ranges we need in our aquariums. Some may call this polishing the water but that term is misleading as an addition of 0.1 ammonia would not be an acceptable addition to my reef tank. Would it not? But there is a twist to this information, and here is the rest of the story we need to be sure we are informed of The ins and outs.

Although most RODI systems are capable of removing Chloramines from our TAP water, one should remember that all this analysis is done under laboratory conditions, where the RODI system is functioning at its highest capacity. Few of us if any ACTUALLY RUN OUR SYSTEMS UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. There are many factors; too many factors in fact to list which reduce the effectiveness of our systems to reach the previously mentioned filtrated end result. But not to be forgotten is the amount of Chloramine being introduced into the system. We really do not ever know just what we are dealing with as the amount of Chloramines in the water we utilize fluctuates depending on the sanitation systems needs of the municipality. If they are experiencing high levels of bacterial contaminates they will increase the use of Chloramines to disinfect this level of water contaminant. If you have an RODI system and you see the city breaking up the street to repair a broken water main in your area, then be prepared to deal with the increase in Chloramines added. Quite frequently working on a water line will introduce soil and potential bacteria to the water system, so disinfectant use will increase to meet the need. An even bigger ongoing more common concern for the aquarists is the carbon cartridge itself. The more it is used the less effective it is at removing the chloramines. The numbers achieved during laboratory experiments were with new cartridges. And most important to note is that these carbon blocks may need changing long before the DI indicates a need for changing, especially if using cheap sediment cartridges to protect the carbon. This is especially a problem here in Central Texas where we can expose our sediment cartridges to really high levels of hard water. This effectively renders these sediment cartridges to a very short life span. Do we expose our systems to chloramines thru the lack of maintenance on these sediment filters? This is a big part of this story! If you can detect a drop in pressure on your system then you are potentially EXPOSED! Measuring your systems purity by using the TDS Total Dissolved Solids method is useless for determining your exposure to Chloramines. So this leads us to the Rest of the Story the testing accuracy and the amount of Chloramine that should be allowed into our systems.

How much chloramine should one allow into an aquarium? So whats in the aquarium? Every inhabitant of the aquarium will have a different toxic limit to Chloramines. So IMO it would seem prudent to have levels below what the most sensitive organism in the reef tank can tolerate. Phytoplankton (food for our SPS) is terminated from our reef systems at 0.1 ppm toxicity levels. But Copepods and clam lava is terminated at only ½ of that level or 0.05 ppm toxicity. So it would seem necessary to keep a healthy reef system, we would need to keep toxicity at or below 0.05 ppm. And this does not take into consideration a buildup of these Cl- ions. The research does not indicate the ability or lack of ability of the reef system to eliminate Chloramine from the system on its own. In addition to this there is the buildup of daily exposure in the specific reef organisms life span to consider. Even smaller amounts of exposure could have significant effects on reef inhabitants over their lifetime. Toxicity does not simply mean death, but should include the lack of ability of the organism to thrive in the reef. Does this build up affect other inverts like our precious corals, or even our friendliest fish? This part of the story is really unknown as available data does not or cannot measure amounts this low or the long term effects.

So what about the testing? It has been suggested here and on other sites that current testing equipment w/ a 0.03 range is accurate enough for our hobby. As w/ other testing equipment we use in our hobby is it really accurate enough for these really low end results? Maybe, if it is registering 0.0 test results. Take for example the Res Sea Phosphate Pro Color wheel. It has a range from 0 - 5 ppm. So does this make it accurate enough for the reef enthusiasts? Well I use it, but I realize it has a margin of error of 0.02ppm; therefore, when I use it I realize only a target range result. And if I measure 0.0 results I take it as a range of 0.0 -.02. This may be acceptable to us who run our systems above what is considered ULNS. But if I read 0.02 then the range extends from 0.0 - 0.04, which may or may not be acceptable. So it is up to me the aquarist to decide how to act upon the information obtained. The same can be said about the Chloramine testing equipment but with a margin of error of 0.03 and the need for even more of a low end result, I find the equipment even less useful. As I believe most of us would agree that no level of chloramine is an acceptable level in the reef tank, mostly because of the unknown effects of build ups of this toxin. And if death can occur in vital phytoplankton at only 0.05, then the potential for unknown levels of 0.03 is possible when test results show nothing.

Even reefers on this site state that a detection of 0.01 mg/l is statistically significant to quote one reefer here. But detection according to the test he ran was 0.04, and could have meant the actual level of toxicity was 0.07. Now we are actually killing organisms in the tank at that level. So yes I would say it is somewhat a viable tool to tell us when we are actually killing our organisms. Think about it like this. In your car you can have a water temperature gauge that constantly reads the temperature of the cooling system. If you see a slight rise of the needle it indicates a slight rise in the system, and you become aware that something is going on before there is damage to the system. Then compare that to what many of us refer to as the idiot light This awareness indicator just says Hey buddy your car has over heated. Now youre at the side of the road having to knee jerk react to a bad situation. Whereas a constant temperature indicator may have warned you far in advance of a system failure. Same goes for the margin of error with chloramine testing equipment. Unfortunately it has the potential toproduce more of the idiot light scenario. Buddy you are killing organisms in your tank when it indicates any detection at all. But even w/ no detection you may still be delivering unknown amounts into the system!

So what do you do? I guess that must mean there is more to the story. Right? Well you could always do the easy thing, and this is what I do. I Prime everything. All RODI water is Primed It is cheap enough as the amount used is negligible. OK problem solved. But wait, many of us w/ RODI systems just want the RODI to do the work for us. OK, fair enough. But what does that entail? Well a fully functioning RODI system that is well maintained and has regular changes of sediment and carbon blocks, RO membranes,DI resin and is operated at the correct pressure. And in addition some of us may choose to utilize Chloramine busters, which is in affect adding another carbon filter to extend more exposure time to the system. But remember the production of Ammonia containing Thiosulfates is not significantly bound by the Carbon. Therefore the carbon is not sufficient in its self to protect the reef aquarium from the products formed by the use of activated carbon to remove Chloramines. No matter how much carbon is used! It falls to the RO membrane to remove the Ammonia to the 0.01 mg/l range, and it is the DI that finishes the job. Here is where I believe there is some disagreement. That simply adding another block of carbon is sufficient and cheaper. I say no, if current exposure if long enough then it is simply overkill and wasteful of aquaria dollars. Better in Central Texas to add another pre filter to remove sediment and insure our current carbon stays viable, much more cost efficient. And to deal w/ the ammonia beyond the .01g/l another bucket of DI resin is better insurance. Some say expensive, I say cheaper by the dozen. And to seal the deal I will now get to the last page of the story.

What is most frequently used today as a source of chloramine is mono chloramine. This is the most difficult of all types of chloramine to remove, because the molecule size is so small it can pass right thru the RO membrane and right into the DI resin. And to top it off it is also the most stable of all types of chloramine. This means that it can be too difficult for the activated carbon to break down anyway. And heres the killer. It predominates over other di-chloramines at pH levels over 7. Therefore all data obtained on RO systems eliminating chloramine may be irrelevant when mono chloramines are present ad predominate over 7.5 pH. Again it falls to the DI. And be aware that if you use actual City of Austin water, know that they use a process that drives out all CO2 making the TAP water pH come out at 9.8pH. Well heck now we could be dealing with pure mono-chloramine passing right through our RO systems including the membrane. So much for just needing to avoid passing thru bi-products like simple Ammonia. Just how much does that DI resign cost anyway? I mean I have several house payments wrapped up in 40 gals of saltwater. Some of you guys must have a year's worth of house payments wrapped up in those larger systems. Humm? What is the solution?

End game is it is the DI resin that will insure as best as is possible your reef tank is free from mono-chloramines. Carbon will only go so far, and even RO membranes will fail w/ mono-chloramines at pH levels like we have in Austin. Chloramine in Austin TAP water should be a significant concern to us with its peculiar properties as a potential toxin in aquaria. Aquarists need to use one of two systems for purification: One is your current RODI w/ a Prime type additive at the end, or an RODI system with the appropriate filter buckets added on both sides of the RO membrane. On the front end better sediment filtration to insure the carbon functions properly and on the back end an extra bucket of DI to insure all mono chloramine passing thru the RO is removed from the water. To quote Randy, "Chloramine is toxic enough that it would seem prudent for aquarists to spend the time and money necessary to ensure that they do not unduly stress their organisms."

Guys I love my aquaria, and Chloramines; well they are just not allowed inside my glass.

Neon Reefer

[victoly]

Cool story bro. I trust BRS, my test equipment, sampling methodology, career in the environmental industry and degree in hydrogeology to get me where I'm supposed to be in terms of chloramine in my tank. I may just swing by my lab i use to see if they can analyze a few samples with much more accurate equipment to verify my readings. Anecdotally, there are many local reefers who run plain carbon blocks forever with no issues. You haven't convinced me, especially with this statement.

"That is most frequently used today as a source of chloramine is mono chloramine. This is the most difficult of all types of chloramine to remove, because the molecule size is so small it can pass right thru the RO membrane and right into the DI resin."

Exactly, so we knock it out with GAC/CGAC before it even hits the RO membrane. Potentially a second GAC cartridge might give you enough contact time to knock it out prior to RO membrane.

" This means that it can be too difficult for the activated carbon to break down anyway. And heres the killer. It predominates over other di-chloramines at pH levels over 7. Therefore all data obtained on RO systems eliminating chloramine may be irrelevant when mono chloramines are present ad predominate over 7.5 pH."

Show me where you have found that GAC/CGAC won't break down whatever chloramine combo the city uses. I have experimentally verified the exact opposite of what you propose. In fact, from the national water quality association states:

"New types of activated carbons (bituminous coal-based) have

been developed with increased catalytic activity that are especially effective at the removal of

chloramines. These new “catalytic” carbons are marketed with a peroxide number (rate of

hydrogen peroxide decomposition) instead of the traditional iodine adsorption number. The

chloramine removal capacity of activated carbon is dependent upon pH. Catalytic carbons have

demonstrated increased chloramine removal efficiency at higher pHs. "

[Neon Reefer]

Hey thanks for the response Victoly.

I always enjoy spirited debate in the
aquarium realm and I must say first I respect your opinion on the subject of
Chloramines and aquaria water. I sure
you have a beautiful tank and I would enjoy seeing pics of it posted in your
gallery. I know BRS is a trusted vendor,
although I have personally never utilized them for my purchases. I could not actually find any info on their carbon
filter products at their site regarding type of carbon utilized. And I must say I was a little lazy at wanting
to research it further. Maybe you would
be kind enough to provide me with a link so I could verify the type of GAC
utilized in their filter blocks. I know
when utilizing carbon for reactors it is pretty easy to buy what you want and
people utilize anything from cheap coconut carbon with peroxide numbers that
are way high to the bituminous coal-based carbons that you mentioned in your rebuttal. All the information you noted was ripped
right from the The Water Quality Association Technical Application
Bulletin as you stated. I know because I
read the article, and it has been around about 10 years most likely before you
began your degree program in hydrogeology. Were you aware of it from your studies or researched
it do to this posting?

But I am sure you know
that this report also hits right at the heart of one of my main points. Let me tear a little paragraph from them as
well. You quoted them as saying “New
types of activated carbons (bituminous coal-based) have been developed with
increased catalytic activity that is especially effective at the removal of chloramines.
These new “catalytic” carbons are marketed with a peroxide number (rate of hydrogen
peroxide decomposition) instead of the traditional iodine adsorption number.
The chloramine removal capacity of activated carbon is dependent upon pH.
Catalytic carbons have demonstrated increased chloramine removal efficiency at
higher pHs.” Now let’s for the sake of conversation put in
layman terms for others reading along that may be unaware, that the peroxide
number is simply an assigned number indicating how fast different types of
carbon breakdown peroxide. The lower the
number the more effective the carbon.
And hence its effectiveness to produce a response in a reaction, which
is what carbon does in all situations.
But what you left out was it article goes on to say “…Ammonia (NH3), chloride (Cl-), and nitrogen gas (N2) are produced by
the catalysis of monochloramine. The removal of these catalytic byproducts can
be achieved by additional treatment with ion
exchange resins or by reverse osmosis”. This was one of my main
points. That IO ion exchange resins are
required to remove the toxic byproducts of GAC and Chloramine catalysis.

This process is not lost on your
typical WQA Certified Water Specialist.
Most of my information comes from this industry where there about 10
different certification levels. My
primary source is a WQA-CI about mid-level on the food chain. I mention food chain because the food
industry is where I bang out some bucks.
I oversee some pretty expensive commercial equipment which requires the
use of RO and in some applications RODI to protect the equipment. I have used a national service for this
purpose for 20+ years and have seen a few systems come and go in that time. But it was only a few years back when Austin
began utilizing mono-chloramines that it was necessary to begin utilizing the
DI resin to protect the glass in some of the equipment. Maybe as a hydrologist and being
more familiar with ground water movement and contamination, the need to remove
the catalytic
byproducts was lost on you. After all
these contaminants are only a taste consideration of drinking water and not a
real health issue that you may be more familiar with. But rest assured it is not lost of the
aquaria inhabitants. As I am sure you know
it is well known to aquarists what the affects of Ammonia (NH3), chloride (Cl-),
and nitrogen gas (N2) have on our fish in particular. And how many times have I read that someone
does a water change and looses all their gilled inhabitants. Quoting they used only RODI water. These poisonings usually are NH3 and or
Cl-. And yes they are sometimes pH
related or even temperature or SG problems.
But when an experienced aquarist says they temped and buffered the water
and checked SG and yet they experience a die off after a water change then the
answer is always contaminates. This in
itself provides some documented proof that these poisoning do occur.

But I digress. Gaping back to the article cited “The average
municipal water system maintains residual monochloramine concentrations around 2
mg/L (range: 1.5 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L).”
They go on to say. “Chloramines
are small, stable molecules with no net charge making them difficult to remove
by distillation, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange resins. But with all this said none of this changes
the fact that probably none of the RODI systems in use by aquarist today are
working at capacity. R.H. Holmes states
that in his experimentation he found thru fairly extensive study that an 11
month old cartridge produced 0.16 total chlorine and 0.06 free chlorine when
the same cartridge new only produced 0.01 in both categories. Sure proof that less than perfect systems
miss Cl- and leave it for the membrane and the DI. I challenge you to find a single statement from
a reef chemist that says DI is a waste of time on any RO system. And it is good
you point out that only quality carbons are highly effective on monochloramines. But I question the use of these higher priced
carbons in the use of filters. Again
this was your point. Why don’t you
contact a BRS WQA certified tech. I am
sure they have one or more on staff that can answer this question. We would all be better off knowing the
results And I am aware that there are
some beautiful reefs out there that have never used anything but carbon out
there. Just like there are some
beautiful reefs out there that never utilize RODI for their water supply, and
have never had an algae problem either. But
then I wouldn’t try Austin water for that project either. Bottom line is although we can trust our
equipment and our methodology or our experience. Stuff happens! Equipment fails, people get distracted, or we
find we are not as experienced as we think we are. I’ll bet you
a dollar to a donut that in another 29 years you’ll be saying I can’t believe I
really thought that or did that. Know
how I know that? Cause we all do. Ask the guys over at RCA where you say their water tested at 0.0 Cl-. I think you'll find they have extra DI on the system and quote me on this "No RO"

The main idea with this post is to gain
insight into the subject. The process
causes all involved actively to support the process and points thru experience
and research. And for those who
passively follow, maybe it will cause them to consider their methodology. I don’t want to simply have a beautiful reef
tank, but rather want to be challenged to have a better reef tank.

=[: D

And you say…

[victoly]

Cool story got even cooler. I am not advocating scrapping DI resin. Simply adding an additional carbon source prior to the RO membrane. I'll break down your post when I get some free time.

[Planeden]

Jeez, if two professional water people can't agree on clean water, then what are the rest of us supposed to do?

[+Capt. Obvious]

NERD FIGHT!!! j/k this is actually pretty good... Anyone have access to the UT chem lab...let's test this and see who is correct

[+brian.srock]

My dog eats my other dogs poop.

[+Capt. Obvious]

My dog eats my other dogs poop.

Sounds like a dietary deficiency... or a wierd/gross dog.

[(Bio)³]

I like it when posts get broken down

[+brian.srock]

yup we're thinking dietary. I think we should do these types of discussions with light sabers though.

[+Capt. Obvious]

yup we're thinking dietary. I think we should do these types of discussions with light sabers though.

Could be both dietary AND a weird/gross dog

my light saber is broken...can we just use broomsticks

[mFrame]

[jestep]

Has anyone ever tested using specific zeolites in the filtration process to remove the ammonia, or is the chloramine bond not 100% broken during the process? Just looking at how efficient zeolites are (there are reef safe/specific ones), I would think that simply filtering the effluent RO/DI output through a zeo reactor may be enough to mop up the rest of it.

[Neon Reefer]

Has anyone ever tested using specific zeolites in the filtration process to remove the ammonia, or is the chloramine bond not 100% broken during the process? Just looking at how efficient zeolites are (there are reef safe/specific ones), I would think that simply filtering the effluent RO/DI output through a zeo reactor may be enough to mop up the rest of it.

Zeolites are microporous, aluminosilicate minerals commonly used as adsorbents in aquarium filters. Yes many of the filtration devices available in sponge form utilize zeolites, as does some media forms such as Purigen, Chemipure and PhosGuard. And these products are far more absorbant than even the best carbons. I utilize these products in one of my tanks and the other I utilize extremely high capacity pelletized carbon. Note that these products perform on a variety of contaminants in the aquarium.

But hopefully my point on this post is coming thru. The idea was not to discredit the use of GAC in the RODI system, but to be aware of the potential for poorer than needed performance of the carbon for a mulitple of reasons. Especially here in the Austin area where we work w/ extremely hard water; which makes our prefilters and subsiquent carbon work harder and last less.

I spoke with the guys over at RCA where I buy my water. I see from other posts here that their water tested out at 0.0 ppm for Cl-. They say they utilize an extra bucket of DI. And further said all they use is DI. No RO? I thought that was a little funny, as it definity makes the DI resin get used up faster, but I can say this I have always been very happy w/ their water. Also spoke w/ Matt over at AAF about the chloramine problem here in Austin. They were also very concerned about growth rates of corals when exposed to Chloramines. I know they had previously experienced this problem at another location. And I know they took steps to correct the RODI system to accomadate this. Not sure what their spolution was though.

Point is this. 1. There is a problem 2. It needs to be dealt with by aqaurists. 3. Most of us need a simple always works solution, because we are so imperfect at a hobby that demands near perfection. 4.. Chloramines even at small amounts when exposed to sensitive organisms does have an affect. It is just not known how great of an affect. 5. Best solution is to be sure you always stay in frot of the problem and eliminate all Cl- from the water prior to introduction to the aquarium.

Bottom line is if you are not sure then simply utilize a binding agent as a prophalactic prior to the water entering the aquarium is a cheap insurance policy. IE Prime or one og the other cl- binding products available. Yes running high capacity carbon in a reactor or utiklizing zeolites works. But there is an exposure time inviolved. Look I'm relitively new at this hobby, but I listen and when an experienced chemist like R.H. Farley says we should pay attention. I pay attention.

[Planeden]

ok, so i have a couple of question. prime says that it removes chlorine, chloramine, and TDS. so, from a lay point of view, it sounds like it is an RODI filter in a bottle. has anyone tested "primed" water for TDS?

i have also read that agitating and airating tap water for a week will get rid of everything above. if that is the case, is it not a possible solution that does not involve replacing the expensive filter media?

@Neon Reefer: I can understand RCA not using RO water and just going straight to DI. They get to recoup the cost of replacing the DI resin by selling the water. And they are not limited to making 150 gpd or having to buy multiple or an expensive-larger capacity system. added to that they are buying the resin wholesale and in bulk, it is probably a reasonable option. they also wont have to deal with all the waste water. finally, if RCA is the place i am thinking of (downtown?) space seems to be a bit limited.

[Neon Reefer]

ok, so i have a couple of question. prime says that it removes chlorine, chloramine, and TDS. so, from a lay point of view, it sounds like it is an RODI filter in a bottle. has anyone tested "primed" water for TDS?

i have also read that agitating and airating tap water for a week will get rid of everything above. if that is the case, is it not a possible solution that does not involve replacing the expensive filter media?

@Neon Reefer: I can understand RCA not using RO water and just going straight to DI. They get to recoup the cost of replacing the DI resin by selling the water. And they are not limited to making 150 gpd or having to buy multiple or an expensive-larger capacity system. added to that they are buying the resin wholesale and in bulk, it is probably a reasonable option. they also wont have to deal with all the waste water. finally, if RCA is the place i am thinking of (downtown?) space seems to be a bit limited.

Thats a pretty good response to why RCA located in NW Austin would simply add DI resin and nix the RO. Makes sense. Thanks.

Now for Prime as an additive. Not quite RODI in a bottle but does condition water making it safe for fish right from the TAP. But TAP water is still not good for a reef tank as it contains a lot more than Cl- and the heavy metals that Prime will also lock up to some degree. But the rest of the TDS is not affected by Prime. One thing is Silica which causes some types of Algae expolsions in the aquarium.

Best thing is the price. CHEAP! 100 ml treats 1000 gals for < $4. Cant beat that! Oh and it will also help to reduce Nitrates a bit as well, but < 1/2 cent per gal. What else needs to be said right.

[Planeden]

Thats a pretty good response to why RCA located in NW Austin would simply add DI resin and nix the RO. Makes sense. Thanks.

Now for Prime as an additive. Not quite RODI in a bottle but does condition water making it safe for fish right from the TAP. But TAP water is still not good for a reef tank as it contains a lot more than Cl- and the heavy metals that Prime will also lock up to some degree. But the rest of the TDS is not affected by Prime. One thing is Silica which causes some types of Algae expolsions in the aquarium.

Best thing is the price. CHEAP! 100 ml treats 1000 gals for < $4. Cant beat that! Oh and it will also help to reduce Nitrates a bit as well, but < 1/2 cent per gal. What else needs to be said right.

so, if i do go the prime/tap route i just can't tell anyone here or complain about algea blooms, right? hehehehe

you know, i was finally convinced that i should set up an RODI systems until i read this thing about CL-. now i am just back to confused again. it seems a lot less idiot proof than it did yesterday. maybe we idiots just shouldn't do reefs.

joking aside, i am starting to consider starting with something like a FLOWR system, which from what i understand will simplify my life greatly. then i can always add more live rock and fancier equipment later if i want more reefy things. corals are pretty and all, but they sell some pretty fake ones (ok, snuck a joke in on that one).

[Neon Reefer]

FOWLRs are cool but fish are quite prone to Cl- as well. TAP water and algae is still ugly in a FO tank. Of course the fish do not really care about the Algae. Some of the Tangs would be in hoggs heaven.

Nothing to be confused about here. RODI is really the best route. And to keep it simple just add a few drops of Prime into the finished ROODI product for insurance. Now you can sleep better at night.

[Planeden]

FOWLRs are cool but fish are quite prone to Cl- as well. TAP water and algae is still ugly in a FO tank. Of course the fish do not really care about the Algae. Some of the Tangs would be in hoggs heaven.

Nothing to be confused about here. RODI is really the best route. And to keep it simple just add a few drops of Prime into the finished ROODI product for insurance. Now you can sleep better at night.

i figured you would say that . thanks. RODI + Prime sounds like the safest bet.

and, despite my failed chemestry several times background, this is a good discussion. i will step back to the sidelines and watch you and victoly duke it out.

[victoly]

Sent Yesterday, 04:57 PM

I could not actually find any info on their carbon filter products at their site regarding type of carbon utilized. And I must say I was a little lazy at wanting to research it further. Maybe you would be kind enough to provide me with a link so I could verify the type of GAC utilized in their filter blocks.

Stage one (post mechanical)

http://www.bulkreefs...dge-refill.html

Stage two (post catalytic)

http://www.pentekfil...file 310106.pdf

I know when utilizing carbon for reactors it is pretty easy to buy what you want and people utilize anything from cheap coconut carbon

Coconut carbon isn't bad by default. You know who else uses coconut carbon? ITER.

with peroxide numbers that are way high to the bituminous coal-based carbons that you mentioned in your rebuttal.

All the information you noted was ripped right from the The Water Quality Association Technical Application Bulletin as you stated.

So I used my source in a quote, and gave the source, so that's me "ripping" it? I call that citing.

I know because I read the article, and it has been around about 10 years most likely before you began your degree program in hydrogeology.

Yeah, old data is no longer good data, right? The theory of relativity is totally outdated because Einstein did his work a long time ago. Got it.

Were you aware of it from your studies or researched it do to this posting?

Hey, if you can repost what you google, so can I.

But I am sure you know that this report also hits right at the heart of one of my main points. Let me tear a little paragraph from them as well. You quoted them as saying “New types of activated carbons (bituminous coal-based) have been developed with increased catalytic activity that is especially effective at the removal of chloramines. These new “catalytic” carbons are marketed with a peroxide number (rate of hydrogen peroxide decomposition) instead of the traditional iodine adsorption number. The chloramine removal capacity of activated carbon is dependent upon pH. Catalytic carbons have demonstrated increased chloramine removal efficiency at higher pHs.”

I guess I'm confused. First, the information I cited is 10 years old and presumable not useful. Now pieces of it are worthy to make your case? You can't have it both ways.

Now let’s for the sake of conversation put in layman terms for others reading along that may be unaware, that the peroxide number is simply an assigned number indicating how fast different types of carbon breakdown peroxide. The lower the number the more effective the carbon. And hence its effectiveness to produce a response in a reaction, which is what carbon does in all situations.
But what you left out was it article goes on to say “…Ammonia (NH3), chloride (Cl-), and nitrogen gas (N2) are produced by the catalysis of monochloramine. The removal of these catalytic byproducts can
be achieved by additional treatment with ion exchange resins or by reverse osmosis”. This was one of my main points. That IO ion exchange resins are required to remove the toxic byproducts of GAC and Chloramine catalysis.

This is not breaking news. My system uses DI resin, and just about every reefer I know does as well. I simply use a different carbon setup.

This process is not lost on your typical WQA Certified Water Specialist. Most of my information comes from this industry where there about 10
different certification levels. My primary source is a WQA-CI about mid-level on the food chain. I mention food chain because the food industry is where I bang out some bucks.

COOL STORY BRO! Knowing someone does not directly impart the knowledge to you! Experimentally verifying information for yourself is the *only* thing that matters.

I oversee some pretty expensive commercial equipment which requires the use of RO and in some applications RODI to protect the equipment. I have used a national service for this purpose for 20+ years and have seen a few systems come and go in that time. But it was only a few years back when Austin began utilizing mono-chloramines that it was necessary to begin utilizing the DI resin to protect the glass in some of the equipment.

Maybe as a hydrologist and being more familiar with ground water movement and contamination, the need to remove the catalytic byproducts was lost on you.

I find the notion offensive. Tell me, as a food services director, what do you do on a daily basis that makes you more uniquely qualified to dispense information like you did the study?

After all these contaminants are only a taste consideration of drinking water and not a real health issue that you may be more familiar with.

Above all, protect human health and the environment is my profession's credo. But, yeah, I could see how having a certified water quality specialist make YOU the expert.

But rest assured it is not lost of the aquaria inhabitants. As I am sure you know it is well known to aquarists what the affects of Ammonia (NH3), chloride (Cl-), and nitrogen gas (N2) have on our fish in particular. And how many times have I read that someone does a water change and looses all their gilled inhabitants. Quoting they used only RODI water. These poisonings usually are NH3 and or Cl-. And yes they are sometimes pH
related or even temperature or SG problems. But when an experienced aquarist says they temped and buffered the water and checked SG and yet they experience a die off after a water change then the
answer is always contaminates. This in itself provides some documented proof that these poisoning do occur.

But I digress. Gaping back to the article cited “The average municipal water system maintains residual monochloramine concentrations around 2
mg/L (range: 1.5 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L).” They go on to say. “Chloramines are small, stable molecules with no net charge making them difficult to remove
by distillation, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange resins. But with all this said none of this changes the fact that probably none of the RODI systems in use by aquarist today are
working at capacity.

R.H. Holmes states that in his experimentation he found thru fairly extensive study that an 11 month old cartridge produced 0.16 total chlorine and 0.06 free chlorine when
the same cartridge new only produced 0.01 in both categories. Sure proof that less than perfect systems miss Cl- and leave it for the membrane and the DI. I challenge you to find a single statement from
a reef chemist that says DI is a waste of time on any RO system.

For the third time, I use DI resin.

And it is good you point out that only quality carbons are highly effective on monochloramines. But I question the use of these higher priced
carbons in the use of filters. Again this was your point. Why don’t you contact a BRS WQA certified tech.

Because I have test results that prove that I have removed a satisfactory level of chloramine, based off of BRS recommendations.

I am sure they have one or more on staff that can answer this question. We would all be better off knowing the results And I am aware that there are some beautiful reefs out there that have never used anything but carbon out
there. Just like there are some beautiful reefs out there that never utilize RODI for their water supply, and have never had an algae problem either. But then I wouldn’t try Austin water for that project either. Bottom line is although we can trust our equipment and our methodology or our experience. Stuff happens! Equipment fails, people get distracted, or we find we are not as experienced as we think we are. I’ll bet you
a dollar to a donut that in another 29 years you’ll be saying I can’t believe I really thought that or did that. Know how I know that? Cause we all do. Ask the guys over at RCA where you say their water tested at 0.0 Cl-. I think you'll find they have extra DI on the system and quote me on this "No RO"

Commercial production of water is a TOTALLY different beast than what the hobbyist does. Their motive is do the most with the least to make the most profit.

[Neon Reefer]

Wow finally its been days ! Glad you can channel dude! But really I’m just trying to engage you in

friendly debate to help others gain insight into this problem we aquarists have

to face. Not really interested in a

personal face off or really interested in trying to one up you, well not very

anyway. I’m sure what you do is important, But really

all the “my lab” stuff and verifiable testing without really showing us the

work did come off as a little bit of bolstering. But more importantly you did finally provide the

additional rebuttal. Thought you got

lost for a while or was doing some meaningful research. I know it couldn’t take all that long to Google

me! A buck 29 and five minutes will pretty much tell my story right. First let me say I do understand you use DI

resin. But I guess I’ll have to ask thequestion, Why use it? If the GAC is doing the job. Well let me be more

specific here. If the newer “catalytic” carbons do so much of a better job removing the toxic by product ammonia from

the reaction of the carbon and the mono-chloramines what is your need for the DI. Or better yet let me ask this

question. If given the choice of one or the other which would you run only the carbon or the DI. I think you know which one I’d pick! Well you’d be wrong if you say DI.

Why because its another trick question right? Truth be told DI is useless on its own to remove chloramines (NH2Cl), because on its own it is neutral, and DI resins

work only on charged molecules. But the reaction mono-chloramines have with carbon pulls the molecule apart causing it

to become 2 charged separate molecules both charged. And it misses a lot of other neutral things that carbon either ionizes for the DI to catch or that carbon catches on its own. OK so we must agree that both are important because they are not mutually exclusive. They need each other for a complete

purification process to take place.

I guess the biggest difference of opinion is the idea of just adding additional carbon for the chloramines and not DI resin on the back. OK let’s think about that. Why add the DI resin for the chloramines? I wouldn’t, but I would for the byproducts produced by the carbon and chloramines. Thanks,

you did provide a link to the BRS carbon page and it does say they use high quality catalytic carbon. Catalytic is a

fancy way of saying it has a lot of surface space for faster reaction times and less contact time needed. But it does

not say what kind of carbon source they are using. Seems you are kinda doing a bit of a flip

flop on the bituminous coal-based activated carbons. At first you were taunting them as state of

the art, but after I pointed out your reference was just a little weak from age

you retracted or flip flopped a little with the coconut based carbons. Sorry but I had to bait you just a little on

that one didn’t I. Anyway newer research

shows that the coconut based carbon is in fact better at removing chloramines

than the coal based carbon products. You

should check it out man. Most probably

because the coconut shell carbons can retain more oxygen, causing

them to be more catalytic. And because the coconut shell is much harder and

doesn’t as easily give up a molecule when de-chlorinating Look enough of the tit for tat,

seems like we are both good at this.

The bottom line is the United States Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA determined the Estimated No Effects Value on marine and estuarine

environments o be 0.002 ppm for –Cl. Not

0.02 but 10X less than that. So getting

it down to this point is going to take DI resin. And not even the best catalytic carbon is

going to do that no matter how much is on the system. And I guess a single unit of DI resin will

get the job done, I simply proposed an insurance policy so one could sleep

better at night that’s all. I suggested

protecting the carbon w/ better scaling filters and adding more DI on the back

end to be sure we have lots of coverage for the extra amounts of cl- and

ionized ammonium from the increased load caused by higher than usual levels of

mono-chloramines entering the system under high pH and hard water conditions. To tell the truth I still say utilizing Prime is the better of all solutions. Remember

that. I just went on to say for those of ya’ll out there that just want the RODI to do it for them. For those I suggested extra DI for additional

ammonia and cl- load and more cheap scaling filters to protect the carbon. I

n conclusion I can only say that to protect

a single $35K steamer oven in any of the facilities I manage means I am more

than happy to utilize a better RODI system to get the job done. These SOs are beastly in their consumption

of water. Our 250 gal per day RO system

operates 24 /7 and barely keeps up utilizing a quite large water softener to remove the scale and

carbon prior to the RO to remove most of the Chlorine. Tons of waste water too. But in the end it took additional DI on the

system to keep the remaining Cl- from etching glass in the doors from the super

heating. I imagine if cl- can get past this dude in enough of sufficient quantities to etch glas if suffieciently heated, then it can probably get past our aquarium sized systems in the same sufficient quantity to exceed .002 ppm. This little bit of insurance on this system has me sleeping better at night…speaking of which it’s late and I’m tired goodnight.

But one last little addition. This from Cliff at Reef Aquarium, a reefer w/ nearly 20 years of experience. "Here is another reason to consider an

extra DI cartridge on your system. Some contaminants may get past the cartridge long before the unit indicates its capacity has been reached. Silica is a good example of this. What happens is that silica is loosely bound to the resins initially, but is replaced by stronger binding materials like carbonates (hard water) as the resins become exhausted. The use of two DI units (one right after the other) will allow you to overcome this potential problem. A good quality DI cartridge will remove ammonia, just to name one example. Once I have the money for it, I will be adding a second DI cartridge to my unit DI cartridges can last anywhere from 8 to 18 months depending on the effectiveness of your RO membrane."

Neon Reefer