mza1979m

I've just recently found this new hobby and am absolutely thrilled thus far! Anyways, I've got a question about this water conditioner I'm using. The directions on it are far from clear for a newbie. It states the following (in a nutshell):

To remove chlorine:
5 mL treats 10 U.S. gal.

To remove chloramine:
10 mL treats 10 U.S. gal.

To protect scales & fins:
10 mL treats 10 U.S. gal.

For simplicity's sake, let's assume I have a 10 gallon tank. Now here's my question... Does this mean that to perform all three functions, I have to pour 25 mL into my tank? Or do I have to only use 10 mL to perform all three?

On top of that, it doesn't state the method for getting rid of heavy metals, even though it says on the bottle that it "neutralizes heavy metals". Will it automatically do that when getting rid of chlorine/chloramine?

I'm using Aqua Plus Tap Water Conditioner, by the way.

Jay

Hey mza1979m

No..it means...

If you are only dealing with chlorine, then 5 ml per 10 gallons will do it.

If you are dealing with chlorine and chloramines then it will need 10 ml per 10 gallons. You will need to check with your water supplier to see if they use chloramines in their sanitation process. I think it would be safe to assume yes, and dose 10 ml.

The product will deal with heavy metals at the same time.

The product also has some type of additive that they are promoting as protecting scales and fins. In a healthy tank, with healthy fish, this is really not needed and is in fact a little controversial as to the benefit.

I use Seachem's Prime which in the long run will be cheaper as the volume it treats is 5 ml for each 50 gallons.

Regards,
Jay

BJP

I suspect the additive is the dechlorinater itself combining with the chlorine to form one of the chlorides. The salt then mildly irritates the skin thickening the slime coating that protects the scales and fins.

I haven't got path for detoxing the heavy metals down yet but I suspect it has something simple happening at the same time like the salt reacting with them or oxidizing them or maybe the salt blocking their uptake through the gills some like it does with nitrite.

__________________

mza1979m

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the responses.

Jay

Here is an interesting path...

http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/doc...r/metals.shtml

Jay

BJP

So that seems to be suggesting they could be getting chelated onto the newly formed salt molecules in some brands or oxydized by the acid added to neutralize ammonia in the products targeted towards chloramines. In some cases they would become the salts themselves.


It's also saying that most detox is going to occur just from the increased oxygen levels of aquarium water anyway. I've had years where I just gassed the chlorine off through surface agitation and never treated with anything without problem so that would make sense.

__________________

Jay

To me also....incredible what spin and clever marketing can sell to folks.

Jay

Tommy Gun

Like BJP, I believe that this is either a sort of a secondary effect of the chemicals irritation on the fish which results in a faster or higher stress coat production...however, I remember once reading that a lot of these products do contain some form of salt which would be the reason for this...which I guess has already been pointed out. The real reason why I wanted to reply to this post was just to point out how, like I think BJP has pointed out from time to time, 'stress coat' contains aloe which I feel could have been the cause of one issue in my tank which resulted in death. In the end, I have come to the same conclusion as Jay in that whatever the feature might be that helps with stress coats (sometimes referred to an 'immune system) is probably the least of good reasons for using one.

Keeping my own personal views and opinions aside, ironically, I once read one of those sorts of 'printed debates' in a magazine which focused on the reasons behind how hobbyists got along fine for years and years without a dechlor product but suddenly there is a huge need for one since water is obviously still water. In the end, the final argument which was made in favor of using them is the 'newer' practice of cities using chloramines verus simple chlorine. In my mind, this makes sense because the whole premise behind using chloramines is that they do not 'gas out' as quickly as chlorine, hence the water is 'safer' for human consumption over a longer period of time. Maybe that is true, maybe it is a stretch, I am not sure, but like I said, it makes at least a little sense to me.