-
Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.
Better than RO water!
- Thread starter paintballe48
- Start date
Billy
I'm not up to date on current salt formulations but in the past salts were formulated in a manner expecting tap water to be used. That is why many salts when mixed using RO/DI needed to have buffers added as the expected contribution from tapwater was missing.
Salts are not made with tap water in mind even though some have dechlor in them and "expected contributor" has never been a part of it. How can it be ? Some FW can be high in Alk/buffer and some can be very low. Lets pretend somebody has tap water with 5 dKH and now you use a salt with 12 dKH and now the Alk is 17 dKH
The calcium we will say is now 590, from "expected contributor" now, with a pH is 8.1, PUFF snow storm. A pH of 8.2, Alk of 14 dkH and only 410 ppm Ca++ can create a snow storm at times. In chemical oceanography these are called a Omega value = 6. Pump-up that pH , Alk or Ca++ a tad more you will get a snow storm for sure, as the Omega value has just increased more > 6
Look at the range of the SLC pdf report I posted above. The Alk has a range of 55- 270 ppm Alk. That is range of 3 - 15 dKH. Now, take that avg = 9 and take a salt with only 8 dkH = 17 dKh That is 2.7 x NSW. Adding buffer to RO/DI water is a old myth and not so. Matter of fact it is bad idea to add any buffer to a salt mix. Unless, you are one of those that has a salt mix with lower Alk and you like it higher, which is fine. Many like it at 10-12 dKH. I will add the corals do grow faster at higher dKH and pH. Corals growing fast at higher Ca++ is also a myth. They do not grow any higher at 500 ppm Ca++ than they do at 370 ppm Ca++.
The range of Alk for 20 sea-mix salts is 8 - 13 dKH. NSW is 6.5 dKH. So, any salt mix is at least 1.2 x NSW. The highest buffer one would see in any part of the ocean, par the Red Sea, we would use, as say tank water, is not higher than 7 dKH. A past goal for many sea salts was to make it as close as possible to NSW. If that is the case all salt mixes are above NSW Alk, RO/DI, tap water or not.
And I could go on and on here with things like tap water Ca++. Look at the report again for Ca++, 28 - 135 ppm Ca++. Take just the avg, 82 ppm and add that to a salt mix with 450 ppm Ca++ = 530 ppm Ca++. Take that and add in that Alk of 17 dkH and a pH of 8.2 and you will be making Limestone in your tank
I'm not up to date on current salt formulations but in the past salts were formulated in a manner expecting tap water to be used. That is why many salts when mixed using RO/DI needed to have buffers added as the expected contribution from tapwater was missing.
Salts are not made with tap water in mind even though some have dechlor in them and "expected contributor" has never been a part of it. How can it be ? Some FW can be high in Alk/buffer and some can be very low. Lets pretend somebody has tap water with 5 dKH and now you use a salt with 12 dKH and now the Alk is 17 dKH
The calcium we will say is now 590, from "expected contributor" now, with a pH is 8.1, PUFF snow storm. A pH of 8.2, Alk of 14 dkH and only 410 ppm Ca++ can create a snow storm at times. In chemical oceanography these are called a Omega value = 6. Pump-up that pH , Alk or Ca++ a tad more you will get a snow storm for sure, as the Omega value has just increased more > 6Look at the range of the SLC pdf report I posted above. The Alk has a range of 55- 270 ppm Alk. That is range of 3 - 15 dKH. Now, take that avg = 9 and take a salt with only 8 dkH = 17 dKh
That is 2.7 x NSW. Adding buffer to RO/DI water is a old myth and not so. Matter of fact it is bad idea to add any buffer to a salt mix. Unless, you are one of those that has a salt mix with lower Alk and you like it higher, which is fine. Many like it at 10-12 dKH. I will add the corals do grow faster at higher dKH and pH. Corals growing fast at higher Ca++ is also a myth. They do not grow any higher at 500 ppm Ca++ than they do at 370 ppm Ca++. The range of Alk for 20 sea-mix salts is 8 - 13 dKH. NSW is 6.5 dKH. So, any salt mix is at least 1.2 x NSW. The highest buffer one would see in any part of the ocean, par the Red Sea, we would use, as say tank water, is not higher than 7 dKH. A past goal for many sea salts was to make it as close as possible to NSW. If that is the case all salt mixes are above NSW Alk, RO/DI, tap water or not.
And I could go on and on here with things like tap water Ca++. Look at the report again for Ca++, 28 - 135 ppm Ca++. Take just the avg, 82 ppm and add that to a salt mix with 450 ppm Ca++ = 530 ppm Ca++
. Take that and add in that Alk of 17 dkH and a pH of 8.2 and you will be making Limestone in your tank Unfortunately the report my water company provides is not as comprehensive as the one you posted.
http://www.amwater.com/files/NJ-BurlingtonCamden.pdf (I am part of the Western System)
Is there a place where you can obtain a more comprehensive report on your tap water?
http://www.amwater.com/files/NJ-BurlingtonCamden.pdf (I am part of the Western System)
Is there a place where you can obtain a more comprehensive report on your tap water?
No Dave unfortunately not. That SLC report is the Cadillac of any WR I have seen. Our old WR use to be more like that one buy now it is more like yours. It has been a continuous effort recently for WR to have only what is required by EPA Ground and Drinking Water Standards. Many use to show Drinking Water Guidelines, where they would like to see your water but is not a requirement to report it. So, you may not see it at all, like on yours. For example: Sulfate in drinking water currently has a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L), based on aesthetic effects (i.e., taste and odor). This regulation ****is not a Federally enforceable standard,**** but is provided as a guideline for States and public water systems. EPA estimates that about 3% of the public drinking water systems in the country may have sulfate levels of 250 mg/L or greater. Meaning, your water can be 300 ppm SO4 and the EPA will do nothing. It is very expensive to do a WR like the SLC report.