Remove Chlorine and Chloramine

[KoiCop]

but I’m afraid that with your last post you’ve hatched a whole new batch of scientific gaffes.

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell Peters I think that what they are saying is that ordinary dechlorinators like Sodium Thiosulfate will release the bound ammonia into the water, but WILL NOT rid your system of the chloramines themselves.

Fuzzy. Chloramine is ammonia & chlorine bound together; ST breaks the bond and detoxifies the chlorine, leaving the ammonia to be dealt with in the short term by an ammonia binder and/or in the long run by one’s biofiltration. “Rid your system” is not a scientific term and none of these ASRG products “remove” anything from one’s pond; they rearrange the atoms and molecules to render dangerous chemicals harmless to fish.

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell Peters ClorAm-X and Ultimate have the same substance in it for dechloramination.

Incomplete. You left out Amquel, which is the same product as ClorAm-X (minus the ph buffers) and the same product as Ultimate (minus the ph buffers, the electrolytes and the slime coat conditioners). All three ASRG products have exactly the same substance as their active ingredient, namely sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate (HOCH2SO3Na). Dechloramination refers to detoxifying both parts of the chloramine (the chlorine & the ammonia); same ingredient, same performance.

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell Peters What I understand from this is that it is the only conditioner that removes ammonia, it does not BIND it. They are not saying that the product holds the ammonia long enough for the filter to consume it, they are saying that the product itself consumes it and therefor removes it entirely. I thought that, like PP that consumes organic waste (by oxidation), the Ultimates consumption of the ammonia was the same thing, oxidation. So, if it is not oxidizing the ammonia, it is still removing it, thus causing less stress on the filter and your Koi.

Wrong. The active ingredient in these three ASRG products binds the ammonia; it does not oxidize it, consume it or otherwise remove it from one’s pond. There can be no differentiation in how these three ASRG products process ammonia since they all have the same active ingredient. Only biofiltration and/or water changes can truly remove ammonia from the pond.

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell Peters I still feel that because it is the only product the really dechloraminates and it "removes" ammonia completely, that is is better to use than sodium thiosulfate and a binder. ClorAm-x would also do the same as the Ulitmate.

Wrong. Again, all three ASRG products dechloraminate equally, all of them are binders and none of them “remove” ammonia from the pond. Using a cocktail of ST (for the chlorine) and a small amount of any one of the three ASRG binders (to clean up the little bit of ammonia released when the chloramine bond is broken) will produce exactly the same ambient levels of chlorine and ammonia in one’s pond.

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell Peters What the spec sheet for the Ultimate is saying is that it is not a binder like Amquel, and as such can not be compared by using the spec sheet for Amquel. They do have similar ingredients but they

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell Peters ARE NOT the same products. Ultimate and ClorAm-X are used to remove ammonia and Amquel is used to bind ammonia until your filter consumes it.

Wrong. No, they’re not the same product; there are the minor differences I mentioned above (which deal with ph buffers, electrolytes and slime coat). But, again, all three ASRG products have the same active ingredient and it binds – not removes - ammonia.

Unfortunately, your quote from ASRG’s ULTIMATE® Product Data Sheet pdf:

“There is only one substance which not only dechloraminates water, but is also stable in solution and nontoxic. The substance is found in ULIMATE and is protected by US and foreign patents”

is the only scientifically accurate statement in your last post.

In Summary: When dealing with chloraminated water: ASRG’s patented substance is sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate (HOCH2SO3Na); that substance is the active ingredient in all 3 ASRG products; that substance dechloraminates water by breaking the chloramine bond, detoxifying the chlorine and binding the ammonia until the biofiltration takes over. ST breaks the chlorine/ammonia bond in chloramine and detoxifies the chlorine, but ST does not detoxify the ammonia; to be safe, use a small amount of one of the three ASRG binders to detoxify the ammonia until the biofiltration takes over.

These are not my opinions, feelings or understandings – these are scientific facts. I’ve tried to help lead folks to water, but I can’t make anyone drink it.

Finally, if anyone wants to argue about the science involved here, just phone John Kuhns at AquaScience Research Group, Inc.; his telephone # is 1 (816) 842-5936. He’s the scientist who invented these ASRG products, he’ll be back in the office next Tuesday (11’ ish) and I’m sure he’d be happy to talk to you.

[Russell Peters]

Quote: Originally Posted by KoiCop but I’m afraid that with your last post you’ve hatched a whole new batch of scientific gaffes. Fuzzy. Chloramine is ammonia & chlorine bound together; ST breaks the bond and detoxifies the chlorine, leaving the ammonia to be dealt with in the short term by an ammonia binder and/or in the long run by one’s biofiltration. “Rid your system” is not a scientific term and none of these ASRG products “remove” anything from one’s pond; they rearrange the atoms and molecules to render dangerous chemicals harmless to fish. Incomplete. You left out Amquel, which is the same product as ClorAm-X (minus the ph buffers) and the same product as Ultimate (minus the ph buffers, the electrolytes and the slime coat conditioners). All three ASRG products have exactly the same substance as their active ingredient, namely sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate (HOCH2SO3Na). Dechloramination refers to detoxifying both parts of the chloramine (the chlorine & the ammonia); same ingredient, same performance. Wrong. The active ingredient in these three ASRG products binds the ammonia; it does not oxidize it, consume it or otherwise remove it from one’s pond. There can be no differentiation in how these three ASRG products process ammonia since they all have the same active ingredient. Only biofiltration and/or water changes can truly remove ammonia from the pond. Wrong. Again, all three ASRG products dechloraminate equally, all of them are binders and none of them “remove” ammonia from the pond. Using a cocktail of ST (for the chlorine) and a small amount of any one of the three ASRG binders (to clean up the little bit of ammonia released when the chloramine bond is broken) will produce exactly the same ambient levels of chlorine and ammonia in one’s pond. Wrong. No, they’re not the same product; there are the minor differences I mentioned above (which deal with ph buffers, electrolytes and slime coat). But, again, all three ASRG products have the same active ingredient and it binds – not removes - ammonia. Unfortunately, your quote from ASRG’s ULTIMATE® Product Data Sheet pdf: “There is only one substance which not only dechloraminates water, but is also stable in solution and nontoxic. The substance is found in ULIMATE and is protected by US and foreign patents” is the only scientifically accurate statement in your last post. In Summary: When dealing with chloraminated water: ASRG’s patented substance is sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate (HOCH2SO3Na); that substance is the active ingredient in all 3 ASRG products; that substance dechloraminates water by breaking the chloramine bond, detoxifying the chlorine and binding the ammonia until the biofiltration takes over. ST breaks the chlorine/ammonia bond in chloramine and detoxifies the chlorine, but ST does not detoxify the ammonia; to be safe, use a small amount of one of the three ASRG binders to detoxify the ammonia until the biofiltration takes over. These are not my opinions, feelings or understandings – these are scientific facts. I’ve tried to help lead folks to water, but I can’t make anyone drink it. Finally, if anyone wants to argue about the science involved here, just phone John Kuhns at AquaScience Research Group, Inc.; his telephone # is 1 (816) 842-5936. He’s the scientist who invented these ASRG products, he’ll be back in the office next Tuesday (11’ ish) and I’m sure he’d be happy to talk to you.

Hey Don,

Maybe you should read the reports from Aqua Science Research. Everything I mentioned is a direct quote from their specs. Please read everything I have written more than once as well. All of the conclusions I came to are a direct result of reading the specs for the Ultimate, ClorAm-X and Amquel. I do not get the same results you do, so if i get a little heated, take it with a grain of salt. I don't know how two people can read the same thing and come up with such differing views. Maybe ASR is not complete in their descriptions.

FUZZY - No it is not. It says in the product specs that "When dechlorinated with ordinary dechlorinators the chloramines release the bound ammonia in the water. In addition, the chloramines are resistant to dissipation, even when the water is strongly aerated. The removal, or destruction of chloramines is called "dechloramination". There is only one substance which not only dechloraminates water, but is also stable in solution and nontoxic. This substance is found in Ultimate". Tell me Don, why is this fuzzy, it says right here that the removal of chloramines is ONLY accomplished by the Ultimate. Sodium Thiosulfate can not do it. It is only releasing the bound ammonia. Now, if it removed the chloramines, why would they say only their product can do it. Therefore, if you are using it, then you have not rid your system of chloramines have you? You say that ST breaks the bond and the people at ASR say you are wrong.
If the Ultimate does not "remove" anything from the pond, then why does the spec sheet say so. Under the ammonia section it says, and I quote "Ultimate will not only remove the "toxic ammonia" but due to the concentration present in standard dosages it will also remove all the ammonia as the equilibrium between ammonia and ammonium ion shifts as the NH3 is consumed in the reaction". I do not care if "remove" is a scientific term or not, the product manufacturer says it will REMOVE ammonia from your system. It goes on to say, "Unlike other water conditioners which claim to remove toxic ammonia, Ultimate will do so even if the pond or aquarium is not cycled, overstocked or improperly filtered". I don't know why you say that the product does not remove ammonia from your system. It does, So you are wrong.

It is not Incomplete - I left out Amquel on purpose because when reading through the spec sheets, it was the only product that says "The Hydroxymethane - end of the molecule reacts with ammonia to form a non toxic, stable water-soluble substance which is acted upon by the bacteria in the biological filtration. This reaction effectively removes the toxic ammonia from solution". Don, when I read that, I interpret it as saying that it is binding the ammonia until it is acted upon by the bacteria in the biological filtratrion. Both the Ultimate and ClorAm-X say that they will "remove the toxic ammonia". It does not say anywhere on those spec sheets anything about "being acted upon by the bacteria in the biological filtration". Furthermore, the spec sheet for Ultimate and ClorAm-X both state both, "can be used in shipping bags where there is no filtration and where the number of fishes per volume of water is typically several times that found in an aquarium or pond. Additionally, when using Ultimate, or ClorAm-X, to REMOVE ammonia there is no need to do water changes nor to vigorously aerate the water to facilitate this action".
It is these differences between Ultimate, ClorAm-X and Amquel that had me leave Amquel out of the equation. To me it sounds like Amquel is a binder, because it "holds" the ammonia until the filter converts it, and that Ultimate and ClorAm-X actually do REMOVE the ammonia. If this is wrong, I do not see it. I do understand that all three product have one ingredient that is the same and that each of them then have other ingredients that make them different. Why is there such a discrepancy in the descriptions of what they do?

How can Sodium Thiosulfate break the chlorine/ammonia bond when the ingredient found in the Ultimate, ClorAm-X and Amquel, is the ONLY one that can dechloraminate?

Russ

[Rich L]

That's why I'm annoyed with what I'm referring to as manufacturer’s rhetoric.

They say they have the only thing (on the market) that ‘eliminates, removes, deals with etc.’ chloramines. That’s true, but other compounds bind with chloramine to remove it from the chloramine bond and continue to bind it so it won’t oxidize organics but they don’t REMOVE CHLORAMINES. They only make chloramines harmless, but who cares about that.

Therein lies the problem. By far, the majority of hobbyists are not into reducing manufacturer claims through an inspection of a statement’s elements. That’s perfectly normal. But the manufacturer’s claims often are a generalization and people eagerly follow that carrot to the bank. Of course it’s the manufacturer’s bank.

The chlorine/ammonia bond is a loose bond. It forms easily and breaks easily. Dump chlorine in any pond and it will bind with residual ammonia to produce chloramines. Energize them with heat or sunlight and they will tend to break their bond and reform again as soon as they come into contact.

Just put a dechlorinator in the pond and chlorine will be bound with the active part of the dechlorinator to for a much more stable bond. Never mind the ammonia, it has little impact on this whole issue other than it keeps chlorine from off gassing to quickly.

[Clay]

Called my city water department yesterday inquiring about the installation of a clear water meter. $50 for a permit, $185 to install the meter in the house and position a remote reader outside of the house + must hire a plumber. It should go about $500 - that's more than I expected. We pay one fee for the water and another fee (which is just a high) for the waste water. What the meter will allow me to do is just pay for it once for the pond and not twice.

This inquiry put me in contact with the same people that do the treatment of the water. They told me that my city targets .3 for chlorine at the pumping station so when it gets to my home I should only have about .2 mg/l. This is a relatively low reading and I do have a chlorine test to verify, but it was interesting that they target such a low amount. I also asked and we do not add any chloramines to our city's water supply. That was good news.

The point of this response is to say call your water department and know what is going into your water as well as the test results of your water. The test results are accurate on the day they did the test of course and things might be different now, but it does give you some idea of what your source water is like.

Rick

[bekko]

We had to segregate a rental house from the rest of the property in order to get the agricultural water rate. The second meter cost $2400 and there was a 6-month waiting list. We also had to have a back-flow preventer - only $210 with me doing the installation. The backflow preventer has to be tested annually which costs $97/year. I'm not sure we'll ever use enough tap water to break even on the deal.

-steveho pkins

[Clay]

Sorry for the thread drift in advance. Steve the pond is over 15,000 gallons and I have to fill it up somehow. I also totally destroyed my back yard and have to plant and water new grass. I don't know if I will make up the cost or not either.

Rick

[Rich L]

As I racall, Chloramines are limited to 4ppm. Between 5 & 50 it is hazardous to consume and should be reported. The sloppy work that generated 50ppm ahould be reported to the EPA. Not locally.

[elunned]

Spiking water lines following maintenance work usually involves straight chlorine, not chaloramine - another reason I suspect that the deaths were from chlorine and not ammonia. They spike at the disconect/reconnect point and as the water travels, the chlorine levels drop. The hpbbyist in Utah had work done in his subdivision. The chlorine treatment is a safety measure, since bacteria can be introduced and multiply while the water is stagnant in the mains. Make sense?

[Ryan S.]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich L As I racall, Chloramines are limited to 4ppm. Between 5 & 50 it is hazardous to consume and should be reported. The sloppy work that generated 50ppm ahould be reported to the EPA. Not locally.

That is correct, 4ppm is maximium amount allowable but this is for systemwide average, so there can still vary. For example out local water source reported a 3.3 max tested systemwide average for last year, but still had individual sites up to 5.5ppm.