# Exotic minerals and semi precious stone use in viv construction....



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ok I think its time to reveal one of my recent ideas for adding a new dimension to the hobby. I'm sure its not completely new...lots of people have probably thrown a unique rock, mineral specimen or something into a viv because it was pretty. What I'm talking about here is taking it further...using the idea as a major foundation for the design, and opening up a discussion about it. My knowledge of geology is limited though I do have some...I know not all minerals will be suitable for our purposes due to the potential for changing ph, or adding minerals to the soil that would be harmful to plants or animals, maybe even giving off radiation. I don't recommend anyone throw some chunks of uranium-238 into their viv. Though some decorative uranium enriched glass may be ok since if I remember correctly it only gives off radiation within the range of normal background radiation (Could be mistaken). 

Well that leads me to another aspect of this idea, Fluorescence. Many of you may not be aware of this but many minerals fluoresce under various wave lengths of UV light. Short wave UV would be far to dangerous to safely employ in a viv and may rule out some minerals at least to get the colors we want from them...but others fluoresce under medium/long wave uv lights like the more typical novelty black light which I have seen sources that say they put out uv wavelengths similar to about what a typical uv reptile bulb does and should be relatively safe to plants and animals. Especially if only on for a short time so they are less likely to damage vision or other wise stress a plant or animal. Below I will post a few pics of some of the minerals I've been considering and some pictures of minerals under UV light and let your imaginations do the rest of the work  I have already ordered my first slab of labradorite btw...

Well start with that one...

















































































Ok that as just a few unlabeled examples to get the imagination working. Here are some examples of mineral fluorescence...



























Ok I got kind of lazy using the group shots there, but hopefully you can see the potential here. One issue is cost...Many specimens can be very expensive but I've been shopping around and looking on ebay and I've seen a lot of stuff that is affordable, of large enough size and could be used very creatively. I would like it if people could share possible concerns and safety issues and offer up examples of specific minerals that might be worth a try or ones we should definitely rule out. I personally plan to scape a viv using labradorite, and also do a mixed mineral fluorescent viv utilizing long wave black lights for a short time before all the lights go off at night. Ok kids let your imaginations run wild...and feel free to post the results or any examples where you or someone else has already done something like this.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

it woudl be kinda funky to have a hippy viv with all those colors!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Dave...

Unless you can use a bulb that does not emit any UVB, you will need to severely limit the exposure of the frogs to the lighting system. 
See for example... 

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~blaustea/pdfs/HanBiotropica2007.pdf

Assessment of the Risk of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation to Amphibians. I. Dose-Dependent Induction of Hindlimb Malformations in the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)

You may be better off designing a system for a diurnal basking lizard (like Desert Iguanas) as they are much more tolerant of the UV exposure. 


Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Hi Dave...
> 
> Unless you can use a bulb that does not emit any UVB, you will need to severely limit the exposure of the frogs to the lighting system.
> See for example...
> ...


Thanks for that Ed, I was always under the impression that UVC or even UVA in high doses were the biggest concerns. I'll have to try and find it again but I remember reading something online that suggested that a typical novelty black light, like the standard GE brand bulbs you get at Wal-mart puts out a similar uv profile to a standard UV reptile bulb like a Zoo med 5.0. Do you have any info on that, whether it is correct...or can you point me in the direction of where I'm likely to find it? I'll do my own search also of course. 

Another thing I'm wondering about concerning the UV risk is whether glass tops eliminate most of the risk because of how they typically block a high percentage of some UV wavelengths. If I remember correctly its mostly uva? but I know unless its special acrlyic (like op-4)or glass they both block a high percentage of UVB. I think at least with other materials (not sure about minerals) even with the glass blocking the way you still get the fluorescent effect. I believe this was the case in my desert viv with the glowing calci sand effect...even with glass under the black light I still got the glow. Was I still getting the uv? Would this occur with the mineral materials, like it did the calci sand and whatever chemical they coat that stuff in?

So if we can in fact get the effect while glass or acrylic tops block most of the harmful UV (leaving only safe incidental amounts), this would address most of those safety concerns would it not?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ok I got this from wiki that makes me feel a little better about it all...though looks like I was mostly wrong on the UVA issue.


"While "black lights" do produce light in the UV range, *their spectrum is confined to the longwave UVA region. UVA is considered[by whom?] the safest of the three spectra of UV light*, though high exposure is linked to development of skin cancer. UVA light is much lower in energy and does not cause sunburn. UVA is capable of causing damage to collagen fibers, so it does have the potential to accelerate skin aging and cause wrinkles. UVA can also destroy vitamin A in the skin.[citation needed]
UVA light can cause DNA damage, but not directly like UVB and UVC. Due to its longer wavelength, it is absorbed less and reaches deeper skin layers (the leather skin), where it produces reactive chemical intermediates, such as hydroxyl and oxygen radicals, which in turn can damage DNA and result in a high risk of melanoma. *The weak output of black lights, though, should not cause DNA damage or cellular mutations the way sunlight can*, although there are reports stating that the type of UV radiation used for suntan (UVA) can cause DNA damage, photoaging (damage to the skin from chronic exposure to sunlight) and skin cancer [1] as well as toughening of the skin, suppression of the immune system, and cataract formation after overexposure.[2]"


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I found this also...

"Glass and UV protection
Most people believe that ordinary window glass blocks UV radiation, making any other UV protection unnecessary indoors. This is half-truth at best. Window glass blocks UVB but lets much of UVA through. The percentage of UVA that passes depends on the type of glass and the type of coating on the glass. Window glass falls into three major categories: ordinary (clear) glass, reflective glass (allows to see in one direction much better than in the opposite one), and tinted glass. While all these types of glass block UVB, their capacity to block UVA varies considerably. As architectural fashion keeps moving towards larger windows, the impact of these differences is continuing to grow.

Clear glass allows up to 75% of UVA to pass. Tinted and reflective glass absorbs more of the UVA but still allows about 25-50% to pass; they also have the shortcoming of blocking more of the visible light than clear glass. There is also the so-called Low-E (low-emissivity) glass, developed to minimize heating and cooling costs. As far as UV is concerned, regular Low-E (the ones w/o special anti-UV coating, etc.) behaves similarly to clear glass: most UVB is blocked, most UVA gets through.

The best protection comes from the types of glass specially geared towards blocking UV rays, such as laminated glass and UV-blocking coated glass. Both filter out from 95 to 99% of all UV light. Neither is common in residential or commercial structures. Laminated glass, made of two layers of glass with a plastic layer in between, is used in some public buildings, such as airports and museums; it is also used for automobile windshields. UV-blocking coated glass is also used largely in special circumstances. All in all, whenever indoors, don't assume protection from the windows against UVA unless you know that special glass in installed."

Source: Ultraviolet radiation indoors: What you don't know can hurt you.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

So If all this is to be believed, it looks to me like with typical glass under a black light given its relatively low output as is we eliminate most of the potential harm from UVB. Would you agree Ed? Now how dangerous are the amounts of UVA that a typical black light puts out after we consider that roughly 25% will be blocked by glass? I suppose if affordable sources of glass that block most all uv spectrums can be found that would be the way to go assuming the black light effect would still work...but maybe it won't without the uva...which is what I'm guessing is responsible for most of the effect if I'm getting it with the calci sand through glass on my desert viv.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ok I just ran a quick experiment. I got a florescent orange fishing bobber and put it in a box and then laid a piece of a glass top off a vivarium over the box and waved a 6in black light over it...still glows brightly. So either minimal uvb is needed for the effect or its mostly produced from UVA or near UV spectrums. If this will work with mineral specimens that are supposed to fluoresce under long wave uv remains to be seen since I don't have any to try but my guess is that it will still work. I would point out though that some minerals only fluoresce under short wave UV or they change colors depending on whether it is short UV or Long UV. Anyone looking to experiment with this in a vivarium need to be sure they get minerals that are supposed to fluoresce the desired color under long wave UV.

We are still left with the question of blacklight/UVA safety over glass for our animals though. (If I've given sufficient reason not to fear UVB)


----------



## Okapi (Oct 12, 2007)

Interesting idea. This reminds me of your leopard gecko vivarium.

Would blue (actinic) lights from the reef hobby work for your idea? Compare what you are trying to do with the middle video in the link: GloFish® Fluorescent Fish Video

Read the last part of this link: Actinic light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This link may be of some use as well, although I honestly didnt read it, i just skipped around reading parts and looking at pictures:
http://www.manhattanreefs.com/forum...otographing-fluorescence-aquarium-corals.html


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

Don't even go with a black light get a reef based actinic light or some Blue LEDs for reef lighting.....I had UVI Super actinic T-5s on my old reef tank and the Fluorescence was amazing.....Even better was my Reef Brite blue LED bar which was 10x better then the Florescent lights I had and made my tank look like a black light poster.....I think the actinic bulbs will be safer in the end and get pretty close to the same results I think anything that measures 420 nm to 450 nm will give the fluorescents you are looking for.....


----------



## Okapi (Oct 12, 2007)

I just did an image search for Labradorite, and if the slab you ordered is anything like this picture I found on wikipedia, your viv will look amazing even under normal light.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/LabradoriteAMD.jpg/664px-LabradoriteAMD.jpg


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I'm not sure but I think the main difference between an actinic and a black light is usually only that the black light has an extra coating or special glass composed of "woods glass" to block the visible light. This is what separates "bug lights" from your typical novelty black light...other then one blocking more visible light they are essentially the same. You'll notice that the actinic lights for reefs look very much the same color and have very much the same effect as a "bug light". There for it is quite possible that the difference between an actinic and a novelty black light is only the amount of visible light allowed to pass through. It seems likely were are getting similar levels of UV with either light. Many people have been using actinic lights on vivariums with no ill effect noticed so far. My guess is though an actinic would work for fluorescing minerals if you don't mind the extra visible light...in fact alone or in combination with other lights this may provide a cool daytime effect instead of restricting ourselves to only a brief night time viewing window.

BTW...I scanned the pdf and read the abstract on the website Ed mentioned. The pdf seemed to be entirely concerned with UVB which I think we've got a work around there with the glass top, if Ed agrees. I did notice however that it posited that some darts may have uv sensitive receptors in their eyes...what I scanned only mentioned this in relation to uvb but it seems possible they may also be able to detect levels of UVA and this may have some effect on their behavior and have implications with using actinic or black lights with frogs. 

In the website abstract I saw this... 
" no significant treatment-related mortality occurred under any of the other exposure regimes, including 100% sunlight with glass or acrylamide filtration." This would seem to include the UVA exposure regime and it correlates with the wiki material suggesting that UVA doesn't cause DNA damage, so we can probably at least dismiss that fear regarding UVA.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Okapi said:


> I just did an image search for Labradorite, and if the slab you ordered is anything like this picture I found on wikipedia, your viv will look amazing even under normal light.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/LabradoriteAMD.jpg/664px-LabradoriteAMD.jpg


Its similar, thats a bit nicer piece then I got...I couldn't copy over the ebay pic it appears protected. It was $7 though. One of the cheaper prices I saw for a piece around that size so I figured I'd get it to look at, hold, get a feel for what I may be able to do with it. I'll collect more nice/cheap pieces as opportunities arise and probably do a 10 gal with several pieces and a scape designed around the labradorite.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> Ok I just ran a quick experiment. I got a florescent orange fishing bobber and put it in a box and then laid a piece of a glass top off a vivarium over the box and waved a 6in black light over it...still glows brightly. So either minimal uvb is needed for the effect or its mostly produced from UVA or near UV spectrums. If this will work with mineral specimens that are supposed to fluoresce under long wave uv remains to be seen since I don't have any to try but my guess is that it will still work. I would point out though that some minerals only fluoresce under short wave UV or they change colors depending on whether it is short UV or Long UV. Anyone looking to experiment with this in a vivarium need to be sure they get minerals that are supposed to fluoresce the desired color under long wave UV.
> 
> We are still left with the question of blacklight/UVA safety over glass for our animals though. (If I've given sufficient reason not to fear UVB)


UVA is readily passed through standard glass which is why you are seeing the flourescence of the bobber. 

In other animals, even long term low dose exposure to UVA can cause significant amount damage as the damage is cumulative over time... Some of the possible items are degredation of A and D3 in the tissues.. 
For example check out this abstract Elsevier

There are some ways to get around this sort of problem such as setting up a false background which would have an clear polycarbonate panel to allow for the flourescence to be readily seen but prevents the transmission of the UVA to the frogs. As an alternative have you considered using spot LEDs which would allow it to be tightly focused which would also allow the frogs to avoid exposure to the UV? 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> UVA is readily passed through standard glass which is why you are seeing the flourescence of the bobber.
> 
> In other animals, even long term low dose exposure to UVA can cause significant amount damage as the damage is cumulative over time... Some of the possible items are degredation of A and D3 in the tissues..
> For example check out this abstract Elsevier
> ...


Hmm those are good suggestions. I really wish we could find some definitive info on what levels of uva are acceptable for darts and how that compares with the output of a typical long wave black light. I know being indoors doesn't protect you against all the skin aging damage of UVA, but it does protect you some as glass only allows 75% in. Our vivs are surrounded in glass, plus the protection being inside already gives, so I guess the question is do these lights put out a level of UVA that given all that protection would still be excessive compared to what the frogs would be exposed to in their natural habitat, since being outside in nature they are significantly(?) less protected from the suns UVA rays then they are indoors, and surrounded by glass in our vivs. 

I'm wondering if the protection from our homes, the extra protection offered by the glass/acyrlic of the viv and viv top, coupled with what I assume is relatively low UVA output compared to the sun by a black light, further coupled with the decreased UVA intensity/penetration at the distances our frogs are from the light source (+the protections) leaves us with an acceptable safety margin compared to what the animals experience in their natural habitat?

BTW Ed, I had considered Leds, but not the spot light technique...good thinking. I'm wondering with the evidence in those sources you posted about frogs seeing/detecting UV, and the effects of uvb and uva and the fact that many people use Uv reptile bulbs or actinic lights on their viv if another seperate post isn't warranted to draw more attention to those concerns.


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

here is an excerpt form a site talking about bulb spectrums...

"Philips Actinic 03 or Super Actinic 03 (color code 03) - This lamp makes mostly violet and violet-blue light. The color is a slightly dim and not extremely deep violetish blue. I get an irritation/"pressure" sensation when I look at this lamp directly at close range. I have seen this lamp sold for illuminating aquariums with live coral, which require deep-blue and/or violet-blue light. Although this lamp has a "blacklight" effect, this is due to visible violet and not ultraviolet. I suspect this lamp is also used for some photographic/photochemical industrial processes.
The phosphor band's spectrum seems basically confined to the 400 to 480 nM range, with most of the output between 410 and 435 nm. The peak seems to be in the 415 to 420 nm range (bluish violet). There is a very weak spectral line around 610 nm in the red-orange."


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Some resources for those interested, including info on, calculating energy from sunlight, blacklights, uv radiation, reptile lighting, what materials block UV and GE blacklight bulb specs and wavelengths...

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/sun12.htm
http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resources/literature_library/product_brochures/downloads/UVA_Lamps.pdf

Reptile Lighting

Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...................

In addition I'm thinking of ordering an 8x10 piece of ACRYLITE AR OP-3 which is supposed to block 98% of uv to test whether or not various objects will still glow when this material is placed between them and a blacklight. I'm wondering how much the near Uv frequencies account for the glow of various material. If we can block most UV but still get a useful glow off minerals that should ease any safety concerns based on lighting.

Also anyone with a science background, can you look at the GE pdf, especially the UVA lamp range and Irradiance, W/cm nm graph and glean from that an idea how these bulbs would compare to the suns uva output at the distances we use them? Thats over my pay grade unfortunately.

I found this measurement in the first link "the nominal value of the solar constant is 137 mW/cm2"...at first glance this might suggest that the GE bulbs are 5 times stronger then the sun, but their measurement is tagged with "@20cm" and thats the total for all solar wavelengths not just UVA...which I'm guessing completely negates that 5x assumption since at 20cm from the sun UVA would be the least of our concerns


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> Hmm those are good suggestions. I really wish we could find some definitive info on what levels of uva are acceptable for darts and how that compares with the output of a typical long wave black light. I know being indoors doesn't protect you against all the skin aging damage of UVA, but it does protect you some as glass only allows 75% in. Our vivs are surrounded in glass, plus the protection being inside already gives, so I guess the question is do these lights put out a level of UVA that given all that protection would still be excessive compared to what the frogs would be exposed to in their natural habitat, since being outside in nature they are significantly(?) less protected from the suns UVA rays then they are indoors, and surrounded by glass in our vivs.
> 
> I'm wondering if the protection from our homes, the extra protection offered by the glass/acyrlic of the viv and viv top, coupled with what I assume is relatively low UVA output compared to the sun by a black light, further coupled with the decreased UVA intensity/penetration at the distances our frogs are from the light source (+the protections) leaves us with an acceptable safety margin compared to what the animals experience in their natural habitat?
> 
> BTW Ed, I had considered Leds, but not the spot light technique...good thinking. I'm wondering with the evidence in those sources you posted about frogs seeing/detecting UV, and the effects of uvb and uva and the fact that many people use Uv reptile bulbs or actinic lights on their viv if another seperate post isn't warranted to draw more attention to those concerns.


Hi Dave,

Just to be clear, I am not advocating people to not use UVB on thier frogs. In most cage setups the UV is far enough from the frogs and there is enough shelter to allow the frogs to get away from excess exposure. 
There are long-term risks to excess UVA exposure including but not limited to degredation of vitamin A and D3 in the skin tissues.. 

When setting up enclosures to showcase minerals that flouresce that there may be too little shelter for the frogs to regulate thier exposure and/or the amount of time with the UV on the cage will be greater than a normal photoperiod. (I'm not really concerned about you, but people with less experience setting up these sorts of showcase enclosures). 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> Just to be clear, I am not advocating people to not use UVB on thier frogs. In most cage setups the UV is far enough from the frogs and there is enough shelter to allow the frogs to get away from excess exposure.
> There are long-term risks to excess UVA exposure including but not limited to degredation of vitamin A and D3 in the skin tissues..
> ...


Excellent points...I'm leaning towards the assumption given the fact that people have been using UV and actinic bulbs on frogs for years and we are seeing minimal problems if any that at least for me there seems to be a low enough risk not to stop me from trying it on an ethical basis (So far). I am thinking however that it may be best like I had planned with my desert viv to keeping the viewing window to a 1-2hr max when lights first go off...and if using a more visible light source like actinic during the day to make the minerals fluoresce it may be best to put that light on a timer so it goes off and on every hour or several hours.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Oh btw I think I'd be remiss if I didn't point out another potential danger... I think there is a real chance of making some tacky gaudy God awful vivs with these materials...consider yourself warned, and only attempt this at extreme risk of embarrassment


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

If you wanted to use just a single piece of mineral or rock you could always use a Blue LED spot light that will have the same efffect thusly not hitting the whole tank with the light but just a narrow band of light. One of the issues with LEDs is the narrow light spread they put out.....I know most that are used with reefing have the same effect as the actinic but less spread.....Ofcourse it's through water though too...

LOL at your last post....So true.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> In addition I'm thinking of ordering an 8x10 piece of ACRYLITE AR OP-3 which is supposed to block 98% of uv to test whether or not various objects will still glow when this material is placed between them and a blacklight. I'm wondering how much the near Uv frequencies account for the glow of various material. If we can block most UV but still get a useful glow off minerals that should ease any safety concerns based on lighting.


Dave is there any reason you are not googling up the frequency at which the specific mineral glows? I have a hard time thinking that this hasn't already been worked out. The frequency at which the acrylic prevents transmission should also be somewhere so you can easily compare the two. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> Oh btw I think I'd be remiss if I didn't point out another potential danger... I think there is a real chance of making some tacky gaudy God awful vivs with these materials...consider yourself warned, and only attempt this at extreme risk of embarrassment


Dave,

I think you need to look at all of the artificial colors of plastic plants and ornaments available for fish tanks and ponder the effect when a UV source is added to cause them to flouresce... (like these Glo-Lite Aquarium Plant) particularly if you add some dyed glow in the dark fish... 

I doubt you will be able to top those tanks unless you really go overboard and include a laminated black velvet poster of a technicolor clown in the tank... Google Image Result for http://www.velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/2004EBAY/images/Clown-SmHat-BrnFrm30.jpg

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Dave is there any reason you are not googling up the frequency at which the specific mineral glows? I have a hard time thinking that this hasn't already been worked out. The frequency at which the acrylic prevents transmission should also be somewhere so you can easily compare the two.
> 
> Ed


Yes there is a reason...because I hadn't thought of that!  I'll look into that. If I remember correctly on my mineral research I was mostly seeing nm ranges...not specific frequencies but I wasn't looking closely I was more concerned about what glowed under the less dangerous long wave UV lights at the time. Good Idea.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Dave,
> 
> I think you need to look at all of the artificial colors of plastic plants and ornaments available for fish tanks and ponder the effect when a UV source is added to cause them to flouresce... (like these Glo-Lite Aquarium Plant) particularly if you add some dyed glow in the dark fish...
> 
> ...


Its funny you say that...the aquarium I started back in college basically started with the idea I wanted a glow in the dark aqua scape but then I found vivariums and converted that tank after college. I did plan on putting a glow fish in my desert tank and also using them with any fluorescing mineral vivs...but the desert tank is shut down and shelved for now. Anyways looks like I've come full circle  BTW someone mentioned Avatar, and I think that movie is at least partially responsible for getting me focused on this idea lately...My goal is to do like some kinda of surreal sci-fi land scape...hopefully I can get it to come out good and not look tacky...If it does look tacky I'll just put up a velvet painting of a hot chick as the background...or maybe Elvis or frogs playing poker. Not a big clown fan


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

Cool thread, I actually found some tiger's eye from my elementary school collection and put a couple of pieces in my 125G a few months ago. most are just around 1" or so, but they do catch your eye now and then.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Its been over 20 years since I had Mineralogy in college, but I'd be very careful adding any colorful rocks to a terrarium. Quart would be fine, but the green and blue minerals usually get their color from copper - which I know is toxic to orchids - no idea how toxic it would be to frogs, but why take the chance. A lot of yellow and orange minerals from the western half of the US are commonly sources for arsenic or mercury, both of which are highly toxic. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

chuckpowell said:


> Its been over 20 years since I had Mineralogy in college, but I'd be very careful adding any colorful rocks to a terrarium. Quart would be fine, but the green and blue minerals usually get their color from copper - which I know is toxic to orchids - no idea how toxic it would be to frogs, but why take the chance. A lot of yellow and orange minerals from the western half of the US are commonly sources for arsenic or mercury, both of which are highly toxic.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


Ya metals are a big concern of mine. I have some Labradorite coming in which has blue so I'll double check the content of that. Malachite was mentioned in the sister thread for this topic on dartfrogz. Someone said it was toxic. I saw it was a copper carbonate and I found that when ground the dust released contains the copper and can be toxic, I was unsure though if they were talking about malachite green which wiki says is unrelated to the mineral but is toxic...I'm also unsure as to whether much if any copper is likely to be released from a mineral sitting in damp substrate and/or with water running over it from a waterfall or normal misting. Would be good if someone had some knowledge about this and could comment on how much of a risk we are talking if any. I don't know if the errosion processes in the viv would be sufficient to release anything in toxic quantities or not, especially for specimens with decent spot on the hardness scale.


----------



## nathan (Jul 24, 2009)

Copper might not do too well with the microfauna either. It is used in the fish world to basicly kill everything invertebrate wise . . .


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

nathan said:


> Copper might not do too well with the microfauna either. It is used in the fish world to basicly kill everything invertebrate wise . . .


Ya thats also my understanding...I just wish I could find some info on how likely it is for the copper to leech out into the viv in any harmful amount. I'll do some more digging, I just haven't had time the last few days...was in Arkansas to see family.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

even a small amount will do a pretty good amount of damage.


----------



## klik339 (May 17, 2010)

i say instead of the funky glowing colors you just bling out the tank and put REAL diamonds, emeralds and rubies into the background and scattered along the floor of the vivarium


----------



## Okapi (Oct 12, 2007)

Dave, do you know if flourite (Fluorite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) would leach anything in the vivarium? I was going to get a quartz skull and hide it somewhere in a future vivarium but instead ended up buying a green flourite skull.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Okapi said:


> Dave, do you know if flourite (Fluorite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) would leach anything in the vivarium? I was going to get a quartz skull and hide it somewhere in a future vivarium but instead ended up buying a green flourite skull.


Well I'm no chemistry or geology expert for sure, but from what I can gather reading the wikis on it and the elements it is composed of it doesn't sound to me like it is probably much risk in that form. Especially given that calcium and fluorite are regularly ingested by people, and some grades of fluorite are used in cooking utensils...Its by no means a guarantee but to me that and some of the other info suggest to me it is likely safe especially if you aren't planning on grinding it up and dusting everything in the viv with the powder  

Possible concerns I saw were it maybe somehow making the substrate/water more acidic or basic, and possibly leading to the glass in the viv being etched easier by mineral build up. I wasn't clear on which may be more likely. I didn't see much that suggested toxicity to me, but like I said I'm no geologist or chemist...I'm a lil more skewed towards biology, physics/cosmology in my general knowledge. We really need to get a geology/chem guy in here, I think Aaron from frog farm was into geology wasn't he?


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Not a good choice. All calcite minerals are soft and are going to leach calcite which in addition to causing water spots isn't good for anything living - the concentrations are just to high. A little bit of F is fine for your teeth, but your talking about a mineral that is what... maybe half F. Not a good choice. Come on guys this isn't chemistry - oh wait it is ; >. 

Quartz is a much better choice.

Best,

Chuck



Okapi said:


> Dave, do you know if flourite (Fluorite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) would leach anything in the vivarium? I was going to get a quartz skull and hide it somewhere in a future vivarium but instead ended up buying a green flourite skull.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

chuckpowell said:


> Not a good choice. All calcite minerals are soft and are going to leach calcite which in addition to causing water spots isn't good for anything living - the concentrations are just to high. A little bit of F is fine for your teeth, but your talking about a mineral that is what... maybe half F. Not a good choice. Come on guys this isn't chemistry - oh wait it is ; >.
> 
> Quartz is a much better choice.
> 
> ...


Hmm, well as I said definitely no chemistry expert here, but I double checked the wiki and clicked on the calcium fluoride link and found a couple interesting tid bits. Now to be clear I don't really know enough to actually argue the point but what I read seems to address the concern. 

"This ionic compound of calcium and fluorine occurs naturally as the mineral fluorite (also called fluorspar). It is the source of most of the world's fluorine. *This insoluble solid *adopts a cubic structure wherein calcium is coordinated to eight fluoride anions and each F− ion is surrounded by four Ca2+ ions.[3] Although the pure material is colourless, the mineral is often deeply coloured due to the presence of F-centers......

.....Safety
Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its *extreme** insolubility*. The situation is analogous to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative"

Does that address the "leaching of calcite" issue? Sounds like that would be little to no risk, but there could be something I'm still missing so anyone please feel free to enlighten me. Issues/questions like this are exactly why I started this thread...so we could sort out the possibilities. What do you think Chuck, does that clear this mineral in your mind or do you still have concerns...I'm leaning towards safe, but as I said I could still be missing something.

I'm also wondering what other minerals might be less of a concern then one might think at first glance given a possibility like this, especially ones with metals in them. Is it possible for a compound containing metal to be so insoluble as to not pose a risk? Something like malachite being a copper ore maybe? No clue here


----------



## Okapi (Oct 12, 2007)

Thanks for the replies. I probably wont use it in a viv anyways. I set it in one to get a feel for how it would look and it pretty much looked out of place. At least it got the conversation moving into new areas by thinking about soluble vs insoluble minerals.


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

I wish I had jumped in sooner. I'm a geologist and collect mineral and rock specimens. I enjoy it almost as much as dart frogs (almost). Malachite and Azurite are both copper carbonate hydroxide minerals and they will leach copper into water at a high enough rate to be dangerous to animals. Copper and zinc are both highly toxic at low concentrations to aquatic invertebrates. 

Copper is used in the freshwater fish hobby to kill parasites and bacteria on fish, but one has to be careful of the concentration in the treatment water because it can also kill the fish if it's high enough.

Also, I didn't read every post, but I didn't see anyone mention that many of the minerals that fluoresce best are radioactive and contain uranium or thorium molecules in the crystal structure. After a few weeks of exposure, your frogs might glow without the lights. 

Silicate minerals would be the most stable, with quartz (SiO2) being one of the most stable minerals in the crust. Fluorite might be okay, but it is very brittle (having good cleavage in all three planes) and it has a low hardness, so it can be scratched by most rocks, so you have to be careful with it.

Most rocks are composed of silicate minerals, with darker minerals containing more iron and manganese as cations, while lighter minerals contain more sodium, potassium and calcium as cations. Rocks like granite contain primarily mica, quartz, and feldspar. All of these would be safe. A large mica specimen would look nice, and feldspars come in a wide variety of colors.

I'll stop for now...


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

JimO said:


> I wish I had jumped in sooner. I'm a geologist and collect mineral and rock specimens. I enjoy it almost as much as dart frogs (almost). Malachite and Azurite are both copper carbonate hydroxide minerals and they will leach copper into water at a high enough rate to be dangerous to animals. Copper and zinc are both highly toxic at low concentrations to aquatic invertebrates.
> 
> Copper is used in the freshwater fish hobby to kill parasites and bacteria on fish, but one has to be careful of the concentration in the treatment water because it can also kill the fish if it's high enough.
> 
> ...


Don't stop there is a lot of clarification in that post. Keep it going this way we all know and have something to go on....


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

Azurel said:


> Don't stop there is a lot of clarification in that post. Keep it going this way we all know and have something to go on....


I get pretty excited about geology and most people aren't that interested, so I didn't want to get too carried away.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

JimO said:


> I wish I had jumped in sooner. I'm a geologist and collect mineral and rock specimens. I enjoy it almost as much as dart frogs (almost). Malachite and Azurite are both copper carbonate hydroxide minerals and they will leach copper into water at a high enough rate to be dangerous to animals. Copper and zinc are both highly toxic at low concentrations to aquatic invertebrates.
> 
> Copper is used in the freshwater fish hobby to kill parasites and bacteria on fish, but one has to be careful of the concentration in the treatment water because it can also kill the fish if it's high enough.
> 
> ...


I had not heard the stuff about radioactivity in fluorescent minerals. I did a quick search and found this site that says most don't but also mentions the activator elements you did...Tozour Family's Fluorescent Rocks Page 13 Radioactive Minerals

I also found this .pdf that might be helpful determining which elements to steer clear of because of radioactivity. It has tables of fluorescent and radioactive minerals... http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/circulars/downloads/15/Circular 15.pdf

Can anyone comment on the likely hood of long wave fluorescing minerals being radioactive vs short wave minerals? I mean is it more likely with one type then another?

JIMO can you give us some examples of Decorative minerals, ones that have nice natural and/or fluorescing characteristics that may make them desirable for this intended use? Bright colors, iridescence, bright Long wave fluorescence, patterns, crystal shapes...etc..etc..? 

Are there any examples where copper or other usually toxic metal ores might be safe because of their particular composition, or the circumstances they are formed under cause them to have properties that make leaching unlikely if not impossible?


----------



## tinkgirl77 (Dec 30, 2012)

Hey Dave,
Did you ever do a viv with any of these ideas? I am quite interested in maybe adding a few quartz accent to my next viv build.


----------



## Ray (May 12, 2009)

While I am a huge lover of such mineral specimens, I think I'd be more concerned about chemical toxicity issues than any related to UV.

Don't forget that many are relatively pure chemical crystals, so have metal ions in concentrations that your amphibian friends would never see in nature.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

tinkgirl77 said:


> Hey Dave,
> Did you ever do a viv with any of these ideas? I am quite interested in maybe adding a few quartz accent to my next viv build.


Not yet. I have expensive tastes but I have several Ideas. Quartz is probably a good choice as long as it is't embedded in another mineral that might be toxic




Ray said:


> While I am a huge lover of such mineral specimens, I think I'd be more concerned about chemical toxicity issues than any related to UV.
> 
> Don't forget that many are relatively pure chemical crystals, so have metal ions in concentrations that your amphibian friends would never see in nature.


I agree... I would seal up any that might be questionable with clear plasti-dip or a clear urethane spray. Make it water/air tight and I don't see how it is going to have a chance to do harm.


----------

