# Aged tap water



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

Hi all,

I just had a question for those of you who use aged tap water. I know that the process is meant to remove contaminants from the water (or so I understand), but can anyone give me an idea of how the water actually compares after aging? I guess I'm wondering whether anyone's done tests on water before and after the process to see what exactly happens- what leaves, what stays, etc.

And am I correct in assuming that this process will only remove gases (such as chlorine) from the water, and that solids will remain?

Thanks in advance,
Aaron


----------



## carbonetc (Oct 13, 2008)

Chlorine gases out in a matter of days. Chloramine (for those who have it in their tap water) gases out in weeks. Everything else will remain, except for the water itself as it evaporates.

I don't personally share people's paranoia about dechlorinators and have always used them in both fish tanks and frog tanks. They're cheap and easy.

Many brands of dechlorinator also bind heavy metals, so there's another possible advantage, though I know nothing about how frogs/tadpoles are affected by them.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

If the water contains chloramine or any level of organics, then you should test for ammonia and nitrite before you use it as once the level of chlorine drops enough the bacteria will start to cycle the water. 

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

While I understand the effects on fish and frogs may slightly differ, the chemistry is still the same...

Chlorine will gas off... if the water sits idle it will take a few days, if the water is disrupted (such as air bubbles or frequent stirring) it will gas off in about a day...

Chloramine is chlorine & ammonia bound together. As Chloramine it will not gas off. In an environment with Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria (such as a mature fishtank or frog tank) the ammonia will be removed thus leaving the chlorine (which will gas off in time)... if an additive is used to remove the Chlorine the ammoina will be left behind...

Many dechlorinators will remove Chlorine and "bind" Ammonia in a non toxic form. It will only remain 'bonud' for 24 hours but in a mature tank, the Bacteria in the tank can convert the ammonia to nitrite then to nitrate in a reasonable amount of time.

Quality dechlorinators are used frequently with very delicate fish. I can not say from experience that they are completely safe for frogs, but having used them and seen them used with sensative fish for many many years, I would trust them with my frogs...


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

Toby_H said:


> While I understand the effects on fish and frogs may slightly differ, the chemistry is still the same...


This is something I was wondering about as well. I'm assuming that there's a difference in sensitivity between fish and amphibians to things such as ammonia - is this correct? I guess I ask because people seem to dose nutrients in planted aquariums to seemingly no ill effects to the fish, yet fertilization in vivaria is almost unheard of.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Since fish “breath water”, ammonia contaminated water constantly comes in direct contact with their internal system. This is the reason I believe that ammonia contaminated water will have a greater impact on fish than amphibians… or wording that better… it would take a lower concentration of ammonia to produce the same effect on fish than on amphibians… as ammonia in high enough concentrations would be dangerous to both…

I haven’t been around the vivarium end of things long enough to make suggestions on fertilizing in them… Though if I were the assuming type (which I’m not) I would assume that high grade aquarium fertilizers would be fine to use in the substrate of an vivarium…

In the aquarium trade, the most common high grade plant additives/supplements are placed in the substrate, not added to the water direct. This way the plants absorb and utilize them before they reach the water column and thus the fish.

Keep in mind if your tank is set up so that the water filters through the soil/substrate then is exposed to your frogs, adding a supplement to the substrate is also adding that supplement to the filter media.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Ok, I've been meaning to start a post about aged tap water but hadn't really properly researched enough to get my factual ducks in a row...so I will ask...

What do we know about the effects of fluoride on our frogs/tads? I work for the city I live in as a tech in the water department and I tell you without exaggeration that fluorosilicic acid is BY FAR the most dangerous thing we work with. The room where it is kept has a deeply etched patina on all surfaces just from the small content that is in the air. Obviously, that in itself means nothing, but it got me thinking as I use aged tap water for my water features and tad rearing cups. I've begun doing a bit of research on the subject but many of the articles a) cost money, and b) are written in jargon that, if I am honest, is a bit over my head. What I have come up with is that...

1. Half of the municipalities in the U.S. fluoridate drinking water (which is why I was surprised to find so few posts mentioning it here)

2. Although most cities dose at about 1-2 ppm, the Federal standard is set at 4.

3. Frog Development has been shown (one study...leopard frogs, I believe) to be impacted by dosages much less than 4ppm.

I'm well aware of the conspiracy theories regarding fluoride, and half believe them. I'm not so interested in discussing that. I know that for every study that says fluoride kills us there is a study that shows how it is saving us (it is always interesting to see who has paid for what study, eh?). I would like to know if any are aware of repeated conclusive proof that fluoride, in the levels found in drinking water, can cause developmental or chronic problems in our frogs. 

Hopefully this is not a hijack. If anyone has information that contradicts what I cited, by all means correct me. I've been doing research online, and most of whats found on the subject certainly would not be considered gospel.

Any thoughts,

Jeremy


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

Jeremy, by all means ask the question- I'm interested to hear the responses.



Toby_H said:


> Since fish “breath water”, ammonia contaminated water constantly comes in direct contact with their internal system. This is the reason I believe that ammonia contaminated water will have a greater impact on fish than amphibians… or wording that better… it would take a lower concentration of ammonia to produce the same effect on fish than on amphibians… as ammonia in high enough concentrations would be dangerous to both…
> 
> I haven’t been around the vivarium end of things long enough to make suggestions on fertilizing in them… Though if I were the assuming type (which I’m not) I would assume that high grade aquarium fertilizers would be fine to use in the substrate of an vivarium…
> 
> ...


At the moment I'm using RO water (and getting slightly tired of it, which is why I started this thread in the first place) reconstituted with MSU fertilizer for pure water for all my tanks- I don't have frogs yet. The shrimp in my paludarium seem to be doing fine, and the plants seem to be doing well, if growing a little slowly (I'm only including about 10ppm nitrogen [nitrate]). I chose this fertilizer because it seemed like it would be a good all-around product to use for all my water needs (I'd looked at dry fertilizers such as are sold for aquariums, and this stuff is still pretty cheap and contains mostly the same stuff). 

I guess part of my question is whether my current routine would be alright with amphibians. My city water has about a tenth of the nitrogen as in my current water source, not to mention a load of other questionable stuff, but doesn't seem that bad compared to some others' city water. 

I understand that amphibians are extremely sensitive to fertilizers in agricultural runoff, and I wonder whether there have been studies done that illustrate at what point the levels of these become problematic.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

If you just use a standard search engine the real research articles are buried under the noise generated by various activist groups. I have some suspicions that there is cherry picked materials there skewing the real data. 

I wasn't willing to spend $86 on a 24 hour copy of this article TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE FOR FROGS. [Lab Anim Care. 1964] - PubMed result but I suspect the real answer is in there if you can find a copy. 


Ed


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

I guess digging a bit further is what's required- thanks. I'm not opposed to paying for an article, I suppose, provided it'll get the answers I'm looking for. 

I did end up trying to look up things from the other direction as well, and was able to find a few reports on rainwater and the effect of throughfall and stemflow on nutrient levels, though these data were not taken from areas with dart frogs. I have a hard time poring over that stuff at the best of times, as I'm really not familiar with a lot of the measurements or even the minerals themselves often enough, or how they would correspond to how I'm dosing nutrients now (via ppm). I guess I have a lot more reading to do.

Ed, I understand you're using reconstituted RO water as well. May I ask what you're using for this, and in what quantities?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I moved to reconstituted RO because I'm trying to reduce total nitrates in some of the systems (particularly those of stream breeders) and any tap water treated with chloramine is going to increase your nitrate levels. 

I'm actually not that worried about the flouride levels.. 

In those enclosures where I'm using reconstituted RO (RRO), I use a 100% of RRO except for misting systems (where I use plain RO (with a TDS of below 0-1) and to replace water lost through evaporation. I am using RO Right at this time as it is easily available, dissolves readily, and can be adjusted for different levels of dissolved ions. 

Ed


----------



## jeeperrs (Jan 14, 2010)

I have free access to most research journals. I requested a copy of the "TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE FOR FROGS" article and another with a very similar title. I should get them emailed to me next week. When I get them I will post or email you the pdf of it. Maybe then you will have your answer


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

Ed said:


> I moved to reconstituted RO because I'm trying to reduce total nitrates in some of the systems (particularly those of stream breeders) and any tap water treated with chloramine is going to increase your nitrate levels.


What levels of nitrate are you shooting for?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Ideally as close to 0 ppm as possible for stream breeders. Right now I can get it below 20 ppm for low density enclosures using the reconstituted RO water. 

Ed


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

Are these levels due to residual nitrates in the water after filtration?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Pretty much all filters on the market do not remove nitrates, instead they facilitate the conversion of ammonia to nitrate through the use of bacterial metabolisms in an aerobic enviroment. The reason for this is that for most fresh water fish are very tolerant of nitrate while being relatively intolerant of ammonia (unless it is ammonium) and nitrite. 
There are only a couple of ways to really remove nitrate from the water column and the easiest is to conduct water changes with water that does not contain nitrates. 
Plants actually prefer to not remove nitrate if they have access to ammonia (and nitrate can actually inhibit the uptake of ammonia). Heavily planted aquatic systems may not efficiently remove nitrates on thier own and most of the other methods require the use of anaerobic conditions to facilitate denitrification by bacteria. 

This is less of a problem in planted terraria as nitrogen sources are limiting nutrients and are usually actively scavenged and stored by a number of organisms. 

Ed


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

And here I was thinking that the water I was starting with was little more than hydrogen and oxygen...

I don't know why, but I was also under the impression that nitrate was most easily taken up by plants- thanks for the correction. You're having good results with nitrate levels below 20ppm, then? How are your phosphate and potassium levels?


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

jeeperrs said:


> I have free access to most research journals. I requested a copy of the "TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE FOR FROGS" article and another with a very similar title. I should get them emailed to me next week. When I get them I will post or email you the pdf of it. Maybe then you will have your answer


Wasn't sure if you were addressing me or the original poster, but I would love a copy of that as well.

Thanks,

Jeremy


----------



## jeeperrs (Jan 14, 2010)

Jeremy, 

When I get ahold of the article I will do that. I am sure that I will have to email you the copy. I will have to review the copywrite criteria for the journal first. But, in my opinion this falls under education, which means I might be able to post it......


----------



## jeeperrs (Jan 14, 2010)

Ok, I have a copy of the article. You will have to forgive the quality of the PDF. It was hand scanned by another university and put into a PDF. However, if you highlight the document with your mouse, it is easier to read. Send me a pvt with an email address and I will email you the article: TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE FOR FROGS


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

How effective are terrarium/vivarium plants at consuming nitrates (or ammonia/nitrite) from a water feature?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Epiphile said:


> And here I was thinking that the water I was starting with was little more than hydrogen and oxygen...
> 
> I don't know why, but I was also under the impression that nitrate was most easily taken up by plants- thanks for the correction. You're having good results with nitrate levels below 20ppm, then? How are your phosphate and potassium levels?


Typically phosphate has been undetectable and I don't worry about potassium as I'm not trying to maximize plant growth. The only reason I periodically test phosphate is that high phosphate levels can disrupt proper limb development in anurans. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> How effective are terrarium/vivarium plants at consuming nitrates (or ammonia/nitrite) from a water feature?


Probably not as effective as you would wish.. For those really interested in the whole topic I really suggest getting a copy of The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium as it goes into it in as much detail as one could wish Amazon.com: Ecology of the Planted Aquarium: A Practical Manual and Scientific Treatise for the Home Aquarist (9780967377308): Diana L. Walstad: Books

Ed


----------



## carbonetc (Oct 13, 2008)

Toby_H said:


> How effective are terrarium/vivarium plants at consuming nitrates (or ammonia/nitrite) from a water feature?


Floating or emersed plants will perform better than submersed plants. CO2 is much more available to them, so they tend to grow much faster.

Water treatment plants sometimes use vast crops of plants like duckweed in their purification efforts, but a mere square foot of the stuff can only do so much of course.


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

...Just realized I forgot to say thanks, everyone.

Thanks.


----------

