Home

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How Important Is It To Dechlor When Fishless Cycling?
locust267
post Jun 7 2008, 03:59 PM
Post #1


Fishaholic
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-May 08
From: Bournemouth, UK
Member No.: 41912



Hi, as the question in the title suggests I was just wondering how important it is to dechlor the water when no fish are present?

I've heard that chlorine evaporates within 24-48 hours so not sure why you would need to dechlor the water at this stage unless it's for other harmful metals which wont disappear before the fish are added?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OldMan47
post Jun 7 2008, 04:04 PM
Post #2


Leader of the Fishes
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1255
Joined: 14-January 08
From: Forsyth, Illinois, USA
Member No.: 38414



It is absolutely critical to dechlorinate water before it goes into a tank that has anything living in it. The main thing you do during a fishless cycle is try to get a bacterial colony to live in your filter. The water company is adding chlorine to kill bacteria so that your water will be safe for people to drink but that same chlorine will kill the colony that you are trying to establish. It is also the reason that we never clean filter media using tap water. If you use straight tap water to clean filter media your cycle needs to start all over again.

This post has been edited by OldMan47: Jun 7 2008, 04:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
locust267
post Jun 7 2008, 04:08 PM
Post #3


Fishaholic
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-May 08
From: Bournemouth, UK
Member No.: 41912



But say you were to fill the tank and leave it to rest for 48 hours allowing the chlorine to evaporate before adding any ammonia would it still start to kill off the bacteria from this time onwards?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddythefish
post Jun 7 2008, 04:11 PM
Post #4


Fish Crazy
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 21-May 08
Member No.: 42075



I/m not sure it does evaporate...where is this infor from?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rooster
post Jun 7 2008, 04:15 PM
Post #5


Leader of the Fishes
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1094
Joined: 13-November 05
From: Nottingham UK
Member No.: 16963



Chlorine DOES evaporate.... cloramine does NOT, unless you KNOW your water specs from the tap - then play safe and dose it anyway.... must cost a few pence, so why cut corners ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OldMan47
post Jun 7 2008, 04:26 PM
Post #6


Leader of the Fishes
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1255
Joined: 14-January 08
From: Forsyth, Illinois, USA
Member No.: 38414



I will agree with both rooster and locust. Back a half century ago when I started keeping fish we always treated tank water by letting it sit out for a day or two before using it. There was no dechlorinator available at the time so it was all we could do and it worked nicely. As time has passed, the water treatment processes have "progressed" to the point where many treatment plants now use chloramine. They use it because it lasts much better in the water that is in the pipes under the street than the old chlorine used to. That makes it better at fighting off bacteria getting to you at the tap. The trouble is it will basically not be removed by letting the water stand out like chlorine would be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
locust267
post Jun 7 2008, 04:35 PM
Post #7


Fishaholic
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-May 08
From: Bournemouth, UK
Member No.: 41912



Ok cheers, was just intrigued to find out why, wasn't saying I was gonna try it.

How honest are water companies about the usage of chloramine? Do they all use it now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pastabake
post Jun 7 2008, 05:09 PM
Post #8


Fish Crazy
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 22-February 08
From: Luton, UK
Member No.: 39640



I agree that its good practice to always use dechlor if your water is treated.

Though the interesting thing is where does the AOB & NOB's come from? If they, as some suggest, come in with the tap water then neither chlorine nor chloramine must be much of a problem to them.

Locust267 - Water companies are pretty honest about such things. From what I read chloramine is pretty much the norm for the States but in the UK its use is still pretty patchy, so its always best to give them a ring.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stupidaboutfish
post Jun 7 2008, 05:12 PM
Post #9


Fish Crazy
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 21-December 05
Member No.: 17728



I can contribute that one of my major setbacks in fishless cycling was due to doing a water change to reduce nitrite and forgetting to decholiinate. I was back to square 1 and lost 4 weeks of effort!
So it might be best ot just to be on teh safeside
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Esfa
post Jun 7 2008, 05:13 PM
Post #10


Shrimpy Shrimp
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 20-April 07
From: Andover
Member No.: 31363



QUOTE (Rooster @ Jun 7 2008, 05:15 PM) *
Chlorine DOES evaporate.... cloramine does NOT, unless you KNOW your water specs from the tap - then play safe and dose it anyway.... must cost a few pence, so why cut corners ?


apparently, there's is a thought that the bacteria feeds of the "-amin", allowing the chlorine to disperse. good.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OldMan47
post Jun 7 2008, 05:15 PM
Post #11


Leader of the Fishes
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1255
Joined: 14-January 08
From: Forsyth, Illinois, USA
Member No.: 38414



The bacteria don't come in with treated water. Any bacteria in that water are dead. If you don't know where bacteria, mold, etc. come from, try leaving a slice of bread or a piece of fruit laying out on the kitchen counter for a week or two. You won't know where that comes from either but it won't look ready for me to eat any more. Bacteria are not rare or hard to find. What we do is establish conditions that let them multiply readily and then we take the credit for them being there.

This post has been edited by OldMan47: Jun 7 2008, 05:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdrop
post Jun 7 2008, 05:18 PM
Post #12


Enthusiastic "Re-Beginner"
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2078
Joined: 4-January 08
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Member No.: 38095



Usually water companies, especially if you get put through to the lab people, are quite up-front about their techniques.

Chloramination has been "the latest thing" for a number of years and many of them are quite proud of it if they have moved to that technique. There are certain extremely small cancer risks potentially associated with chlorine use and chloramines seek to lower that risk even more. Unfortunately, some of the very latest studies have reversed a bit I believe and potentially will call into question certain aspects of the chloramine, sigh, but that's a different story and I can't remember where I read it anyway!

The number of water authorities who use chlorine techniques vs. those who use choramination techniques is quite varied and unpredictable I believe. You can't really make geographic assumptions, you have to just find out directly from the people who are responsible for your water source.

I agree with oldman47, by the way, that chloramination is common enough now and both techniques even have changed enough that none of us fishkeepers should be going without water conditioning for our larger changes and replacements. Its just to cheap and easy not to be safe.

~~waterdrop~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Esfa
post Jun 7 2008, 05:20 PM
Post #13


Shrimpy Shrimp
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 20-April 07
From: Andover
Member No.: 31363



QUOTE (OldMan47 @ Jun 7 2008, 06:15 PM) *
The bacteria don't come in with treated water. Any bacteria in that water are dead. If you don't know where bacteria, mold, etc. come from, try leaving a slice of bread or a piece of fruit laying out on the kitchen counter for a week or two. You won't know where that comes from either but it won't look ready for me to eat any more. Bacteria are not rare or hard to find. What we do is establish conditions that let them multiply readily and then we take the credit for them being there.


If that was a reply to me, then i meant the bacteria in the filter feeds off the "-amine" part of chloramine, leaving just chlorine. good.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OldMan47
post Jun 7 2008, 06:45 PM
Post #14


Leader of the Fishes
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1255
Joined: 14-January 08
From: Forsyth, Illinois, USA
Member No.: 38414



Esfaq, no disrespect was intended. You are somewhat right in that when dechlorinator breaks down chloramine, it leaves behind some ammonia. That ammonia can contribute some of the ammonia needed to start to grow your bacterial colony. My water tests at almost 1 ppm from the tap of ammonia. I thought I was reading that the live bacteria comes from tap water which struck me as nonsense but I tried to say it a little nicer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pastabake
post Jun 7 2008, 09:43 PM
Post #15


Fish Crazy
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 22-February 08
From: Luton, UK
Member No.: 39640



I take it you've done tests?

Only 1% of bacteria in soil or water may be culturable ... so it really depends upon the assay used to determine levels of bacteria in tap water. If the test are only for coliform or other known and culturable pathogens ... and why would they test for harmless bacteria? Actually it look like they don't, they test for indicators ... so our NOB's and AOB's may simply be ignored as being irrelevant to human health.

If you're really interested in this then take a look at this - hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriological_water_analysis
QUOTE
The common feature of all these routine screening procedures is that the primary analysis is for indicator organisms rather than the pathogens that might cause concern


In the UK the limit is 100 bacteria per mililitre, so while potentially insignificant - if this is the true count - its still enough to form a colony... 12.5 million in a 125ltr aquarium.

That aside -
QUOTE
Between 1993 and 2003, there were 4,000 officially recorded incidents of waterborne disease in Britain. The real figure is likely to be far higher
Now correct me if I'm wrong but AOB's and NOB's don't pose a human health concern.

Anyway, as I stated some people do assert that seed bacteria may come from tap water, I personally choose to have an open mind as until some definitive research is done its pointless to make assertions either way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andywg
post Jun 8 2008, 09:26 AM
Post #16


"A bully"
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 5682
Joined: 16-August 04
From: Southend, Essex, England
Member No.: 8878



On chloramine and its effects on AOB and NOB bacteria, Bignose found some interesting information a while ago:

QUOTE (Bignose)
Well, a quick perusal of the scientific literature came up with some rather surprising results.

Firstly, and most surprising to me, the problem ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite oxidizing bacteria (NOB) growing in water utilities' facilities is becoming a somewhat serious issue. The chloramine does in fact, promote the growth of AOB and NOB, with the consequences -- written is a nice non-threatening way as -- "...the addition of chloramines can lead to biological instability in a drinking water distribution system by promoting the growth of nitrifying bacteria..." and "The resulting reduction in chloramine residual and development of a microbial community in the distribution system lead to water quality deterioration and violation of drinking water regulations." I think that I might very well have put a little more emphasis on violations of the drinking water regulations.

Basically, because the AOB and NOB grow, they excrete other organic compounds allowing other bacteria to grow. At the very minimum, this additional bacteria will require more chloramine to kill it off, but then, more chloramine promotes more growth of AOB and NOB, and I think you can see where this cycle is going... Here is the really bad news, with this extra growth, all that stuff we don't want in there could grow now, like the coliform bacteria (E. coli -- think spinach), and viruses, and Guardia lamblia and so on. All of these are pretty strictly required to be below certain levels by the U.S. EPA, and similarly in other countries.

Secondly, the really interesting part is that in lab test after lab test, the recommended exposure times and concentrations of chloramines do their jobs. The chloramines in the lab kill off all the organics, including the AOB and NOB. However, at the utility side of the issue, nitrification episodes are rather commonplace. One recent study found 63% of U.S. chloramining utilities and 64% of Southern Australian utilities tested positive for nitrifying bacteria.

QUOTE


One hypothesis for the discrepancy between the laboratory studies and operating results is that there are AOB strains
growing in full-scale systems that possess a greater chloramine resistance than those studied in the kinetic experiments. Whether the AOB strains used in earlier kinetic studies are representative of significant strains involved in full-scale nitrification episodes has not been confirmed, since there are no published evaluations of AOB diversity in chloraminated distribution systems.



This quote, and the above ones, from Regan, Harrington, and Noguera: "Ammonia- and Nitrite-Oxidizing Bacterial Communities in a Pilot-Scale Chloraminated Drinking Water Distribution System" Applied and Enviromental Microbiology 2002. The study where the %'s came from was Wolfe et al. "Occurrence of nitrification in chloranimated distribution systems" Journal (American Water Works Association), 1996

In other words, the strains that are in the water utilities have become more resistant to chloramines, and can indeed use the ammonia present as sustenance.

And, back to fishtanks, where do the AOB and NOB come from in the first place? Well, if you used tap water, they probably came from your water utility, and if a resistant strain has grown there... that same chloramine resistant strain is probably now growing in your tank too. The Regan et al. study cited above and Regan et al. "Diversity of nitrifying bacteria in full-scale cloranimated distribution systems" Water Research, 2003, was among the first to use DNA sequencing to distinguish all the different AOB and NOB that are growing. Some of the names should be pretty familiar: AOBs Nitrosospira, Nm. oligotropha and NOBs Nitrospira, Nitrobacter


So from the above it would appear that if your water is chloraminated then dechlorination is less important that many would have believed. It is very interesting to note that despite chloramine seeming to be brilliant in all lab results, once out in the field it doesn't work the same.

There are quite a few reports of people keeping fish tanks perfectly well without using any dechlorination procedures (I believe Ooh_Feeshy on this forum is one) with no ill effects, though that more often refers to maintaining a tank, rather than setting one up (let us not forget that most water companies are trying to treat with chlorine/chloramine for bacteria levels considerably lower than in our tank - thus once the colony is there the chances of a water change wiping out the colony is somewhat lower).

While I agree there are a number of ways the bacteria can come into the tanks, the fact we fill them up with water that is likely to already contain bacteria makes me believe that tap water is the most likely source.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
locust267
post Jun 8 2008, 01:23 PM
Post #17


Fishaholic
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-May 08
From: Bournemouth, UK
Member No.: 41912



Thanks for the replies. Very interesting thread now, kinda the thing I wanted but more good.gif

If anyone else has anything else to add would be very interested to hear
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Collapse

> Similar Topics

  Topic Replies Topic Starter Views Last Action
No New Posts How important is it to test the water?
3 SigEp 181 14th October 2004 - 05:47 PM
Last post by: Inchworm
No New Posts How important is it for oto's to have buddies?
3 Isis_Nebthet 82 5th June 2005 - 02:53 PM
Last post by: Isis_Nebthet
No New Posts How Important Is It For These Species To Have Company?
neon tetra, rainbow madagascar, zebra danio, spotted raphael catfish
4 smmetz 113 11th February 2006 - 09:59 AM
Last post by: Mad Duff
No New Posts