Skewed Testing????

[mojoreef]

Well I have been doing a little diggin into the latest soapbox debates of heavy metals in salt mixes. This reseach lead me to a bunch of different sites and such and I have noticed something that seems to be strange. So I would like to share it with you experts and hopefully you can tell me if I am crazy and should just shut up

Ok on the testing done by a Dr. Shimik with the use of Urchin embryos. He seemed to come to a conclution that heavy metals were the contributing factors in thier deaths and/or non devleopment. Now understanding that nothing was actually tested in the water (ie: nitrates, ammonia, plastic leaching and so on) makes the test bunk to start with but it seems to have started a craze for alot of reefers to drop the standard Instant Ocean, kent and coralife salt mixes and to start to search for newer and better mixes. So here is where I have a a problem

On his tests he states that salt mix contents for IO, Kent and coralife were taken from Atkinson and Bingman, 1999 and that the others:

The data for Bio-Sea Marinemix are the average of two samples in the advertising literature from the manufacturer

and

The data for Marinemix–Bioassay Formula were provided by the manufacturer

Hmmm seems a little unscientific and maybe kinda of bias

OK going a little deeper If one looks at the contents of the salts labeled above as tested by Atkinson and Bingman, 1999 and then comparing them to the s15 report thier seems to be a huge difference. I dont want to go through all the salts but how about just IO as it is a pretty popular salt mix.
Highlights:
IO mix per A&B Aluminum = 6.46
IO mix per S15 Aluminum = .ooo6

IO mix per A&B Cadmium = .027
IO mix per S15 Cadmium = .010

IO mix per A&B Chromium =.390
IO mix per S15 Chromium =<0.001

IO mix per A&B Copper =.114
IO mix per S15 Copper =<0.044

IO mix per A&B lead =.435
IO mix per S15 Lead =<.004

IO mix per A&B Nickle = .100
IO mix per S15 Nickle = 0.00

Ok I dont want to list them all but thier are alot of glaring differences. These differences is what he bases his agruement and his conclution on .

The concentrations given in Table 4 for the relative concentrations of most of the trace metals, which are in parts per million, seem very low and certainly appear as if they should be acceptable for growth of marine animals. That is, until they are compared with the average values for some of these materials in natural seawater.

ok so that one weird one. But he goes on in his little forum to tell folks he is going to toss the IO mix out and go with the other salts tested. and thus creating a panic for everyone to go out and buy it up. SO what about this
According to the same S15 report here are the goods on his new favorites:
Bio-Sea Aluminum = .02
Marine mix Aluminum = .02
Bio-Sea Chromium = .03
Marine mix Chromium = .03
Bio-Sea Copper = .039
Marine mix Copper = .042
Bio-Sea Lead = .04
Marine mix Lead = .04
Bio-Sea Nickle = .02
Marine mix Nickle = .02
So if you look at it this way, Wouldnt it tell you that he should go to the garbage can dump his report and grab that bag of IO back. Cause the way I see it in the case of the toxic metals the IO has alot less of the toxic metals then does the two he says are the best.

Bio-sea S15
Marinemix

Now I am not sure what to think...as...I am ...Really only a hobbist...but does something not seem right??????????

[steveweast]

Interesting Mike...A question ....Isn't the bottom line the number of larvae that survived (more in marinemix and less in IO) no matter what the cause (heavy metels or somthing else) ? Unless the entire test is flawed through contamination of samples,carelessness,etc.

[mojoreef]

Well Steve I dont know. Personaly I think the whole test was bunk. He never tested for what may have killed the larvae. When simular tests were done by a scientific branch they found that DEHP which was leaching from the plastic bag the salt was packaged in. here is a quote:
We use only glass columns and precleaned support materials, as well as redistilled solvents free of contamination (GC grade). As such, we felt that our extraction methodology simply could not account for up to 10-20 mg of extracted DEHP from just 15 L. of culture. this necessitated a search for the source of DEHP. We feel certain that we have identified the major source for this contaminant and determined it as the artificial seawater (Instant Ocean) used in preparing the culture medium. It is likely that the process used in making or packaging Instant Ocean uses many plastic components, which in turn could provide the source of the phthalate ester.

The main problem is that he drew a conclusion that the metals killed the larvae, and then told us all to loose the salts we use and go with salts (according to the S15 report) are worse then the ones we have all been using. For me this kinda through everything he said out the window. Maybe something else in these salts was not conducive to the growth of Urhins. Or maybe as Jerels has suggested these salts were designed to work better for the growth of larval stage critters. But to say all these more commn salts are killing our tanks because they have To many metals, then skew a experiment so that it leads to another brand of salt, then to find out that the salts he recomends are even worse,,kinda makes me not believe anything he says.

but again thats just me.

Mike

[galleon]

Mikey, I also concluded in that other thread that his experiment was biased and garbage, the statistical analysis was wrong, stemming from the lack of a viable experimental design and valid control.

[steveweast]

Mike: I'm with you that the cause of the results is unclear; however, something allowed more larvae to survive in some mixes over others. Are you saying that the experimental procedure was flawed in some manner (like not being consistant in preparing each sample) as to yield completley false data? Something allowed more larvae to live in some salts no matter what the cause (plastic contamination from packaging, metels,etc.)...again, unless careless lab procedures were followed,rendering the whole thing invalid. I guess I'm focusing on the result, no matter what the cause. If it were the packaging of IO salt that was skewing the results....well, we buy the same packaging and are subject to its effects.

[steveweast]

One more question Mike...Can the larvae be viewed as a valid indicator...kinda like a canary in a coal mine? We all try to grow larvae creatures..pods,worms,etc.

[mojoreef]

I follow your train of thought Steve. And yes the experiment was flawed. You can refer to Galleons post in the other thread for that. But to carry on thier might be things in the other salt that are conducive to a better growth rate in those mixes then in the ones we use. If one looks a little deeper into his experiment he also says the one of the reefers who sent him his tank water (using IO salts) had results very close to NSW. What does that tell ya?? To come out and make comments like Heavy metals in ASW is killing your tank seems a little strong to me, exspecially based on the way he tested and the data he used.
I dont know steve what do u think

Mike

[mojoreef]

oops you posted to quick for me, lol
Quote:
One more question Mike...Can the larvae be viewed as a valid indicator...kinda like a canary in a coal mine? We all try to grow larvae creatures..pods,worms,etc.
Well on the first one I cant answer that but on the second part of the question. I would say you are the best one to answer that. I believe your tank to be a really healthy system. Do you have any pods, snail eggs, snail babies and such...bet ya do



MIke

[tdwyatt]

Originally posted by steveweast
One more question Mike...Can the larvae be viewed as a valid indicator...kinda like a canary in a coal mine? We all try to grow larvae creatures..pods,worms,etc.

without rehashing the ENTIRE mass of criticisms here, using sea urchin gametes as the test subjects only tells us one thing, that there is a problem getting adequate consistant results for fertilization of the ova, and that those zygotes that may or may not develop have variable responses to various salts, temps, circulation, and all the other variable that were not controlled in the experiment, but are known to have an impact on survival of these specimens. This does not EVEN begin to address the need for larger experimental populations and better controls for the entire testing protocol. Not only is this experimental procedure poor, but it is based on much too small a sampling to get repeatable results. You could most likely run the same experiment under the same set of conditions that Dr. S used and get totally different results based on the small numbers in the experimental populations her studied.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Take 10 pennies, put them in a jar, then dump them on the table. How many times do half of them land face up and half of them land face down (as probability would predict)? You will find that out of ten times performing this task, that the numbers will be getting close to 50% on average, by the time you do it 100 times, it will surely be very close to 50%, but with 1 or 2 or 3 tries, I doubt that it will show the 50% expected. Same with a small number of samples, regardless of the expected results. For example, suppose salt X does kill urchins at the rate of 30%, it will have highs and lows of a certain percent no matter what, but based on whatever other variables are not controlled adequately, this becomes a study of multiple combined effects, not the salt X effect on the survival rate. This is what we are currently faced with in this study, a tease, but nothing substantial. I will certanly not be changing salts.

OOPPPSSS, my wife tells me the cat will be eating the wasabi crusted tuna if I don't stop now...

[steveweast]

Thanks Tom..that does clear up the issue for me a bit. The one thing that bothered me a little was that I'm sure the salts will vary slightly from bag to bag ...and batch to batch...and a sensitive larvae may react to this variable as well. Mike, now why couldn't you say that? You're making me think way too hard...and it hurts.

[mojoreef]

Steve we work in the same proffesion, do u really think I could have said what Tom did

On the results that I was showing I had already concluded that the test was bunk, I just felt the need to add that his metals thing in relations to his new dream salts was bunk to.


Mike

[reefcam]

Mike, Mike, Mike...causing more trouble. So after reading Ron's salt report, I came to a conclusion that I'm sick and tired of seeing these salt reports and whether or not they make recommendations to use which salt. I've asked this question once, but no one seems to want to answer it. Many times they compare the ASW to NSW as a reference. Find, great. But where are the sample for NSW from? Oregon Coast? Can we conclude that NSW for all parts of the world are the same? I don't think so. I hear that the Red Sea salinity is higher than other parts. Hawaii, Fiji, Florida?

When I see experiment results, I typically take it as a, thanks for the knowledge, but I'll stick with the salt I'm using. Whether or not I'm having great success or not, it's been keeping my tank running.

Salt, Water, Lighting, and equipment all have an equally important part in keeping a successful reef tank, but most of all, it's the husbandry (oh wait there was a topic on this) that will keep your tank running at optimial condition. I suck on the later part, but I'm not complaining. I see many people jumping in and getting the recommended salt by Dr. xyz, but they will come to find that they will have a successful tank by taking care of it.

Plus, why would I breed Urchins?? They just scratch up your acrylic tank.

Ok, I'll get off my soap box.

You go get them Mike.
Jim

[reefcam]

Oh wait, back to Mike's topic. Skewed testing??? I don't think so. Inconclusive, maybe, maybe not.

Title sucks. Yes definately.

I think the hobbyist should realize that over time, their tank will be contaminated with some sort of metal at one point or another. Typically through means of feeding and adding new specimen. Unless ofcourse everything you put in your tank goes through a clean room and is tested for all "toxic" mineral.

I'm almost positive if you take a sample of my tank's water and test for Copper, you will find traces of it. Does this mean my corals are doomed. No (atleast I hope not). But my point is, take these results with a grain of sand. Believe in what you want and move in the direction that you feel will make you comfortable.

I'm stick with IO. Just bought 5 buckets. Plus I get a free bucket.

[mojoreef]

LOL Jim no kiddin. The reason for the post is to slow folks down that are panicking and changing thier salts for no good reason. On your question about differing NSW's I would assume that is the case, but no clue on what the actualy values would be area to area.
I would say that Inconclusive is really just another word for bunk and with out any real scientific facts or conclutions and skewed with the conclusion in hand prior to the experiment taking place.

But that is just my 2 cents

mike

[cyberchef]

Well Dr Ron did it again, he proved that "scientists" can kill more lab animals that the average person... hehehe