Succesful Reef Conversion?

hhassan · 05-17-2002, 07:34 AM

Has anyone managed to succesfully convert a copper treated fish only aquarium to a reef aquarium.

If so, how did you ensure that the copper did not leach back into the reef set-up?

Thanks in advance

Doug1 · 05-17-2002, 10:32 AM

I dont know about copper absorbing into glass but you could carefully cut out the silicane bead with a razor blade, taking care not yo cut into the seams, then rebead it. Unless its a large tank that you got a killer deal on, I don't think its worth the time or the risk. Reef tanks and marine animals are to expensive to try and save a few bucks. The tank is usually the cheapest part of the equasion

hhassan · 05-17-2002, 06:30 PM

Cheers Doug1.

I have read other articles on the forum regarding this matter and I have decided to cut out the old silicone and replace it with new.

Thanks again

Spanky · 05-17-2002, 06:46 PM

I think I would be more worried about the glass itself, than the silicon. More than likely the silicon was colored by Malachite green and it's really just stained. Copper actually will bind to the glass and leech back out into the system.
It would make a great quarantine/hospital tank though.

Jerel

tdwyatt · 05-18-2002, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Copper actually will bind to the glass and leech back out into the system. It would make a great quarantine/hospital tank though...

I concur with both Jerel and Doug, although the glass can be treated, it is quite wasteful and it produces a large amount of hazardous waste in the process. Having it as a hospital tank or as a fish only system will prevent a lot of heartache down the road when your corals start to fail to thrive or die for some unknown reason. Tanks treated with copper should be permantly marked that they have been treated with copper for this reason.

Yeah, you could prolly get most of the copper out of the glass and the silicon, but when you add up the costs and the time to treat the tank, and add in the materials (heh, not including the disposal fees for the wastes), you could work a few extra hours at your job instead and take the extra to buy a new tank that you could depend on. Having a copper treated tank in this hobby is iffy at best.

Just my 2Cents US..

Doug1 · 05-18-2002, 01:10 AM

OK you guys got me with the glass leaching copper, i thought glass was basically inert. Not that I question it but can anyone cite references supporting this

As an aside would anyone care to adress the "inert glass" vs hydrophilic acrylic(plexi) Personally i would be more concerned about a trated plex tank than a glass tank, am i missing something here?

hhassan · 05-18-2002, 05:28 PM

I seem to agree with Doug1. I have always known glass to be inert.

Spanky · 05-18-2002, 06:20 PM

TOM HELP I'M IN OVER MY HEAD HERE!!

lol

It has to do with the silicates in the glass guys. The copper isn't absorbed but actually a-d-sorbed, it's bound on the surface of the glass.

Tom you can jump in any time now - - - -

Brooke · 05-18-2002, 06:34 PM

Well...I definately AIN'T Tom...but

....think of the glass as activated carbon (AC). AC aDsorbs the icky stuff in the tank.

Webster's defines adsorption as:
The accumulation of gases, liquids, or solutes on the surface of a solid or liquid.

It is definately NOT worth the risk. Like Doug said, the tank is usually one of the cheaper pieces of equipment.

Good luck with your tank!

Brooke

Doug1 · 05-18-2002, 06:53 PM

OK While I still think its not worth the risk, if the glass adsorbs the Cu molecules would it not be readily accesessable for a chelating compound or something similar.Personally I would be more concerned with Cu thats hiding in the nooks and crannies of the silicone, hence my suggestion to strip out the silicone beading and replace it with fresh
Let me reiterate that this is maybe worth while on a larger tank, gotten cheaply(bigger than a 55g say) and probably cheap insurance unless one knows the tanks history. For smaller tanks, its probably not worth the bother, but if one does this, I would definatly fill the tank with RO water and an airstone and monitor Cu levels
(disclaimer, foollow this method at your own risk, every tank and setup is different, YMMV )

erasmu · 05-18-2002, 09:20 PM

Others have already indicated a concern about the tank itself. I hope that there is no live rock, sand, or other such item from that treatment that you want to reuse. The tank can perhaps be cleaned up. I know that all this stuff is expensive, but eliminating losses is the best way to save money in the long run.

Spanky · 05-19-2002, 08:41 AM

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin...ass+and+copper

Ever do a search for something and get more than you wanted??

Anywho, follow that link.

HTH
Jerel

Alice · 05-19-2002, 01:12 PM

OodleyBoodely · 05-19-2002, 03:55 PM

Thanks for the link, Spanky, that's where I learned about copper adhereing to glass. IMO, the method of cleaning the copper treated glass is just too toxic and expensive to recommend.

tdwyatt · 05-20-2002, 12:44 AM

Hey folks, sorry to get back into things so late this weekend, I feel like I finally can sit down now... the wedding was beautiful, and things were really nice, but I'm glad it is over!

Biggest problem here is knowing the affinity the ligand has for copper compared to the adsorption of Cu to the glass and the extend that cheleates form with polymers and other biological compounds in the tank. In addition to this, we would need to know the rate of equilibrium of the copper complex with the glass vs. its solubility (and other sinks) in the water column. Many variables here. My gut feeling: There is a pretty good affinity between Silicon oxides and hydroxides and the copper species. An equilibrium does form with the water column, and the glass can become a significant source of CU at levels far above that of NSW. The glass acts like a magnet for copper ions, not attaching them, but holding them close until something else knocks them off the glass. This occurs at some rate, but I couldn't find a CRC reference for the affinity of Cu and Silicon oxides to do the calcs (yes, I guess some things ARE too obscure EVEN for CRC...).

All this discussion about the science surrounding this Cu/glass issue is emperic when you look at the big picture. Experience has shown that repeated rinsing does not prevent coral and invertebrate losses and failure-to-thrive down the road. The Literature even documents this as a problem when doing environmental studies with pretreated enclosed environments (aquaria-based studies). Folks that decide to use a tank that has been treated with copper in its history need to realize that such a tank pretty much is going to cost them a lot of money to make it safe for corals. These costs must be added to whatever your purchase price is to come up with your true acquisition costs for such a tank. In addition, the chemicals to do such a cleaning are both hazardous to work with and hazardous to dispose (and are polluting as well when improperly disposed). I still contend that buying a new tank will save you money in the long run, as even a new tank will be the least of your expenses, especially if you consider that you may have to purchase another tank down the road to transfer all your copper poisoned creatures into if you buy the tank in question.

What good is buying a "salvage" Mercedes for half the price of a new one if you have to spend the time and money to repair it at a cost of almost the new car, and it still doesn't run right?

Leave the copper-treated tanks for the FO crowd, do what you know will work, as there are still too many unknowns that slow our progress, why add another?

OK, I'll get off the soapbox now... Heh, sorry about your new "backyard reef" Jerel, maybe they can get some of those upside down medeusa to occupy the site!