Ammonia present in tap water

[puffermichigan]

I'd love a scientific perspective on this.

Since setting up my puffer tank, I've discovered that the measurement of ammonia in my tap water comes in at about .5 mg/L. I was on the hunt and wanted to figure out what was up with the municipal water supply here in Ann Arbor (Michigan) where I live. Here's what I found out:

First, I looked on the internet. According to two websites I consulted (Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization), "naturally occurring" ammonia levels in drinking water are on average .2 mg/L. However, even levels considered "high" (3 mg/L--terrifying levels to any aquarist), "aren't considered" threatening to human health. The reasoning given by the EPA--the amount consumed daily in food and drinking water, even at the highest levels that have been measured, are approximately 200 times less than the amount produced in human intestines on a daily basis (!). Thus, neither EPA nor WHO have issued any guidelines for ammonia levels in drinking water. (And so, no guidelines means there are no requirements about the amount of ammonia that can be present in our (U.S.) drinking water. According to them, toxic for fish does not equal toxic for humans.) Additionally, concerns about the amount of ammonia present in drinking water appear to begin and end with whether or not the water "smells" due to the amt. of ammonia present--human toxicity is not even on the radar.

When I contacted the City of Ann Arbor water treatment facility, I was told that the ammonia present in our drinking water is due to disinfection with chloramines. Now, I am no scientist, but as a law student who is contemplating a career in environmental law, I'm naturally skeptical of the EPA. It would be very interesting for me to know what the scientific arguments are for regulating ammonia in tap water. Is there truly such little concern over these levels of ammonia within the scientific community? Even for the young/elderly/sick in our society? (This is when I wish I WERE a scientist.) Most of the EPA documents I read stated that ammonia affects aquatic life differently than human beings (read: EPA recognizes that toxic levels of fecal matter, agriculture run-off and other ammonia-producing/containing waste in our rivers could kill our fish, but whatever, EPA doesn't regulate non-point source pollution generally, instead, it issues "guidelines" regulating the presence of substances it deems harmful to human consumption once those substances enter the human food chain. Apparently, ammonia doesn't fit in that category.)

Now, this was by no means an exhaustive search, just one afternoon of curiosity, but I was definitely surprised by this. Due to how toxic these levels of ammonia are for our fish, I would argue that a common conception in the fish-care community is that these levels of ammonia are toxic to us as well. Is ammonia "toxicity" from these levels of ammonia really only a fish concern? Does anyone have any ideas about this, or suggestions of reliable scientific sources I could consult for further inquiry?

[J-P]

If they are stating that the tap water is safe, maybe you can ask them to cite their sources?

Then check other countries. There will always be sediment in the pipes and that sediment WILL produce a certain amount of ammonia. I have a feeling that is why chlorine and fluorite are used in the water (both are toxic btw depending on the levels).

What you are looking for is a chemist, and a biologist.

[Corvus]

The maximum allowable concentration in Germany is 0,5 mg/l. However, I've never measured ammonia (>0,1 mg/l) in any German tap water or heard of it from a reliable source. This is also likely because chloramines are not used here for many reasons. Instead more expensive methods are used for disinfection and a higher standard of groundwater protection is applied in the first place.

If I would measure such ammonia concentrations in my tap water I would personally not drink the water, not because of the ammonia, but because this is a sign, that something's wrong with the water conditioning or transport.

Even for fishes it is not only the ammonia itself that is dangerous. High ammonia is a sign for a not working nitrogen cycle. Not only is ammonia at this stage not tranferred into nitrites quick enough, the breaking up of metabolic substances does not work either (and is likely limited by the ammonia concentration), and this can easily be a very toxic coktail, also it takes quite some oxygen for a system to decrease the ammonia content. A tank showing ammonia of 0,5 mg/l IS very toxic to fishes within hours.

Here's an older study showing how deadly ammonia can be for fishes:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qr1974u557773057/

You'll probably find 100s more. Some will measure ionized and unionized forms (which depends on the pH) and have different toxicity.

[puffermichigan]

Corvus, that is fascinating. So it's not necessarily the ammonia that is the problem, but what the ammonia indicates.
This is especially interesting (upsetting) because the Ann Arbor water treatment facility is touted as being better and more "high-tech" than facilities that disinfect with chlorine.

I absolutely believe that this has a lot to do with a failure to protect water sources from original contamination. I've seen many instances where "solutions" to an environmental problem are seen as too costly, whereas prevention of those same problems would be more economical (though the burden of paying that cost would necessarily have to shift). 85% of our water comes from the Huron River, and there are simply not enough regulations in place to protect it from agricultural and commercial runoff. The burden of delivering "clean" water to residents is shifted from polluting parties (often private companies who have taken advantage of environmental externalities to lower their own costs, or pollutants whose source cannot be readily traced) to public utilities, often with less than ideal funding from the public sector.

[RTR]

Frankly, I am amazed that aquarists in the USA are shocked to find ammonia in their tap water. Chloamines have been the EPA-dictated water disinfectant for public water supplies for quite some time now. Anyone who has been on the hobby web for more than a week must have seen many, many warnings on hobby sites concerning such.

For quite a few years, chlorine-only was the utility disinfectant of choice. Unfortunately it turned out that with better understanding of the chemistry of water disinfection,and better testing of the public water supply in practice and not just in theory that the public water supply was not always safe to drink on more than one point. First off, dissolved chlorine gas is volatile, and even if not lost through its sterilizing reactions with water contaminants, it may not endure to the more distant and less-used part of the water distribution network - allowing potentially unsafe water to exist in the supposedly potable water supply system. That is non-trivial in a public safety sense. It is however outweighed as a risk factor by some of the reaction products commonly encountered after chlorine gas disinfection of water supplies. Some of those relatively common products have proven to be carcinogenic in and of themselves. It is irrational to have a water supply made microbially safe by an agent which in and of itself will result in the long-term production in the population of some number of cancers just from drinking the "safe" water. That risk is not high, but is very real. The risk of inducing cancer by water treatment is expressly forbidden by law. This led the EPA to drop chlorine disinfection of water as an approved process - but - very big but there - the cost of completely replacing the old chlorine-gas process with chloramines for disinfection was not small. It is quite expensive. All new and upgraded water processing plants must come on-line with the new process. Existing local plants were to some extent gradfathered in that they could continue using chlorine until they require some major renovation or replacement, and then must switch over to the newer and safer process. citiies in general were put under more pressure than lower population areas, insisting that renovation be done sooner than later to protect more of the country's population per dollar spent on renovation. that is still an on-going process. Many areas are still chlorine-only, but eventually the entire population served by public utilities will be served by chloramines-treated water.

Do note that all of the above considers only the human population.

Do be aware that hobbyists and pet-keepers are in and of themselves responsible for their pets and other livestock. The government will take no responsibility for any captive animal.

Also be aware that the methods used for treating chlorine-only water and chlorioames-traeated water are different. The old treatments will not do the same job. If you are unaware of this, it is time that you learned, but the responsibility is your own, not that of your utility.

[Corvus]

Interestingly, Chloramines have been prohibited in the public water supply over here for very similar reasons as those who let to the use of chloramines over chlorine in the USA.

Disinfection here is done mostly by ultrafiltration (expensive dead-end-technique variations, maybe someone has heard of it) and ozone, and only in very few acute cases chlorine. However, disinfection in general is necessary only in very few of the countries groundwater supply plants. Those using deep wells (part of my job... a few weeks ago I planned and built a 200 m deep well for a local farmer) practically almost never need it.

[Muffuletta]

New Orleans switched to chloramines shortly after the flood, around January 2006. I was glad because the city had to pump so much CL in the water the smell and taste was unbelievable. But it let people come home so not to much complaining.
I learned about chloramines when I was testing during my fishless cycle. I could not figure out the ammonia readings until I tested the tap water also, which was about .5 ppm for ammonia. Rather then deal with the ammonia in the tap water, I started using untreated well water.
In addition to every thing Mr. Robert wrote, if you have to use water treated with chloramines, then you need to test your source water for each water change. The ammonia levels are not static and change periodically during the year. There are many threads out there on how a person treated source water for one level of ammonia only to find out later (usually when all their critters die after a water change) ammonia levels were actually much higher. Remember water is being treated for your health and not the health of your fish.

[puffermichigan]

Thanks everyone for the info and answers. Up to this point, I've just taken it as a given that tap water contains ammonia and treated it accordingly. Since I haven't experienced fishkeeping without chloramine-treated water, it came as a surprise to me when some suggested I maybe should complain to my water company about my "toxic" water. This in turn made me more curious about the water treatment process.

Your points about the conversion of facilities from chlorine to chloramine make a lot of sense, RTR--new facilities almost always face stricter technology requirements, as do those undergoing substantial renovation. I'm sure a complete switch from chlorine to chloramine will take quite some time. Many existing chlorine facilities will likely forgo substantial renovations that might require the costly switch and opt for a series of small renovations that will not trigger the new requirement. I guess it could depend in part of public pressure.

In terms of any negative effect on my fish (the ultimate concern): I dose all new water with Prime before I let it sit (heated and aerated). Then I add it to my tanks. I base the amount of Prime I add on the ammonia level out of the tap (so far, it's been consistent, but I'm taking your point to heart, Muffaletta, and will remain diligent in my testing of the initial supply) and the amount of monochloramine listed in the city's annual water quality test results. Since this is monitored at the treatment plant, I assume (and hope, because I have no way to measure chloramines) it will not go above the maximum dosage that they have listed. Do you know of other precautions I should take? Ammonia still measures as present in the mixed, treated water before I add it to my tanks (I have been believing, based on the Prime bottle and things I have read online, that this ammonia has somehow been rendered by Prime less harmful or harmless to my fish?) but a measurement of ammonia in my tank is undetectable within 60-70min (based on ammonia readings taken every 10 min). I only did this series testing once, usually now I just wait two hours and test everything to be sure all measurements are good. **edited** to add that I still get concerned with any measurement of ammonia in my cycled tank, however small, for any amount of time. I guess I've been relying on the Prime to have "neutralized" it somehow.

Anyone who has been on the hobby web for more than a week must have seen many, many warnings on hobby sites concerning such.

I guess I'm a bit behind the curve on this one, RTR! I've been reading this forum for the last three months now (since the arrival of my GSPs) and haven't come across anything that explains the reason for the tap ammonia, only that it's not a good thing for my fish. Then again, the Pufferforum has a wealth of information I can only imagine it would take years for me to get all the way through, my fast reading notwithstanding. Thanks for setting me straight!

[RTR]

Additional clarification: There are two phases to water disinfection. The initial ones do vary greatly with the water source - water from rivers and most surface impoundments likely require quite differeent processing from that from deep aquifers with geologically old water (which as Corvus mentioned be be effectively or nearly potable as is). Then there is the disinfection requirted for the transmission networks to the individual homes or buildings. Chlorine and chloramines as we know them are to us strictly distribution network disinfection agents. In the ideal case, there should be no movement of ground or surface water in or out of the potable water distribution network. In the real world, such networks always have leaks out ard and likely leaks inward as well. Persistent disinfection is required to mantain potability.

Dissolved gas chlorine is simple. Aging, especially with aeration and tempering, will remove all traces of chlorine gas at levels used in this country within 48 hours. Alternately, solutions of sodium thiosulfate (standard dechlorinating agents) will do the same in seconds.

Chloramines are not so simple. Thiosulfate solutions will break the chlorine-ammonia bond at stanadard dosage for chlorine-only use. Twice normal dosage will break the chlorine-ammonia bond AND detoxify the freed chlorione (here dissolved chlorine gas - toxic to fish and inverts - is converted to chloride ion, harmless at these concentrations). That is doing two of the three required jobs. Additionally, the freed ammonia must be locked into the ammonium iom form - which is harmless also. That is where issues arise. Old-fashioned thiosulfate (at 2x the old dose levels) will easiuly do two of the three required chloramine neutralization jobs, but it cannot and will not do anything for the freed ammonia, which can also kill fish and some inverts. the older material can state that it destroys chloramine (breaking the chlorine-ammonia bond is de faacto destruction of chloramine - it no longer exists when the bond is broken). It can further add that tit neutralizes the freed chlorine (it does, converting it ti chloride ion). They do not state that the product does nothing at all for the freed ammonia, which can also kill fish and some inverts. This is where many hobbyists get snookered. Neither they nor their LFS staff have the chemistry to know that the water so treated is just about as hazardous to their fish as it was before treatment. There are 3 separate and distinct jobs to be done to chloramine-treated water. If the label for your conditioner does not specify all three jobs as being done, that product can kill your fish. Personally I use Seachem's Prime. It does all three jobs and has a huge margin of safety.

There is yet another issue involved here. Our test kits are antique. Their chemistries are no longer up to the jobs we require. We need good tests for ammonium ion (NH4+) and for dissolved ammonia gas (NH3) and better pH tests or cheaper and more lasting pH probes. Our current ammonia teats read both ammonium ion and dissloved ammonia gas. Ammonium ion id harmless, dissolved ammonia gas is deadly. We need to be able to read the difference. There are two tests that I am aware of that do the job, and neither is the test style familiar to most hobbyists, and they are therefore not user-friendly to most hobbyists. The current agent for chloramine in one way or another acts to bind the freed ammonia into the ammonia ion form in a manner which still allows it to be oxidized by the tank nitrification bacteria, without allowing to to be released again as toxic dissolved gas. We really, really need t be able to read bound ammonia versus toxic dissolved ammonia gas, and our current familiar test kits are incapable of doing so. That causes a lot of confusion and uncertainty.

HTH