The Puffer Forum

the article on fishless cycleing states:

Now add the ammonia in such a quantity to raise ammonia test results to ~5ppm. This is best achieved by simply adding a few drops, and testing. Adding a few more drops, and testing again. Raise the ammonia test results to a reading of ~5ppm

My ammonia reader does mg/L.

Is this the same or is there an equation to get mg/L to ppm?

the next Q: the test is for Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N)

It says to test for pure ammonia( NH3) "multiply by a factor of 1.216"
What is the diff when it comes to fish?

I believe you can get technical with it, but for most purposes it is fair enough to just say 1 mg/l = 1 ppm

I had a feeling that was the answer ... but wasn't 100% certain.

Thank you!

Someone please correct me, but don't most liquid API tests for ammonia add NH3 and NH4+concentrations together?

Different question, I know...

but that is ok ... I am using a digital reader very good question

Excuse me

You did not state you were using an electronic meter for this ammonia test. I have not yet heard of one!

that's ok ...
http://www.milwaukeeinst.com/db/doc/manMi405_ENG.pdf <== that's the guy I am using

I try to go digital when ever possible ... I dislike the range kits

For us, ppm = mg/l. Technically they don't, but until you can read out to more than six decimal places and they are all significant,don't worry about it.

Someday the hobby world will adopt N-only readings. Ammonia is NHs = nitrogen and 3 hydrogens. NH4+ is nitrogen and 4 hydrogens , so different by one on the atomic scale. Hobby test as a rule read "total ammonia nitrogen", a.k.a. TAN - meaning that they read the nitrogen only and the devil take the hydrogens. If they wanted to be consistent, or heaven forbid, be rational, nitrite would read "total nitrite nitrogen" and nitrate would read "total nitrate nitrogen" . If that were the case, one ppm TAN would oxidize to one ppm total nitrite-nitrogen, and that in turn would oxidize to one ppm total nitrate-nitrogen. Totally rational. Instead we have hobby kits which read TAN for ammonia, but total atomic weight for nitrite and nitrate. This gives us a situation where one ppm TAN gives 3.3 ppm nitrite and that in turn gives 4.4 ppm nitrate. Instead of the nitrogen balance being flat and ead easy for anyone to see, it gets larger at every stage because oxygen is heavier than hydrogen - all when it is the nitrogen that interests us.

Aren't you glad you asked a simple question?

BTW, EPA figures are the nitrogen-only rational type. Shouldn't we be depressed that the Fed. is more rational than we are?

HTH

I'm dizzy.

It is quite simple PP, hobby test kits are irrational. Field grade kits tend to report rationally, EPA uses rational measures, labs tend to rational reports. Why don't we? GOK, but we don't. The bottom line is that it makes it harder for hobbyists to understand nitrogen in their tanks.

Thank you! I got my eyes uncrossed now!

From the sounds of it, it seems that as the hydrogen passes from place to place that substance is converted and becomes less toxic to the fish?

Is there a dif (fish wise) between NH3-N and NH3? or should I just be reading the NH3-N?

To the fish, there is no significant difference. The human eye reading error is greater that the weight difference. Atomic weight 17 versus at. wt 14 in not very big.

When I play with nitrogen balances, I use the N-only figures. It is so much easier (as well as more rational) to work with than total weight. The scales used on the colorimetric test do not change, only the numbers assigned to them: No change to a TAN test (it is N-only already); divide nitrite numbers by 3.3; divide nitrate numbers by 4.4. Life is simpler and kinder to the aging brain, but the toxicities stay right where they were, unchanged. If you are in hazard areas on any metabolite, you stay in exactly the same place. It all boils down to purely arbitrary selection of the units used to label the color charts. The color changes are real, the figures assigned are human-selected.

Historically (and not ancient history to me, it is all in my lifetime as a hobbyist), we did not know as well way back when that ammonia (NH3) was toxic and ammonium ion (NH4+) was harmless. And we certainly did not dream of chemical agents which could capture the molecule and lock it into the ion form. The other two do not have alternate forms, both are and stay ions, and both are toxic, just at very different concentrations for toxicity.

HTH

Thank you for the clairfication It definately helps in the understanding of how the Nitrogen cycle works

P.S. Flutter are you keeping up with us?

Well I'm here now. What do you want? I haven't checked this thread out until now

Flutter wrote:Well I'm here now. What do you want? I haven't checked this thread out until now

Nothing really, just bugging you