Prime or Aquastar?

[Cichlabxr]

Prime has been proven to raise nitrate levels due to the sulphur that is in the product (you can smell it)

Hi,

Just wondered what people think of the above statement? I have been using Prime for years but have recently come across Aquastar on Ben's website. It seems to better value for money. Ie 1ml per 70 litre v 1ml per 40 litre.

Thanks Martin

[BaZ]

I've not heard of any problems at all with Prime, and it's widely recommended as a great product.

I use Aquastar myself, and it's never caused me an issue. I do my water changes directly from the hose, all year round. I treat my tanks with Aquastar as the water enters the tank, treating the whole tank volume and not just the volume being replaced.

Aquastar is awesome value for money, especially at Ben's prices

[spedwards]

I do my water changes directly from the hose, all year round. I treat my tanks with Aquastar as the water enters the tank, treating the whole tank volume and not just the volume being replaced.

←

I've always thought about doing this, but having never had a tank that was so large that it was a problem using buckets, so I never bothered.

When adding the water straight from the hose the nasties would not be neutralised before the fish encounter it, obviously the conditioner would fix that up after some time. One of my concerns was that this period between tap water being added and the conditioner taking affect would cause the fish harm, clearly it doesn't as people seem to use this method all the time. What kind of exposure to un-conditioned water can fish handle?

N.B. I'm not planning on sticking the hose in and saving a buck by not using any conditioners, just interested to know.

P.S. Sorry for hijacking...

[BaZ]

I run the water into the tank quite quickly from the hose, which mixes everything up nicely.

When the hose first starts, obviously the new water is a very very small percentage to the exisiting water. Once the hose is running properly and secure, I add the Aquastar. The swirling motion created by the hose pressure ensures this is moved throughout the tank quickly, treating all the new water as it enters.

I have no scientific basis for my findings, and am only speaking from personal experience. This system works for me, but may not work for everyone. My fish love the cool clean water and a water change often triggers spawning in my tanks so the Aquastar must be working quickly enough that the fish are not affected.

[Ash]

I do exactly as BaZ does - no dramas.

That said, we only have chlorine up here & I'm pretty sure it's less concentrated than "down south"?

[taksan]

Prime has been proven to raise nitrate levels due to the sulphur that is in the product (you can smell it)

Hi,

Just wondered what people think of the above statement? I have been using Prime for years but have recently come across Aquastar on Ben's website. It seems to better value for money. Ie 1ml per 70 litre v 1ml per 40 litre.

Thanks Martin

←

I think its rubbish Prime in fact detoxifies nitrate.

[wui39]

Safe is better value than Prime.....or so I'm lead to believe.

Prime does detoxify the three nasties, so I'm not sure where the comment came from.

If it dod increase nitrates though, it would be great value for the planted guys out there, dechlorinator + fert booster

[GTR73]

I heard Aquastar was exactly the same stuff as Prime but in a different (and cheaper) package.

[D6C1]

Im with Baz and Ash on the water changes. Never had problems. *touch wood*

[steve24cro]

Nuthing wrong with putting the hose straight into the tank. On larger tanks, how much time would you waste bucketing water for no reason, fish are generally hardy and can endure much more than that. In fact i personally dont think its any more stressing to the fish filling by hose or bucket. The job is done 10 times quicker. I'd feel sorry for anyone who has a big tank e.g. 6x2x2 or more who uses buckets still...half day water change with lots of mess.

[wormboy]

Yup, same as previous posters; hose in tank (8x2x2 tropical) + prime = all good. My clown loaches and cherry barbs love the cool new water and will swim into the hose current with no ill effects.

WRT the prime vs aquastar debate, I cant comment which is better but certainly prime is designed to detoxify the Nx compounds not add to them. Ive never had a prob.

The only negative I've heard is from Andrea (and this is hearsay so hopefully she will post herself) is of a bottle of Prime (or perhaps Ammolock) going off and killing fish when is was added. Please Andrea correct me if Im wrong!

-Mat-

[CThompson]

It is my understanding that Safe (which I use) is the active ingredient to Prime. The difference between the two products is that Prime has other ingredients, such as slime coat replacement added into it – so is hence a better product than Safe. Having said that however, if you know what you are doing, and take all precautions (such as using a water change barrel with pre-prepared water), then there is NO reason that a water change should cause a loss of slime, for it to need to be replaced…so for my use Safe is better value (read can do more water) for money.

If a person is a professional in the industry, for example doing aquarium maintenance business, then they would be better off using Prime, as it is simply a better product, and they haven’t got full control over all the tank, all the time. However, for us hobbyists, especially with water change barrels, Safe will be sufficient (and I don’t have to “touch wood”).

It is my understanding as explained to me some time back (possibly on these pages) is that Chloramine is a combination of ammonia and chlorine. Safe and Prime break this bond, leaving the two separate, and the chlorine will dissipate as chlorine does, but the ammonia is dealt with via the nitrite cycle (i.e. ammonia-nitrite-nitrate), hence both Safe and Prime would probably raise the level of nitrate as this is the nitrite cycle end product (aerobically speaking).

For those of you who fill your tanks directly from the hose – I hope your luck lasts. I understand that the water board, whose mandate is to supply us with safe drinking water, doesn’t have a concern for us with fish tanks. When they dose the water with Chloramines, the do it big hits at a time, and not little bits all the time. That means that if you happen to do water change replacement water straight from the hose, and your timing happens to coincide with a hit of added chloramine...

Craig

[Eddie Salita]

I was just filling my tanks (using a pre filled drum.... I dont like touching wood either... ) and spotted this thread.

Here is what the bottle of Aqua star says.

.... Aqua star works in minutes.... it neutralises chorine chloramine, toxic ammonia, and heavy metals. Adds electrolytes...blah blah blah.... aqua star can be used to lower dangerous ammonia levels in established aquariums or when transporting fish....

I am thinking the word established implies something here. But there is nothing but my opinion in that statement. What is happening to the ammonia I cant say. As they say it is also useful when transporting fish...... where there is no nitrogen cyle as such....

Not really making a point. Fact is they both work, and work well.... how they work will answer the question, as Craig has pointed out. If Craig is correct, prime in fact does affect nitrates.... If GTR is correct... aqua star does too.... I should get the test kit out and find out, but I cant seem to find it....

I do vaguely recall when I first started using aqua star it had a different label, on which it said aqua star was a polymer based product. But dont quote me. They may have changed the recipe since then too....

Anyway, just thought that may be of some interest.....

HTH,

Jason

[Ash]

My understanding is they BOTH lock the ammonia up in it's less harmful form to let the natural bacteria have at it once it's established.

They probably do it the same way with the same active ingredients with the other additives different so they can be seperately patented

[CThompson]

.... Aqua star works in minutes....

That implies to me, if you are doing your water changes with water replaced straight from the hose, there are “minutes” for chloramines to do damage to your fish. Hey I know people do it, but it still concerns me.

My understanding is they BOTH lock the ammonia up in it's less harmful form to let the natural bacteria have at it once it's established

I’m not a chemist, but my lay-mans understanding of this is that toxicity of ammonia/ammonium is dependant on the water’s pH. The higher the pH the more toxic it becomes. I don’t understand how it can be locked up in a less harmful form, if the toxicity of the form is dependant on pH? Anyone able to explain this?

I know lots of people do water changes direct from the hose (as the above postings testify to), but what worries me is if you do your water change and fill the tank back up with the hose, and the water has more chloramines in it due to a bulk amount added to it. If it takes “minutes” for it to work, then there are minutes for it to damage the fish (dependant on the amount of water replaced and the toxicity of the water itself). If there is a larger amount of chloramines to be neutralised, and if it is neutralised by breaking it down into it component parts of ammonia and chlorine, then there will be a wack of these for the fish to deal with too…..

For me, and for those who can set up a barrel (or what ever) to pre-prepare their water, why take the chance. I do regular 80% water changes on my grow-out tanks twice a week in fact and I never have to guess, or have luck or whatever.

I think a yard stick to which way one should aim at/which way is better, is which way can 100% be replaced? If one way you are restricted by concerns of the well being of the fish, which way is better, the way you can take out 100% or the way that more than a 1/3 is not recommended.

By the way, in the past I have actually taken out 100% of small 10 lt tanks where there were fry. No problem.

Craig

[Ash]

I'd love for a chemist to explain the how they affect ammonia/ammonium too - all I was saying was there is bound to be a finite number of chemical reactions that they could be taking advantage of & they are most likely using the same one.

How long does it take for chlorine/chloramine to damage a fish's gills or kill a fish anyway?

Is it comparable to smoke inhalation for humans perhaps? Less bad/worse?

[johno]

if it takes a few minutes for the stuff to wipe out the chlorine and other bad guys in the water i would be more worried about what the chlorine has done to my colony of good guys growing inside my filter than i woud be about the fish

[Ash]

That's true, it would probably kill the benefical bacteria almost instantly.

Never thought of that but never really noticed a problem either. That said as I have sumps & Aquaclears I turn them off during the waterchange anyway so maybe the chlorine is sorted by the time I turn them back on anyway.

[Simonauv]

Chlorine is not generally added to town water any more. It was found that certain metals like lead were dissolving in the water when it was added so chloramines were added instead this didn't elevate the levels of heavy metals in the water.

On the ammonia/ammonium thing...

Ammonia is really toxic and ammonium is much less toxic. When you use an ammonia test kit it measures total ammonia - i.e. ammonia + ammonium. Ammonia (NH3) reading reacts with water to form ammonium (NH4). It can be summarised, in words, with a word equation:

ammonia + water <--> ammonium + hydroxide ions.

The <--> means that depending on the conditions this reaction can go backwards or forwards and is refered to as equilibrium. When in equilbrium the amount of ammonia reacting with the water is balanced by the amount of ammonium being converted back to ammonia. The thing about equilibrium reactions is that if you upset the balance in any way the reaction will try to compensate for this by pushing it in the oppoiste direction. Ammonia is alkaline by nature and when it reacts with water it forms ammonium which is a weak acid plus hydroxide ions, which is also alkaline. The water is acting as an acid in this case because it is donating the extra hydrogen atom to ammonia to make it ammonium. If you decrease the pH (make it more acidic) you are in effect adding more hydrogen ions and the reaction will try and reverse this by converting more of the ammonia to ammonium and hydroxide ions. The net effect of this is it will remove ammonia from the water and ammonium levels will increase. If you raise the pH (make it more alkaline) then it will try and counteract this change as well and convert the ammonium BACK into ammonia which is why you blue and yellow fish people have such problems with ammonia

If prime really was to raise nitrates would that be so bad? Nitrates are relatively non-toxic unless you are a fish fry, so it's really the lesser of the evils IMO.

Prime works by a different concept that is also affected by this equilibrium reaction. It works by ion exchange. In the above reaction the ammonia reacts with the water to form ammonium. This happens continuously. If you add something that will replace the positively charged ammonium ion (usually sodium - it is extremely active) and form an insoluble ammonium salt then it will settle out as a sediment on the bottom and effectively be taken out of the reaction because it is now a solid. Because the reaction is in equilibrium it will detect a drop in ammonium concentration and will try and reverse this by converting more ammonia and water into ammonium, which will then be taken out by precipitation and so it keeps going until all the prime is used up.

[Simonauv]

Whether prime or aquastar is better probably comes down more to economics than ingredients. I only ever used Prime because Aquastart wasn't around when I was using it! ROFL!!!

Prime was always called 'life in a bottle' - I've never thought of using it as a water conditioner for water changes - I've only ever used it when shipping fish long distances or any other time (like auctions) when they have to spend long periods of time in bags.

[wui39]

Great explanation Simonauv.

Prime has always been a water conditioner for me first and a detoxifier second.

[Simonauv]

Can I ask where the original comment on sulfur and nitrates comes from? It does not make any chemical sense at all.

[Cichlabxr]

The comment was made on this board.

Nitrate/sulphur

It is the 9th comment on that topic.

Regards Martin

[r.d.m]

If prime really was to raise nitrates would that be so bad? Nitrates are relatively non-toxic unless you are a fish fry, so it's really the lesser of the evils IMO.

isnt the purpose of water changes to reduce nitrate? obviously the ideal situation is 1or more 200lt drums with a weeks filtration before use ,which is what i use for the tanks in the shed ,but for the tank in the house i use buckets with a cheap water ager ,but when i first filled this tank it was from the hose with the same cheap product and all the fish were in an hour later(with an established filter)

i was under the impression that chloramine was added to the water supply as it keeps the chlorine in the water for longer ,as anyone with a swimming pool would know its notoriously difficult to keep chlorine in water ,sunlight or agitation will remove it very quickly,in the old days wed fill our buckets from a strong water flow and it went straight in the tanks,but i remember it was around 10 years ago we got a letter from the water company that told us that in the near future water was to be treated differently and people keeping ornamental fish should add a water treatment when changing water etc. etc.but i must admit i still top up the ponds straight from the hose with no treatment and no ill effects

[Simonauv]

Yeah - I'd like to know how it has been proven (show a reference) that prime has increased nitrate because like I said above it makes no chemical sense - the smell prime has may not even be due to sulfur and even if it was/is I can't see how sulfur (probably in the form of sulfides) would actually cause an increase in nitrates. My bet is there is already nitrate in the new water leading to an erroneous conclusion. If you read the faq sheet for Seachem's Prime it says that prime has a very distinct odor SIMILAR to sulfur. Also from the sachem site:

The detoxification of nitrite and nitrate by Prime (when used at elevated levels) is not well understood from a mechanistic standpoint. The most likely explanation is that the nitrite and nitrate is removed in a manner similar to the way ammonia is removed; i.e. it is bound and held in a inert state until such time that bacteria in the biological filter are able to take a hold of it, break it apart and use it. Two other possible scenarios are reduction to nitrogen (N2) gas or conversion into a benign organic nitrogen compound.

I wish we had some more "concrete" explanation, but the end result is the same, it does actually detoxify nitrite and nitrate. This was unexpected chemically and thus initially we were not even aware of this, however we received numerous reports from customers stating that when they overdosed with Prime they were able to reduce or eliminate the high death rates they experienced when their nitrite and nitrate levels were high. We have received enough reports to date to ensure that this is no fluke and is in fact a verifiable function of the product.

Chloramines are a more stable form of chlorine. Normal chlorine, or free chlorine, is very volatile meaning it will form a gas easily and will dissipate quickly if allowed to stand or with agitation. Ammonia solution is combined with sodium hyperchlorate (chlorinated bleach) under alkaline conditions to form chloramines (NH2Cl) which persists in water as it moves through water pipes to maintain a residual disinfecting effect on municipal water supplies. Prime works by splitting the amine group from the compound, removing the chlorine and causing the ammonia to precipitate out in an inert form that is still in a useable form for microorganisms. Maybe the 'increase in nitrates' is detected sometime after water treatment and is the action of the biological filter converting the 'bound' ammonia into nitrates, however, the levels of chloramines in drinking water is not high so the residual effect should not be significant.