pH vs. High Range pH?

[EJ]

Hi,
Still in the process of cycling my 10 gallon tank, I noticed that my
"standard" pH level is pretty much holding around 6.0, however, my
High Range pH seems to be rising. In several days it went from 7.4 to
8.4.
First, what's the difference between ph and High Range pH?
Also, is this something to be worried about?
If so, how do I correct it without affecting the "standard" pH?

[Julie]

Hiya, I'm sorry that I have no clue how to answer your question but am very
intrigued by the question itself.

I didn't know that there was a High Range PH, I've only gotten back into the
hobby this year after a many year hiatus. How is it tested ? May I ask what
test kit you use? I'd like to be as up-to-date on the hobby as possible
myself.

Julie

[denizen]

On Jul 28, 7:59 am, EJ <ernest.tetra...@snet.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> Still in the process of cycling my 10 gallon tank, I noticed that my
> "standard" pH level is pretty much holding around 6.0, however, my
> High Range pH seems to be rising. In several days it went from 7.4 to
> 8.4.
> First, what's the difference between ph and High Range pH?

There is no difference. The standard test is for water ofthe common
type with pH around 6.0 to 7.5; use it first. If the standard test
shows very blue (pH approx >=7.5) then you can use the high-range test
to see whether the water is pH 7.8, 8.0 etc. For most freshwater
aquariums the standard test is all that's needed. Marine tanks usually
have pH > 8, so YMMV.
d.

[Mister Gardener]

API includes the high range pH test along with the regular one in their Master Freshwater kit - I wonder how many people who, like myself, wish they would replace the high range test with something useful, like hardness.

MG

[Altum]

To add a bit more, the two kits have a different chemical that changes
color at different pH. As Denizen said, once you max out the low-
range pH kit at around 7.5, you have to switch to the high-range kit
to get a reading. I'm a little confused at the results of 6.0 on one
kit and 8.4 on the other. If your water is truly up at 8.4 (unusual)
your low-range kit should be blue and at the top of its scale.

--Altum

[denizen]

On Jul 28, 2:26 pm, Altum <Pt.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To add a bit more, the two kits have a different chemical that changes
> color at different pH.  As Denizen said, once you max out the low-
> range pH kit at around 7.5, you have to switch to the high-range kit
> to get a reading.  I'm a little confused at the results of 6.0 on one
> kit and 8.4 on the other.  If your water is truly up at 8.4 (unusual)
> your low-range kit should be blue and at the top of its scale.
>

To add still more, a pH of 6.0 is pretty darn low for the average FW
aquarium. The aquarium is new and still cycling(?) so weird things can
happen. If the aquarium is truly pH 6.0, that may warrant daily 30
percent water changes until the pH gets closer to neutral (7.0).
d.

[Atom Weaver]

On Jul 28, 7:59 am, EJ <ernest.tetra...@snet.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> Still in the process of cycling my 10 gallon tank, I noticed that my
> "standard" pH level is pretty much holding around 6.0, however, my
> High Range pH seems to be rising. In several days it went from 7.4 to
> 8.4.

> First, what's the difference between ph and High Range pH?

There is only one tank parameter; pH. You have two test kits which
measure different ranges of this tank parameter, one which is accurate
in the range of ~6.0 to 7.4 (acidic to neutral range), and a "high
range" test which is accurate from ~7.4 to 8.6 (neutral to alkaline).
You don't need to use both.

> Also, is this something to be worried about?

It seems strange to me that the low range test would peg out to the
low end, and the high range test would peg out high. Mor typical is
that you get a maxxed out result on the high end of the 6.0-7.4 test
(7.4), and then switch to the 'high range" test to get a more accurate
result.
You might bring a water sample to your local aquarium shop, and pay
the $0.50 to $1.00 to have them test it, first to figure out where you
are in the pH range, and second to verify that your test method is
giving you accurate results.

> If so, how do I correct it without affecting the "standard" pH?

Moot. pH is pH, but you need two different kits to get the full range
of possible results.

Regards
DaveZ

[Mister Gardener]

Altum wrote:

To add a bit more, the two kits have a different chemical that changes
color at different pH.  As Denizen said, once you max out the low-
range pH kit at around 7.5, you have to switch to the high-range kit
to get a reading.  I'm a little confused at the results of 6.0 on one
kit and 8.4 on the other.  If your water is truly up at 8.4 (unusual)
your low-range kit should be blue and at the top of its scale.

Haven't we seen this once before from a TFA member? A lo reading on the regular test and a hi reading on a hi range test? I know I didn't dream this, and I'm pretty certain it was before the invention of Diet Pepsi Max. I can't remember the final consensus among our members - I think my vote was to throw away the hi range test. Now I wish I didn't automatically toss the hi range tests in my kits; next time I buy one I'll try the hi test just to see what happens. Although I doubt I will ever have a need to buy another full kit. In three years I've bought 3 refills for ammonia and one for pH. My NitrAtes test ran dry at about the same time I discovered I could guess the nitrAtes by simply observing the vegetation in the tank.

So hey, someone who still has both tests, compare the results of each and see if you get weird results.

MG

[Atom Weaver]

On Jul 28, 2:33 pm, denizen <denize...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2:26 pm, Altum <Pt.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To add a bit more, the two kits have a different chemical that changes
> > color at different pH.  As Denizen said, once you max out the low-
> > range pH kit at around 7.5, you have to switch to the high-range kit
> > to get a reading.  I'm a little confused at the results of 6.0 on one
> > kit and 8.4 on the other.  If your water is truly up at 8.4 (unusual)
> > your low-range kit should be blue and at the top of its scale.
>
> To add still more, a pH of 6.0 is pretty darn low for the average FW
> aquarium. The aquarium is new and still cycling(?) so weird things can
> happen.

That was what caught my eye, too... Hmmm early tank cycle; maybe
ammonia-bleaching of the test reagent is giving a false-low result..?
Its weird, to say the least. I'd be bringing a sample into work to
run on a pH meter... ;-)

DaveZ

[Mister Gardener]

Atom Weaver wrote:

  You might bring a water sample to your local aquarium shop, and pay
the $0.50 to $1.00 to have them test it, first to figure out where you
are in the pH range, and second to verify that your test method is
giving you accurate results.

A phone call to the municipal water company might get a quick answer - or a visit to the local water company's web site. Most are accustomed to calls from aquarium hobbyists and are pleased to assist.

Not intending to hijack this thread, but there is a municipal water supply question I've been meaning to ask. Most of the water companies in my state are owned and managed by a large, national company. We're all well within the legal requirements set forth by the state and fed health departments. Only a few of us have chloramines in our water. A water company guy, a neighbor of mine, told me that the state health department is currently pushing to require chloramines in all municipal water districts. He said it in a kind of "dreaded" manner. If you remove aquarium keepers from the equation, what, if any, is the down side of chloramines in our drinking water? Does it pose any threat, real or perceived, to human health?

MG

[denizen]

On Jul 28, 3:09 pm, Mister Gardener <mistergarde...@email.toast.net>
wrote:

>Only a few of us have chloramines in our water. A water
> company guy, a neighbor of mine, told me that the state health
> department is currently pushing to require chloramines in all municipal
> water districts. He said it in a kind of "dreaded" manner. If you remove
> aquarium keepers from the equation, what, if any, is the down side of
> chloramines in our drinking water? Does it pose any threat, real or
> perceived, to human health?
>

As I understand it chloramine is more persistent in the water pipes
(does not break down readily), so lower concentrations can be used
than with straight chlorine. I suppose it's more of a benefit in a
city with very long/ wide water distribution system, like Ottawa.

Neither chlorine nor chloramine are likely to be good for people, but
they're preferable to typhoid, cholera and polio...
d.

[Altum]

On Jul 28, 12:09 pm, Mister Gardener <mistergarde...@email.toast.net>
wrote:

> Not intending to hijack this thread, but there is a municipal water
> supply question I've been meaning to ask. Most of the water companies in
> my state are owned and managed by a large, national company. We're all
> well within the legal requirements set forth by the state and fed health
> departments. Only a few of us have chloramines in our water. A water
> company guy, a neighbor of mine, told me that the state health
> department is currently pushing to require chloramines in all municipal
> water districts. He said it in a kind of "dreaded" manner. If you remove
> aquarium keepers from the equation, what, if any, is the down side of
> chloramines in our drinking water? Does it pose any threat, real or
> perceived, to human health?

That question is largely unanswered. Chlorination byproducts like
trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) are known to be
toxic and carcinogenic and are strictly regulated by the EPA. Water
treated with chloramine has much lower levels of THMs and HAAs so the
industry started switching over. Initially it looked like a great
idea to produce safer water.

The problem is that the chloramine process seems to make a whole new
set of disinfection byproducts. Scientists had to figure out what
formed before they could even start toxicology studies. It's starting
to look like we have simply switched from one set of bad guys to
another. It's also harder to remove chloramine from your water if you
don't care for the taste. Chlorinated water can filtered over active
carbon or simply left to sit overnight. Chloramine is very stable,
does not dissipate, and requires the use of special catalytic carbon
to remove it.

http://tinyurl.com/6yxl2c is the abstract to a review on disinfection
byproducts in drinking water to give you an idea of the current state
of affairs.

--Altum

[Mister Gardener]

Altum wrote:

That question is largely unanswered.  

http://tinyurl.com/6yxl2c is the abstract to a review on disinfection
byproducts in drinking water to give you an idea of the current state
of affairs.

Uh, yes. I see. I was able to understand enough of the abstract to understand that a whole new set of questions are waiting for answers.

MG

[NetMax]

I worry about the effect hot showers have, in causing dissolved
chemicals to be ingested into the lungs. Drinking it is one thing,
but breathing it provides a different shorter path into our blood
system. I'm currently on well water, so I'd like to believe I'm only
ingesting relatively common minerals which my body knows what to do
with.

NetMax

On Jul 28, 4:19 pm, Mister Gardener <mistergarde...@email.toast.net>
wrote:

> Altum wrote:
> > That question is largely unanswered.  
>

> >http://tinyurl.com/6yxl2cis the abstract to a review on disinfection