I generally do not address inorganic water reactions with Fe, but we do know pH.KH affect Fe and the type of chelator....and the concentration, frequency etc can all play roles, there are many different precipitations that can occur.
To address the issue, I look more at plants, rather than residuals in the water column.
Basiouny et al (1977) did some good work with a submersed macrophyte and Fe chelated.
ScienceDirect - Aquatic Botany : Absorption of iron and growth of Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle
A very good paper on Fe and aquatic plants:
http://www.apms.org/japm/vol27/v27p65.pdf
Active Fe, a "Fe pool" if you will... seems to play a role.
Both Gerloff and the above citations show clearly that higher levels are taken up and optimal, reduce stress impacts(chemical and physical). Why do so many suggest 0.1ppm then?
I wonder because they do not justify this.
PMDD suggested residual mostly from a hypothesis(it has been falsified over a decade ago) that stated that thread and hair algae may appear when Fe was too high.
Gerloff suggested using 1/5th Hoagland's which gives 42 N to 0.4ppm of Fe or 100:1 ratio. PMDD scaled this down to 10ppm of NO3 and 0.1ppm of Fe.
However, Gerloff did not look at Fe specifically..........big difference.
If you have higher levels of light, CO2 or NO3 etc, then you would scale it up appropriately if you used the ratios from Gerloff/Hoagland. Still, they are not anywhere as specific as the other cited references above.
Regards,
Tom Barr
To address the issue, I look more at plants, rather than residuals in the water column.
Basiouny et al (1977) did some good work with a submersed macrophyte and Fe chelated.
ScienceDirect - Aquatic Botany : Absorption of iron and growth of Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle
A very good paper on Fe and aquatic plants:
http://www.apms.org/japm/vol27/v27p65.pdf
Active Fe, a "Fe pool" if you will... seems to play a role.
Both Gerloff and the above citations show clearly that higher levels are taken up and optimal, reduce stress impacts(chemical and physical). Why do so many suggest 0.1ppm then?
I wonder because they do not justify this.
PMDD suggested residual mostly from a hypothesis(it has been falsified over a decade ago) that stated that thread and hair algae may appear when Fe was too high.
Gerloff suggested using 1/5th Hoagland's which gives 42 N to 0.4ppm of Fe or 100:1 ratio. PMDD scaled this down to 10ppm of NO3 and 0.1ppm of Fe.
However, Gerloff did not look at Fe specifically..........big difference.
If you have higher levels of light, CO2 or NO3 etc, then you would scale it up appropriately if you used the ratios from Gerloff/Hoagland. Still, they are not anywhere as specific as the other cited references above.
Regards,
Tom Barr