Calcium is a very important element in plant nutrition and can be supplied to plants through a wide variety of different salts. However, only a handful of these resources are significantly water soluble, usually narrowing the choice of calcium to either calcium nitrate, calcium chloride or more elaborate sources, such as calcium EDTA. Today I am going to talk about a less commonly used resource in hydroponics – calcium sulfate – which can fill a very important gap in calcium supplementation in hydroponic crops, particularly when Ca nutrition wants to be addressed as independently as possible and the addition of substances that interact heavily with plants wants to be avoided.

There are some important reasons why you don’t hear too much about calcium sulfate in hydroponics. Some websites actually recommend heavily against using this substance in hydroponic nutrient solutions. Why is this the case? The core issue is calcium sulfate’s solubility, with this substance traditionally considered “insoluble” in chemistry. However all substances are soluble to one or another degree – even if to an extremely small degree – but calcium sulfate is actually at the very border of what is considered a soluble substance in regular aqueous chemistry.

At 20C (68F), calcium sulfate dihydrate – the form most commonly available – has a solubility of around 2.4 g/L. In practice this means that you can have up to around 550 ppm of Ca in solution from calcium sulfate dihydrate before you observe any precipitation happening. This is way more than the normal 150-250 ppm of Ca that are used in final hydroponic nutrient solutions that are fed to plants. You could supply the entire plant requirement for calcium using calcium sulfate without ever observing any precipitate in solution. At the normal temperature range that hydroponic nutrient solutions are kept, the solubility of calcium sulfate is just not an issue. To add 10 ppm of Ca from calcium sulfate you need to add around 0.043g/L (0.163g/gal). You should however avoid using calcium sulfate for the preparation of solutions for foliar sprays as it will tend to form precipitates when the foliar spray dries on leaves, the leaves will then be covered with a thin film of gypsum, which is counterproductive.

Calcium sulfate has a great advantage over other ways to supplement calcium in that the anion in the salt – sulfate – does not contribute as significantly to plant nutrition. Other sources, such as calcium chloride or calcium nitrate, will add counter ions that will heavily interact with the plant in other ways, which might sometimes be an undesirable effect if all we want to address is the concentration of calcium ions. Other sources such as Ca EDTA might even add other cations – such as sodium – which we would generally want to avoid. Calcium sulfate will also have a negligible effect in the pH of the solution, unlike other substances – like calcium carbonate – which will have a significant effect in the pH of the solution.

A key consideration with calcium sulfate is also that its dissolution kinetics are slow. It takes a significant amount of time for a given amount of calcium sulfate to dissolve in water, even if the thermodynamics favor the dissolution of the salt at the temperature your water is at. For this reason it is very important to only use calcium sulfate sources that are extremely fine and are graded for irrigation. This is sometimes known as “solution grade” gypsum. I advice you get a small amount of the gypsum source you want to use and test how long it takes to dissolve 0.05g in one liter of water. This will give you an idea of how long you will need to wait to dissolve the calcium sulfate at the intended temperature. Constant agitation helps with this process.

An important caveat with calcium sulfate is that its relatively low solubility compared with other fertilizers means that it cannot be used to prepare concentrated nutrient solutions. This means that you will not be able to prepare a calcium sulfate stock solution or use calcium sulfate in the preparation of A and B solutions. As a matter of fact the formation of calcium sulfate is one of the main reasons why concentrated nutrient solutions usually come in two or more parts, to keep calcium and sulfate ions apart while they are in concentrated form. Calcium sulfate should only be added to the final nutrient solution and adequate considerations about temperature and dissolution time need to be taken into account.

If you have just started your journey into hydroponics you’re probably wondering why you need to spend your money in hydroponic specific nutrients when there are so many cheaply available soil fertilizers sold out there. Certainly there are all plant food and there must be some way you can use all these cheap soil fertilizers to create a suitable replacement to feed your hydroponic crop. In this post I want to explain some of the key differences between hydroponic and soil fertilizers, when soil fertilizers can be used in hydroponics, how they can be used and when it is definitely a bad idea to try to use them.

To understand the difference between soil and hydroponic fertilizers we must first understand the difference between both growing setups. In hydroponics we try to grow plants in sterile and chemically neutral supporting media where all the nutrients are expected to be provided by the nutrient solution while in soil the media is not intended to be inert – it contains organic matter, minerals that can dissolve and living microbes – and we expect some of these to provide nutrition to our plants. Fertilizers for soil are intended to aid this process – provide material for microbes to process and supplement some of the lacking elements in the soil – while hydroponic fertilizers intend to provide all required nutrition in the forms that are mostly favorable for plants. Fertilizers for soil are often also meant to be applied once or very occasionally, while fertilizers for hydroponics are expected to be fed to the plant very frequently.

In chemistry terms, this means that fertilizers for soil will tend to contain forms of nitrogen that can be processed slowly by microbes in soil – urea and ammonium salts – while hydroponic fertilizers contain mostly nitrate salts. It is rare for soil fertilizers sold to home growers to contain large amounts of nitrates because these are easily washed aware by rain, are strong pollutants of underwater ground sources and are only shortly available for plants due to their high mobility in soil. However ammonium and urea are a terrible idea in hydroponics since ammonium fed frequently strongly acidifies the media and plants supplied their nitrogen only from ammonium in solution will tend to show toxicity issues quickly. Soil fertilizers rely on bacteria to convert this ammonium and urea to nitrate in a slow process, hydroponic fertilizers do not, they contain nitrate which is the final form of nitrogen that plants prefer for healthy growth.

The image above shows you a comparison between the labels for a water soluble soil and hydroponic fertilizer. In terms of NPK they both seem to be similar fertilizers, but the hydroponic fertilizer will have most of its nitrogen as nitrate while the other fertilizer has most of its nitrogen as urea. There are some other differences, mainly that the amount of phosphorous in the soil fertilizer is more than double that of the hydroponic fertilizer, which is also common given that phosphate is fixed rapidly in soil and therefore a higher excess is often added to ensure plants get enough supply. At an application of 1g/L the soil fertilizer would provide 75+ ppm of phosphorous while the hydroponic one would provide around 35. Also note that none of these two fertilizers would be enough to provide total plant nutrition since they both lack a source of Ca, which is commonly provided via a separate product in both cases.

So can any soil products be useful in hydroponics? Yes. First you need to completely avoid products that contain N mainly as urea or ammonium. Useful products to get for your hydroponic grow will be fully water soluble and will either contain nitrogen solely as nitrate or no nitrogen at all. A very coarse DIY formula can usually be put together using something like a micro nutrient containing 0-10-10 bloom fertilizer (which contains no nitrogen) coupled with a source of nitrate, like agricultural grade calcium nitrate. You can use Hydrobuddy – my open source hydroponic nutrient calculator – to figure out the nutrient contributions of each one of the products you decide to get or have easily available and create an acceptable formulation from their use. The program also contains a long list of readily available raw salts that you can use to make your own fertilizer formulations from scratch if you wish to do so.

In the end, soil products for home growers are not designed for hydroponics use and should therefore be avoided except as a last resort if raw salts or hydroponic specific nutrients cannot be purchased. If you’re interested in saving money, learning how to prepare your own fertilizers from raw salts will always be the best and cheapest option, provided you have the time and desire to learn how to do it properly.

When preparing concentrated solutions for hydroponics it is important to have a reproducible process that always generates the exact same results. If this is not done, you’ll obtain different nutrient concentrations between different batches and the concentrated nutrient additions to create the final nutrient solutions will yield inconsistent results. To address the potential variability of the concentrated solution manufacturing process we need to understand the different sources of error present and come up with ways to modify the process to generate more reproducible results. In this blog post I will talk about the largest source of error when preparing larger batches of concentrated nutrient solutions and how this error can be greatly reduced in order to obtain both more precise and accurate results.

The process of preparing hydroponic concentrated solutions involves two steps. First, you dissolve raw fertilizer salts into some volume of distilled or RO water and then you take this volume of solution to a desired final volume of solution using the same source of water. In a small scale setup this process is very simple to carry out, since we can just weight and dissolve all our salts in some fraction of the desired final volume and then use a precise instrument to measure total volume – most typically a volumetric flask – to take our solution to the final desired volume. For example if we desire to prepare 250 mL of concentrated nutrient solution and we use a well calibrated scale with +/- 0.001g of precision and an A grade volumetric flask with a precision of +/- 0.3mL, the error we expect to get from a 500mg salt will be +/- 4.77 ppm with a 99% confidence. Since the concentration of this salt in the concentrated solution is 2000 ppm, we get a final result of 2000 +/- 4.77 ppm. If both instruments are calibrated this is a very precise and accurate result.

When we move to larger amounts of solution we usually get better on the side of mass. This is because we can still get scales that weight with +/-0.1g precision even at weights exceeding 50kg, so our error as a fraction of the total measurement remain in the 0.01% to 1% region pretty easily. However things get way worse in terms of volume. If you are preparing 100 gallons of nutrient solution – around 378 liters – you will be able to weight the salts precisely and accurately but when it comes to measuring final volumes of solution, you are not going to be very lucky. The volume marks in tanks are widely inaccurate and are not even standardized to any level of significant precision or accuracy plus accurately measuring whether water is at a given level in a tank is a very error prone process because of how wide the tank area is.

Although we don’t usually have a way to adequately measure final volume, we do have a way to measure volume going into a tank in the form of flow meters, which can give us significant accuracy and precision. However, to be able to properly use the flow meter – know how much volume we need to actually get to the final volume we want – we must obtain information from a precise and accurate low scale process. To do this you can carry out the following steps:

• Get a precise and accurate scale (calibrated and at least +/- 0.001g in precision)
• Get a scale that can weight up to 500g that can measure with at least +/- 0.1g precision (if the one above does not).
• Get a 250 mL type A volumetric flask (should be around +/- 0.3 mL in precision).
• Get a 250mL beaker
• Get a plastic lab washing bottle and fill it with distilled water
• Calculate the salts you would need to dissolve to arrive at your desired concentrations at a 250mL final volume of concentrated solution
• Weight those salts and put them in a beaker, take note of all the exact weights added.
• Weight the dry, empty volumetric flask
• Add approximately half the volume of distilled water to the beaker and dissolve the salts
• Transfer to the volumetric flask, use the washing flask to fill the volumetric flask up to the calibration line (bottom of water meniscus is touching the line when viewed at eye level).
• Weight the flask with the solution
• Calculate the weight of water (weight of flask with solution – weight of flask – sum of weight of salts)

If the procedure above was carried out between 10-25C (50-77F) we can approximate the density of water to 1.0g/mL with little error (around 0.003g/mL). This means that we know the volume of water that was required to get to the desired final volume and we can then transfer this volume to our preparation procedure when we use a large tank. If the volume of water required for the preparation of the 250mL solution was just 230mL, then we can assume that the volume required to prepare 100 gallons will be 92 gallons, as the salts, when proportionately scaled, will take up the same volume and will require the same amount of water proportionately to reach the final desired volume.

When this type of procedure is done and an accurate and precise flowmeter is used, we can usually achieve concentration values at large scales that will be in the 0.1-1.0% error range, which is way better than anything that can be achieved by just using lines in tanks or procedures that use flow meters but ignore what the actual amount of water added needs to be in order to reach the desired concentration (many people achieve the salts take up no volume, which is a mistake). Having low errors in concentrated solutions means there will be less variability in final nutrient solution composition and therefore more reproducibility in crops.

My free and open source hydroponic nutrient calculator has been available since 2010, going through many iterations and changes through the years. The latest version as of May-24-2020 is now 1.70, which you can download here. This new release implements some important updates and modifications. In this post I will write about these, the reason why they have been made and the features that I am implementing for the next version of the software.

Most changes in this version have been done in the “Substance Selection” section of the program, which is accessible through the button of the same name in the “Main Page” tab. This is the “heart” of the program as this is where users decide what raw inputs they want to use and where they can manage the library of inputs that are actually available for calculations. In previous versions a very wide library of inputs was available by default, including many inputs that were rarely of any practical use in hydroponics and were there for illustrative purposes. A good example of this is a salt like “Calcium Nitrate (Tetrahydrate)” which is very rarely used by hydroponic growers as commercial “Calcium Nitrate” is actually a calcium ammonium nitrate salt that is very different in chemistry and composition to pure calcium nitrate tetrahydrate.

To solve the problem mentioned above I have completely rebuilt the substance database to include only commercially available raw fertilizers that make sense and are actually used in common situations in hydroponics. This included adding a lot of different metal chelates and salts that were previously ignored but are now part of the HydroBuddy default database.

Another issue I wanted to address was the confusion some users have about where to buy these chemicals and potentially get some revenue to support the development of the software at no additional cost to the user. For this reason I have added manually selected links to all the raw fertilizers that are included with the DB so that users who want to buy small quantities of those can also support the software when they do so.

The “Substances Used” tab has also been enhanced with a new “Save/Load” functionality that enables users to save or load lists of substances used to avoid the hassle of having to go through and select substances whenever they want to prepare a certain solution. This has also been very annoying for me in the past as having to go through different sets of inputs used for different purposes can be a very time consuming exercise. With this new feature all I have to do is save one list for each one of my needs and a single click of the “Load” button can easily change a list of 5+ inputs without the need for any tedious and – mistake prone – manual changing. Another small manual enhancement has been the addition of a small “All” button next to the “Delete” button, which allows you to delete all the substances present in the “Substances Used for Calculations” list.

Another change in this version was a decision to go with a 32 bit compiler in Windows in order to ensure that the variables for this operating system are all 32 bit. This will enable users who are using both 32 and 64 bit operating systems to use the software without problems. This was an issue in the past as many uses still use old 32 bit systems and they were having problems having to manually compile Hydrobuddy in some of their old machines. Sadly I still do not own a Mac, so HydroBuddy has yet to be available as a download for MacOSX and the software will need to be individually compiled by all of those who wish to use it in their MacOSX setups.

One of the features that is lacking most now is an ability to import databases from previous versions, as each time the software is updated users haven’t been able to take advantage from previous custom databases built using the software due to problems with compatibility across releases (new DB fields being added, edited, etc). For the next version of the software I am working on a DB importing feature that should eliminate this issue so that users can benefit from the latest HydroBuddy releases without having to tediously add all their old substances to the new release.

With all the above said, I hope you enjoy this new version of the software. If you have any suggestions or comments about the above please feel free to leave your comments in this post!

Micronutrients constitute only a small portion of a plant’s nutritional requirements but are still vital to growth and development. They are mainly comprised of heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu, Mo) as well as a single non-metal, boron (B). Since they are used in such small concentrations – normally in the 5 to 0.01 ppm range – they are normally put into concentrated nutrient solutions in small proportions and included with other components such as Ca and Mg, which are present in concentrations much more in line with macro nutrients like N, P and K.

The advantage of micro nutrients is that they are available cheaply and in high purities as heavy metal sulfate salts. These however have the problem of leading to relatively unstable cations in solution, making the preparation of concentrated micro nutrient solutions with pure sulfates impractical (unless you want to see how a gallon of rust looks like). However we can chelate the cations as they come out of these sulfates, using a chelating agent, in order to prevent any precipitation issues. In this article I am going to walk you through the preparation of a DIY chelated micronutrient concentrated solution. This is much cheaper than buying the heavy metal chelates, which can be 3+ times more expensive. To prepare this solution you’ll need to buy the chemicals shown in the table below. The table includes links to buy all the different substances mentioned plus their cost (without shipping).

In order to prepare the solution you also need a scale that can weight with a precision of +/- 0.001g (this is my low cost recommendation) and a container where you can store 1 gallon of solution. Please note that these solutions have to be prepared with distilled water, with RO water you might still run into some issues in the process. To prepare the solution carry out the following steps (the weights to be used are specified in the table above):

1. Wash your container thoroughly with a small amount of distilled water
2. Fill your container with half its volume of warm distilled water (30C, 86F)
3. Weight and add the disodium EDTA, stir until it is completely dissolved (this can take a while).
4. Weight and add all the remaining micro nutrients one by one in the order given above, stirring till each one is fully dissolved before adding the next.
5. Fill the container to its final volume using warm distilled water.
6. Let the solution cool before closing the container.
7. For longer half-life transfer to a container that is opaque to UV light.

This solution is prepared to give you the heavy metal concentrations of the Hoagland nutrient solution (a very common set of ratios used in scientific research for growing plants) when used at a ratio of 5mL per every liter of final feeding solution (18.92mL per gallon). The links given above are for 1lb of each product, with this you should be able to prepare at least 53 gallons of the concentrate, which will allow you to prepare 10,600 gallons of final feeding solution. The first salt you will run out of is Fe, but some are used so sparingly that you should be able to use them for the rest of your life without needing to buy any more (like copper sulfate and sodium molybdate). For less than 120 USD you will be able to have enough solution for probably the rest of your life – if you’re a hydroponics aficionado – or even an entire crop cycle if you’re a commercial grower.

This preparation is not without problems though, since the chelates are all prepared in situ they will take a substantial amount of time to reach their thermodynamic equilibrium, meaning that it cannot be used to soon or some of the metals might not be fully chelated. To obtain the full metal chelating effect an excess of around 25% of disodium EDTA is also used, which means that this micro nutrient solution contains more free EDTA than a solution prepared with the chelates. Another issue is that all heavy metals are chelated with EDTA, which might not be optimal depending on your growing conditions. The EDTA chelates are also less stable against UV light and are also more easily attacked by oxidants. Another final issue is that the solution above contains no preservatives and fungi generally like to feast on this sort of micronutrient containing solutions. It is therefore reasonable to avoid preparing any large amounts of the above, as a solution prepared as instructed is normally expected to spoil in 3-4 weeks.

With this in mind, the above is not a perfect but a low cost and practical solution for those who want to start preparing their own nutrient solutions and avoid paying the high prices of some commercial nutrients just because of their micro nutrient contents. The above gives you a versatile micro nutrient concentrate that is bound to be adequate for growing almost all plants.

Electrical conductivity is a very commonly used measurement in hydroponics, yet a very poorly understood one. I have written several posts about conductivity in the past (1,2,3) and today I want to talk about the use of the term “Total Dissolved Solids” and the poor usage of the unit “ppm” in order to express a measurement of electrical conductivity. In this article I will walk you through why this term exists in the first place and why its use in hydroponics is terribly misleading for growers.

Conductivity is just a measure of how easy it is for an electrical charge to go from one electrode of a certain area to another. It’s generally expressed in mS/cm, which is a measurement of conductance (the opposite of resistance) and area (the area of the electrode). How in the world do we get from this to a measurement like “ppm”, which measures the concentration of something in mg/L? What does a measurement of 500 ppm even mean? What is it that we are expressing a concentration of?

The answer lies in the practical uses of conductivity and a simplification to make the evaluation of water sources easier. Conductivity is generally linearly proportional to the amount of a pure salt dissolved in solution at low concentrations. For a pure salt like table salt (NaCl) the higher the concentration of the salt in solution the higher the conductivity (you can see this in the image above). People working on water quality realized that they generally dealt with similar salt combinations (Mg and Ca carbonates and possibly some Na and K chlorides) so they decided to use some standard salt mixtures (say KCl, NaCl or some mixture of Ca/Mg/K/Na salts) and then use conductivity as a proxy for the concentration of these things that are actually in solution. So the “ppm” that your EC meter reads is just the equivalent conductivity of some standard. A meter reading 500 ppm in conductivity is telling you “your solution has the same conductivity as a solution of the standard at 500 ppm”. The “standard” can change – as mentioned before – which is why there are several different TDS scales. One meter might be telling you it’s the same conductivity as a solution of KCl with that concentration, while another might be in NaCl.

The above is very useful when you’re measuring things that tend to be similar but this becomes a complete nightmare when the composition of what you’re measuring can change substantially. In hydroponics you have a wide variety of different salts, all with very different conductivity values at different concentrations. Look at the graph above, which shows the conductivity as a function of concentration for 8 different salts commonly used in hydroponic culture. If you prepare three solutions, one with 1000 ppm solution of potassium sulfate, another with 1000 ppm of monopotassium phosphate and another with 1000 ppm of ammonium nitrate and measure them with your conductivity meter they would all give very different results. The meter might be close to 0.95mS/cm for the monopotassium phosphate, but it might read almost 1.5 mS/cm for the potassium sulfate. Both solutions have 1000 ppm of “total dissolved solids” but the conductivity meter is telling you one has 500 ppm and the other almost 800 ppm, none of them even close. This is because “total dissolved solids”, as used in water quality measurements, is a meaningless measurement in hydroponics as it relates to the actual ppm values of things dissolved.

This is the main reason why you should never compare the EC values of nutrients that contain different ratios of salts, because they are simply not the same. One nutrient might give you 100 ppm of potassium at some EC level, while another might give you 200 ppm. Thinking that having the same EC level means that both are at the same “strength” is a big mistake, since this is never going to be the case when two nutrient solutions are mixed with different ratios of nutrients. This is also why comparing vegetative and bloom formulation EC values is not correct. A solution in veg might contain a lot more of nitrates while a solution in bloom might contain more phosphates. As we saw above this might mean that a solution of the “same strength” might actually have a significantly lower measured EC value.

Since the TDS measurement is not telling you anything about “total dissolved solids” in hydroponics, you should avoid using it to avoid confusion. This is important since nutrient concentrations are usually expressed in ppm as well, ppm of actual nutrients dissolved in solutions. Instead use the normal conductivity measurements of your meter in conductance per area. You should also take care to only use EC values to talk about comparative strength when you’re talking about a formulation where the ratios of nutrients remain the same. If that’s not the case, then you should not talk in comparative terms between the two solutions as this might deviate a lot from reality.

My advice is to not think in EC terms to begin with, but to think about nutrient concentrations, prepare solutions that match the concentrations you want and then use the EC of those solutions as references to know whether they are prepared correctly or not. The conductivity should be a measurement used for confirmation but not as a guiding principle. For example the aim should be to “prepare a solution containing 150 ppm of N and an K:N ratio of 1.2” not to “prepare a solution with an EC of 1.2 mS/cm”.

I have written several articles before about pH and it’s importance in hydroponic culture (1, 2, 3, 4). However I have yet to write a detailed explanation of one of the most important buffering systems in hydroponics, which is the carbonic acid/bicarbonate buffer. This buffer is significantly more complicated than the simpler buffer created using phosphoric acid species, as it not only relies on ions present in solution but also on the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In this article I will attempt to explain this buffering system in detail, shining some light into the limitations of this buffer and how changing different key variables can fundamentally affect the way it works in hydroponics.

A buffer is nothing more than a pair of chemical species in solution that are present at a certain pH, that can react with additional H₃O+ or OH- ions that are introduced into the solution. Since these ions control the value of pH, anything that prevents their concentration from changing will keep the pH stable. Distilled water, for example, has absolutely no buffering capacity since within it there is nothing that can react with incoming H₃O⁺ or OH^– ions that are added to the solution. Distilled water should therefore have a pH of 7.0, it does not because we live in an environment where an acid can always be generated from the air. This acid – carbonic acid – is generated in water whenever it’s put into contact with a carbon dioxide containing atmosphere. This makes distilled water have a pH of around 5.6.

To be able to calculate the pH we need to consider all the chemical equilibrium reactions that happen, these are summarized here and in the image above. We must consider that carbon dioxide will dissolve in water to always satisfy Henry’s law, that dissolved carbon dioxide will be in equilibrium with carbonic acid, that carbonic acid can dissociate into a H₃O⁺ ion and a bicarbonate ion and that a bicarbonate ion can further dissociate into an additional H₃O+ ion and a carbonate ion. To solve all of this we must also consider that charge neutrality must be preserved, meaning that the sum of all molar charges of all positive ions must be equal to the molar charges of all negative ions. To carry out these calculations I routinely use the freely available Maxima software. Below you can see the code I use to solve this system in Maxima (constants are taken from here):

[kw : 10^(-14.0), kh: 1.7*10^(-3.0), kc1: 2.5*10^(-4.0), kc2: 4.69*10^(-11.0), co2: 1.32*10^-5];
log10(x) := log(x)/log(10) ;
pH(x) := float(-log10(x));

float(solve([h*oh=kw, h = 2*co3+hco3+oh, kh=h2co3/co2, kc1=(hco3*h)/h2co3, kc2=(co3*h)/hco3],[oh, co3, hco3, h2co3, h]));

This is the solution obtained for the molar concentrations (rounded for clarity):
 
oh    = 4.21*10^-9
co3   = 4.68*10^-11
hco3  = 2.36*10^-6
h2co3 = 2.24*10^-8
h     = 2.37*10^-6

After executing this code you will get several different possible solutions, but the only one that interests us is the one where the H₃O⁺ (h) concentration is a positive number (this solution is showed above). We can then use the pH function to calculate the value of pH for this H₃0+ concentration, which gives us a value of 5.62, this matches the real measurement of a distilled water solution at 25C under a 387ppm carbon dioxide atmosphere. Note that the amount of none dissociated acid in solution is very small. Taken to mass, the concentration of carbonic acid is 0.00138 ppm. However the concentration of bicarbonate is significantly greater, at 3.6 times the concentration of undissociated carbonic acid. This explains why the pH drops so much, since a significant amount of the generated carbonic acid ends up dissociating and contributing H₃O⁺ ions to the solution. This also shows you how little acid is needed to drop the pH of an unbuffered solution.

To create the buffer with the biggest possible strength we would need to add enough strong base to shift the pH to the point where the pH equals the pKa (which is just -Log(equilibrium constant)) of the joint reactions created from the reaction of carbon dioxide with water to create carbonic acid and the subsequent dissociation of this acid into bicarbonate and H₃O⁺. This point is at 6.3 under atmospheric conditions at 25C. This can be achieved with the code below:

[kw : 10^(-14.0), kh: 1.7*10^(-3.0), kc1: 2.5*10^(-4.0), kc2: 4.6910^(-11.0), co2: 1.32*10^-5, h:10^(-6.3)];
float(solve([hoh=kw, base+h = 2co3+hco3+oh, kh=h2co3/co2, kc1=(hco3h)/h2co3, kc2=(co3h)/hco3],[oh, co3, hco3, h2co3,base]));

This is the solution obtained for the molar concentrations(rounded for clarity):

oh    = 1.99*10^-8
co3   = 1.04*10^-9
hco3  = 1.11*10^-5
h2co3 = 2.24*10^-8
base  = 1.07*10^-5

The pH here is set to 6.3 and we can see that to get there we would need to add a base at a concentration of 1.07*10^-5.0. If this base was KOH this would imply adding it at a rate of 0.6 ppm. We can see how the pH changes as a function of adding base or acid from this point. If at this point we decided to double the addition of strong base we would get to 6.57, tripling it would take us to 6.73 and adding 10 times more base would take us to 7.25. The buffer is indeed resisting the increase in pH by basically drawing CO₂ from the air to react with the incoming base as base is added to the solution. However you might notice that under equilibrium conditions the buffering capacity of this system is very low. Just 6 ppm of a KOH equivalent strong base addition can strongly affect the pH – taking it from 5.6 to 7.25 – so how can the carbonic acid/bicarbonate buffer be effective at all in hydroponics?

The answer is in the first image in this post. The equilibrium reaction between carbonic acid and water plus carbon dioxide in water (k23/k32) is fundamentally slow. We can take advantage of this by generating larger amounts of carbonate species in solution through the use of exogenous carbonate or bicarbonate additions and then setting the pH at a lower value to generate more carbonic acid, this acid will then take some significant time to reach equilibrium. This is the reason why using tap water with a significantly high alkalinity can provide a surprisingly stronger buffer than what would be expected at equilibrium and it also has some interesting consequences in the use of nutrient solutions.

Let’s consider a case where there is no decomposition of carbonic acid – let’s suppose it’s extremely slow – and say we add 100 ppm of potassium carbonate into a solution and then set the pH back to 5.8 using phosphoric acid. In this case the predominant reactions in solution would be the dissociation of dihydrogen phosphate to hydrogen phosphate and H₃O+ and the carbonic acid dissociation discussed before. In order to properly consider this case we must also introduce two additional equations, mainly the mass balance equations for the phosphate and carbonate species, since this time we are assuming no carbon dioxide is ever lost to the atmosphere. Note that I have changed the equilibrium constant for the carbonic acid reaction here to 10^-6.3 where carbonic acid is now “apparent carbonic acid”. You can see the equation system and solution below:

[kw : 10^(-14.0), kh: 1.7*10^(-3.0), kc1: 10^-6.3, co2: 1.32*10^-5, kp:10^-7.2, total_p: 1.7*7.2310^-4, total_c: 7.23*10^-4];

float(solve([h*oh=kw, total_c=hco3+h2co3, total_p=h2po4+hpo4, 2*total_c+h = hco3+oh+h2po4+2*hpo4, kc1=(h*co3h)/h2co3, kp=(hpo4*h)/h2po4],[hco3, h2co3, h2po4, hpo4, h, oh]));

This is the solution obtained for the molar concentrations(rounded for clarity):

hco3   = 1.72*10^-4
h2co3  = 5.50*10^-4
h2po4  = 0.00118
hpo4   = 4.64*10^-5
h      = 1.60*10^-6

The final pH of this solution is very close to 5.8 and the concentration of P is 47.9 ppm with K at 38.10 ppm. Notice however that apparent carbonic acid has a concentration of 5.50*10^-4 M, which implies that the system is not at equilibrium since this amount is significantly larger than what we would expect from Henry’s law. If we reduce the concentration of carbonic acid to half then the pH will increase to 6.01, as we would expect from extracting an acid from the solution. The implication is that – with time – the pH of this solution is going to slowly increase, as carbonic acid decomposes and the solution reaches an equilibrium with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level. This is also why nutrient solutions that are prepared with tap water high in carbonates and then aerated will tend to show a rapid increase in pH – even if the solution is not fed to plants – as the reaching of equilibrium is accelerated by the agitation of the solution and the contact with air (that allows CO₂ in solution to escape).

As soon as the above solution is prepared it offers a substantially superior buffering capacity when compared with a solution containing only phosphates. This is why water with high alkalinity tends to provide better pH stability in drain to waste type systems when compared with solutions prepared with RO water. This water contains a significant amount of carbonates that are turned into carbonic acid and bicarbonate as soon as the pH is lowered to the pH range used in hydroponics. As long as the solution is used quicker than the carbonic acid decomposes, there will be a substantial increase in pH stability.

If you are using RO water or water with low alkalinity to prepare your solutions you can obtain a similar effect by adding 100-200 ppm of potassium carbonate before you start preparing the nutrient solution, you can similarly use bicarbonate but I would recommend using potassium carbonate, as it is cheaper. It would also be advisable to use the solution as fast as possible, since time will cause the solution to reach equilibrium and the pH to increase. This effect will take much longer if the CO₂ concentration is higher – which is true for setups that use enriched CO₂ – or if the temperature is lower, which increases the solubility of CO₂.

One of the most important goals in microgreens is to maximize the amount of weight gained by shoots from seed to harvest. Since the entire upper body of the plant is harvested and plants are sold by weight, maximizing the weight gain is vital in order to obtain the highest possible margins in a crop cycle. Hydroponically cultured microgreens offer the grower an unprecedented control over the microgreens’ nutrition, with the ability to tightly control nutritional parameters in order to maximize this weight. In this article we are going to take a look into the scientific literature surrounding microgreens and what we know about maximizing their yield and quality using nutrient solutions. I will use the table below to reference different articles in the literature.

Despite the overwhelming growth in the microgreen industry during the past 10 years, the amount of research looking into microgreen nutrition has been surprisingly limited, with only a handful of papers looking at the relationship between nutrition and yields or quality. Paper one contains a comparison between microgreens grown in either compost, sterile water or a solution using a 0.4% FloraGro Advanced Nutrient solution (4mL/L). The results show clear weight benefits from using hydroponic nutrients, with the weight being markedly higher (mean of 24.64g vs 21.01g) between the sterile and hydroponic treatments. However the concentration of different minerals was actually lowest in the plants using a hydroponic nutrient.

Papers three and four look at different forms of Ca nutrition – either Ca chloride or Ca nitrate – and different ways to apply this treatment to see if it makes a difference in microgreen production. Paper three, shows a statistically significant gain in weight when using calcium nitrate, either applied into the media pre-cultivation or applied within a nutrient solution. The best results were found when both treatments were carried out and represented an increase of more than double in terms of weight over the control. The fact that paper four fails to show a consistent increase in yields using Ca chloride, suggests that this has to do mainly with the nutritional contribution of the nitrate and not the calcium ions.

Paper two is rather interesting, as it looks into different nutrient solution strengths (either 0, 50 or 100%) using a solution published for hydroponic forage. The results – in the table below – clearly show that there is a strong weight gain as the nutrient solution concentration increases, again showing that at a full strength solution there is an expected increase of more than 2x in the final weight. However this comes – in agreement with paper one – at the potential expense of nutritional value. The paper shows a significant decrease in carotenoid concentration when nutrient solution strength increases, which the paper hypothesis is caused by high nutrient concentrations slowing down plant metabolism. This hypothesis is however hard to reconcile with the larger and heavier plants.

Article five is also an interesting example of the use of microgreens to carry out antioxidant supplementation. Sodium selenate was used to prepare a solution to treat basil seeds and the resulting microgreens were found to be fortified with selenium. This might be an interesting way to incorporate mineral micro nutrients into microgreens and therefore increase their presence within our diet. However there is also the potential to hyperaccumulate these nutrients, so experiments of this kind should not be done with adequate care and lab analysis to ensure proper doses of these micro nutrients.

From all of the above it seems quite clear that the research of hydroponic nutrients in microgreen production is in its very early infancy. So far only a handful of research papers have been published on the subject and the conclusions so far seem to be that hydroponic nutrient solutions – in a couple of different forms – tend to significantly increase microgreen production weights. However it is also clear that there is a strong interaction with the nutritional value of the microgreens and using nutrients can in fact lead to decreases in the nutritional value, despite the significant weight gain from the process.

The echoes of the above can be seen in a wide variety of anecdotal experiences on youtube channels and forums. Growers running side by side experiments seem to have found the same phenomena (see this video for an example), where adding nutrients increases yields significantly but at the expense of some of the flavor – and potentially nutritional – characteristics of the microgreens. Some growers have therefore chosen to avoid nutrients – to preserve flavor qualities – while others have chosen to use nutrients because of the increases in marketable appearance and yield.

There is a lot of research to be done on the subject. It would certainly be interesting to find out if we could somehow have the best of both worlds.

The control of pH in hydroponic nutrient solutions is important. Plants will tend to increase the pH of solutions in most cases – as nitrate uptake tends to dominate over the uptake of other ions – so most growers will tend to use pH down much more than they use pH up. While most growers prefer to use concentrated strong acids, there are a wide variety of different choices available that can achieve different outcomes at different cost levels. In this post I want to talk about different pH down options in hydroponics, along with some of their advantages and disadvantages.

The first group of pH down chemicals are strong acids. These are technically acids with very low pKa values, meaning they react instantly with water to generate at least one mole of hydronium for each mole of added acid. They offer the strongest ability to drop pH per unit of volume, which makes them more cost effective. However the fact that they often need to be diluted to make the pH addition process practical – because of how much the concentrated forms can change pH – can make their use more difficult than other forms of pH down. These are the most common options:

Phosphoric acid (from 20 to 85% pure): This acid doubles as a plant nutrient, meaning plants will be affected by the phosphorus added. It is commonly used in food – so food grade phosphoric acid can be bought cheaply – it also has additional deprotonations with strong buffering at a pH value of 7.2 with buffering capacity against bases getting stronger as the pH goes down all the way to 6.2. This is the most commonly used acid by hydroponic growers.

Sulfuric acid (from 20 to 98% pure): This acid is commonly used in car batteries and offers the largest pH dropping ability per unit of volume among all the strong acids. It is however important to use food grade sulfuric acid in hydroponics as normal battery acid can include some metallic impurities – from the fabrication process of sulfuric acid – that might negatively affect a hydroponic crop. Food grade sulfuric acid is safe to use in hydroponics. A big advantage is that plants are quite insensitive to sulfate ions – the nutrient provided by sulfuric acid – so adding sulfuric acid does not really affect the nutrient profile being fed to the plants. Note however that most battery acid products in developed countries are also ok, as the quality of these acids demands the metallic impurities (more commonly iron) to be quite low. If in doubt, you can do a lab test of the sulfuric acid to see if any impurities are present.

Nitric acid (from 30-72% pure): This acid also provides nitrate ions to plants, so it also contributes to a solution’s nutrient profile. It is however more expensive than both phosphoric and sulfuric acids and more heavily regulated due to its potential use in the fabrication of explosives. The acid itself is also a strong oxidant, so storage and spillage problems are significantly worse than with phosphoric and sulfuric acid. Although this acid can be used in hydroponics, it is generally not used by most growers due to the above issues.

The second group of pH down chemicals are weak acids. These are acids that do not generate at least one mole of hydronium ions per mole of acid when put in solution, but do provide a pH down effect as some hydronium ions are generated. This means that larger additions will be needed to cause the same effect but at the same time their handling is usually much safer than for strong acids. Here are some options that could be used as a pH down.

Common food grade organic acids (citric acid, acetic acid, etc): Organic acids are a very low cost way to lower the pH of a hydroponic solution as many of these are available off the shelf in super markets in food grade qualities. The main issue with organic acids – which anyone who has used them has probably experimented – is that the effect of the acids does not seem to hold (pH goes up quickly after the acid is added and the solution comes into contact with plants). This is actually caused by the fact that plants and microbes can actually use the conjugated bases of these ions nutritionally, causing an increase in pH when they do so. The initial addition of say, citric acid, will drop the pH – generating citrate ions in the process – these will then be absorbed by microbes and plants, increasing the pH again rapidly. The use of these acids is therefore not recommended in hydroponics.

Monopotassium phosphate (MKP): This salt contains the first conjugate base of phosphoric acid and is therefore way less acidic than it’s full on acid partner. Since it’s a solid its addition is way easier to control compared to the acid and it can also be handled safely with minimal precautions. It provides both potassium and phosphorous to a solution – both important nutrients – and therefore needs to be used carefully when used as a pH down agent (as it significantly affects the nutrient profile of the solution). Since it adds both a cation that helps counter pH increases by plants and phosphate species it provides a double buffering effect against future pH increases. It is a very common ingredients of commercial pH down solutions for this reason.

Monoammonium phosphate (MAP): Similar to the above, except for the fact that this salt adds nitrogen as ammonium, which is a nitrogen form plants are very sensitive to. Plants will uptake ammonium preferentially over any other cation, so MAP provides a very strong buffering effect against nitrate absorption, with potential problems if too much is used (although this depends on the plant species being grown). When MAP is used as a pH down its addition therefore needs to be carefully controlled in order to avoid excess usage. Due to the presence of this powerful ammonium buffer, MAP is generally very effective at preventing future increases in pH, although this might be at the expense of yields or quality depending on the crop.

Potassium bisulfate: This salt contains the first conjugate base of sulfuric acid and is therefore a powerful tool to decrease the pH of a solution. The resulting sulfate ions provide no chemical buffering effect, so the only buffering effect in terms of plant absorption comes from the addition of potassium ions, which can help mitigate nitrate absorption. This salt is also considerably expensive compared with the two above – which are commonly used fertilizers – and is therefore seldom used in hydroponics.

Which is the best pH down solution? It depends on the characteristics of the growing system. Generally a pH down solution needs to be easy to administer, cheap and provide some increase in buffering capacity overtime – to make additions less frequent – so the pH down product or combination of products that best fits this bill will depend on which of the above characteristics is more important for each particular user.

People who use drain-to-waste systems usually go for stronger acids, since they only adjust pH once before watering and then forget about the solution. This means that additional buffering capacity in the solution is probably not going to be very important and cost is likely the most important driving factor. If injectors are used then the strong acids are often diluted to the concentration that makes the most sense for them and most commonly either phosphoric or sulfuric acids are used.

For growers in recirculating systems options that adjust pH with some added buffering capacity are often preferred, because the same solution is constantly subjected to interactions with the plants. In this case it’s usually preferred to create a mixture of strong and weak buffering agents so that both quick decreases in pH and some increased protection from further increases can be given to the solution. In automated control systems using something like a concentrated MKP solution is preferable over any sort of solution containing phosphoric acid, as issues from control failures are less likely to be catastrophic.

People who use Hydrobuddy can be confused by its conductivity estimates, especially because its values can often mismatch the readings of conductivity meters in real life. This confusion can stem from a lack of understanding of how these values are calculated and the approximations and assumptions that are made in the process. In this post I want to talk about theoretically calculating conductivity, what the meters read and why Hydrobuddy’s estimations can deviate from actual measurements.

The images above show the use of HydroBuddy for the calculation of a standard Hoagland solution for a 1000L reservoir. The Hoagland solution’s recipe is expressed as a series of elemental concentrations, all of them in parts per million (ppm) units. The results show that the final conductivity of this solution should be 1.8 mS/cm but in reality the conductivity of a freshly prepared full strength Hoagland solution will be closed to 2.5mS/cm. You will notice that HydroBuddy failed to properly calculate this value by an important margin, missing the mark by almost 30%. But how does HydroBuddy calculate this value in the first place?

Conductivity cannot be calculated by using the amount of dissolved solids in terms of mass because charges are transported per ion and not per gram of substance. To perform a conductivity calculation we first need to convert our elemental values to molar quantities and then associate these values with the limiting molar conductivity of each ion, because each ion can transport charge differently (you can find the values HydroBuddy uses in the table available in this article). This basically means we’re finding out how many ions we have of each kind and multiplying that amount by the amount each ion can usually transport if it were by itself in solution. The sum is the first estimate in the calculation of conductivity.

The image above shows the result of these calculations for an example with a perfectly prepared Hoagland solution. You can see that the estimate from limiting molar conductivity is initially 2.7 ms/cm – much closer to the expected 2.5 mS/cm – but then HydroBuddy makes an additional adjustment that lowers this down to 1.8 mS/cm. This is done because limiting molar conductivity values make the assumption of infinite dilution – what the ion conducts if it were all by itself in solution – but in reality the presence of other ions can decrease the actual conductivity things have in solution. HydroBuddy accounts for this very bluntly, by multiplying the result by 0.66, in effect assuming that the measured value of conductivity will be 66% of the value calculated from the limiting molar conductivity values. This is of course wrong in many cases, because the reduction in activity due to the presence of other ions is not as strong. However it can also be correct in many cases, primarily depending on the substances that are used to prepare the formulations and the ratios between the different nutrients.

In my experience HydroBuddy tends to heavily underestimate the conductivity of solutions that receive most of their conductivity from nitrates, as this example, but it tends to do much better when there are large contributions from sulfate ions. When I first coded HydroBuddy all my experiments were being done with much more sulfate heavy solutions, so the correction parameter value I ended up using for the program ended up being a bad compromise for solutions that deviated significantly from this composition. With enough data it might be possible to come up with a more advanced solution to conductivity estimations in the future that can adjust for non-linear relationships in the conductivity and activity relationships of different ions in solution.

If your measured conductivity deviates from the conductivity calculated in HydroBuddy you should not worry about it, as HydroBuddy’s values is meant to be only a rough estimate to give you an idea of what the conductivity might be like but, because of its simplicity, cannot provide a more accurate value at the moment. The most important thing is to ensure that all the salts, weights and volumes were adequately measured in order to arrive at the desired solution.