Micro and nano bubble tank treatment

[Reefahholic]

Well, I've tested multiple air stones. Tested the Venturi method at both High and Low pressures. Here's my short term observations.

All methods seem to work about the same until you add more stones or entrain more air. I'm personally liking less bubbles and only one small lime wood stone on the bottom away from the return pump. As far as what seems to work better, it's too early for me to comment on that. I will say that the corals and fish haven't been affected negatively either way. Corals appear to be responding the same to a small amount of bubbles or a large amount of bubbles. All the methods seem to produce the tiny micro bubbles that stay suspended in the water column for hours "with the flow on." With all flow off, they eventually make there way to the surface and pop. Of course...that's what bubbles do. The last question in my mind is what are the long-term affects of both a minimal amount of bubbles and a larger amount of bubbles floating in the water column. Minimal haze vs maximal haze I guess you could say. Will the maximal haze achieve better results that appear quicker or is it just a waste of time? The issue I've ran into with more haze or maximal bubble output is the amount popping on the surface. I believe this is due to my loc-line being at the surface. Both smaller and larger bubbles pop if the amount is increased or with more air entrainment. Another thought going through my mind is what if we had a return pump inside the tank like the one that EC was using on the sandbed with a 90 degree elbow forcing bubbles horizontally across the tank at that lower level? Would this allow for more output or haze with less bubbles making it to the surface? Would this technique speed up results and be more affective? I guess that's a project/ debate for another day.

 

[Thales]

Interesting. I would like to see several days of your pH swing without bubbling.

For comparison here is my daily swing without bubbling:

Oh, it would also be very interesting to see what bubbling air into the sump, but not into the main tank would do to pH. Comparing all three would be really helpful.

 

[jpontier212]

What about powerheads? On or off?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I am going to have trouble with the some of science end of the discussion but I have a couple of questions.

First, are all of you running a refugium and if so are you running them on a RDP cycle? It seems that stable PH is a claim of the RDP method. Am I so far behind the curve now that this is no longer a practice or is it just assumed as normal practice?

Secondly, do you think a small injection of ozone would help or hinder the effects of the process? Or would we somehow increase possibility of problems with saturation of gases in the water column?

Reverse photoperiod lighting of a refugium, or 24/7 lighting is the usual mode unless it is in a place you do not want lit at night (like a bedroom). There's no downside that I know of to reverse lighting.

I generally wouldn't recommend adding ozone directly to an aquarium due to its toxicity, but whether it is desirable or undesirable depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here is some pH data I collected over the course of last week and put into a figure.

I (or my wife) took pH readings every hour using a simple handheld digital pH meter, that only measured in 1 pH increments.
My pH typically runs low due to a calcium reactor.

So to make sure I understand, you are seeing the pH lower (below 8.0) during the light cycle?
Is your bubbling with outside air?

 

[Reef UP]

I have a old sicce 2500 with a red devil needle wheel wouldn't that be better than a airstone just a thought?

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Reverse photoperiod lighting of a refugium, or 24/7 lighting is the usual mode unless it is in a place you do not want lit at night (like a bedroom). There's no downside that I know of to reverse lighting.

I generally wouldn't recommend adding ozone directly to an aquarium due to its toxicity, but whether it is desirable or undesirable depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

Thanks for the answers. I do know that many of the shark exhibits use to inject ozone into the aquariums for the benefit of the sharks. It seems to be a benefit in those situations...like Black Tip Reef Sharks for example. Has ozone injection fallen out of favor for protein skimmer these days? Back in the day it was common practice for us in the 1980's and 1990's.

I guess this nano bubble action could be generated in some reef areas due to tidal changes and wave surges. I just happen to have over 100 limewood airstones from the old days of airstone protein skimmers. If the nano bubble thing is of some benefit I have several years of supply. LOL.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks for the answers. I do know that many of the shark exhibits use to inject ozone into the aquariums for the benefit of the sharks. It seems to be a benefit in those situations...like Black Tip Reef Sharks for example. Has ozone injection fallen out of favor for protein skimmer these days? Back in the day it was common practice for us in the 1980's and 1990's.
.

My understanding, and certainly my recommendation is to not dose it directly, and in the old days reefers used reactors, or at least a skimmer. There are toxic byproducts formed.

Do they really just inject it into shark tanks, or are they using an ozone reactor? The latter is (or at least was) used in high density exhibits like mammal pools to try to sterilize the water passing through the reactor and keep bacteria levels down. Others in this thread who work at public aquaria (such as Thales) can better say whether it is still used.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Randy,
As far as I recall the conversation with one of the past curators of a large west coast public aquarium did claim to inject ozone directly into the Shark exhibits. It has been well over 20 years since I bought him dinner and discussed the design of a Shark aquarium I built for a client. That could mean I misundestood him and have believed it all these years. But he did recommend and claim it as a major reason for thier success with keeping Sharks.

 

[Thales]

I don't know any AZA facility that injects ozone directly into water containing animals. Always a reactor or skimmer with safety equipment on it. I hope you are wrong about that because it is really unsafe for the sharks and potentially for people.

 

[jpontier212]

So to make sure I understand, you are seeing the pH lower (below 8.0) during the light cycle?
Is your bubbling with outside air?

What are the thoughts on power heads? On or off? Or does it even matter?

 

[TylerS]

This is a long thread now, I did some skimming in it but can't say I read the whole thing. Has there been a real conclusion to the mechanism at play which is causing benefits?

Is it possible that it's just additional dissolved oxygen and less CO2 in the water. Has anyone tried to manipulate oxygen and co2 levels directly to see if the same benefits occur without the micro bubbles? Or what about just reduced PH swings? I wonder if you could find another way to reduce PH swings and see if the response is similar to the micro-bubble response? Also, what mechanism could lead to the reduced PH swings...

This is interesting. Sorry if some of my questions have already been answered.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

I don't know any AZA facility that injects ozone directly into water containing animals. Always a reactor or skimmer with safety equipment on it. I hope you are wrong about that because it is really unsafe for the sharks and potentially for people.

The amount of injection was low compared to the tank volumn and bioload. This was a number of years ago and the passing of time can dull my memories. I always used a skimmer when injecting ozone and then only at low doses with the correct sized generator. I used ozone injection via a skimmer in the Shark tanks I built for two different customers in the past. One was 1500 gallons and the other about 450. I would hesitate to provide that kind of system for anyone now days...live and learn. Sharks belong in the sea in almost every case.

 

[Squamosa]

pH lower (below 8.0) during the light cycle

Apparently so!

outside air

That is correct, the pump now sits outside on the verandah (it was placed outside on the 30th of January).Here you can see an old acrylic tank that is being used as a table to balance it and my DT is on the inside
For the future I will move the pump inside again, the same as when I when I started experimenting with the bubbles, but I will make a CO2 scrubber using soda lime and activated charcoal and this will be placed inline before the air reaches the bubble making device.

 

[Squamosa]

On or off

Don't change your pump schedule, keep them as they are

If you are running a reduced pump load at night then stay with that, if not, stay with that too

 

[Squamosa]

better than a airstone

I mentioned this somewhere in my thread, but I think it got buried

We tried a Sicce PSK needle wheel pump in the sump with a wooden air block at the intake.
We saw better quality of bubble(finer) with just the block and the return pump!

Hope this helps

 

[Squamosa]

Well, I've tested multiple air stones. Tested the Venturi method at both High and Low pressures. Here's my short term observations.

All methods seem to work about the same until you add more stones or entrain more air. I'm personally liking less bubbles and only one small lime wood stone on the bottom away from the return pump. As far as what seems to work better, it's too early for me to comment on that. I will say that the corals and fish haven't been affected negatively either way. Corals appear to be responding the same to a small amount of bubbles or a large amount of bubbles. All the methods seem to produce the tiny micro bubbles that stay suspended in the water column for hours "with the flow on." With all flow off, they eventually make there way to the surface and pop. Of course...that's what bubbles do. The last question in my mind is what are the long-term affects of both a minimal amount of bubbles and a larger amount of bubbles floating in the water column. Minimal haze vs maximal haze I guess you could say. Will the maximal haze achieve better results that appear quicker or is it just a waste of time? The issue I've ran into with more haze or maximal bubble output is the amount popping on the surface. I believe this is due to my loc-line being at the surface. Both smaller and larger bubbles pop if the amount is increased or with more air entrainment. Another thought going through my mind is what if we had a return pump inside the tank like the one that EC was using on the sandbed with a 90 degree elbow forcing bubbles horizontally across the tank at that lower level? Would this allow for more output or haze with less bubbles making it to the surface? Would this technique speed up results and be more affective? I guess that's a project/ debate for another day.

Nice work

Are you sure you have enough air stones in there

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I have a old sicce 2500 with a red devil needle wheel wouldn't that be better than a airstone just a thought?

Not really. The needle thickness on the needle wheel is the limiting factor on bubble size... sure, they'll be uniform, but the best shearing of bubbles to get them very small, is to start with the smallest bubble in the first place, right?

That's why a lot of people are using wooden airstones by the intake of their skimmer pump or dropped into the skimmer cone itself to pull out more organics more efficiently.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

More discussions also on a few more threads.

Here is another, and more in Europe too.

http://www.marsh-reef.org/marine-and-reef-general-discussion/50382-micro-scrubbing-bubbles.html

More on local group and reef clubs throughout the US as well.

 

[Squamosa]

small injection of ozone

Some people still do, I believe, but this can now be considered 'old school'

are all of you running a refugium

I am not running a refugium!