3% Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) dosing for parasites in a mixed reef tank (132G/500L)

[Saltees]

OCT16 (DAY17) - Tested the H2O2 level at 30mins after dosing, it’s the same as last done… it diminished to 0.05ppm. There’s still a fair bit of organics to oxidize I guess.

Today my PBT and Red Sea Cleaner Wrasse succumbed to ICK. I hope these will be the last two…given the remaining fishes are relatively spot free.

Corals lost so far are 3 Acantophyllia and what’s remaining of my SPS.

 

[Sleepingtiger]

My H2O2 is dropping suprisingly quick. In 30 minutes there is only a bit remaining, barely I can test it, after additional 10-15 minutes nothing I can test. After whole night of dosing every hour 1mL/5gal, in the morning there is nothing.

Also, it was somewhere explained, that it is a myth that H2O2 goes away if there is air bubbles, etc - the only thing which makes it go away is a bio load. So dropping it in a sump or skimmer, or anything before entering display tank does not decrease the concentration (and I think it is much safer).

But when there is no bioload it does not go away at all. I actually learned it the hard way. I had one fish in quarantine with TTM method, and I just dropped there my peroxide dose as well with the assumption that it goes away, and then added another does etc... to later find my fish dead. I was researching why and tested everything amonia, nitrites... everything ok. Then I just tried H2O2 test, even though I "knew" it would test at zero, because I have found the fish quite late after my last H2O2 dosing. I was shocked to read it super high, maybe 50 ppm. Then I started to test how it could be possible, to learn, that in a newly mixed rodi water with salt, will air bubbles everywhere and pump running, the peroxide stays there at full concentration for 24 hours. So dropping bomb after bomb accumulated. Therefor it is super critical to test in every tank how quickly it is dropping, as it depends on the bioload. I feed a lot, have a lot of fish, liverock, 5+ppm nitrates so lot of bioload for peroxide to degrade quickly.

Yes, when I ran my bench testing the first thing I discovered was that aeration does not directly break down the peroxide.
Organic loading, compounds that act as peroxidases, are what breaks it down. My issue is that these compounds tend to decrease with subsequent additions, meaning that people need to test and adjust their dose. If they keep adding the same amount each day, they can end up with rising peroxide levels.
Jay

Not trying to hijack the thread. Trying to understand the h2o2 process. When you talk about oxidizing organics/bioload, what are we talking about? bacteria? waste? algae? What happens to the organic that is oxidized?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Not trying to hijack the thread. Trying to understand the h2o2 process. When you talk about oxidizing organics/bioload, what are we talking about? bacteria? waste? algae? What happens to the organic that is oxidized?

I'm not a chemist and my last organic chem class was in 1980. But my understanding is that Hydrogen peroxide reacts with organic and other compounds and oxidizes them to various degrees. I don't know each chemical pathway, but one is where hydrogen sulfide picks up an oxygen atom and becomes hydrogen sulfate, lower energy and less toxic. In some cases, a catalyst is used to make the reaction go faster. Peroxide affects living organisms by disrupting cellular processes. A thicker skin protects the organism, so fish can withstand higher peroxide than can bacteria. Corals seem to be able to handle peroxides better than some other animals because some species are adapted to handling peroxides that build up in their tissues during periods of strong light.

Jay

 

[Bolek]

This video nicely depicts the process, which was even me able to understand as a total chemist analphabet...

 

[Bolek]

Yes, when I ran my bench testing the first thing I discovered was that aeration does not directly break down the peroxide.
Organic loading, compounds that act as peroxidases, are what breaks it down. My issue is that these compounds tend to decrease with subsequent additions, meaning that people need to test and adjust their dose. If they keep adding the same amount each day, they can end up with rising peroxide levels.
Jay

This makes perfect sense. However, in my tank, it did not increased over 2 weeks - at least to what I am able to measure... just tested a while ago, and again after 30 minutes it is gone...

But I think it can be due to my heavy-heavy feeding. I am feeding heavy normally, and now, as I have seen a few fish loosing weight through the velvet I added them even more food, so that my PO4 a NO3 rose a bit, and I started a GFO, so this could cause the balancing effect in increasing the bioload (that goes out out my fish after processing all that food ...)

Definitely testing is critical, especially if people go with higher doses, which might be close to dangerous levels

 

[robby2782]

The h202 method described by Jessica on Humblefish 100% worked for me, and my entire fish population was covered with ich, and everything cleared up after 3 weeks of dosing following her instructions. I still have 2 weeks left of dosing left to ensure everything is wiped out, and have been running my UV sterilizer 24/7 at 6 watts per gallon with a turnover rate of 3x per hour to aid in controlling the outbreak. I did not lose a single fish in my display, but did lose all 3 fish that I had in my sump. I'm not sure if the h202 lost it's effectiveness before going into the sump to kill off the parasites, or if the it was too effective and killed the 3 fish that I was isolating in the middle chamber. This included a golden hawkfish, achilles tang, and tinkeri hybrid that I was either going to sell or hold until I introduced the incoming fish.

Anyone skeptical of this should read all of the feedback on this method, and I too was skeptical before trying it myself. Unfortunately the does isn't high enough to kill off bryopsis or AEFW, and I had to employ other methods to address those issues.

 

[Saltees]

Not trying to hijack the thread. Trying to understand the h2o2 process. When you talk about oxidizing organics/bioload, what are we talking about? bacteria? waste? algae? What happens to the organic that is oxidized?

Please, be my guest!

Over the course of my (water related) business, I witnessed an Advance Oxidation Process (AOP) machine where smelly, dark coloured industrial water with very high Chemical Oxygen Demand and Biological Oxygen Demand in the low tens of thousand ppm being lower to permissible discharge limit in the hundreds ppm range with just 1 to 3 passes though a relatively small machine. The machine utilised a series of 8 - 32 fractionating towers (like skimmers) alternating with a High Powered UV (185nm) in between each tower. The discharged/recirculating water is clear and odourless with a neutral PH (with a hint of ozone smell). Where did all the oxidised material go, I believe it's being fractionated/skimmed out. A byproduct of the whole process is dry skimmate and a whole lot of UV produced ozone (our guess from dilution is between 300-500ppm from the air extracted from the head of tower, how much is in the water we don't know). Of course, the high ppm ozone is ran though an ozone destructor (another UV) prior discharge to the atmosphere. But I digress.

 

[Saltees]

The h202 method described by Jessica on Humblefish 100% worked for me, and my entire fish population was covered with ich, and everything cleared up after 3 weeks of dosing following her instructions. I still have 2 weeks left of dosing left to ensure everything is wiped out, and have been running my UV sterilizer 24/7 at 6 watts per gallon with a turnover rate of 3x per hour to aid in controlling the outbreak. I did not lose a single fish in my display, but did lose all 3 fish that I had in my sump. I'm not sure if the h202 lost it's effectiveness before going into the sump to kill off the parasites, or if the it was too effective and killed the 3 fish that I was isolating in the middle chamber. This included a golden hawkfish, achilles tang, and tinkeri hybrid that I was either going to sell or hold until I introduced the incoming fish.

Anyone skeptical of this should read all of the feedback on this method, and I too was skeptical before trying it myself. Unfortunately the does isn't high enough to kill off bryopsis or AEFW, and I had to employ other methods to address those issues.

I'm glad for you it worked as prescribed. I am a strong advocate for powerful UV, surely more so after turning it off that resulted in my current disaster. I too oversized my UV to match my 3X per hour turnover of my display volume, though not as overwhelming as your 6W per gallon one. Diligently replacing the bulb (prematurely at times) and keeping the quartz sleeve crystal clear is instrumental.

Insofar, there are plenty of successful examples of H2O2 dosing and very few or lack of shortfall/failure. Failure of this magnitude often unreported, followed by a long disappointing recuperation or a swift exit from the hobby.

I hope my raw documentation serve to caution future adopters of the real risks and to make provision for the next course of action should it go south, and NOT to be emboldened with the wealth of online anecdotal successes.

 

[Dierks]

Today my PBT and Red Sea Cleaner Wrasse succumbed to ICK. I hope these will be the last two…given the remaining fishes are relatively spot free.

Bummer, I was really pulling for them. Nice work documenting your progress, thank you.

 

[robby2782]

I dont think 6w per gallon is overwhelming since there is a lot of debate what it actually kills outside of algae, bacteria, and viruses above 8 watts per gallon even with a higher quality sterilizer. I actually run two sterilizers, and the one of the two I have pump pulling directly from the water column at the bottom of my display to ensure the free swimming stage of the parasite is going through it if it doesn't succumb to the h202. The peroxide is dosed the return chamber of the sump. I started out at a very low dose, and run a large amount of carbon per Jessica's advice on her thread, and I haven't had any coral losses. I'm not sure if the carbon is making a big difference with my losses, but I won't hesitate to go this route again if something makes it through QT. My mistake was trusting the TTM the vendor I bought the fish that introduced it to my system had completely eradicated the ich during this process, and I will be treating prophylactically as I was before going forward.

 

[Saltees]

Bummer, I was really pulling for them. Nice work documenting your progress, thank you.

Yes, I was too. I guess my early intervention wasn't early enough, even though I went with the full H2O2 dose without easing my tank prior. Though I'm still pondering whether the heavy doses of heterotrophic bacteria to kick start my biopellet reactor did contribute to the fishes' stress level. Besides turning my UV off for a month, my skimmer was also running 8 hours a day, prior to this I was running both 24/7. No bacterial bloom was observed for the whole duration.

OCT17 (DAY18) - All is well, no further fish and all is swell with the fishes all out, none is hiding. Changed out my GFO with rising PO4, AWC of 5-10% daily at noon before the H2O2 "bomb" dosing at 1300hr.

H2O2 dissipated in 30mins.

 

[Saltees]

I dont think 6w per gallon is overwhelming since there is a lot of debate what it actually kills outside of algae, bacteria, and viruses above 8 watts per gallon even with a higher quality sterilizer. I actually run two sterilizers, and the one of the two I have pump pulling directly from the water column at the bottom of my display to ensure the free swimming stage of the parasite is going through it if it doesn't succumb to the h202. The peroxide is dosed the return chamber of the sump. I started out at a very low dose, and run a large amount of carbon per Jessica's advice on her thread, and I haven't had any coral losses. I'm not sure if the carbon is making a big difference with my losses, but I won't hesitate to go this route again if something makes it through QT. My mistake was trusting the TTM the vendor I bought the fish that introduced it to my system had completely eradicated the ich during this process, and I will be treating prophylactically as I was before going forward.

Without prejudice, based on 8W per gallon, my 132 gallon would require 1,056W UVC, that's gonna put out a lot of heat, and none of the "hobbyist" grade makes such equipment, unless you run whole bunch of them in series, given their efficacy is based on dwell time and proximity to the bulb itself.

My understanding from JESSICAN's thread was that the carbon was NOT required as initially thought needed to absorb the toxins from dying organics that caused the fishes' death. But later found out that the fishes' death was due to administering Fenbendazole instead of Praziquantel. Personally I chose to stay away from carbon (bad HLLE experience during my DISCUS days), except in emergencies such as the one where anemone nuking the whole tank, even then no more than 1 week.

I chose to dose directly into the display, not in my return chamber, because I have another pump there serving the chiller. I do share the same result with you on the fishes in my sump/refugium not benefitting from the H2O2 dosing.

IMHO, as long as you're not putting your corals and invert through 76-90 days in another holding area, you will get ICH even you QT your fishes diligently.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Please, be my guest!

Over the course of my (water related) business, I witnessed an Advance Oxidation Process (AOP) machine where smelly, dark coloured industrial water with very high Chemical Oxygen Demand and Biological Oxygen Demand in the low tens of thousand ppm being lower to permissible discharge limit in the hundreds ppm range with just 1 to 3 passes though a relatively small machine. The machine utilised a series of 8 - 32 fractionating towers (like skimmers) alternating with a High Powered UV (185nm) in between each tower. The discharged/recirculating water is clear and odourless with a neutral PH (with a hint of ozone smell). Where did all the oxidised material go, I believe it's being fractionated/skimmed out. A byproduct of the whole process is dry skimmate and a whole lot of UV produced ozone (our guess from dilution is between 300-500ppm from the air extracted from the head of tower, how much is in the water we don't know). Of course, the high ppm ozone is ran though an ozone destructor (another UV) prior discharge to the atmosphere. But I digress.

Back in the 1980's we used 185 nm UV bulbs to produce ozone for marine aquariums. I had been told, (not sure I believe it) that the ozone produced by these units is augmented by other compounds, including some "potentiated oxygen molecules".

Jay

 

[Saltees]

Back in the 1980's we used 185 nm UV bulbs to produce ozone for marine aquariums. I had been told, (not sure I believe it) that the ozone produced by these units is augmented by other compounds, including some "potentiated oxygen molecules".

Jay

The said AOP machine was initially conceived for aquaculture, in that it doesn’t require dry air or oxygen concentrator like the corona discharged ones, therefore no risk of nitric acid production. According to inventor, the fishes were more active, ate more, due to the increase dissolved oxygen. Lesser organics in the water, healthier fishes. “Feed to Meat” ratio higher as a result.

Concept similar to athletes taking short naps in oxygen chambers in between races.

 

[robby2782]

Without prejudice, based on 8W per gallon, my 132 gallon would require 1,056W UVC, that's gonna put out a lot of heat, and none of the "hobbyist" grade makes such equipment, unless you run whole bunch of them in series, given their efficacy is based on dwell time and proximity to the bulb itself.

My understanding from JESSICAN's thread was that the carbon was NOT required as initially thought needed to absorb the toxins from dying organics that caused the fishes' death. But later found out that the fishes' death was due to administering Fenbendazole instead of Praziquantel. Personally I chose to stay away from carbon (bad HLLE experience during my DISCUS days), except in emergencies such as the one where anemone nuking the whole tank, even then no more than 1 week.

I chose to dose directly into the display, not in my return chamber, because I have another pump there serving the chiller. I do share the same result with you on the fishes in my sump/refugium not benefitting from the H2O2 dosing.

IMHO, as long as you're not putting your corals and invert through 76-90 days in another holding area, you will get ICH even you QT your fishes diligently.

You might want to read Jessica's thread about the importance of carbon for mitigating coral losses early on in her thread. I use high rox carbon that drains runs through a filter sock to prevent the HLLE you would get otherwise.

I guess I didn't explain the turnover rate correctly regarding the the uv sterilizer. I run a 40 watt Pentair with a 240 gph pump, and and a 90 watt aqua uv sterilizer 540 gph, and this turns my water over 3x per hour.

I'm done posting my feedback. Thanks

 

[Saltees]

You might want to read Jessica's thread about the importance of carbon for mitigating coral losses early on in her thread. I use high rox carbon that drains runs through a filter sock to prevent the HLLE you would get otherwise.

I guess I didn't explain the turnover rate correctly regarding the the uv sterilizer. I run a 40 watt Pentair with a 240 gph pump, and and a 90 watt aqua uv sterilizer 540 gph, and this turns my water over 3x per hour.

I'm done posting my feedback. Thanks

I truly appreciate all the feedbacks you've shared, no doubt.

And yes a filter sock post carbon would help, from your experience what micron sized sock would be best suited for the application?

Ahh... that's what you meant by 6-8W per Gallon (per hour), where I thought you were referring to the total volume of water in your tank. Thanks for your clarification.

Since we are on the topic of UV, one that I'm a strong advocate of. I picked the turnover of the total water volume that I wanted, in my case it would be 3X of 132G, which was 396gph. Then I picked the UV with the manufacturer's rated parasite killing power, DELTEC 80W. And I ensure that the throughput of my COR20 return pump NEVER exceed 396gph with the APEX flow meter, in fact I ran with a 10% safety margin.

Hence, if I may run a parallel to your 6W per Gallon (per hour) for mine, it would be 396gph divided by 80W = 4.95W... more than adequate to kill ICH.

Cheers!

 

[robby2782]

I absolutely agree with you regarding the effectiveness of a good UV sterilizer with the flow rate dialed like you have, and you should definitely kill off anything that passes through it. I got nervous the second week in when every single fish was covered in spots, and I put the pump directly in the middle of the tank to help kill any free swimmers once the next phase of the life cycle came.

I think I'm using 100 micron socks since I have to change them every 3-4 days, but I haven't had any issues with lateral line erosion like I did when I would use it in my quarantine tanks.


I'm sure you're in position to kill the next life cycle of free swimmers between the h202 and uv sterilizer you have set up, and I would definitely reach out to Jessica on the other forum about the importance of carbon. She mentioned she had corals die off when she wasn't using it too.

 

[Saltees]

I absolutely agree with you regarding the effectiveness of a good UV sterilizer with the flow rate dialed like you have, and you should definitely kill off anything that passes through it. I got nervous the second week in when every single fish was covered in spots, and I put the pump directly in the middle of the tank to help kill any free swimmers once the next phase of the life cycle came.

I think I'm using 100 micron socks since I have to change them every 3-4 days, but I haven't had any issues with lateral line erosion like I did when I would use it in my quarantine tanks.


I'm sure you're in position to kill the next life cycle of free swimmers between the h202 and uv sterilizer you have set up, and I would definitely reach out to Jessica on the other forum about the importance of carbon. She mentioned she had corals die off when she wasn't using it too.

Thanks again for sharing!

I have a few 100 micron sock laying around, will use those with carbon. Cheers!

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Thanks again for sharing!

I have a few 100 micron sock laying around, will use those with carbon. Cheers!

I just pulled this excerpt from my disease book for another post. It contains some newer references about UV:

UV sterilizers
Ultraviolet (UV) sterilizers are also sold as a “cure” for Cryptocaryon. The problem is that most hobbyist-sized UV sterilizers do not have the power to make an effective kill on the relatively large Cryptocaryon parasite. Additionally, UV sterilizers are effective only on the tomite/theront stage, as this is the only point where the parasite is even present in the water column.

The fallacy here is that tomites/theronts must leave the fish. Actually, some of them get caught up in the fish’s mucus and stay attached until they become infective trophonts again. This means that UV sterilization will not eliminate active Cryptocaryon infections from a single aquarium. Where it does have benefit is in eliminating tomites as they pass through a filtration system from one discrete tank to another (like in a public aquarium or fisheries lab). Decades ago, diatom filters were touted as cures for ich and velvet. The same issue applies with them; there are adherent forms of these protozoans that can continue to infect the fish without ever having to leave the fish’s body. Even if they do, the “dwell time” factor means that some theronts will still be present in the water column to infect the fish.

A recent study (Ge-Ling, 2022) indicates that the UV dose required to kill Cryptocaryon theronts/tomites is 185,000 uw/S/cm2. They do go on however, to conclude: “ …both ozone and UV are ineffective in controlling infection within an individual aquarium because of the adhesive nature of C. irritans tomonts (Ma et al., 2017). Therefore, the focus on UV and ozone treatment should prevent live theronts flow into aquaculture ponds. Second, the tomonts are strongly resistant to UV or ozone than theronts, implying that recommended production doses cannot wholly kill tomonts….”


Jay

 

[Saltees]

I just pulled this excerpt from my disease book for another post. It contains some newer references about UV:

UV sterilizers
Ultraviolet (UV) sterilizers are also sold as a “cure” for Cryptocaryon. The problem is that most hobbyist-sized UV sterilizers do not have the power to make an effective kill on the relatively large Cryptocaryon parasite. Additionally, UV sterilizers are effective only on the tomite/theront stage, as this is the only point where the parasite is even present in the water column.

The fallacy here is that tomites/theronts must leave the fish. Actually, some of them get caught up in the fish’s mucus and stay attached until they become infective trophonts again. This means that UV sterilization will not eliminate active Cryptocaryon infections from a single aquarium. Where it does have benefit is in eliminating tomites as they pass through a filtration system from one discrete tank to another (like in a public aquarium or fisheries lab). Decades ago, diatom filters were touted as cures for ich and velvet. The same issue applies with them; there are adherent forms of these protozoans that can continue to infect the fish without ever having to leave the fish’s body. Even if they do, the “dwell time” factor means that some theronts will still be present in the water column to infect the fish.

A recent study (Ge-Ling, 2022) indicates that the UV dose required to kill Cryptocaryon theronts/tomites is 185,000 uw/S/cm2. They do go on however, to conclude: “ …both ozone and UV are ineffective in controlling infection within an individual aquarium because of the adhesive nature of C. irritans tomonts (Ma et al., 2017). Therefore, the focus on UV and ozone treatment should prevent live theronts flow into aquaculture ponds. Second, the tomonts are strongly resistant to UV or ozone than theronts, implying that recommended production doses cannot wholly kill tomonts….”


Jay

Thanks for the excepts and a very welcoming chip it!

I acknowledged the merits and limits of UV and H2O2 dosing in managing ICH, having dabbled a bit of both in AOP for waste water treatment and aquaculture myself.

The article clearly dictates the toughness of managing ICH let alone eradicating them, even under the more disciplined environment. The long dormant period of ICH is not helping the matter.

Nonetheless, here I am experiencing the H2O2 dosing first hand to witness its limitations...all anecdotal.

OCT19 (DAY20) - ICH is less apparent but its there if I am to scrutinise it, and it helps to have a cleaner wrasse "pointer" to indicate their (ICH) whereabouts. Wrasses are doing the occasion "rub" on the rocks. No more death as of last report.