Analyzing a Bacterial Method for Dinoflagellates (and cyano?)

[User]

So, low co2 air in, co2 rich air out...

That's displacement.
Whatever words used to describe it, equilibrium, normalization, etc.

This is the second time you’ve had a disagreement with someone due to incorrect nomenclature. It might be worth looking up the appropriate words before disseminating any more thoughts, in order that this can remain as concise and accurate thread as possible.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

 

[User]

Funny... I work in the same biopharmaceutical fields. Go figure. Lots of misrepresentation and over generalizations in the field of big pharma.

(Fist bump)

I Thought you worked in waste water management?

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Finally, a breakthrough, if you are paying attention.

The CO2 in water equilibrated with air is exactly in an equilibrium between the gas and dissolved phase. If you lower the CO2 in the gas phase, then by Le Charlie’s principle, CO2 leaves the water and enters that gas phase, establishing a new equilibrium with less CO2 in the water. Not magic. Ordinary physical chemistry of Henry’s Law.

Le Chatlier not Le Charlie.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I Thought you worked in waste water management?

I play in all realms in waste stream management. That includes processes in waste water management, chemical facilities, and biopharma.

Process Automation and Automation Controls is what ties pilot plant chemistry and transforms it into industrial scale.

30 years exposed you to a lot.

This exchange between chemists and engineers is demonstrated clearly in this post. Technologies and terminology do not align and the practical versus the theoretical worlds collide.

 

[User]

I play in all realms in waste stream management. That includes processes in waste water management, chemical facilities, and biopharma.

Process Automation and Automation Controls is what ties pilot plant chemistry and transforms it into industrial scale.

30 years exposed you to a lot.

This exchange between chemists and engineers is demonstrated clearly in this exchange. Technologies and terminology do not align and the practical versus the theoretical worlds collide.

Oh, ok, because you kinda implied you worked “in the biopharmaceutical fields” at the same level as Randy, or myself.

And the “le Charlie” comment above was clearly a typo. No need for that.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Oh, ok, because you kinda implied you worked “in the biopharmaceutical fields” at the same level as Randy, or myself.

And the “le Charlie” comment above was clearly a typo. No need for that.

Same level? You mean like cutting edge? Creating the processes and bioreactors for your experiments is what I do.

The implications are exactly that.

Regarding the typo, I'm making sure others following in the thread are cognizant of the mistake and can look up the theory themselves.

 

[User]

Uuuggghhh

Shouldn’t post when I’m stressed out.

 

[User]

Same level? You mean like cutting edge? Creating the processes and bioreactors for your experiments is what I do.

The implications are exactly that.

Regarding the typo, I'm making sure others following in the thread are cognizant of the mistake and can look up the theory themselves.

lol, sorry, no. Nothing you’ve developed is in use in my work or lab. Not even in the same orbit of influence

I did have a much bigger response, but i deleted because, frankly, I should’ve listened to my own advice on page 6 and bowed out. I’m bored talking to you about stuff outside your actual knowledge base. And my girls decided they aren’t going to nap today so yeah, I’ve got that going for me.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

People came looking for a dinoflagellates regimen.

This was what was developed.
Follow it step by step.

Aerate with low co2 air.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So, low co2 air in, co2 rich air out...

That's displacement.
Whatever words used to describe it, equilibrium, normalization, etc.

No, it has nothing to do with other gases or displacement . Other gases can be high or low, but it matters not for CO2 levels in the water . Only the CO2 pressure in the air matters.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

People came looking for a dinoflagellates regimen.

This was what was developed.
Follow it step by step.

Aerate with low co2 air.

Yes, that raises pH. High pH has been a known possible Dino treatment for decades. I wrote an article on how that might work in 2006:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-11/rhf/index.php

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Yes, that raises pH. High pH has been a known possible Dino treatment for decades. I wrote an article on how that might work in 2006:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-11/rhf/index.php

The problem is, is that the circumstances for many of the reef tanks are different. Some too high in nutrients, some too low, crashed bacterial populations, etc. Etc.

Also, is the high pH due to elevated dKH or normalized co2/o2 ratio at a fixed 8.0 dKH?

Resetting bacterial populations and proper aeration (however you define this) seems to do the trick.

I just tried a step by step, day by day, approach for hobbyists to understand.

So far, we're batting 80% if not better.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The problem is, is that the circumstances for many of the reef tanks are different. Some too high in nutrients, some too low, crashed bacterial populations, etc. Etc.

Also, is the high pH due to elevated dKH or normalized co2/o2 ratio at a fixed 8.0 dKH?

Resetting bacterial populations and proper aeration (however you define this) seems to do the trick.

I just tried a step by step, day by day, approach for hobbyists to understand.

So far, we're batting 80% if not better.

I don’t doubt there are a multiplicity of issues and the pH raising alone seems to not be among the more effective methods to get rid of it. That’s why I don’t generally push it when asked how to deal with dinos.

I suspect a trace element limitation of some sort is part of many of the effective methods, but I do not know which element.

 

[taricha]

@Randy Holmes-Farley Thanks for your tireless clarifications. really appreciate it.

@Cruz_Arias the method definitely works (meaning partially to completely reduces/eliminates the nuisance) but please forgive us for trying to nail down the details and mechanics for how and taking a skeptical approach to theories (including yours) of what's happening.
And some of us poor lost souls will still try to use chemistry and physics!

[FYI, though some of your explanations .. I haven't seen anything yet to make me think of an improvement to offer on the protocol itself.]

For those following along:
Check out Cruz post #114 as it drives home how the needed aeration for this is much more than just bubbling an airstone in the display.

The discussion about lowering CO2 and raising O2 boils down to: Aerating (with outside air) raises tank O2 because the outside air is higher in O2 than the artificially low O2 of the tank. Similarly it lowers CO2 because outside air is lower in CO2 than the artificially high CO2 of the tank.
The greater the aeration - more air/water interface (more small bubbles with long water contact time) - the better the gas exchange will be.

Moving things forward a bit:
Cruz, have you seen any people report livestock losses with aeration that you felt should have been significant enough? Or in every case was it likely due to insufficient aeration not being able to keep up with the bacterial activity?
Did those reporting losses have especially grungy tanks? deep sandbeds? or other factors you can point to?

You also say if the bloom gets out of hand, to add h2o2. Do we think that knocks back the cloudy water? slows the bacterial activity?

 

[taricha]

I know I'm late to the party but this caught my eye, also. Under normal conditions every study I have seen says that nitrifying bacteria reproduce very slowly when compared to many other marine bacteria. The population doubles (at least in the more common strains) around once every 24 hours. Many other marine bacteria can double in population in under 20 minutes. At first glance it seems like there is little value to adding AOB's to the process.
But, I've also seen studies where growth rates of certain AOB's can rapidly accelerate when provided with the proper sludge conditions. Fortunately for us, a pH of 7.8-8.2 and a temperature of 77F (25C) seem ideal. High carbon and CO2 content also is beneficial.
I wouldn't rule out that part of the process using aeration, carbon dosing, sand stirring, and the waste away product work together to create the conditions needed for rapid reproduction of the AOB's. If this is what is occurring, it could make a big difference which bottled bacteria product is used as I doubt that they all contain the exact same strains.

Great info. Missed it first time through due to the ... cloudy water .
I'm still curious to test if the large bacterial populations grown under this method are actually out of the bottles or if we are just blooming bacteria that was already in the system.
(if most bacterial bottled products can actually be "amplified" by using an ethanol chaser, that would be quite a finding.)

Brew12, ever hear of anyone "magnifying" vibrant with ethanol?

 

[CS Reefer]

Great info. Missed it first time through due to the ... cloudy water .
I'm still curious to test if the large bacterial populations grown under this method are actually out of the bottles or if we are just blooming bacteria that was already in the system.
(if most bacterial bottled products can actually be "amplified" by using an ethanol chaser, that would be quite a finding.)

Brew12, ever hear of anyone "magnifying" vibrant with ethanol?

I’m no expert, but if the regimen is followed correctly, the bacteria bloom seen would likely be caused by the bacteria being added, in addition to the bacteria already in the water column

 

[Cruz_Arias]

For those following along:
Check out Cruz post #114 as it drives home how the needed aeration for this is much more than just bubbling an airstone in the display.

Moving things forward a bit:
Cruz, have you seen any people report livestock losses with aeration that you felt should have been significant enough? Or in every case was it likely due to insufficient aeration not being able to keep up with the bacterial activity?
Did those reporting losses have especially grungy tanks? deep sandbeds? or other factors you can point to?

We've seen sps and some losses under these conditions:

1. Alkalinity was not checked and CaRx was left on... Alk went high... > 10.0 dKH

2. pH went below 7.6 at an Alkanity of 8.6 dKH... I'm assuming CO2 saturation and not sufficient aeration.

3. Too much agitation of the surface water when CO2 concentrations in the room are high (> 700 ppm) surface agitation alone is not bad, however if the surrounding air has elevated co2 levels, surface agitation (increasing surface area) allows for co2 to migrate back into the water...

4. Not dosing hydrogen peroxide into the air intake of the skimmer (point of bacterial reactions with peroxide)

The peroxide reacts with the catalase found in the bacterial membrane and reacts with it. Resulting in foaming in the skimmer body.

This is a point of export. The additional foaming impacts skimmer foam production positively which is also the point where bacteria and other long chain proteins are removed from the system.

It knocks back (lyses) the bacterial population back, out of the water column, during days 4 through 7.

 

[Brew12]

I'm still curious to test if the large bacterial populations grown under this method are actually out of the bottles or if we are just blooming bacteria that was already in the system.

I have my doubts if it actually the nitrifying bacteria that was blooming. I only posted because I don't think it can be ruled out without testing. I'd be interested in putting a Seneye ammonia sensor in a system with this going on. If the bloom is actually composed of AOB's I'd imagine that even the very low levels of ammonia normally in a system would vanish.

Brew12, ever hear of anyone "magnifying" vibrant with ethanol?

I have not but I doubt it would work. The product is shipped with a small amount of vinegar so something else must be limiting. Carbon dosing to the tank at the same time as adding vibrant might have a small impact but I suspect it would be negligible.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I have my doubts if it actually the nitrifying bacteria that was blooming. I only posted because I don't think it can be ruled out without testing. I'd be interested in putting a Seneye ammonia sensor in a system with this going on. If the bloom is actually composed of AOB's I'd imagine that even the very low levels of ammonia normally in a system would vanish.


I have not but I doubt it would work. The product is shipped with a small amount of vinegar so something else must be limiting. Carbon dosing to the tank at the same time as adding vibrant might have a small impact but I suspect it would be negligible.

Varous types of bacteria do react differently to different forms of carbon sources. IMO, vodka tends to cause the bacteria in Waste Away to react aggressively. Just an observation.