Are water changes over rated?

[Timfish]

By complicated methodologies are you referring to cryptic zones or something else? Please elaborate as best to grasp all the options.

Do a search on "Zero Discharge Septic Systems". These systems are able to treat sewage with the end result being potable water and some models are small enough for home systems. The problem I see using them is the same problem Haas' research (links in post #190) shows with increased microbial growth causing coral death.

 

[Timfish]

Just counter a little about this. There is other critters in our aquarium that relay on mucus layer as a primary defence barrier against pathogens - our fish. Its known that this mucus can be destroyed by "chemical" water there all organic colloids and DOC have been removed. That´s one of the reasons why I never does any WC the first months with a new aquarium - I want the water to be "biological active" ´before I do WC with our artificial saltwater. IMO - the reasons why - if you have the possibility - natural water many times is better than our salt mixes.

If I am - of some reasons - in the future will do regular WC - I will use Randys method with small - maybe only 0.5 or 1 % daily WC

In contrary to VintageReefer I would not run without a skimmer but the reason is not export issues - it's instead about gas exchange. O2 in and CO2 out during night and the opposite during max light intensity. I run my skimmer very dry - can be weeks between I empty it. Its a very handy air mixer and will not make much noise as an air pump. But I have a lot of fish +40 in a 300 L (80 G) system

Sincerely Lasse

Significant portions of corals daily photosynthetic productionis released as labile DOC into the water. This DOC promotes beneficial microbial processes whereas teh DOC from algae promotes microbial processes detrimental for corals. All this is species specific, ie a species of DOC may quickly kill one species of coral but leave another relatively unaffected. Of all the different things aquarists do, water changes are the only thing that reduces in equal proportions both the hydrophilic and the hydrophobic stuff that is generated. As skimmers may have some benefit by reducing microbial levels in the water column, they are only removing hydrophobic components and leaving the hydrophillic, including the Dissolved Combined Neutral Sugars (DCNS) shown to be a primary cause of problems with coral microbiomes, they are leaving a lot of the bad stuff and skewing the microbial populations so it's questionable reef systems can be sustained with them for the life expectancies these systems should live. Thiel was a major proponet of using autmated daily water changes and back in 1989 gave .75% daily as a target. If that is convienent for you by all means set it up.

 

[GARRIGA]

Do a search on "Zero Discharge Septic Systems". These systems are able to treat sewage with the end result being potable water and some models are small enough for home systems. The problem I see using them is the same problem Haas' research (links in post #190) shows with increased microbial growth causing coral death.

What I understand about zero discharge is that evaporation is used to separate solids which are later discarded.

Tried reading all those links but way more reading than time or attention span available and what I took away from which I did read being DOC the main concern for which my understanding and approach being that AOP solves that by oxidizing any and all carbon based elements or pollutants. Sponges can perform this as well my understanding.

Goal being the treatment of the same volume of water that would represent a typical WC. For example, if one needs to perform 1% daily WC to solve issues such as coral warfare then how is sterilizing 1% equivalent of tank volume not the same?

Not wiping out pelagic BB and anything that doesn’t replicate on its own just needs to be extracted at the rate added. Latter the mystery calculation because this likely unknown yet if it is accepted that 1% WC solves it for most tanks then I have a baseline to target.

Appreciate all the information but likely beyond my ability to take it all in and digest it fully enough to make sense of it. I’m a big picture guy and try not losing myself in the weeds although often go down that rabbit hole inadvertently

 

[Lasse]

This DOC promotes beneficial microbial processes whereas teh DOC from algae promotes microbial processes detrimental for corals.

Have you any references of this? In system with a functional grazing population?

In 99 % of the aquarium I have seen - even these with huge refugium and macroalgae growth or these with microalgae scrubbers - an addition of labile DOC of different types (ethanol, methanol, suger, vinegar and so on) promote heterotrophic bacteria growth indicating all these systems is habile (Fast) DOC limited. The Triton system is build on non WC and huge algae refugium - and its works well with corals.

As skimmers may have some benefit by reducing microbial levels in the water column, they are only removing hydrophobic components and leaving the hydrophillic,

I´m not sure this is true - I´m old enough to remember the old name for a skimmer - protein skimmer. Most proteins - is what I known seen as hydrophilic in the outer surface.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Do a search on "Zero Discharge Septic Systems". These systems are able to treat sewage with the end result being potable water and some models are small enough for home systems. The problem I see using them is the same problem Haas' research (links in post #190) shows with increased microbial growth causing coral death.

This is a really good point - however - my bone to pick is that these 'systems' at least the large ones are also tested to make sure all of the various 'toxins, organics, etc etc' - are removed before the water is deemed 'potable' - though there may be small systems that allow this - my concern for my own tank would be be - 1. the difficulty of testing, 2. The error in hobby grade type testing that would be available - and 3. Water changes obviate the need for it (which was the main topic of the thread). However - it is a very interesting thought - do you have any examples of a small system?

 

[Paul B]

I´m not sure this is true - I´m old enough to remember the old name for a skimmer - protein skimmer.

The original name and the name used in sewage processing facilities is Foam Fractionator. :)

 

[Lasse]

The original name and the name used in sewage processing facilities is Foam Fractionator. :)

Not in Sweden. Its not working good fresh water - they are seldom/never used in sewage processing plants - at least not here.

In Sweden is was named "äggviteavskummare" after the original german name Eiweißabschäumer "äggvite" och "Eiweiß" is protein in English. It was developed in Germany during the 1970s for the Solingen aquarium if I remember correctly.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Paul B]

In Sweden is was named "äggviteavskummare" after the original german name Eiweißabschäumer "äggvite" och "Eiweiß"

Maybe Lasse. But us Americans can't pronounce that and we don't have all those letters in our alphabet. :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:

 

[Timfish]

What I understand about zero discharge is that evaporation is used to separate solids which are later discarded.

Tried reading all those links but way more reading than time or attention span available and what I took away from which I did read being DOC the main concern for which my understanding and approach being that AOP solves that by oxidizing any and all carbon based elements or pollutants. Sponges can perform this as well my understanding.

Goal being the treatment of the same volume of water that would represent a typical WC. For example, if one needs to perform 1% daily WC to solve issues such as coral warfare then how is sterilizing 1% equivalent of tank volume not the same?

Not wiping out pelagic BB and anything that doesn’t replicate on its own just needs to be extracted at the rate added. Latter the mystery calculation because this likely unknown yet if it is accepted that 1% WC solves it for most tanks then I have a baseline to target.

Appreciate all the information but likely beyond my ability to take it all in and digest it fully enough to make sense of it. I’m a big picture guy and try not losing myself in the weeds although often go down that rabbit hole inadvertently

Think of it as how are you feeding the microbial processes in reef ecosystems.

Reef ecosystems in the wild are roughly one third labile DOC and roughly two thirds refractory DOC with a tiny amount of semilabile DOC. The research I linked to shows when labile DOC increases heterotrphic bacteria proliferate. When this proliferation occurs in coral microbiomes and surface boundary layer corals suffer. An important takeaway from the research I linked to is even a coral's own DOC will cause problems for that coral when it is collected and reapplied to the coral and allows the microbes in the coral's microbiome to proliferate!

Using ozone or AOP (which only only breaks down 40% at best, not "all" as you keep saying) converts the refractory DOC into labile forms increasing the labile DOC available enabling increased microbial growth. This is just duplicating the problems corals have with increased labile DOC from algae or carbon dosing.

There's two differences with sponges. First is they feed on labile DOC converting some into DIC and a lot is released as detritus and this detritus is not available to the microbes in coral microbiomes. Second is they are doing this incredibly fast, in 30 minutes they can remove from the water column what it takes the bacterioplankton 20 days to remove. This nutrient rich detritus sponges release then taken up into the food webs in a system in as little as a day and now things get complicated.

But there's a downside to sponges. They process DOC differentially depending on it's source, DOC from corals results in different products being relaesed than the DOC from algae. This differential processing of DOC worries researchers as it creates a feedback loop promoting algae growth at the cost of corals.

The problem I see in trying to directly apply "Zero Discharge" is how to deal with teh microbial filtration component. Anything that's promoting microbial growth is going to cause problems with corals. Distilling will produce pure water free of DOC and microbes but that still results in having to do water changes

 

[Lasse]

Using ozone or AOP (which only only breaks down 40% at best, not "all" as you keep saying) converts the refractory DOC into labile forms increasing the labile DOC available enabling increased microbial growth. This is just duplicating the problems corals have with increased labile DOC from algae or carbon dosing.

Any prove for this? You state that Ozone oxidation will promote bacteria growth in an aquarium - for me - this is rather ridicules.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

This differential processing of DOC worries researchers as it creates a feedback loop promoting algae growth at the cost of corals.

Reference - please

Sincerely Lasse

 

[GARRIGA]

Think of it as how are you feeding the microbial processes in reef ecosystems.

Reef ecosystems in the wild are roughly one third labile DOC and roughly two thirds refractory DOC with a tiny amount of semilabile DOC. The research I linked to shows when labile DOC increases heterotrphic bacteria proliferate. When this proliferation occurs in coral microbiomes and surface boundary layer corals suffer. An important takeaway from the research I linked to is even a coral's own DOC will cause problems for that coral when it is collected and reapplied to the coral and allows the microbes in the coral's microbiome to proliferate!

Using ozone or AOP (which only only breaks down 40% at best, not "all" as you keep saying) converts the refractory DOC into labile forms increasing the labile DOC available enabling increased microbial growth. This is just duplicating the problems corals have with increased labile DOC from algae or carbon dosing.

There's two differences with sponges. First is they feed on labile DOC converting some into DIC and a lot is released as detritus and this detritus is not available to the microbes in coral microbiomes. Second is they are doing this incredibly fast, in 30 minutes they can remove from the water column what it takes the bacterioplankton 20 days to remove. This nutrient rich detritus sponges release then taken up into the food webs in a system in as little as a day and now things get complicated.

But there's a downside to sponges. They process DOC differentially depending on it's source, DOC from corals results in different products being relaesed than the DOC from algae. This differential processing of DOC worries researchers as it creates a feedback loop promoting algae growth at the cost of corals.

The problem I see in trying to directly apply "Zero Discharge" is how to deal with teh microbial filtration component. Anything that's promoting microbial growth is going to cause problems with corals. Distilling will produce pure water free of DOC and microbes but that still results in having to do water changes

That’s clearer now. No way I’d get that from reading all that literature. I’m finance guy that can interpret annual reports but going to struggle connecting the dots with chemistry or science based papers. Fact is with those I go straight to the conclusion.

Why do you say AOP doesn’t completely oxidize all DOC? Everything I’ve read indicates 100% oxidation of all carbon based matter. I’m no expert but you’d think anything coming in contact with hydroxyl radicals would be oxidized.

You mention it converts some to labile form which is confusing as isn’t that still a carbon based element and wouldn’t OH not be trying to rob its remaking hydrogen? No clue what the chemical makeup of labile is and a word I didn’t know existed before you mentioned it.

In the end. Reefers been using UV-C long before I started this path and use of peroxide or ozone indirectly with it along with live rock harboring sponges since the 80s when I first learned of them and saw them. Are we really having a concern or is this theoretical mongering based on science which although valid has no direct real world mongering?

Ozone cause OPO yet Jay pumps it into a public aquarium absent GAC and daily monitoring shows no real OPO production. In other words. There’s a potential issue that doesn’t necessarily present itself in real world practice.

I’m going to test AOP and hopefully these current and upcoming lab tests can shed some light on what I’m experiencing. Water changes for me not practical considering the dream tank I seek. In the end. I’ll keep that I can keep and worse case setup a smaller reef tank that can be managed with WC.

Still there’s the real world examples of some having success using ICP and trace supplements to forgo water replacement and although not something in practice decades plus that’s only because ICP something new and only time will tell and based on how long they’ve been at it seems I have several years before it impacts me and one might considered that if these issues with recycled water accumulate then perhaps at some point down the road simplest solution is a few large water changes.

Much easier for myself to call a service and have them deliver 200 gallons of fresh salt over a few weekends and effectively do a full tank transfusion then weekly maintenance. Hopefully there’s not some other issue with that. Seems every solution has a side affect.

Transfusions worked for The Rolling Stones and they are still alive after decades of doing that which likely would have killed me long ago

 

[GARRIGA]

I’m not reading this again but my grasp was all carbon based gets oxidized into more readily available for decomposition. As I understand matter. Similar to energy in that it can’t be destroyed but transferred and with AOP all carbon based gets converted with remnants mostly oxygen and co2. I could be wrong and hopefully not. This process is not only for in tank problem solving but can also make RODI more efficient by oxidizing pesticides as well as breaking the chloramine bond by converting ammonia to nitrate and leaving behind chlorine which make carbon blocks last longer thereby prolonging the life the membrane.

Would be a shame if we couldn’t incorporate this into reefing or other aspects of our daily lives. Considering it’s such a simple application.

Advanced Oxidation Processes - Definition | AWC

Advanced oxidation processes refers to a set of chemical treatment procedures designed to remove organic materials in water and waste water by oxidation.

www.membranechemicals.com

 

[Timfish]

Have you any references of this? In system with a functional grazing population?

Besides the link I listed in post #190? ;) Rohwer's book discusses and has links showing how critical sharks are for maintianing healthy herbivore populations and the species numbers change when shark populations are impacted. Rohwer's links show tang populations will increase and while that may be considered "functional" by some it can easily be argued it's not beneficial for a healthy ecosystem. But here's one I left out.

Aura-biomes are present in the water layer above coral reef benthic macro-organisms - PubMed

As coral reef habitats decline worldwide, some reefs are transitioning from coral- to algal-dominated benthos with the exact cause for this shift remaining elusive. Increases in the abundance of microbes in the water column has been correlated with an increase in coral disease and reduction in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In 99 % of the aquarium I have seen - even these with huge refugium and macroalgae growth or these with microalgae scrubbers - an addition of labile DOC of different types (ethanol, methanol, suger, vinegar and so on) promote heterotrophic bacteria growth indicating all these systems is habile (Fast) DOC limited. The Triton system is build on non WC and huge algae refugium - and its works well with corals.


I´m not sure this is true - I´m old enough to remember the old name for a skimmer - protein skimmer. Most proteins - is what I known seen as hydrophilic in the outer surface.

Sincerely Lasse

How are you determing you have healthy microbiomes? Bright colors and growth can't be used as the standards for healty corals. To borrow a freinds non-PC phrase, it's like using what Victoria's Secret or Ambercrombie's runway models look like as the standard to judge whether a person is healthy or not.

I have yet seen any system that has been running and has coral not have cryptic sponges. So a fundamental problem in using established systems as examples is it has to be shown these systems didn't have any cryptic sponges removing labile DOC AND the labile DOC was not impacting the coral's immune systems and health.

An additional problem is determining the innate immune system of the individual coral. Just because an system has corals apparently thriving doesn't mean it's a healthy system that is good for other coral, een of the same species. Wright, et al, showed a coral's immune system varied significantly at the genotype level. A pathogen that would kill 100% of one genotype had no effect on another genotype of the same species*. The "success" of the systems you're refferencing may have more to do with the resiliance of the species involved than the methodology.

Feldman, et al, (1) (2) developed two metrics skimmer manufactuers could use so consumers could see how one skimmer stacked up against the another. Using these metrics there wasn't much difference between skimmers and they didn't take much out. Refferencing back to the links I mentioned earlier, a primary culprit is the Dissolved Combined Neutral Sugars, DCNS. I have spent hours searching and haven't found any research showing they are directly removed by skimmers. They are removed by sponges very quickly. And as they are forms of labile DOC sponges can be removing 1000X times faster than the bacterialplankton that is only partially removed by skimmers.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

a primary culprit is the Dissolved Combined Neutral Sugars, DCNS. I have spent hours searching and haven't found any research showing they are directly removed by skimmers. They are removed by sponges very quickly. And as they are forms of labile DOC sponges can be removing 1000X times faster than the bacterialplankton that is only partially removed by skimmers.

That's not a term I'd typically use, but those molecules in the ocean (see details below) are not going to be very effectively removed by skimming, when present. They are just too hydrophilic and do not absorb at an air/water interface.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304420397000029#:~:text=These%20data%20suggest%20that%20dissolved,quite%20uniform%20throughout%20the%20ocean.

These data suggest that dissolved combined neutral sugars are a reactive component of the DOC pool. The molecular composition of these combined sugars was generally similar for surface waters ranging from marsh effluents to oligotrophic oceanic waters; glucose, galactose, mannose + xylose (coeluted), and fucose were the dominant sugars. Our data suggest that the molecular composition of dissolved neutral sugars in surface waters is quite uniform throughout the ocean.

 

[Timfish]

Any prove for this? You state that Ozone oxidation will promote bacteria growth in an aquarium - for me - this is rather ridicules.

Sincerely Lasse

Yes, with enough ozone water can be sterilized and there'll be nothing living in it. But you end up with some nasty byproducts that you don't want in a healthy ecosystem. In water treatment to remove refractory DOC, which is what I understand we're talking about here, the use of ozone breaks down refractory DOC into Biodegradable DOC (which seems to me synonomous with labile DOC), which is then processed microbially to remove nutrients and reduce the labile DOC further.

Here's a Google Scholar search if you want to dig into it deeper :)

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[GARRIGA]

Yes, with enough ozone water can be sterilized and there'll be nothing living in it. But you end up with some nasty byproducts that you don't want in a healthy ecosystem. In water treatment to remove refractory DOC, which is what I understand we're talking about here, the use of ozone breaks down refractory DOC into Biodegradable DOC (which seems to me synonomous with labile DOC), which is then processed microbially to remove nutrients and reduce the labile DOC further.

Here's a Google Scholar search if you want to dig into it deeper :)

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

I’m not talking about ozone as the sole component. I’m specifically speaking of hydroxyl radicals (OH) formed when UV-C dissipates ozone and/or peroxide. There are other mechanisms by which this is accomplished as well.

Are the OH in your opinion transforming DOC to labile DOC? Latter has me confused more than usual based on the understanding that OH is indiscriminate and oxidizes all carbon with only remnants being o2 and co2.

 

[Timfish]

This is a really good point - however - my bone to pick is that these 'systems' at least the large ones are also tested to make sure all of the various 'toxins, organics, etc etc' - are removed before the water is deemed 'potable' - though there may be small systems that allow this - my concern for my own tank would be be - 1. the difficulty of testing, 2. The error in hobby grade type testing that would be available - and 3. Water changes obviate the need for it (which was the main topic of the thread). However - it is a very interesting thought - do you have any examples of a small system?

I think we share the same concern. As far as home system I did see one installed and demonstrated on an episode of "This Old House" on PBS where the manufacturing rep and host drank some of the filtered water. In case I've been obtuse, let me clarify by saying I feel water changes are the best way for aquarists to reduce ALL the pollutants and detrimental stuff that builds up in reef systems and essential for the success I've seen over the last 4 decades. Considering how complex thing get when we start diggin into what's going on and trying to use the various water treatment methdologies to avoid water changes it only add more complication, steps and equipment required. Based on my experiences not only as an aquarist but having supervised the missile division of a quided missile destroyer and suppervising assembly lines in manufactureing all these additional steps to get around water changes only increase the failure rate.

 

[Timfish]

What I understand about zero discharge is that evaporation is used to separate solids which are later discarded.

Tried reading all those links but way more reading than time or attention span available and what I took away from which I did read being DOC the main concern for which my understanding and approach being that AOP solves that by oxidizing any and all carbon based elements or pollutants. Sponges can perform this as well my understanding.

Goal being the treatment of the same volume of water that would represent a typical WC. For example, if one needs to perform 1% daily WC to solve issues such as coral warfare then how is sterilizing 1% equivalent of tank volume not the same?

Not wiping out pelagic BB and anything that doesn’t replicate on its own just needs to be extracted at the rate added. Latter the mystery calculation because this likely unknown yet if it is accepted that 1% WC solves it for most tanks then I have a baseline to target.

Appreciate all the information but likely beyond my ability to take it all in and digest it fully enough to make sense of it. I’m a big picture guy and try not losing myself in the weeds although often go down that rabbit hole inadvertently

That’s clearer now. No way I’d get that from reading all that literature. I’m finance guy that can interpret annual reports but going to struggle connecting the dots with chemistry or science based papers. Fact is with those I go straight to the conclusion.

Why do you say AOP doesn’t completely oxidize all DOC? Everything I’ve read indicates 100% oxidation of all carbon based matter. I’m no expert but you’d think anything coming in contact with hydroxyl radicals would be oxidized.

You mention it converts some to labile form which is confusing as isn’t that still a carbon based element and wouldn’t OH not be trying to rob its remaking hydrogen? No clue what the chemical makeup of labile is and a word I didn’t know existed before you mentioned it.

In the end. Reefers been using UV-C long before I started this path and use of peroxide or ozone indirectly with it along with live rock harboring sponges since the 80s when I first learned of them and saw them. Are we really having a concern or is this theoretical mongering based on science which although valid has no direct real world mongering?

Ozone cause OPO yet Jay pumps it into a public aquarium absent GAC and daily monitoring shows no real OPO production. In other words. There’s a potential issue that doesn’t necessarily present itself in real world practice.

I’m going to test AOP and hopefully these current and upcoming lab tests can shed some light on what I’m experiencing. Water changes for me not practical considering the dream tank I seek. In the end. I’ll keep that I can keep and worse case setup a smaller reef tank that can be managed with WC.

Still there’s the real world examples of some having success using ICP and trace supplements to forgo water replacement and although not something in practice decades plus that’s only because ICP something new and only time will tell and based on how long they’ve been at it seems I have several years before it impacts me and one might considered that if these issues with recycled water accumulate then perhaps at some point down the road simplest solution is a few large water changes.

Much easier for myself to call a service and have them deliver 200 gallons of fresh salt over a few weekends and effectively do a full tank transfusion then weekly maintenance. Hopefully there’s not some other issue with that. Seems every solution has a side affect.

Transfusions worked for The Rolling Stones and they are still alive after decades of doing that which likely would have killed me long ago

The links I posted in #239 for you to look at shows AOP is only able to to do about 40% of the refractory DOC in a water treatment proces , not "any and all" as you keep repeating.

Here's a diagram from this paper using AOP, As you can see it is converting refractory DOC to labile DOC but is still leaving DOC in the water. It's not removing all the DOC. From what I've seen and read, to use this on a reef system will add a good deal more complexity. I'd be very interested in seeing your solutions and the data showing it's removed DOC.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2666016423001524-ga1_lrg.jpg

 

[GARRIGA]

The links I posted in #239 for you to look at shows AOP is only able to to do about 40% of the refractory DOC in a water treatment proces , not "any and all" as you keep repeating.

Here's a diagram from this paper using AOP, As you can see it is converting refractory DOC to labile DOC but is still leaving DOC in the water. It's not removing all the DOC. From what I've seen and read, to use this on a reef system will add a good deal more complexity. I'd be very interested in seeing your solutions and the data showing it's removed DOC.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2666016423001524-ga1_lrg.jpg

Could that be just a one off unique to what was being treated? All the extensive research I’ve done point to 100% oxidation of all carbon based and first I read of less being from what you mentioned yet fundamentally doesn’t make sense.