Micro bubbles scrubbing DT

[Cruz_Arias]

But it does... by introducing air (low in CO2) into a water column that is typically saturated with CO2 you can increase your pH.

I have seen pH level that are depressed (around pH 7.6 7.8) though their alkalinity levels are in the 8.6 to 9.0dKH range...

That correlation between pH and Carbonates dKH can be linearized if CO2 is diminished or absent...

If a system is well oxygenated and running a dKH of around 8.2, the pH correlation to that Alk level should be 8.3.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses/OCN623/Spring2012/CO2pH.pdf

No other way to say it: The first article you linked does not in any way show any sort of proof. It links a study done by a Stanford Oceanography team that was specific to an acidic environment, (of which we are not dealing with in our systems) which correlates to the bubbles' beneficial effects secondary to a rise in ph by eliminating C02. Which supports Randy's pH article, but does not correlate to your argument.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

As more CO2 is driven off the SOLUBILITY of available carbonates increase... pH is driven back up to normalized and the Cal Alk Mag levels are normalized as well...

Driving off CO2 and degassing other metabolic waste gases increases not only the viability and health of an enclosed system such as the reef tank but also stabilizes the water chemistry of the reef ecosystem.

 

[n4s]

Does anyone know if the micro bubbles will harm beneficial sponges? Anyone using it notice a change in their sponge population?

 

[ca1ore]

Predictability? sheesh...
Insults, only if it's true, correct?

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/protecting-coral-reefs-bubbles
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2004.00393.x/full
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/eb/index.php (from my friend, Eric Borneman's file)
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6/do-skimmers-produce-oxygen-127915.html (Borrowed from many years ago about the same argument)

Skimmers and agitation only bring in the surrounding air and dissolves it into the water... in order to increase O2 levels, you will need to bring air in with a lower CO2 concentration... hence fresh air from outside...

If you live outside with your tank, then you don't have to worry about bubbling...

OK, so now we're getting somewhere. The 'problem' with the CO2 argument is that the amount of it in the water is not based just on diffusion from the air - some of it comes from biological processes. Even in a closed environment with an elevated CO2 level, agitation of the water can reduce it (measured via pH). The use of external air to a skimmer or as the source of the scrubbing bubbles can further reduce CO2, though the net benefit depends on how much CO2 is reabsorbed by the open surfaces of the tank. In my case, for example, running a fresh air line to the scrubber made essentially no difference. Ventilating the sump room did, but that's not practical for the hottest and coldest months. The 'reason' it made no difference to my system is that I run very high flow and have too many exposed water surfaces. Any benefit fresh air to the skimmer might provide is swamped by the air/water interface of the tank. It's just hard for me to reconcile the claim that misting the tank periodically with fine bubbles is going to magically offset all those other absorption opportunities. That dog don't hunt.

I would also note that the Stanford article you linked (the most credible IMO) uses the word 'could' ..... repeatedly. Since the CO2 levels on the wild reefs come from elevated atmospheric levels (90% of the CO2 we dopey humans have produced gets absorbed into the oceans), it is not clear to me, in that case, how bubbling using that same air is going to help. I don't doubt that proper aeration of CO2 laden water will drive out said CO2, but only if it exceeds the partial pressure in the air. I just cannot see how, in a properly circulated tank, the incremental addition of scrubbing bubbles would do anything.

I see no reason to debate this further. I have clearly shown I think the whole notion is horse crap; you not. Time shall be the arbiter. I suppose we are all slaves, to one degree of another, to dogmatic views.

 

[KJAG]

Yes. We know.


Proof.... as in relation to support of your argument pertaining to air stones in use in our aquariums. Not acidic oceans and how injecting microbubbles will raise the pH.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Non sequitur argument of a Skeptic... Typical.

OK, so now we're getting somewhere. The 'problem' with the CO2 argument is that the amount of it in the water is not based just on diffusion from the air - some of it comes from biological processes. Even in a closed environment with an elevated CO2 level, agitation of the water can reduce it (measured via pH). The use of external air to a skimmer or as the source of the scrubbing bubbles can further reduce CO2, though the net benefit depends on how much CO2 is reabsorbed by the open surfaces of the tank. In my case, for example, running a fresh air line to the scrubber made essentially no difference. Ventilating the sump room did, but that's not practical for the hottest and coldest months. The 'reason' it made no difference to my system is that I run very high flow and have too many exposed water surfaces. Any benefit fresh air to the skimmer might provide is swamped by the air/water interface of the tank. It's just hard for me to reconcile the claim that misting the tank periodically with fine bubbles is going to magically offset all those other absorption opportunities. That dog don't hunt.

I would also note that the Stanford article you linked (the most credible IMO) uses the word 'could' ..... repeatedly. Since the CO2 levels on the wild reefs come from elevated atmospheric levels (90% of the CO2 we dopey humans have produced gets absorbed into the oceans), it is not clear to me, in that case, how bubbling using that same air is going to help. I don't doubt that proper aeration of CO2 laden water will drive out said CO2, but only if it exceeds the partial pressure in the air. I just cannot see how, in a properly circulated tank, the incremental addition of scrubbing bubbles would do anything.

I see no reason to debate this further. I have clearly shown I think the whole notion is horse crap; you not. Time shall be the arbiter. I suppose we are all slaves, to one degree of another, to dogmatic views.

 

[ca1ore]

I dont consider "many hobbyists," trying something to be an acceptable reference to a viable source of scientific proof. Look at the metronidazole dino thread. Or purple up. Or the eco-aqualizer.

That gave me a laugh! The history of this hobby is littered with new sets of clothes for the emperor. I don't think I can recall a single 'it's the greatest thing ever' that actually was.

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

I would also like to see scientific data proving the observations and visible benefits are not valid...

Observation is part of the scientific methodology... if you'd like to afford a grant to have studies done, such as they had at Standford University, then sure, I'd love to make time. I do bill out at $150/hour.

This is not how science works. A researcher, team or lab develops a hypothesis, they create a methodology to eliminate as many variables as possible to test their hypothesis, they repeat to make sure they get the same results, and they publish their results, along with the methods used, so others can test. The scientific community is then free to critique the results or to replicate them to prove that both the method and science are accurate. Observation is part of the scientific process, but nobody observes a result and calls it quits without quantifying the observation with data, as well as repeating the results with multiple controlled experiments to ensure that the results weren't an anomaly.

I'm sure you know of Elegant Corals... that's the proof.

So far you have linked to several papers and articles to "prove" your case. One article was about nanobubbles and growth of mice, plants and sweetfish. Another was about skimmers and the oxygenation they may or may not provide. Another claimed that some coral reefs in the Pacific would benefit from air bubblers because the currents that provide them with water often carry water that is not oxygenated very well. Another discusses oxygen in general in reef tanks, the solubility of oxygen at different salinities and temperatures and hypoxia in corals. You then mention a specific aquarist's tank and anecdotal observations they noticed when they did a specific thing.

Your claim is very specific: that taking outside air and bubbling it into a captive reef aquarium has measurable benefits. These are all fine articles and videos you share, but none of them address the claims you make, even anecdotally. None of them provide a framework for testing the claims you make. None of them share the results of testing the claims you make.

 

[ca1ore]

Non sequitur argument of a Skeptic... Typical.

LOL, well you posted those links. I cannot help that they don't apparently pertain to the point you were trying to make. Pictures?

 

[Scott Campbell]

I'm not even sure that's true (point me to the basis for your claim) given the affinity of proteins to the air/water interface; however, even if it is true, my point is that in a properly circulated tank, oxygen saturation is reached and no amount of exorcized bubblers is going to make a difference. I measured O2 levels in my tank a few year sago with skimmer on and off, and no difference.

This is a good article - http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-08/eb/index.php

Of particular relevance is the following paragraph from that article:

Tank 1 Discussion

The ten-gallon tank containing clownfish has been set up as an unskimmed system with what I consider to be an average stocking density of organisms for a tank of its size. I had assumed (wrongfully) that oxygen was maintained at high levels through the use of two powerheads that agitated the water's surface. However, once the lights went out and photosynthesis stopped, oxygen levels dropped quickly from a high of 78.7% of saturation to a hypoxic low of 16% of saturation. The levels were apparently low enough that each night, the clownfish would leave their anemone and adopt a position just under the water's surface directly above a powerhead. Out of concern, I then monitored the changes in oxygen levels at night using an airstone. Oxygen rose quickly and dramatically. At that point, I added a skimmer to the tank, with the result that oxygen is now maintained at much higher levels, ranging from a high of 130% of saturation to a low of 81.2% of saturation. However, it is only when the lights come on that oxygen reaches saturation or becomes supersaturated. It is notable that there appears to be a period early in the day when oxygen levels are maximal, with a depression to slightly subsaturated levels over the course of the afternoon. Also notable is a slight, but noticeable, drop in oxygen immediately after feeding. This measurement has been made repeatedly and is consistent.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

I just did... the smaller and finer the bubbles and the longer the dwell time, the better the gas to liquid interface.
A skimmer is not enough on many occasions.

For instance, in a skimmer you are protein fractionating and removing beneficial bacteria from the water column. With the addition of another mean of gas exchange, you can turn off the skimmer and retain the bacterial population in the water column and in effect increase the bacterial population without in advertently skimming it out.

The additional bubbles also act as a detritus transport mechanism in that the nano/microbubbles are electronegatively charged which allows for better attraction and stiction of detritus particles to the very fine bubbles... this will carry the particulates to the skimmer/refugium to be processed or digested.

Thirdly, the stimulation of the corals to produce and release excess mucus allows for the coral membranes to be more permeable to environmental nutrients and gas exchange.

Yes. We know.


Proof.... as in relation to support of your argument pertaining to air stones in use in our aquariums. Not acidic oceans and how injecting microbubbles will raise the pH.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

LOL, well you posted those links. I cannot help that they don't apparently pertain to the point you were trying to make. Pictures?

I was actually agreeing with you... the point is moot... you have your views... I have mine.

Many hobbyists who run this method swear by it... great... they see benefits, great... pH is more stable, higher clarity in water, better coloration in corals, whatever the cause...

The only similarity is that they are running the method separately in different locations around the world and seeing similar if not the same results... and this "experiment" has been going on for an extremely long time since the 1990s...

Published then... published in 2004 by E. Borneman... re-visited by the Japanese at around the same time for environmental remediation in their harbors... and then reintroduced again by Elegant Corals in 2014...

If this topic has been repeated multiple times with different methods, there definitely is viability in this methodology or application.

 

[ca1ore]

I'm sure you know of Elegant Corals... that's the proof.

Ah, you made me snort coffee through my nose. Surely you mean Elegant Corals the world class institute of marine researchers versus Elegant Corals the online retailer?

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Ah, you made me snort coffee through my nose. Surely you mean Elegant Corals the world class institute of marine researchers versus Elegant Corals the online retailer?

No... LOL as you have see our corals... our systems...

That comment there just made me literally LOL... Thanks for that!

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Here's a nice calculator to show that many reefers in this hobby are in fact running CO2 burdened systems and that the need for additional aeration and degassing is needed...

For ease of conversion:
50 ppm (mg/l) = 1 meq/l = 2.8 dKH
So 1 dKH = about 17.9 ppm CaCO3

https://pentairaes.com/co2-calculator

Any value of CO2 greater than zero shows that pH is being affected by the redissolving of Carbon Dioxide back into the water column.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As more CO2 is driven off the SOLUBILITY of available carbonates increase... pH is driven back up to normalized and the Cal Alk Mag levels are normalized as well...

It is not true that the solubility of carbonates increases as CO2 is removed. Why do you claim it is?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Any value of CO2 greater than zero shows that pH is being affected by the redissolving of Carbon Dioxide back into the water column.

lol

Curious that entering values for water that is clearly deficient in CO2 (NSW at pH 8.5) gives a value bigger than zero.

You might to check into what this calculator actually does.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In general, folks promoting this method would be much better off in touting demonstrated benefits than in trying to explain them with science that is not correct.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

LOL Randy Randy Randy.

So all practical instances in water treatment, you're stating that you know more than the water processing engineers. Strange how CO2 affects carbonate solubility and availability in water and you deny that fact.
Higher CO2 affects calcification by limiting bio available carbonates and affects pH.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Co2 doesn't affect carbonate solubility and bio-availability? SERIOUSLY, Randy.