ORP Redox Potential ???

[fullmonti]

I had ask a question about UV sterilizers & was given a link to an article about them. Among other things it spoke about Redox Potential & ORP, ORP I had heard of but no one around here really understood it well enough to explain it, Redox never heard of before. The article had obviously been written by a scientist who knew what he was talking about. BUT could some one please explain these things in a way that some one who is NOT a scientist, biologist or chemist could understand? Thank You in advance

[Billybeau1]

The term Redox is a shortcut for the work Reduction. ORP stands for Oxidation Reduction Potential.

Some say ORP is an indicator of the balance of oxidation and reduction reactions taking place in seawater.

Others say that ORP measures the tanks ability to process decaying organic material which requires oxygen to process. The more oxidative power the water has, the better it will be able to deal with organic material.

Either way, in this day and age, it appears the only benefit to using ozone is water clarity. And to use ozone, you should monitor ORP.

Due to the advent of super skimmers and all that good stuff, not much of a benefit does running ozone give to the aquarist other than that.

That's pretty simple huh ? :)

[fullmonti]

OK if this was covered in high school science class I must have been sleeping. So forgive the dumb questions pls. I know when aluminum oxidizes it gets a chalky film on it. When you refer to oxidation in a tank what are you referring to? And reduction reaction???

Sorry I'm playing catchup on the tech end of reefing

And I almost forgot the original question was about UV sterilizers, & how effective they might be in helping rid a tank of algae, & would they zap good stuff in the process? Though this might not be the time to get into that?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I doubt a UV has too much impact on ORP.

Here's a description of what ORP is, both simplified and technical:

ORP and the Reef Aquarium
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/rhf/feature/index.php

the simplified one:

Simplified ORP

Imagine a reef aquarium as a vast battlefield. No, more vast. Much, much more. OK, that's ORP. That is, ORP is a measure of who is winning and who is losing the battle. The battle is never won by one side or the other. As an aquarist, you do not want it to be, or else everything in the tank would be dead. In other situations, such as the purification of tap water for drinking, allowing the oxidizers to win is fine. A high enough ORP (650+ mv) can kill most bacteria in a few seconds.

On one side of this aquarium battle there are the oxidizers. They all want to get electrons, and they rip them off of the bodies of the enemy. The foot soldiers of the oxidizers are oxygen molecules (O2). Did I say the battle is vast? On one day last week, there were 342,418,226,849,748,675,496,726 of these little guys roaming my aquarium, looking for action. Some of these are paratroopers, arriving at the aquarium out of the air. Others are made in secret labs, otherwise known as photosynthetic organisms such as many corals and algae.

Unfortunately, despite their vast numbers, the oxygen molecules are not very effective fighters. In many cases, they can swarm all over the enemy and still not prevail. The true leaders of the oxidizers are far less numerous, but considerably more potent fighters. These include ozone (O3), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), triplet oxygen (3O2), and a variety of oxygen radicals, some with such inspiring names such as superoxide radical (O2-). They also include chlorine (Cl2) and chloramine (NH2Cl). It turns out that oxygen molecules (O2) can occasionally morph into some of these better fighters (such as hydrogen peroxide), sometimes all on their own, but most frequently when they get blasted with UV light.

The oxidizers also have other types of fighters. Some are present at very low concentration, but are so sensitive to the state of the battle, that one can gauge the battle by how many of them are left standing at any given point in time. Metals, for example, such as iron (as ferric ion, Fe+++) can serve this purpose. The other oxidizers also include anions such as hypochlorite (ClO-), iodate (IO3-) and nitrate (NO3-), among a host of others.

On the other side are the reducers. The reducers all want to get rid of electrons, and they virtually throw them at the oxidizers. Many of these are organic molecules. They are not as numerous as the oxidizers, but many are much larger. Some are more than 10,000 times as large as an oxygen molecule. So they can make up for low numbers with pure brawn. That is not to say that the reducers do not have small but potent soldiers. The antioxidant vitamins, like vitamin C, for example, are small but extremely potent reducing agents. The reducers also number on their side some inorganic compounds, such as ammonia, iodide, and a really nasty fellow, sulfide.

The reducers come from fish food, metabolic waste products, the breakdown of dead organisms, and certain additives put into the aquarium (e.g., iron supplements that contain ferrous ion). The surfaces of most organisms themselves enter the fray as reducers, waiting to be oxidized by the enemy.

Interestingly, most soldiers on both sides are suicide attackers. Oxygen, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide are all destroyed when they react with a reducer. While not strictly suicidal, most organics are heavily damaged by oxidizer attacks, and are slowly degraded, eventually ending up as carbon dioxide if oxidized enough. They tend to be found in areas that the oxidizers hate; that is, in areas of low oxygen. Yet, the reducers are also sneaky, and even manage to get their hands inside cells (even finding positions in photosynthesis itself).

So Where Does ORP Fit Into All This?

ORP is a measure of the relative fighting ability of the oxidizers and the reducers. Think of the surface of the ORP electrode as a surface that these various fighters are hurling themselves against for practice. If there are lots of potent oxidizers around, and not so many reducers, ORP rises because the electrode senses more oxidizing "power" in solution. Likewise, ORP drops if it senses more reducing power in solution.

The exact value reported by an ORP electrode is, consequently, a constantly varying number that represents the ebb and flow of the battle. If you add oxidizers to the aquarium (ozone, permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, etc.) then the ORP rises. Alternatively, if you add a lot of organic molecules to the solution, or restrict the oxygen supply, the ORP drops.

What about pH? pH can impact the ORP readings in aquaria. Often, ORP goes down as pH rises. A typical aquarium ORP reading will change on the order of 59 mv/pH unit. The easiest way to understand this is to simply think of pH as a measure of hydrogen ions (H+) in solution, and to think of H+ as being on the side of the oxidizers. In reality, H+ doesn't usually oxidize things itself (though it can), but more typically it can hype up other oxidizers, like oxygen, making them much more potent. So during the course of a 24-hour day in a reef aquarium, ORP will vary as pH and O2 also vary.

Is ORP a useful measure? That is, should aquarists really care how this incredible battle is going? To some extent, yes. If the oxidizers carry the day, the ORP would rise to the point where the organic molecules that represent the bodies of organisms would be burned away. If the reducers won outright, the ORP would drop below 0 mv. In that case, there would be little oxygen left, and toxic hydrogen sulfide would rule the aquarium. In either case, the aquarium would be a disaster.

So aquarists have to hope for, and to some extent maintain, this battle in a sort of middle ground. That middle ground is typically described as being between 200 and 500 mv. Most aquarium authors have recommended a range of 300-450 mV. Why? Mostly because the ocean often has ORP in this range, and because these authors have successfully operated aquaria in this range.

HOWEVER, there is a significant potential to misunderstand cause and effect with ORP. If a crappy looking tank that is overrun by algae has a low ORP, is the low ORP the cause of the algae, or is the algae the cause of the low ORP? Or are both simply the byproduct of some other process? Does artificially raising ORP by adding an oxidizer like ozone actually improve anything? The answers are not obvious. These and other related questions will be addressed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this article that go into the scientific details surrounding ORP in aquaria.

Most reef aquarists, aside from those that use ozone and must therefore monitor ORP to prevent overdosing, use ORP to monitor if anything unusual happens in the aquarium. A sudden drop in ORP, for example, suggests that the reducers are suddenly gaining ground. That might be because a gush of organic molecules has been released from a dead organism, or because the oxygen supply is not keeping up with demand for some reason. Aquarists might use such information like an alarm suggesting the tank needs to be looked at closely. Most aquarists do not target any specific ORP value as being optimal, in part because ORP measurement is subject to considerable potential error.

So is ORP measurement and control recommended for nonscientists who also happen to be reef aquarists? My suggestion is no. There are interesting things to learn by measuring ORP, and I recommend that everyone with any interest read the following sections to better understand it and decide for themselves if it is worth doing or not. Nevertheless, I have not measured ORP in my aquarium for years, despite having the tools at hand. It is simply not very high on the list of things that one can usefully do to maintain a high quality reef aquarium, in my opinion.

[fullmonti]

WOW
That was a really long answer, BUT it did explain what goes on very well. Thank YOU!!!

One part of keeping a reef tank has been like going to photo school. When I started out I thought I knew a little some thing about it. Then the more I learned, the more I realize I had a lot more to learn.

A little peace ocean in your living room is a wonderful & beautiful thing. While it didn't appear a simple thing to do, it is proving to be a very complex system to fully understand.
Working on it!

Thanks again

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You're welcome.

Happy Reefing. :)

[Nanook]

Hoowah!!

[seafloor09]

Either way, in this day and age, it appears the only benefit to using ozone is water clarity.

Can you explain what that statement is based on?

[wooden_reefer]

I had ask a question about UV sterilizers & was given a link to an article about them. Among other things it spoke about Redox Potential & ORP, ORP I had heard of but no one around here really understood it well enough to explain it, Redox never heard of before. The article had obviously been written by a scientist who knew what he was talking about. BUT could some one please explain these things in a way that some one who is NOT a scientist, biologist or chemist could understand? Thank You in advance

When a chemical species accepts electron, it is reduced. The species that donates the electron is oxidized.

An oxidizing agent is itself reduced.

ORP is the aggregate prevailing "tendency" for oxidation or reduction of all species in solution.

Oxygen is the most common oxidizing agent, so the degree of oxygenation has a profound influence on ORP.

[Billybeau1]

Can you explain what that statement is based on?

My statement is based on everything I have read about ozone to date.

If you can tell me what else ozone does to a reef aquarium, i'd like to here it. :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Either way, in this day and age, it appears the only benefit to using ozone is water clarity.
Can you explain what that statement is based on?

I review the effects of ozone here, and IMO, the only one most reefers experiences is less yellowing of the water. That's the only reason I use it.

Ozone and the Reef Aquarium, Part 1: Chemistry and Biochemistry
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php

Ozone and the Reef Aquarium, Part 2: Equipment and Safety
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/rhf/index.php

Ozone and the Reef Aquarium, Part 3: Changes in a Reef Aquarium upon Initiating Ozone
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/rhf/index.php

[seafloor09]

Randy I assume those were your articles, well done but on first blush what I see as possible flaw is your section on ORP.

Using ozone thru a skimmer is not as efficient as a reactor.

That could have been done.

Your level of 300-330 was a bit low to fully asertain the effects of ozone.

Was it not possible with the equip you used to reach those levels?

Only one brand American Marine was used along with one probe, hardly enough of a control.

Ozone used correctly does a hech of a lot more than clear the water, IMO

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ozone used correctly does a hech of a lot more than clear the water, IMO

FWIW, the sections on what it can do were not primarily from my experiences, but rather from the literature and what levels and times it takes to do certain things.

Obviously it CAN do more, with enough ozone and a long enough contact time. Like sterilize the water passing through a good reactor. But very, very few reefers have long enough contact times for that.

Any other effect you think reefers experience?

[seafloor09]

Why didn't you say that to begin with, you throw a lot of people off to the use of ozone with your other post.

[seafloor09]

The use of ozone has long been a standard practice in industrial and public water purification plants, and large scale public aquarium filtration, as one of the best and most efficient means to increase water quality.
One of the biggest problems to overcome in these closed water systems is the accumulation of dissolved organic waste from various biological sources such as animal waste and decomposing food and plant material.

Ozone helps in the eliminations of wastes that the aquatic inhabitants will produce. It oxidizes the pollutants in the tank and brings them to a form from which they can be discarded properly.

Ozone is also a disinfecting agent. Since it can combat with most pathogens,

Ozone enhances the quality of the water. Ozone is a fresh gas, present in the higher realms of the atmosphere where it is purer. The same kind of purity is brought into the reef tank when ozone is used in it. Ozonized water is odorless, colorless and tasteless.

Ozone does not leave chemical wastes in the water when it is passed through it. That means, when water is ozonized, there will be effectively less amount of wastes and chemical discharges into the water.

Ask the curators of public aquariums what they use.


Shall I continue?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Why didn't you say that to begin with, you throw a lot of people off to the use of ozone with your other post.

Not sure what you mean. I posted the effect that most reefers can expect from ozone, and not other effects (good or bad) that I do not believe they will experience. The only reason to use it in a reef, IMO, is to keep the water from yellowing. If you have a different opinion on why to use it, just post it. :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The use of ozone has long been a standard practice in industrial and public water purification plants, and large scale public aquarium filtration, as one of the best and most efficient means to increase water quality.

Absolutely it works welll in those settings with different systems than reefers use to kill bacteria, which is hugely important in many seetings.

One of the biggest problems to overcome in these closed water systems is the accumulation of dissolved organic waste from various biological sources such as animal waste and decomposing food and plant material.

The effect of ozone on organics is very complex, and I go into it in great detail in the first ozone article above. That said, my review of the literature in that area would seem to say the effect is not so clear as you suggest. If you have actual data, I'd love to see it. From it:

"The oxidation of organics is, it turns out, the primary reason that reef aquarists use ozone because it is the organic material in seawater that causes clarity and color issues. Its impact on organic materials is also why ozonation impacts skimming. While most organic compounds that are exposed to enough ozone for a long enough period will be oxidized in some way, some are very much more sensitive than others. In fact, at the levels of ozone attained in a typical reef aquarium contact chamber (less than about 0.3 ppm ozone) or even disinfection applications where the doses are much higher, the total dissolved carbon does not appreciably change during the ozone exposure (although it may later if bacteria find the newly oxidized organics more bioavailable; see below).

In a marine mammal pool,18 for example, it was found that disinfection with 4 ppm ozone with a 30 minute contact time (a disinfection level much higher than is typically used in reef aquaria) did not reduce the pool's total organic carbon (TOC) (~13 ppm TOC), while the use of granular activated carbon (GAC) did reduce it by 37%. Interestingly, the combination of ozone and GAC was even more effective, removing 60-78% of the TOC, suggesting that the ozonation may have altered some of the molecules in a way that made them bind more strongly (or more rapidly) to GAC. An alternative explanation that cannot be ruled out involves biological transformations of the organic compounds taking place on the GAC surface as it became colonized with bacteria)."

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ozone is also a disinfecting agent. Since it can combat with most pathogens,

I address that in great detail too, and disagree that typical reefers expereicne such an effect:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php#13
Reducing Bacteria When Using Ozone



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bacteria and other organisms suspended in water can be killed by adequate exposure to ozone. That process is widely used to disinfect drinking water and wastewater in a variety of applications. The doses and exposures of ozone required for disinfection, however, are quite high. They are higher than are used in reef aquarium applications, where typical doses of ozone range up to about 0.3 ppm in typical contact chambers, and last for only a few seconds. Consequently, aquarists must be careful when translating disinfection literature to reef aquarium effects.

In a recent study of a recirculating seawater system,35 the dosing of 0.52 ppm of ozone was tested for its ability to decrease the system's bacterial load. That dose is similar to a 300 mg/hr ozone unit applied to a typical small skimmer flow rate of 150 gallons per hour (568 L/h). In this experiment, the levels of suspended bacteria (both Vibrio and coliform) were analyzed in a variety of locations (intake, pre-ozone, post-ozone, pre-tank, and post-tank). In no case was there a statistically significant reduction in bacteria. Even the addition of a venturi injector to the contact chamber did not adequately help (although it trended toward fewer bacteria, the result was not statistically significant). For comparison purposes, at higher ozone concentrations and contact times (5.3 ppm ozone for 240 minutes), Vibrio vulnificus is easily killed, with fewer than one in a hundred million of the initial bacteria remaining.36

How much ozone, and for how long, is required to kill suspended organisms in seawater? In one study of a suspended dinoflagellate algae (Amphidinium sp. isolated from Australia's Great Barrier Reef), it was found that 5-11 ppm ozone for six hours of exposure was required to kill 99.99% of the organisms.37 While that kill rate is impressive, that exposure is far higher than is ever achieved in a reef aquarium application. Lower doses and shorter contact times had smaller effects. A dose of 2 ppm and a short contact time (with the time not stated in the paper) showed a reduction in bacteria of abut 98% (which is still quite significant, but would not be referred to as disinfection).

Similar results were found for the spores of the bacterium Bacillus subtilis.38 In this case, doses of 14 ppm ozone for 24 hours were required to kill 99.99 percent of the spores. In another study 99.9% of fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci and total coliforms were killed with 10 ppm ozone and a contact time of 10 minutes.39 The exposure of Vibrio species and Fusarium solani (bacteria that are pathogenic to shrimp) to 3 ppm ozone for five minutes killed 99.9% of the bacteria.40 Water from a seawater swimming pool was effectively sterilized using 0.5-1.0 ppm ozone in a contact tower.41

The data for the disinfection of freshwater systems are much more extensive, and so include more data at lower contact times and concentrations. In one experiment at a Rainbow trout hatchery, the addition of 1-1.3 ppm of ozone with a contact time of 35 seconds reduced heterotrophic bacteria in the aquarium water itself by about 40-90%.42

Does the ozone used in a typical reef aquarium application reduce bacteria? Maybe, but certainly not to the extent required for disinfection. Still, a reduction of 50% of the living bacteria could have significant effects. The above study in the trout hatchery showed that the use of ozone at several times the typical reef aquarium rate and for about five to ten times the typical contact time results in such a drop. While the data are unavailable, I expect that the bacteria in the water exiting a normal reef aquarium's ozone application are not decreased by as much as 50%.

It seem reasonable to conclude from such literature studies that most bacteria that enter the ozone reaction chamber in a typical reef aquarium application will not be killed by ozone or its byproducts. If killing bacteria in the water column is a goal, then a UV (ultraviolet) sterilizer may be more useful.

Reducing Other Pathogens When Using Ozone



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been extensive analysis of the amount of ozone needed to kill the human pathogen Cryptosporidia parvum in freshwater. Most such studies are looking for significant disinfection, but some data points show the effects at lower doses and contact times, and some researchers have developed models that suggest the amount of killing at any dose/time combination.43 For example, at 22° C approximately 63% of the organisms would be expected to be killed at 1 ppm ozone with a contact time of one minute. The contact times and concentrations are inversely related, so at a contact time of six seconds, the required dose to kill 63% is on the order of 10 ppm ozone. At 0.3 ppm ozone and a six second contact time, typical for the high end of reef ozone applications, less than 5% of the organisms would be expected to be killed.

Many viruses are much easier to inactivate with ozone than are other pathogens.44 Enteric adenovirus, for example, is inactivated to the extent of 99.8% after exposure to 0.5 ppm for 15 seconds.44 Feline calicivirus is inactivated to the extent of 98.6% after exposure to 0.06 ppm for 15 seconds.44 Poliovirus type 1 was inactivated to 99% within 30 seconds of contact time at 0.15 ppm ozone.45 Hepatitis A virus was inactivated to the extent of 99.999% within one minute at 1 ppm ozone.46 Norwalk virus was inactivated by 99.9% in 10 seconds of contact at 0.37 ppm ozone.47 Adenovirus type 2 was inactivated by 99.99% by 0.2 ppm ozone with a contact time of about one minute.48

The eggs of a pathogenic helminth (Ascaris suum) were killed to the extent of 90% by exposure to 3.5-4.7 ppm ozone for one hour. One additional hour of exposure killed the remainder.49

It seems reasonable to conclude from such literature studies that many viruses that enter the ozone reaction chamber in a typical reef aquarium application may be killed by ozone or its byproducts. Larger pathogens, however, are likely much more resistant to ozone, and are unlikely to be killed. For such ends, a UV sterilizer may be more useful, but still may not be completely effective.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ozone enhances the quality of the water. Ozone is a fresh gas, present in the higher realms of the atmosphere where it is purer. The same kind of purity is brought into the reef tank when ozone is used in it. Ozonized water is odorless, colorless and tasteless.

That is meaningless nonsense, IMO. It sounds like a marketing line with no way to debate it as the words do not convey anything clear. You don't sell such equipment, do you?

At the very least, you'd have to define what you mean by quality and fresh. You'd also want to understand the difference between sterilizing applications performed by fresh water suppply companies, and the use in a reef tank.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ozone does not leave chemical wastes in the water when it is passed through it. That means, when water is ozonized, there will be effectively less amount of wastes and chemical discharges into the water.

That is simply incorrect. Ozone leaves terrible toxic compounds in seawater if you are not careful to remove them with activated carbon.. I detail them here:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php#15

Toxicity of Ozone Produced Oxidants (OPOs)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two sorts of toxicity studies of ozone produced oxidants (OPOs, such as bromate, hypobromous acid, etc.) are relevant to reef aquarists. The first involves the testing of seawater that has been exposed to ozone, and the second involves the testing of specific compounds dissolved in seawater that are known to form when using ozone. Most of the OPOs are unstable, and so have few or no specific toxicity studies. Bromate (BrO3-) is the notable exception, and its toxicity is examined in the next section.

Much of the study of OPOs stems from applications slightly different from aquaria, and such studies must be viewed in that light. Often they relate to aquaculture facilities, where ozone is used at high doses to sterilize the water. Other studies are done on the disinfection of wastewater using ozone, another high dose application. Bear in mind that OPOs in reef aquarium applications will be at a maximum of about 0.3 ppm in typical reaction chambers, and will be lower (hopefully, much lower) once the water passes over activated carbon (assuming it does) and finally enters the aquarium. The concentration of OPO is always given in terms of the weight of ozone that produces that amount of oxidant.

In terms of the toxicity of ozonated seawater itself, one group concluded that fish were relatively insensitive to OPOs:

"Ozonation of estuarine or marine waters can produce significant amount of bromate…Toxicity studies showed that the concentrations of bromate which theoretically could be formed in an ozonated discharge were not toxic to the early life stages of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and juvenile spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)."50

Larvae are, in general, more sensitive to OPOs than are eggs,51 adults or juveniles.52 Japanese flounder eggs were found to be impacted by OPOs to the extent that 50% did not hatch after one minute of exposure to 2.2 ppm OPO. Larvae aged 3-15 days were killed to the extent of 50% in 24 hours at 0.02-0.05 ppm OPO. Larvae aged 44 days were killed to the extent of 50% in 24 hours at 0.15 ppm OPO. In this case, the larvae were shown to have damage to their branchial tissues.53

The eggs and larvae of Japanese whiting (Silago japonica) also have been tested for toxicity by OPOs. In this case, half of the eggs and larvae died in about 24 hours when exposed to 0.18 and 0.23 ppm OPOs, respectively.54

Certain microalgae are also relatively insensitive to OPOs (perhaps to the disappointment of many aquarists). The growth of the microalgae Tetraselmis chuii was found to be unaffected at levels up to 0.7 ppm.55 At 1 ppm, growth was impacted negatively.

Toxicity tests of OPOs on shrimp show them to be less sensitive than fish. Penaeus chinensis and Paralichthys olivaceus were found to live up to 48 hours at OPO concentrations of more than 1 ppm, while Bastard halibut (fish) in the same study lived only three hours at 1 ppm and 48 hours at 0.13 ppm.56

As for other organisms, the damage to the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) by OPOs varied with their age. Even for adults, fecal matter accumulation was reduced at OPO levels as low as 0.05 ppm.57

The effect of OPOs on rotifers (Brachionus plicatilis) has also been determined.58 No effect on survival was seen at less than 0.22 ppm OPO, but effects became significant above that level. The authors point out that bacteria and other pathogens can be killed at that level, so rotifer cultures can be used with that amount of continuous ozone to reduce bacterial contamination.

Are these levels of OPO toxicity important to reef aquarists? That is difficult to answer without knowing the levels that are attained in reef aquaria. In a typical ozone application in reef aquaria that might produce 0.1-0.3 ppm OPO in a reaction chamber, the levels are quite significant compared to potential toxicity to fish larvae and other organisms at as little as 0.02-0.05 ppm. After passing the reactor's effluent over activated carbon, the OPO concentrations should be much lower, but exactly how low is unclear and will vary considerably in different setups.

Toxicity of Bromate



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The toxicity of ozone and bromate at "natural" levels in the ocean has been assessed and usually found to be minimal.59 Few studies have examined the toxicity of excess bromate itself to marine organisms.60 One review article concluded:

"Bromate toxicity tests on marine animals indicate the levels of bromate produced by chlorination or ozonation of power plant cooling waters are not acutely toxic. The LC50 ranged from 30 ppm bromate for Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, larva to several hundred ppm for fish, shrimp and clams."9

One individual study showed that Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) had abnormal larval development at bromate levels of 30-300 ppm.61,62 Fertilized eggs of the oyster Crassostrea virginica were killed at 1 ppm.63 The clams Protothaca staminea (littleneck) and Macoma inquinata (bent-nosed) were killed by 880 ppm.64 The marine dinoflagellate Glenodinium halli showed changes in population growth at 16 ppm.65 The marine microalgae Isochrysis galbana showed changes in population growth at 8 ppm.65 The marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) showed changes in population growth at 0.125 to 16 ppm.65 The marine diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana showed changes in population growth at 16 ppm.65 The salmon Oncorhynchus keta was killed at 500 ppm and the perch Cymatogaster aggregata at 880 ppm.64 Two shrimp (Pandalus danae and Neomysis awatschensis) were killed at 880 and 176 ppm, respectively.64

Are these levels of toxicity important to reef aquarists? That is difficult to answer without knowing the levels that are attained in typical reef aquaria. The one study in the literature of bromate in a seawater aquarium, described above, showed the accumulation of up to 0.6 ppm bromate, although that was an application in which ozone was used for disinfection, so it was used at high doses. That level is high enough, however, to cause toxicity to certain organisms, but not others. In a typical reef aquarium ozone application, the bromate in the aquarium water is likely to be much lower. How much lower will likely depend on the way it is used, especially the dose and whether it is passed over activated carbon before entering the aquarium. It may also depend on the other husbandry practices used in the aquarium, because some procedures (such as denitrification) may reduce bromate levels. In any case, the potential toxicity data for bromate support the practice of using activated carbon after ozone exposure.

[seafloor09]

[B] You don't sell such equipment, do you?

.

So I don't agree with your regurgitated data I'm an ozone dealer, give me a break.

Keep your head in the sand just don't ask others to do the same or follow your incorrect analysis of ozone.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So I don't agree with your regurgitated data I'm an ozone dealer, give me a break.

Keep your head in the sand just don't ask others to do the same or follow your incorrect analysis of ozone.


:lol:

Head in sand? :lol:
Regurgitated data? :lol:

I read the scientific literature and talked to many, many aquariasts very carefully before forming any opinion on ozone. Have you read the scientific literature on ozone? Or are you maybe just repeating something you heard somewhere that sounds good to you?

Sorry, that is not the way the reef chemistry forum works. We focus on science and data and facts. Your only fact relating to aqauria is that lots of public aquaria use ozone. Ever talked to someone in charge at a public aquarium about how and why they use ozone?

I use ozone too. Does that mean I think it does the things you claim?

Do you use ozone?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So I don't agree with your regurgitated data I'm an ozone dealer, give me a break.

If you do not make or sell such equipment, then you have no conflict and that is great to hear. However, don't be so quick to scoff at the suggestion. It is not unheard of for folks selling products of various sorts to come into this forum, disguise who they are, and make claims supporting products or methods that are being discussed. Sometimes it only comes out when I directly ask them, and sometimes even then it only comes out by good internet sleuthing that they actually are a supplier.

Such behavior is not permitted.

Since you are not such a supplier, we most certainly welcome any evidence that supports your contentions for the uses of ozone in reef tanks. :)

[dc]

Now Randy, who would ever do that? ;)

[jason2459]

Great thread, very informative! Thanks Randy.

I see there's another ORP question thread going on as well. I don't want to start another one so I'll throw in a question here in this thread. My tank originally was running in the low 100's for ORP. Typically 120 and below. I added an ozonizer and it climbed up to high 100's and low 200's. Highest was 220 I believe. The ozonizer just recently died and getting replace and the ORP has plummeted back down to 120 and below.

Should I be concerned that my tank naturally wants to be so low? Should I be concerned that even with ozone my ORP is still in the low side compared to where people typically think is low for ORP values. Just to let you know, I'm not concerned but just wondered if I should be. :D

Background: 55g tank just setup for just over 3 months. No sump, HOB refug w/ chaeto. 12 hour light cycle. Ozonizer hooked up to skimmer set at 25mg/h. (even bumping up to 50mg/h didn't make a difference.)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

120 mV is pretty low, but it may also not be accurate. Have you ever checked the calibration of the ORP device?

Tanks with refugia and sand/mud often seem to run lower in ORP than bare bottom/big skimmer tanks. Proponents of the latter types take this as evidence that those systems are better. I disagree somewhat, as I really don't think that absolute ORP values mean much. If macroalgae area releasing some organics into the water that keep ORP down, is that a concern? Maybe, but it is not obviously the case.

I'd judge the tank by the appearance of the inhabitants in terms of growth and other factors that seem directly related to health, and not an abstract chemical thing like ORP.

That said, if things also appear to be doing poorly, then the ORP may well relate to the same issues that cause the poor health. Hydrogen sulfide release to the water from sand, excessive organic levels, etc.

[jason2459]

Thanks. The tank inhabitants right now are just fish, snails, hermits, shrimps, and a bazillion different pods. All seem happy and healthy (minus one dwarf angel that I received already sick.) I plan on adding an anem, softies, and LPS down the road as the tank is more matured.

I really don't have a sand or mud bed or bare bottom. I have a dolomite gravel substrate that is about 1-2in deep in the main DT and in the HOB refug I just have some live rock no substrate along with the chaeto. I have the skimmer pulling from the DT and suppling the HOB refug.

50lbs of rock that I started with was from a previous tank I had to break down due to my entire state being flooded and everything in my tank cooked at 90+ degrees for a week. So, I'm sure that dead rock had lots of organic materials breaking down and possibly still breaking down? I also added another 25lbs of live rock and tank went 0/0/0 in three weeks. My nitrates/phosphates have been 0 since then.

Cyano hasn't been a problem and I have went through a massive briopsis bloom just over a month ago that completely disappeared on its own. I do have a few small patches of turf algae on some rock that hasn't grown or shrunk in a month and I think is quite nice looking.

[jason2459]

Oh, and no I have not tested the ORP probe against any solutions. :(

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It may be accurate as is. Some ORP meters do not even alllow for "calibration", unlike all pH meters, which always require calibration.

[tmz]

Randy,
I've read your articles several times; very helpful.
Do you think ozone on balance is a plus or negative when dosing organic carbon? I know you have been using them both.
I have a generator and all the fixins to start dosing but I'm hesitant about potential unforeseen effects on the bacteria in particular. Current orp is about 300mv without it.
I would use it with a hope to enhance organic carbon export by the granulated organic carbon which is already in use. As I keep leathers in the system along with sps, I particularly want to degrade alelopathic compounds and help to ensure export of organic carbon in general.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks. :)

Do you think ozone on balance is a plus or negative when dosing organic carbon?

I'm not sure on that yet. I'm still mostly using it, but I've switched it off a few times for a day or two to see if I detect anything substantially different (I did not).

Getting rid of toxins (at least some of them) in a fine use for ozone and GAC and skimming, IMO. :)

[GTR]

2. Ozone enhances the quality of the water. Ozone is a fresh gas, present in the higher realms of the atmosphere where it is purer. The same kind of purity is brought into the reef tank when ozone is used in it. Ozonized water is odorless, colorless and tasteless.

5. Ozone does not leave chemical wastes in the water when it is passed through it. That means, when water is ozonized, there will be effectively less amount of wastes and chemical discharges into the water.



Shall I continue?

No need continue, just give us a link.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Should-You-Have-Ozone-In-The-Reef-Aquarium?&id=764943

SteveU

[Billybeau1]

Jason, I suspect there is something wrong with your ORP meter or probe. I really doubt your ORP is really holding steady below 200 mv.

Have you tried a calibration fluid to check your equipment ?

They make a 400 mv solution to check the accuracy of the probe. You may want to pick some up. :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

No need continue, just give us a link.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Should...ium?&id=764943

To use one of my daughters favorite phrases: OMG!

That is where it came from. :lol:

Here's a beauty from that one:

"Chemical experts have always maintained that ozone is fresher and more life-sustaining than oxygen."


:lol:

[tmz]

Somehow, I may have missed the quotation marks in Seafloo's post. No; guess I didn't. It's not nice to plagiarize and worse when the information is just wrong and obviously biased by a commercial interest.

[tmz]

Jason. Is that orp probe new? They can take a couple of weeks to climb up to a truer reading.

[Boomer]

Seafloor

You appear to be lost here, ozone dealer or not so let me help you .

Using ozone thru a skimmer is not as efficient as a reactor.

We know that, that is old news not new news I use to design Ozone reactors and for many such a unit in this hobby is not needed. I ran Ozone for almost 40 years



Your level of 300-330 was a bit low to fully asertain the effects of ozone.

You can get 400 mV in sytems without using any Ozone at all. He could have given 400-430 mV with the Ozone hardly even turned on. What would your comment then be ?

Was it not possible with the equip you used to reach those levels?

You're lost. Just because a tank has an ORP 400 mV using Ozone and other has 425 mV DOES NOT mean the 425 mV tank is better. If you believe that then get out of he Ozone business. Please seek text book on what REDOX reactions are. Pure freshly made seawater has a ORP of only 220 -270 mV. What is purer than that ?

Only one brand American Marine was used along with one probe, hardly enough of a control.

Control what ? In a small reef tank you DO NOT need multi controllers or probes. That is a silly comment. The dosages we use in home reef tanks are on the order of 0.3 - 0.5 mg / gal /hr. You can not kill things with that.

Ozone used correctly does a hech of a lot more than clear the water, IMO

Not in reef tanks and not in most public seawater aquariums, where they run levels based on AOD. Do you even know what that means and how that regulates using TRO as a control factor ? Most reef displays in public aquariums use Ozone at at rate of 0.02- 0.05 mg /gal / hr . Do you even know why they are so low. Would you like to have me put you in contact with the director of the Baltimore Aquarium or the new CAS Stienhart Aquarium or a few others. I know many of them personally. Other than clarity very low levels help in better fractionating if a skimmer is being used. If you crank up the Ozone higher it inhibits fractionating.

The use of ozone has long been a standard practice in industrial and public water purification plants, and large scale public aquarium filtration, as one of the best and most efficient means to increase water quality.
One of the biggest problems to overcome in these closed water systems is the accumulation of dissolved organic waste from various biological sources such as animal waste and decomposing food and plant material.

A reef tank is not the above. Get your head out of the sand.

Ozone helps in the eliminations of wastes that the aquatic inhabitants will produce. It oxidizes the pollutants in the tank and brings them to a form from which they can be discarded properly.

Yes it does and it is common for that in zoos with Dolphin, Penguin (other bird) and Seal Tanks. And we do not have any of those. Last time I checked they also did not have gills or breath through diffusionary means unless there has been a sudden evolutionary leap in the last couple of days.



Ozone is also a disinfecting agent. Since it can combat with most pathogens,

You DO NOT use Ozone for that in reef tanks and CAN'T you will kill things. Do you even have a clue what the ATO rate is to kill pathogens and what the contact time is. Yeah, go ahead an work that out for me mathematically and what the end mV will be to bring about disinfection in a 50 gal of net water.

In some public aquariums they use degassing towers. Now, do you have clue what those are used for in regards to Ozone use ?

Ozone enhances the quality of the water. Ozone is a fresh gas, present in the higher realms of the atmosphere where it is purer. The same kind of purity is brought into the reef tank when ozone is used in it. Ozonized water is odorless, colorless and tasteless.

You are really lost her pal :lol:

Ozone does not leave chemical wastes in the water when it is passed through it. That means, when water is ozonized, there will be effectively less amount of wastes and chemical discharges into the water.

Please stop selling or commenting on Ozone. I have never see somebody so lost in my life. Look up the term TRO. And get out of your head a reef tank is NOT a waste treatment or city water purification plant.

Ask the curators of public aquariums what they use.

I know many of them want a list ? Want to know how they use Ozone in seawater or in reef tanks and why ?

Have you ever been here. Apparently they do not know what they are talking about. You should inform them they have it all wrong :)

International Symposium for Water Quality and Treatment for Zoos and Aquaria
http://www.aqualitysymposium.org/abstracts.php


Try to find the word Ozone there and if you can't come back hear and I will "try" to guide you through it.

I know who has their head in the sand ;)

Shall I continue ? !!!!

[Billybeau1]

The old double barrel :uzi::blown:

Haven't seen that in awhile. :D

[sjames]

Im sold, where do i get some of that fresh ozone? the stuff i was using must have been stale.

[tmz]

Hi Boomer, Glad you could make it.:blown::bounce3:

[jason2459]

Jason, I suspect there is something wrong with your ORP meter or probe. I really doubt your ORP is really holding steady below 200 mv.

Have you tried a calibration fluid to check your equipment ?

They make a 400 mv solution to check the accuracy of the probe. You may want to pick some up. :)

I'll be picking some up. I didn't originally as this probe can't callibrate for ORP but it certainly will be nice to check it against a solution to see if it is accurate or how off it might be.

Jason. Is that orp probe new? They can take a couple of weeks to climb up to a truer reading.

It was brand new 3 months ago and has been reading pretty steadily and increased as expected when I started the ozone generator and decreased as expected when the ozone generator stopped. But people keep commenting how rediculously low my ORP values are even with ozone going. :confused: So, I'll definitely check against a calibration solution.

[jason2459]

Im sold, where do i get some of that fresh ozone? the stuff i was using must have been stale.

Go to a nice flat area and stick up a long metal rod in a lighting storm. Nice fresh natural ozone! You'll never foget that sweet crispy smell.

[Billybeau1]

Go to a nice flat area and stick up a long metal rod in a lighting storm. Nice fresh natural ozone! You'll never foget that sweet crispy smell.

Exactly. :lol:

While you can not calibrate an ORP probe, the calibration solution should tell you if it is registering properly.

They probably shouldn't call it calibration fluid, but reference solution. :)

[vegaskid11]

LM FAO This forum rocks :bounce3:

[billsreef]

So I don't agree with your regurgitated data I'm an ozone dealer, give me a break.

Keep your head in the sand just don't ask others to do the same or follow your incorrect analysis of ozone.

Dan,

You would be doing yourself a big favor by paying attention to what Randy and Boomer write on the subject. They are bringing actual scientific fact to the discussion. That source your obviously relying on is very flawed, to the point of being absolute junk. The author of that article is writing on the principle of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull feces". Randy and Boomer will give you the straight facts, not the bull feces ;)

[HighlandReefer]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

We haven't had one this good in a while.

[Jeff]

Thx for clearing the whole ORP thing up Randy and Boomer. I found myself looking at ORP products over the last couple weeks but this thread makes seem like it would'nt benefit my reefs. I especially liked the two ways you guys used to dispell false/unuseful information from an ozone dealer that found out how to cut/paste information that is not applicable to our hobby. I love this forum, I sometimes think it's the only forum left that contains real science, not garbage.

[seafloor09]

Wow!!!

Nice way you run a forum.

PS: no commerical interest at all, just my opinion

[bertoni]

If you're not happy debating with facts, I suggest posting elsewhere.

[Aquarist007]

Tanks with refugia and sand/mud often seem to run lower in ORP than bare bottom/big skimmer tanks. Proponents of the latter types take this as evidence that those systems are better. I disagree somewhat, as I really don't think that absolute ORP values mean much. If macroalgae area releasing some organics into the water that keep ORP down, is that a concern? Maybe, but it is not obviously the case.

.

A little confused here(but showing signs of positive growth from totally confused:D)
I thought macro algae such as cheato were up takers of organics and released oxygen through photosynthesis.
Would this not raise the ORP?

BTW
Great analogy in explaining ORP as a battlefield

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks.

Most algae do not take up much organic material, and are, in fact, net producers of organics in the water. They do take up nitrogen and phosphorus and produce O2 and other oxidizing species.

Here's a study suggesting that algae are one of the big producers of organics in seawater:

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v370/p33-44/

[Aquarist007]

Thanks.

Most algae do not take up much organic material, and are, in fact, net producers of organics in the water. They do take up nitrogen and phosphorus and produce O2 and other oxidizing species.

Here's a study suggesting that algae are one of the big producers of organics in seawater:

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v370/p33-44/

Thanks
I guess if one relies heavily on refugiums for nitrate and phosphate reduction/tank feedings then they better be running a good protein skimmer and carbon too

[Paul B]

Hello there Boomer and Randy

Randy, great explanation, me being both an aquarist and combat Veteran understood it perfectly (I think)

Anyway, I believe my reef is probably the longest tank running ozone continuousely. I have been running ozone since about 1973 or so and not being a scientist, I can't state one way or the other if it helps, or if it does, how much. I can say though that I don't seem to have many of the problems many people have. I also don't run the water over carbon but a 4' algae trough instead.
I never ran ozone to kill bacteria or paracites as I feel it would not do that and there is no need to try to kill bacteria in a reef, I even add it from the sea all the time and I try to cultivate it if anything.
My reef is 100 gallons and I run 100mg/hr of ozone into my homemade venturi 5' skimmer.
Many of my fish are spawning and always have, the eggs hatch and the fry are eaten. Even my hermit crabs are spawning. In my tank anyway, with over 30 years of continuous ozone injection with no controller and little water changes there does not seem to be any problems. Maybe it would be better with no ozone but I have no way to measure that.
I do feel, and it is only a supposition on my part, that ozone can help with the organic chemicals that corals exude to repel other corals. I don't think we could measure this and I think it is an important, often overlooked aspect of this hobby but of course Randy would know much more of the chemistry of this than I would.
My ORP reading today is 339, you can see what it was a while ago in the picture, I think it reads 444. As Randy said, that changes from day to day and even sometimes from minute to minute.

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/skimmer002.jpg

[mhurley]

Wow!!!

Nice way you run a forum.


Why? Because everyone did not just instantly accept your opinion based on your extensive tenure here and the base of scientific knowledge displayed?

[Aquarist007]

Hello there Boomer and Randy

Randy, great explanation, me being both an aquarist and combat Veteran understood it perfectly (I think)

Anyway, I believe my reef is probably the longest tank running ozone continuousely. I have been running ozone since about 1973 or so and not being a scientist, I can't state one way or the other if it helps, or if it does, how much. I can say though that I don't seem to have many of the problems many people have. I also don't run the water over carbon but a 4' algae trough instead.
[/IMG]

Wow--two really experienced and knowledgeable reefers on this thread--hope it becomes a sticky.

Paul, how would you describe the clarity of water in your tank---and not compared to that Manhattan sea water you add ;)

[Boomer]

Nice to see you Paul :)

[Aquarist007]

Nice to see you Paul :)

he gets high and thus more daring on seafood and occasionally wanders out of the protection of his own thread:lolspin:

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I also don't run the water over carbon but a 4' algae trough instead.

I think that is a fine plan. It would be interesting to see if the algae near the inlet with the ozone look the same as algae near the end of the trough. Maybe you have some mutants there. :D

I do feel, and it is only a supposition on my part, that ozone can help with the organic chemicals that corals exude to repel other corals. I don't think we could measure this and I think it is an important, often overlooked aspect of this hobby

I agree too that that is a likely benefit, especially for toxins not easily removed other ways (skimming, GAC, etc). :)

[Paul B]

Paul, how would you describe the clarity of water in your tank---and not compared to that Manhattan sea water you add

My water is as clear as gin. It could not be any clearer, I can't say if ozone, the RUGF or the tooth fairy has anything to do with that though.

It would be interesting to see if the algae near the inlet with the ozone look the same as algae near the end of the trough.

Randy, interesting question so I walked the ten feet to the tank and looked.
The algae on the outlet part where it returns to the tank is much thicker than the almost non existant algae on the side of the trough that gets the Ozone infused effluent from the skimmer.
Very interesting.
This is from the far end of the trough. I can not collect algae from the ozone side.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/Algae004.jpg

This part of the trough where the water enters is almost void of algae. What you are seeing there is only some coraline and a little short brown turf algae that grows because of the Long Island Sound water.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/Gobieggs017.jpg

Maybe you have some mutants there.

I only see Ninja turtles

[Billybeau1]

I was wondering what happened to Leonardo, Donatello, Rapheal and Michaelangelo.............

They are alive and well at Paul B's place. :D

Good to see you Paul. Stop by the Chem forum more often. :thumbsup:

[Paul B]

Stop by the Chem forum more often.


Billy, I don't know enough about chemistry to get myself arrested, thats what we have Randy and Boomer for.
I am a nuts and bolts kind of guy. Give me a dead piece of seaweed and I will make you a cellphone out of it but for the correct chemistry answers, go to the pro's.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Very interesting, Paul, and thanks. :)

[fullmonti]

I'm the one who started this thread, & I got the answer to my original question long ago.
Most of what has followed is over my head, but I'm trying to get a grip on all the processes going on in a reef tank & how they relate to each other. I have a situation in my tank that is driving me crazy & believe it is a chemistry thing, so if you don't mind i"ll ask you guys for your opinions.

I have a 180 sps tank originally set up 1 year ago with dry rock & live rock from my first tank. Have a large reeflo skimmer, 65gal sump (with extra rock), 29gal frug (now a frag tank), 1050W MH lighting, hammerhead pump with ocean motion 4way for flow & 6x18 calcium reactor. I do 20gal + water change every week & water perimeters have always been in line, fish & corals looking good! The problem is algae!!! I had terrible case hair algae. Was using zeo system, reactor carbon source ect, trying to starve the algae out. Wasn't feeding corals at all & fish less than normal, nitrate & phosphate then & now at or near 0 algae thrived. Algae grew in high&low flow&light corals faded. Oddly the hole time macro algae wouldn't hardly grow at all, & never had any algae in the frag tank, to the point if I took a rock with algae on it from the display tank & put it in the frag tank the algae would disappear. Finally at highland reefers suggestion I used algaefix to kill algae, & started to feed corals again. Corals colors came back but so did algae. Cliff said probably just didn't use algae fix long enough, so I'm using it again for about a month now. I scrub dead algae off much as possible with toothbrush but where I can't get it off cyano now grows on the dead algae, never had cyano before at all. I don't understand how algae can grow (there are even couple new kinds now) when nitrate & phosphate so low, AND using algaefix.

I know this is a complicated question to answer & if you want to move it to another thread or PM me thats fine too, but I would really appreciate any insight you might have to offer.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

nitrate & phosphate then & now at or near 0 algae thrived.

That's pretty normal for an algae problem. The more algae you have, the more they suck nutrients up and drive the nutrient levels down. But there can still be plenty of nutrients flowing through the system from fish food (or other source, like dead algae) into the live algae.

I'd suggest focus on intercepting those nutrients, especially phosphate, before the algae gets it. So exporting more phosphate somehow, and there are many ways. Using GFO media is a fine way, especially for short term use where the cost is not such a factor. :)

[fullmonti]

Actually I put some GFO in last night. I put about 4-6 ounces in a media bag put that in one of the baffles in the sump. Is that OK amount & application?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As long as the water flows through it, and not just around it, that's a fine way to start.

[Boomer]

I would suspect Paul that the effluent is delivering Bromine bleach as you do not run the effluent over GAC. And as it move down stream it is oxidizing algae cells trying to grow there. As the water moves down stream it would loose this property and algae would start to grow.

[graveyardworm]

I would suspect Paul that the effluent is delivering Bromine bleach as you do not run the effluent over GAC. And as it move down stream it is oxidizing algae cells trying to grow there. As the water moves down stream it would loose this property and algae would start to grow.


So if thats the case it could mean that Paul can discontinue dosing bleach to the tank. Its already there. :)

[Paul B]

Boomer, sounds good to me. lately I have been leary about using carbon too much or at all. It seems that if the algae in the trough is neutralizing the bromine that is a good thing and only the ozone and bromine by products will be removed. I feel lately that carbon removes too much of what I am trying to preserve by collecting from the sea.
The trough has been in use for a few years and since that time there also has been no large algae cycles as there had been in the past.
So I think ozone can potentially be beneficial by possable removing substances not readily removed by carbon and not removing inorganic trace elements that carbon would eliminate.
If ozone is detrimental, it does not seem to be in my tank.
Of course, Ozone is not needed by every tank, I feel it is a tool that seems to help more than it hurts. My algae trough is another not needed tool but it does help to eliminate unwanted nitrates while growing algae only where I want it.
Im my set up anyway.

[Boomer]

David

So if thats the case it could mean that Paul can discontinue dosing bleach to the tank. Its already there.

I believe Paul bleaches his collected "ocean" water and then neutralizer the bleach before he use it. :) Not that he is dosing his tank with bleach. I asked Paul this once before when somebody insinuated he did.



Paul

It is not the Ozone, as has Ozone has a half-live in seawater of only few seconds. It is the Ozone oxidant it produces like "Bromine Bleach" When using GAC it reacts with GAC converting the Bromine bleach, by reducing it, back to Bromide ions, which they were before the addition of the Ozone. Bromine by itself is much more stable that chlorine bleach and is produced much, much more easily than producing chlorine bleach.

I'm not going to tell you to use GAC, it is a choice but does allot more good than harm by along shot. Using GAC when using Ozone is a safety net. Ozone does not really remove anything it just breaks them down in to different things, some good, some bad and some not so good or not so bad, which are then exported by other means. Based on assays from many reef tanks, that use skimmers, filters, GAC or what ever for filtration, about the only ion that is low is Iron. Most all other are over NSW. But these below are using ASW and not NSW like you ( correct), which would give a different set of data.

Paul it is not broke so we DO NOT need to try to fix it :D But IIRC you have no sps or am I off ?

1.00 = NSW
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-02/rs/feature/images/Figure8sm.jpg

[Aquarist007]

nitrate & phosphate then & now at or near 0 algae thrived.

I'd suggest focus on intercepting those nutrients, especially phosphate, before the algae gets it. So exporting more phosphate somehow, and there are many ways. Using GFO media is a fine way, especially for short term use where the cost is not such a factor. :)

With that in mind, what exactly are you feeding your corals? If feeding frozen food to the fish are you rinsing it first?

RE chaeto in the fuge.
I have trouble understanding how a refugium can double as a frag tank? My refugium is not fit for frags--it has tons of different macro algae --good and bad---but only in the fuge.
Nutrients is only one variable in macro algae growth like chaeto. You have to harvest the cheato regularily by ripping and tearing the ends. This makes the macro algae grow back faster.
Spreading the macro algae out over the surface area helps as does increasing the flow through the refugium
I also run a remote deep sand bed in one of my refugiums---this will help with nitrates.

[Paul B]

Boomer is correct, I add bleach to NSW if I take it from the Sound and it looks or smells questionable. Most of the problems in the water from bays and inlets is high bacteria or too much organic matter which go hand in hand anyway. I have not used bleach in years as I like to collect from ocean beaches where the water is cleaner.
I have used bleach in my entire tank twice to sterilize everything and kill paracites. That was when the hobby was new and there were no reef tanks. I got that from Robert Straughn. The bleached water, after it was neutralized seemed perfect and some of that is still in my tank as I have never changed 100% of my water.
I have not added bleach directly to my tank in 39 years.
(You can only do that to sterilize water if no animals are in the tank)

Boomer, thanks for the information as always. I have always used carbon sporatically before a water change and I even used to run it 24/7. Lately the tank has been looking real good, most fish are spawning and I do have three SPS corals for about a year which seem fine and are growing. The LPS corals are not doing as well as the SPS but I have another theory about that. (I have a theory about everything)
I have noticed many times that when the soft corals go into a growth and re producing spurt like they are doing now, the LPS corals suffer.
I can only atribute that to the chemicals the soft corals exude. (theory on my part of course)
I also have found that when the LPS corals thrive like bubble corals, elegance etc, the mushrooms and and other soft corals shrink.
This happens over years and not noticable in many tanks for this reason.
I have noticed this three or four times since this tank was established and it is very noticable.
So Boomer, as per your post, I will again use GAC. I only discontinued it for a couple of months. I do also dose iron occasionally.
My reef is only about 10% NSW because as the older I get the heaver it gets.

[tmz]

"I have trouble understanding how a refugium can double as a frag tank? My refugium is not fit for frags--it has tons o.."

I use an intergrated tank(30g breeder ) for a remote deep sand bed with frags on top of the sand.. I use another tank with a piece of egg crate separator; half chaeto and half frags. Not exactly doubling as a fudge in either case. I also have other bare bottom bins of chaeto. I strongly prefer not to put sand under the macroaglae: too messy and hard to clean for me.

[fullmonti]

Could you give some more specs on your algae trough, depth, flow, placement (in or out of tank), lighting ect.
And what is the difference/significance of growing algae in that manner as opposed to other ways? Is this any thing like a algae scrubber?

& how are you guys quoting just one line from another post?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As to the last question, just copy the text manually and paste it between bold brackets.

So at the start type [B]

then paste the line

then type the same bracket with a / in front of the B.

It is much cleaner when you have a lot to respond to. :)

[Paul B]

Could you give some more specs on your algae trough, depth, flow, placement (in or out of tank), lighting ect.
And what is the difference/significance of growing algae in that manner as opposed to other ways? Is this any thing like a algae scrubber?

The thing is a Home Depot PVC 4X4" fence post sliced in half to give me a trough. It is set on a slight angle above the water with the return end just touching the water surface. It is to the rear of the tank and is lit from "waste" light that would have just gone to light the back of the tank. I want to keep this area dark anyway. Water enters on the higher end and travels about 5' to the opposite end where it flows back into the tank. There is a plastic window screen the entire length which is infused with cement. Algae loves cement and it makes it easier for the algae to take hold, the screen can be rolled up and removed if cleaning is necessary. The water is less than 1/2" deep and about 5" away from the MH lights. The trough is fed from the outflow of my skimmer so it uses no power.
The only difference between this and an algae scrubber is that it works in the tank with water that was going into the tank anyway and lighting that was "extra"
The thing costs less than $10.00

[Paul B]

Boomer, here is the results from my last (and only) professional test
A member on here works for a testing company and was nice enough to do it for free. They wanted to see what 40 year old water looks like.
Because of this, I do add Luguls

Analysis Atomic Symbol Units
(ppm) Acceptable Range
(Assumes Corals) Natural Seawater Value Your
Sample Results
Aluminum Al mg/L <0.2 0.001 <0.02
Arsenic As mg/L 0.0023 - 0.0037 0.002 0.07
Barium Ba mg/L 0.01 -0.03 0.015 0.040
Boron B mg/L 3 - 15 4.4 1.76
Calcium Ca mg/L 350 - 422 418 516
Cadmium Cd mg/L <0.0003 0.000114 <0.0003
Cobalt Co mg/L 0 - 0.002 0.0000068 0.0023
Chromium Cr mg/L <0.05 0.0001– 0.0005 <0.05
Copper Cu mg/L 0 - 0.01 0.000212 <0.05
Iron Fe mg/L <0.1 0.00014 - 0.045 0.05
Potassium K mg/L 380 - 500 399 468
Magnesium Mg mg/L 1200 - 1350 1280 1320
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.000275 - .05 0.000275 - .002 <0.001
Molybdenum Mo mg/L 0.008 - 0.01 0.01 0.015
Sodium Na mg/L 10800 10800 9390
Scandium Sc mg/L <0.005 0.000001 <0.005
Nickel Ni mg/L 0.000633 - 0.01 0.000633 <0.01
Lead Pb mg/L 0.000002 - .001 0.000035 0.006
Lithium Li mg/L 0.15 - 0.3 0.178 0.02
Selenium Se mg/L 0.0000085 - 0.15 0.000085 <0.1
Silicon Si mg/L <5.5 2.8 0.26
Strontium Sr mg/L 7.7 - 13 7.7 - 13 6.38
Sulfur S mg/L 30 - 930 904 861
Titanium Ti mg/L 0.0000009 - 0.003 0.000014 <0.01
Uranium U mg/L 0.0025 - 0.005 0.0032 0.0010
Vanadium V mg/L 0.003 - 0.02 0.0012 - 0.002 <0.003
Zinc Zn mg/L 0.000529 - .01 0.000529 <0.1

Bromide Br 60 - 75 66 78
Chloride Cl 1500 - 19345 19345 20000
Fluoride F 0.5 - 1.5 1 0.24

Sulphate SO4 <2701 2701 2600



Sample Temperature For Remaining Analysis: 73.7F
Analysis Acceptable Status Results
Iodide mg/L 0.02 to 0.04 Reef Low 0.002
Iodine/Iodate mg/L Reef Low 0.00
Ammonia mg/L 0 (below surface) Normal - Client will see 0 <0.15
Alkalinity Total dKH 8 - 13 dKH Good 11.462
Alkalinity Borate dKH Good 2.236
Alkalinity Carbonate dKH 8 - 9dKh Good 9.225
Nitrate mg/L 0.1 - 2.5 Reef High 5
Nitrite mg/L 0 Good 0
Phosphate mg/L 0.07 High 0.2
Silicate mg/L 0.02 High 0.5

Salinity ppt S=35 Perfect 35
Specific Gravity 1.025 - 1.026 Perfect

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Paul:

Can you say what lab provided that info? If it is reliable, some of the results are interesting. Depleted lithium and boron, and elevated potassium, for example.

Also note that they did not detect any copper at their limit of detection (relevant to another thread). :D

[Boomer]

Paul

First, as far as I goes we only care about Iodate. I'm sure you are low in I due to the algae. Most reef tanks or sps types are way to high in I. I'm a little perplexed by the deplete Li as Randy is, although there are ample amounts in hard coral skeletons. However, must reef tanks are rather high. I think Boron can be depleted rather easily in tanks.


I only go by this now for NSW :)

http://www.mbari.org/chemsensor/pteo.htm

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Maybe I'm reading his report wrong but it looks to me like it says potassium range that is OK is 380-500 (no idea how they got that), that NSW is 399, and his is 468.

Not a big elevation (17%), but it continues to build the case that potassium depletion is not as common as many people seem to assert.

[Boomer]

Nope nothing wrong there Randy it was me missing the NSW Range, ***avg*** and his tank :lol: I edited my post :) I was looking at it as if they had two readings from his tank, 399 and 468. Maybe the 500 is for the Red Sea :)

[Paul B]

Can you say what lab provided that info? If it is reliable, some of the results are interesting. Depleted lithium and boron, and elevated potassium, for example.


It was from "Lab Aquatics"
I think they are in Canada.

Depleted lithium and boron, and elevated potassium, for example.


Randy, why is that interesting?

[Boomer]

Wholly crap Paul, that is where I have been trying to get people to go rather than AWT. However, based on many Internet boards they are now down for some unknown reason and not replying to requests.

They do not even seem to be in business anymore and that is a shame :( And their price was about the same as AWT

http://www.labaquatics.com/

Look at this Paul
http://www.reefcentral.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1693232

[graveyardworm]

Did you post the labaquatics link to show it isnt working?

[Boomer]

Yes David I did :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy, why is that interesting?

Interesting because you are a good case for someone not dosing those things for long periods to see what happens, and you saw no depletion of potassium. Other folks read elsewhere that most or all tanks are low in potassium and must be supplemented.

The lithium and boron probably only interest Boomer and I as hard core chemistry types to try to understand all the chemistry things going on. :D

[Paul B]

Boomer I would have to look back about a year to see the member that was kind enough to get my water tested, he works for them and would know their status.

Randy, I only dose your two part calcium and occasionally some Lugols.
I change about 20% of the water maybe 5 times a year. This year I only added about 20 gallons of NSW from the Atlantic.

Interesting because you are a good case for someone not dosing those things for long periods to see what happens, and you saw no depletion of potassium

I wonder why that is?
But I am happy not to dose all of that stuff. Maybe the stuff gets depleted in 41 years :D

[Billybeau1]

All this talk about adding potassium, ULNS's, carbon dosing and such and Paul does not do any of that. Yet he has a successful reef tank. He does use NSW right ?

Makes me wonder if the synthetic salt manufacturers are adding something that does not need to be there. Then again it may just be the setups and husbandry practices that people are having problems with in the long run.

I think too many reefers try and correct their problems with adding this and adding that instead of finding the real problem and making corrections more naturally.

It is pretty hard to argue with Pauls success. 20% water change 5 times a year :eek1: Holy cow.

[Billybeau1]

Paul, you said all you dose is 2-part. How often do you dose magnesium ?

[Paul B]

Paul, you said all you dose is 2-part. How often do you dose magnesium ?


I usually forget so probably 3 times a year.
And my reef is only about 10% NSW. It would be all NSW but it is heavy as you may have noticed.

[Billybeau1]

I'm a little surprised you are able to maintain that mag level. Unless you are using a high mag salt mix like Oceanic. :D

If you do not mind sharing, what salt mix do you use ?

[Aquarist007]

I'm a little surprised you are able to maintain that mag level. Unless you are using a high mag salt mix like Oceanic. :D

If you do not mind sharing, what salt mix do you use ?

Billy he does his water changes from sea water---I don't think he uses a mix.

Are the tests that he had done on his tank really a fair reflection of ocean water vs tank water? Over the long run aren't chemical concentrations etc going to change simple because of the volume of water in his tank vs the sea.

I am no way being critical here as I consider Paul one of my esteemed mentors on here(even though he doesn't like me posting it--maybe he has a thing against Cdn's :lolspin:)

But --hey Randy just gave two thumbs up to a Cdn lab :bounce3:

[Paul B]

If you do not mind sharing, what salt mix do you use ?


I use Instant Ocean unless Reef Crystals is cheaper. I really don't think it matters. Capn, only about 10% of my water is NSW, as I get older, it gets heavier.
The tank was started with NSW sometimes I feel like carrying a lot of it and sometimes, I get lazy. I wish I could use all real water

[Billybeau1]

Wow, I'm surprised your mag level is as hi as they say it is.

Oh well. You can't argue with success. :)

[kevinpo]

Hi Randy,
Great explanation of ORP! I even understood it ;)
I've only been running ozone since 2001 but the only noticeable difference I've observed has been increased water clarity (compared to 1984-2001 tanks).

Cheers,
Kevin

[Boomer]

Hi Kev :wave:

[kevinpo]

Hi Boomer,
Just checking up on you and Randy. Making sure you weren't being too oxidizing :D or was that caustic?

Regards,
Kevin

[Billybeau1]

Boomer oxidizing ? No way.

He's not even caustic. :D

Hey Kev. :)

[Boomer]

Randy was doing the Oxidizing, which then allows me to be Caustic :) I like to produce a bigger and deeper burn like caustic soda :lol: Randy is more into the scorched edges and mild burns across the whole body.

[Boomer]

Go back to bed Billy it is past your bed times :)

[Billybeau1]

times :confused:

Is that like multiple bed times ? I usually only have one bed time each night and its getting real close to that time now buddy. :twitch:

[martinphillip03]

Thank you everyone

Marty

[The River Reef]

I have been trying to read about ORP and UV... I have a UV sterilizer that I was talked into buying. I also have the ability to add an ORP probe on my controller. Is there any benefit to adding both or either of these units to my mixed reef 54g system? I was wondering if I ran the ORP probe to trigger the UV when it got low... If this would help keep things running better... I also have a skimmer well or over rated for my system already...
Please help a newer reefer that has invested in a UV sterilizer and wants to get my obey worth, lol, I know...

[bertoni]

I wouldn't bother with either. This article discusses ORP:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/rhf/feature/index.htm

You might have looked at it. An ORP controller can be useful as a safety net when running ozone, but otherwise isn't very useful, IMO.

The UV sterilizer can help with bacterial and phytoplankton blooms, so it might be worth keeping around, but I wouldn't run it in general. I don't see any benefit.

[wendy.dj]

131

[billsreef]

131

:confused:

[wendy.dj]

Omg. Sorry. Must have overslept and accidentally typed that number when i fell asleep lastnite after i finish this whole post. Thankyou for such informative and easy analogy in explaining ozon process and orp to us all non scientist and non chemist here randy. I believe you can be a great teacher with that great teaching skill

[Aquarist007]

Omg. Sorry. Must have overslept and accidentally typed that number when i fell asleep lastnite after i finish this whole post. Thankyou for such informative and easy analogy in explaining ozon process and orp to us all non scientist and non chemist here randy. I believe you can be a great teacher with that great teaching skill

[welcome]

[billsreef]

No worries. It makes sense now :D

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sleep posting. That's a first. :D

Thanks, Wendy. :)

[wendy.dj]

Lol now that i think about it. It IS weird... But thats the only explanation i can think of [emoji1]
But kinda make sense since i've been reading this forum almost allday allnite in bed before i sleep. I got here from paul's super long and very inspiring thread. I got to page 136 on my tapatalk at "35years old reef picture" when i got distracted to this thread.

Just want to give a shoutout that theres someone all the way from indonesia reading all your comments eagerly. Thanks again[emoji2]

[bertoni]

Welcome aboard! :)

[Aquarist007]

Lol now that i think about it. It IS weird... But thats the only explanation i can think of [emoji1]
But kinda make sense since i've been reading this forum almost allday allnite in bed before i sleep. I got here from paul's super long and very inspiring thread. I got to page 136 on my tapatalk at "35years old reef picture" when i got distracted to this thread.

Just want to give a shoutout that theres someone all the way from indonesia reading all your comments eagerly. Thanks again[emoji2]

Not to worry PaulB can put anyone to sleep:bounce1: lol

[billsreef]

:lol:

[Paul B]

Not to worry PaulB can put anyone to sleep lol

Remember, to me "all" of you are Noobs and my amphipods have canker sores older than most of you :dance:

[d2mini]

canker sores

I hate those!!!!
I wonder if an aiptasia laser would take care of them? :uzi:

[tmz]

Paul I'm actually older older than you but I take a lot of naps .

[Paul B]

Thanks for clearing that up Moses. :thumbsup: