who's down with ORP?

[ShaunW]

I have never used an Ozone reactor, so I have one question, does ozone leave the reactor and enter into the tank?

 

[House of Laughter]

Hmm ,wondering if there is any benefit to amphipathic molecules and hydrophillic molecules in relation to thier ability to attach to the bubbles from your skimmer - so instead of looking at it as easier or harder - or likely or less likely, I wonder if the above two molecule types can be measured as it relates to the bubbles in your skimmer AND, if anything, smaller or larger bubbles are better?

I know nothing about ozone oxidation, ORP and find this thread fascinating, but also like Solbby, begging the question - "KISS" (keep it simple stupid)

Sigh, this reefing thing makes me learn too much ;-)

House

 

[herman]

I have never used an Ozone reactor, so I have one question, does ozone leave the reactor and enter into the tank?

I never had that problem. Two reasons. I use a controller that shuts the ozone off once 400mv is achieved and I use carbon which takes care of any excess O3

 

[herman]

Hmm ,wondering if there is any benefit to amphipathic molecules and hydrophillic molecules in relation to thier ability to attach to the bubbles from your skimmer - so instead of looking at it as easier or harder - or likely or less likely, I wonder if the above two molecule types can be measured as it relates to the bubbles in your skimmer AND, if anything, smaller or larger bubbles are better?

I know nothing about ozone oxidation, ORP and find this thread fascinating, but also like Solbby, begging the question - "KISS" (keep it simple stupid)

Sigh, this reefing thing makes me learn too much ;-)

House

In theory the protein skimmer should have less skimmate because a skimmer is designed to remove disolved organics before they oxidize. O3 speeds up the oxidation.

But in practice my skimmer produced more and I dont know why. I dont know what chain reactions the O3 starts. Maybe solbby can help with this one.

I do like the KISS principle also and I live by unless I can find a way to make something more efficien.thats why I get all of this equipment to make my life easier. Jim, is getting a calcium reactor keeping it simple as opposed to adding more stuff that can break?

 

[ShaunW]

Ozone half life when Dissolved in Water (pH 7)
Temp (C) half-life
15 30-minutes
20 20-minutes
25 15-minutes
30 12-minutes
35 8-minutes

So in our tank 15 minutes, that is along time to hang around and do damage.

 

[ShaunW]

An example of how it works.

 

[herman]

Ozone half life when Dissolved in Water (pH 7)
Temp (C) half-life
15 30-minutes
20 20-minutes
25 15-minutes
30 12-minutes
35 8-minutes

So in our tank 15 minutes, that is along time to hang around and do damage.

That would be enough to kill several things or in the best scenario it would bleach the gills of fish.

That is why carbon is so important when using ozone. Ozone reacts readily and easily with the tiniest amoput of carbon. All my water passes through a carbon chamber leaving no O3 to go into the tank.

Frank will use a carbon reactor also leaving no chance for O3 to go into the tank

 

[House of Laughter]

Herm,

First, let me be clear, I am not questioning you, or attacking etc,so, I just want to make sure we are on that page.

I am alot like you - costs-benefits analysis - if the costs of keeping it simple outweighs the risk tolerance, then I stay with the simple method - if the risks can be mitigated one way or the other - in this case for me, a $100 PH monitor in case the Co2 goes wild, is a worthy investment.

Anyone else out there like this?

House

 

[House of Laughter]

damn this stufff is interesting

House

 

[jhale]

Ok...I'll leave water clarity issue alone. But let me play Devil's advocate :sgrin:. I've read that many wild-caught acros are brown before acclimation to home aquaria. Who's to say that brown isn't the natural color for these corals. A coral "brightening up", may actually be detrimental to its longterm health; whether it's a result of add'l zooxanthellae, less nutrient-rich water, etc. Sure a pink acro looks better to us than a brown one, but is it healthier than that brown acro still in the ocean? :scratchch

Edit: I now see Frank has posted the exact results I mention here. :cool3:

dean the thing with acros is most of them are brown in the wild. it's when we get them into out tanks and blast them with MH that the zooxanthellae freak out and turn nice colors, or something like that. sorry I forgot the exact process, but your premise is correct.

Shaun, no one is debating the danger of O3 in a reeftank, it's deadly when it makes it's way into the display tank. But that's why Frank is making a huge reactor to inject it into to along with a carbon reactor thet will absorb any O3. this is also why I wanted a backup to shut down the reactor if the orp went above lets say 400mV. But Herman and Frank have said the carbon reactor is the backup, so that's my answer.
I would like to hear any storys of O3 harming a reeftank, and how it happened, so I can avoid the same mistake. I would think any storys would be from human error.

 

[jhale]

Herm,

First, let me be clear, I am not questioning you, or attacking etc,so, I just want to make sure we are on that page.

I am alot like you - costs-benefits analysis - if the costs of keeping it simple outweighs the risk tolerance, then I stay with the simple method - if the risks can be mitigated one way or the other - in this case for me, a $100 PH monitor in case the Co2 goes wild, is a worthy investment.

Anyone else out there like this?

House

YES, what ever I have running on my tank I have a backup, for.
I don't have a CR so no PH meter, but I will get one for the O3.

I agree with keeping things simple, but add on such as CR and O3 can help make keeping the tank much easier and more pleasurable.

 

[House of Laughter]

Agreed, but what if it was less cost effective or more risk?

House

 

[herman]

Agreed, but what if it was less cost effective or more risk?

House

Wassapenin Jim!!

Through ozone I have gotten more clarity (fish floating in nothing) than anything else that I have ever tried. What can I compare that to? I really like that look. How do I measure my pleasure? Cant!!

Besides you would be hard pressed to find a professional installation that does not use Ozone. Im not talking little petstores here. If the big guys with all their research capabilities use it why should I not use it? Its cheaper than than my skimmer, lights etc. I just dont see a reason why not to use it.

 

[jhale]

Agreed, but what if it was less cost effective or more risk?

House

well I'm all about being cost effective.
and for the risk, I would not do something that would put the inhabitants in jeopardy.

but as Shaun has pointed out in the past, just by placing the animals in our care has put them at great risk. How about I want to provide the
best home I can for my reef critters at the least expense to me, and the least risk to them. I judge each thing on a case by case basis. I would not choose to use something that was risky just to save money. but I would save money by switching to a more efficient pump. right?
In the case of ozone I think the risks are not there as long as it is used properly and is properly maintained. at this level our reefs are not plug and play. we are using techniques and equipment that require knowledge and understanding. with the proper knowledge these systems are safe and effective, without it they can be a disaster.
So let the user beware you must educate yourself first before jumping into a new type of husbandry. which I believe is what our more advanced threads these days are for. good stuff keep it coming.

 

[House of Laughter]

No, I am not talking about putting the fish in jeapordy, I am talking about risk for failure

Maybe I'll start a new thread since this is off topic.

House

 

[jhale]

that sounds like the same thing, fish in jeopardy or failure? if my fish die then I have failed, no? You can start a new thread the more the better that make us think.

 

[kimoyo]

Here is a conversation I had with Randy a little while ago.

Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
I use Marineland Black Diamond carbon 24/7.

The one thing about ozone that I really like is that you are adding oxidizers to your tank. If anything dies you can quickly help by adding those oxidizers.

I'm not convinced that having a higher ORP environment when it is raised artificially is any benefit.

Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Yep, I was planning on using their walmart label.

Why? Do you feel its healthier for the system to naturally recover from ORP dips (increases in reducers, deaths, etc.)?

When ozone oxidizes organics sometimes it makes them harder to skim, correct? Do you feel its worse that these organics stay in the tank until you do a water change?

Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
Why? Do you feel its healthier for the system to naturally recover from ORP dips (increases in reducers, deaths, etc.)?

It may be true and I've not heard of it, but I do not know of any biological processes the respond directly to ORP.

When ozone oxidizes organics sometimes it makes them harder to skim, correct? Do you feel its worse that these organics stay in the tank until you do a water change?

It frequently makes organics more consumable by bacteria, IMO.

 

[kimoyo]

And here is a post I made last week.



Ozone can eliminate the yellow tint and improve clarity in tanks. This can be very desirable to hobbyist because we like to see crystal clear water. But the ozone does this by converting organics not getting rid of them. The organics or by-products are still in the tank in some form.

Here's a quote from an article by Randy Holmes-Farley about skimming .

"It is thus highly probable than any elimination of yellow coloration in a marine tank on using ozone is due to the simple conversion of the organics from a light absorbing form, to a nonabsorbing form. The organics are not removed by a skimmer, and are not completely destroyed. They are just in a different form. Whether that is desirable or undesirable will depend entirely on the specific organic compounds in question."

Also, ozone has not been shown to make organics easier to skim. Many people see a drop in their skimming after using ozone for a bit, which makes me think that some organics are being converted to a non-skimmable form. Another quote from Randy from the same article,

"The follow-up question is whether these oxidized compounds are more susceptible to being removed by a skimmer than before oxidation. At present, I am not aware of any study which shows that they are, or even of any physical reason why the would be. In general, oxidation makes organic molecules more hydrophilic. In some cases, it also breaks molecules into smaller pieces. Neither of these actions should lead to greater skimming. Hydrophobic molecules (in the presence of amphipathic molecules) are easily skimmed. Converting them to amphipathic molecules through introduction of a hydrophilic group will mean that they are still skimmed, but not that they are easier to skim. Oxidizing amphipathic molecules is also unlikely to increase skimming, and if they are oxidized so much that they become completely hydrophilic, then they will not be skimmed at all. I cannot think of a single molecule which becomes easier to skim by oxidation. On balance, there does not appear to be any evidence that the use of ozone increases skimming efficiency per se. That is not to say that ozone has no effect. The use of ozone can certainly lead to fewer yellowing compounds in the water, and might make many organics more susceptible to biodegradation. It can also sterilize water if used in sufficient concentrations. Are these things desirable? That's up to each aquarist to decide."

Ozone does break organics into smaller pieces that can be easier for bacteria to use (a quote from Boomer here on RC in response to a comment I made),

Originally posted by Boomer

Here is an article I found while looking for something for another board and says that it is not easy to reduce bacteria count in the water using ozone. With their set-up they saw no significant differences:

Well that may be for that study. I have an old North Sea circulation operation data report that shows clearly that water born bacteria show a clear reduction in population density when ozone is used and increasing when the ozone is shut off. However, when you look at nitrifying bacteria the opposite happens, they increase in population with ozone. Ozone is able to oxidize long chain molecules, which can not be reduced within a biological filter into shorter compounds, which can be used by aerobic bacteria. So even if the skimmer did not remove them there are nutrients for bacteria you want.

But even if ozone helps the bacteria get hold of the organics, the stuff is still staying in your tank (as nitrates maybe) and your skimmer (hopefully the correct size for your bioload) is not being used to its full capacity.

And ozone can be very dangerous. Trihalomethanes (THM) are a group of chemicals that are formed along with other disinfection by products when chlorine or other disinfectants used to control microbial contaminants in drinking water react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in water. They are cancer group B carcinogens. Ozonation applied to bromide-containing water creates Bromate, a type of trihalomethane. Bromide is present in natural sea water and salt mixes.

And carbon gets it out.

Originally posted by Boomer

Carbon is not proven to make a difference with ozone, it is just theory, no tests!

Where did you dream up that nonsense. Anyone can and many have proved it. You may want to do some research on the suject, as you are just digging yourself a hole. How do you think your RO unit removes chlorine, with a pre-carbon flter, bromine is the same. It is the pre-carbon filter on RO's that remove chlorine not the RO.

Chlorine
C* + HOCI => CO* + H++ Cl-( back to Chloride)

C* + OCl => CO* + Cl- (same)


Bromine

O3 (ozone) + Br--- --> O2 + OBr-

C* + HOBr- => CO* + H++ Br- ( back to bromide)

C* + OBr- => CO* + Br- (same)

where C stands for the activated carbon, and C-O stands for oxidized activated carbon.

All of this, including scientific references, can be found in a thread I started in the summer,
Ozone doesn't reduce organics, just changes it?. There is also tons of info on RC and the internet that can be found doing search.

 

[jhale]

thanks for the info and links Paul.
I read through the RC thread, the info that Boomer gives will take some more studying. I also want to read the info on the Trihalomethanes that can be produced.
This is getting much harder. But I want to do the homework.
Since you started the thread what conclusions have you come to regarding 03
use.

 

[Deanos]

dean the thing with acros is most of them are brown in the wild. it's when we get them into out tanks and blast them with MH that the zooxanthellae freak out and turn nice colors, or something like that. sorry I forgot the exact process, but your premise is correct.

Browning of corals