who's down with ORP?

[kimoyo]

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.

If you have yellow water you can get ozone to clear it and thats cool.
If your worried about parasites you can get a uv, plumb it correctly and thats cool.

But if your worried about improving water chemistry get neither and figure out whats wrong with your exporting.

I had thought it would be good to have ozone in case of deaths to get more oxidizers working on the tank water but Randy's comments made me rethink it.

 

[NYPDFrogman]

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

the water thats going to leave my reactor will run through a reverse flow carbon reactor than return to my sump

 

[jhale]

If you have yellow water you can get ozone to clear it and thats cool.
If your worried about parasites you can get a uv, plumb it correctly and thats cool.

But if your worried about improving water chemistry get neither and figure out whats wrong with your exporting.

I had thought it would be good to have ozone in case of deaths to get more oxidizers working on the tank water but Randy's comments made me rethink it.

I want my water to be as clear as possible.
I'm still deliberating on any harmful effects.
My water chemistry is fine. I am going to be dosing randys 2 part formula.

 

[NYPDFrogman]

I hope to have my 02 test kit by monday, the reactors and drier will be done so early next week I should have this set up running. I've been taking pictures testing and keeping a log so I'll post my findings as we go along.

this thread is awesome I'm really enjoying reading this stuff

 

[jhale]

Frank after reading Pauls thread I'm now trying to figure out the good and the bad.
I need to read more.
I think the good outweighs the bad possibilities.
I need House to draw up a risk assessment chart

 

[herman]

Paul, Thanks for all the info and input. Good stuff man!!
I really do appreciate the new threads that have been popping up.

As far as I am concerned with the ozone thing, I will always use it because just my personal observation and experiance has been positive. The only negative thing is that I had to buy the stuff and noone thought to give it to me for free. :joke:

Most large installations use it and there are quite a few experts that use it also. I fully understand that ozone is deadly if used carelessly. Prior to utilizing Ozone in the Aquarium we used it to disinfect our pool. Same concept just way bigger. In the pool the oxidised materials fall to the bottom of the pool and it sort of looks like algae. The mechanical filter takes care of that. Its nice not to have to use chlorine in a pool. A 10 foot water monitor (my pet) lived in that pool without complaints

In the tank, I do believe that a good skimmer along with ozone system and a filtersock does amazing things. I am just an average guy that has respect for the fact that O3 is a poison and I treat it with respect.

If you do the same follow instructions you should be able to reap the benefits as many including myself have in the past

 

[herman]

Frank after reading Pauls thread I'm now trying to figure out the good and the bad.
I need to read more.
I think the good outweighs the bad possibilities.
I need House to draw up a risk assessment chart

As far as I am concerned the only risk in using ozone is carelessness. So in your case J, you should be ok.

 

[NYPDFrogman]

As far as I am concerned the only risk in using ozone is carelessness. So in your case J, you should be ok.

I second that

 

[jhale]

I second that

whose down with ORP? ya you know me!
haha.

now I just need the controller., lol.

 

[ShaunW]

If you have yellow water you can get ozone to clear it and thats cool.
If your worried about parasites you can get a uv, plumb it correctly and thats cool.

But if your worried about improving water chemistry get neither and figure out whats wrong with your exporting.

I had thought it would be good to have ozone in case of deaths to get more oxidizers working on the tank water but Randy's comments made me rethink it.

Good advice!
Any responsible reef keeper will not have yellow water and parasites (quarantine tank!?!).

All these short cuts in the hobby are just that short cuts, but one thing I have learned with biological systems is that stability is KEY. For everything that you change/tweek you are putting out of balance something else.

For example with O3 your are sterilizing the water column. I personally don't like doing that, for the sheer fact that you are cutting down on biodiversity and reproduction! Many marine creatures have a plantonic state that they live as when young, all the extra mechanical devises we hook up kills them or filters them out. Why do it if you don't have to???

 

[ShaunW]

And while I totally agree with the idea that ozone and UV will break down organics, making them more available for skimming, the idea that it makes nutrients for bacteria is not nessesarily true, since bacteria are just fine with out ozone.

The thing that most people don't understand is that when one uses the term "bacteria" you are talking about a Kingdom (?). Meaning that the biodiversity of bacteria is greater than that of mammals, it is equal to eukaryotes. So if one bacteria is able to get the nutrients that O3 releases, another bacteria will be starved. It is an equilibrium, thus changing one bacterial species selective advantage hinders another.

Thus, the observed increase in nitrifying bacteria (biofilm forming) is because all the oligotropic bacteria (planktonic) are being killed allowing the limiting nutrient to become more available.

 

[jhale]

I know ozone will kill bacteria in the water column indiscriminately, but how much useful bacteria will get nuked? vs. how much unwanted organic material will get changed?

I don't see ozone as a short cut, it's another piece of equipment we can use to maintain the tank. If I choose to use it and see any negative effects I'll stop using it.

how is it different from using co2 or activated carbon, or UV?
They all can create problems if used incorrectly. I continually see people on this site have problems with CA reactors, but no one has told them to stop using them. Once dialed in correctly they work well, but how long does that take. Often they lead to other problems and not the growth in coral they were supposed to help with. I could argue that a CA reactor is a short cut also for trying to maintain the balance between CA and Alk. Or a protein skimmer just helps delay water changes :wink1:

So far in my research the use of ozone seems regarded in two ways, people either hate it, or they use it and think it's great. There does not seem to be any middle ground.

edited 12.9.05 8:10 a.m.

 

[NYPDFrogman]

I know ozone will kill bacteria in the water column indiscriminately, but how much useful bacteria will get nuked? vs. how much unwanted organic material will get changed?

I don't see ozone as a short cut, it's another piece of equipment we can use to maintain the tank. If I choose to use it and see any negative effects I'll stop using it.

how is it different from using co2 or activated carbon, or UV?
They all can create problems if used incorrectly. I continually see people on this site have problems with CA reactors, but no one has told them to stop using them. Once dialed in correctly they work well, but how long does that take. Often they lead to other problems and not the growth in coral they were supposed to help with. I could argue that a CA reactor is a short cut also for trying to maintain the balance between CA and Alk. Or a protein skimmer just helps delay water changes :wink1:

So far in my research the use of ozone seems regarded in two ways, people either hate it, or they use it and think it's great. There does not seem to be any middle ground.

edited 12.9.05 8:10 a.m.

I agree it took close to 3 weeks for me to get my Ca reactor in the zone.
I respect everyones input to this thread there is no middle ground to some people just not knowing turns them off, some the cost of the equipment, some the method of handling the ozone, hey there are still people who advocate no skimming, while others advocate get the biggest skimmer you can find.
one thing we all have to accept is that we are not going to duplicate the ocean! all we can do is provide the safest, stable enviorment for the animals we are keeping that have accepted the change and adapted to life in captivity.
having spent a fair share of time underwater I can tell you that for some species we have provided them a safe, longer life that they might have had in the ocean.

 

[spykes]

ok i dont know if you guys know this, i know shaun does but the rest of you guys, every molecule has it's own redox value, not only o3 will do oxidation but also Fe+++ and even H+ has a redox value, attaching to free electrons that the reducers put out changes the molecules, and when a hydrophobic molecule and other amino groups that your corals go into oxidation they might change into a form your corals might not accept anymore. There are chances where a organic matter is just changed to h2o and CO2, but in our tanks we dont know what happens to the organics. Unlike carbon where it just binds to most molecules and takes it out, oxidation changes things and destroys things. It is certainly a very very interesting idea of having one in your tank, but this might also inhibit the amount of skimming your skimmer does, because only hydrophobic such as oil and protein gets into your skimmer, and seperates itself from water, because it doesnt like water, the air just pushes the particles out. but when oxidation occurs i dont know what happens, and im not to sure what happens to the organic molecule, because not all organic molecule will change from CH3COO- + 2H2O ?? 2CO2 + 7H+ + 8e-. BUT there are alot of benifitial values in ORP also. which i will think about when i think about it i'll post again. BTW i can be wrong :p

 

[NYPDFrogman]

OK let me ask this
can you have good water quality with a low redox potential?
or can you have poor water quality with a high redox potential?( I'm not talking extremes)

 

[jhale]

here is a quote from Randys article,

Many aquarists have been lead to believe that ORP is a measure of water quality or purity. Manufacturers selling ozonizers and other oxidizers (like permanganate) have been especially keen to present that idea. But is it really true? Is a higher redox indicative of "purer water" even when that redox is manipulated artificially by adding strong oxidizers? Or is such an addition analogous to an air freshener that masks odors? I don't know the answer, but I think that aquarists should ask the question, and hope to hear useful answers before adding such materials to their aquaria.

Obviously, one can decrease the yellowing of water fairly quickly with oxidizers. It turns out, however, than many organic functional groups that provide color are just the ones that are readily oxidized. It is a common trick for organic chemists that need organic compounds to lack colored impurities to add an oxidizer that "kills off" the color in certain impurities, but leaves nearly all of the primary organic compounds behind. I've done it myself when making dyes for photographic film. You don't want the film to be yellow, so an oxidizer is added to the dye, let it oxidize the color away, and then use the unaffected dye in the film.

Of course, that decolorizing itself can be viewed as beneficial, but it is not necessarily indicative of the load of organics that have been removed from the solution. It is also not necessarily indicative of an improvement for tank inhabitants. The oxidizer did something to the organics. Maybe they are less toxic in the oxidized forms. Or maybe they are more toxic. Or perhaps they are not toxic regardless of the form. Maybe they are more readily metabolized by bacteria. Is that a benefit? The point is that assuming that such a treatment is of significant benefit to the aquarium may be in error.

If an oxidizer is added and ORP goes up in 30 seconds, is the water purer? Not likely. More likely, that addition shifted many of the redox species to their more oxidizing forms. Is that beneficial? Maybe. Is it detrimental? Maybe. For example, the bioavailability of certain metals may depend on the form that those metals take. Is increasing bioavailability of them desirable? It all depends on the details. Details that are simply not known for aquaria.

Perhaps continual use of ozone does help clear some organics from the water, and there is a long term benefit that may or may not be related to actual ORP readings that one gets from an aquarium. Is there data showing that to be the case, and then coupling that with some objective measure of benefit to the aquarium? Does that outweigh the potential concerns about the toxicity of reactive oxidants in aquaria? Again, I do not know the answer. Only careful studies with clear endpoints can give such an answer.

 

[jhale]

and when a hydrophobic molecule and other amino groups that your corals go into oxidation they might change into a form your corals might not accept anymore.

I understand what your saying but I still have not found reports of coral doing poorly with ozone use. I'm not saying there are none, just that I have not found any yet.

my research last night was not scientific, I've looked at successful tanks such as the tank of the month on RC. Quite a few of the tanks have O3 running as a supplement to skimming and GAC. They all have great coral growth and the tanks look healthy, how long they have been using O3 was not mentioned. I think used in a judicious manner O3 can provide a means to control ORP, but I would not rely on it as the sole means.

can you translate what CH3COO- + 2H2O ?? 2CO2 + 7H+ + 8e- is.

 

[spykes]

Ok people get this straight, oxidizers and reductors means something else in science. oxidizing doesnt mean using oxygen to purify or anything, iron can be a oxidizer it means a electron acceptor. Reduction means a electron donator. ORP measures the amount of molecules there being a electron donator and electron acceptor. NOthing else. It does not tell you how much organic or bad stuff in your tank, even good molecules can be reductors. It doesnt show how great is your water, it's a very inaccurate term for it, alot of acceptors oxidizers will kill stuff. It kills stuff because it takes away electron from stuff, but not because it is killing bacteria in general, it doesnt know what it's doing, it just wants a electron. You will need really high oxidation values for that. Dont think that orp will magically give you good water quality, even in higher reductor values, a tank can be in bad water quality. reason is you can be lacking stuff like
Metals: Fe++ (iron), Mn++ (manganese), many others

Most organics, especially "antioxidants" like vitamin C

Inorganics: I- (iodide), S-- (sulfide), NO2- (nitrite), NH3 (ammonia)

metals and stuff can be stripped out and changed as well, im pretty sure your ammonia eating bacteria is going to starve, and lower the population as well, same thing with your anarobic bacteria that is in your rock, these things are changed till the point your bacterial population that was maintaining your water quality first off is died. with a high redox value, these things are changed becomes something else. it does not mean your getting better water quality, undersea life it's not the ozone that maintains the higher redox value in the sea, there is tons of diffrent minerals that does oxidization which is proton acceptors, but ozone is a higher performer oxidizer then others. so yes frank, even in a ozone tank your not prone to fighting bad water quality........

in a good water quality tank, there is a balance between protein, metal and organics...... your tryin to create a equalibrium between everything. remember in your water there are ammino groups as well, they also are made and corals might take them in, but you might change that molecule as well. remember your changing stuff not taking out!!!!!

 

[spykes]

I understand what your saying but I still have not found reports of coral doing poorly with ozone use. I'm not saying there are none, just that I have not found any yet.

my research last night was not scientific, I've looked at successful tanks such as the tank of the month on RC. Quite a few of the tanks have O3 running as a supplement to skimming and GAC. They all have great coral growth and the tanks look healthy, how long they have been using O3 was not mentioned. I think used in a judicious manner O3 can provide a means to control ORP, but I would not rely on it as the sole means.

can you translate what CH3COO- + 2H2O ?? 2CO2 + 7H+ + 8e- is.

ozone is a funny thing, what effects someone else's tank might do diffrent in yours, just know that CH3COO- + 2H2O turns into this 2CO2 + 7H+ + 8e- is
which shows a protein, change into (2)CO2 molecule _ 7 Hydrogen ions and 8 electrons. but it uses 2 H2O molecule.

 

[jhale]

I'm going to have to take some chem classes to figure this out.

these reports are complements of Boomer from RC, he posted the abstracts on Paul's ozone thread.

Oxidative cell damage in Kat-sod assay of oxyhalides as inorganic disinfection by-products and their occurrence by ozonation. Ueno H; Oishi K; Sayato Y; Nakamuro K Department of Biological Sciences, 1845 N. Fairmount, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 67260-0026, USA ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY (2000 Jan), 38(1), 1-6.

Abstract:
Nine oxyhalides as possible inorganic disinfection by-products were tested for oxidative cell damage by Kat-sod assay with E. coli mutant strains deficient in the active oxygen-scavenging enzymes. Chlorine dioxide, chlorite, and iodate were highly cytotoxic, whereas in the presence of cysteine, bromate (BrO3-) and metaperiodate (IO4-) showed more growth inhibition toward the superoxide dismutase-deficient strains than the wild strain. BrO3- also showed oxidative mutagenicity with cysteine or glutathione ethyl ester in S. typhimurium TA 100. To identify oxyhalides formed by ozonation of raw water containing sea water, the occurrence of ozonation by-products of bromide and iodide was investigated. The results indicate that BrO3- is toxicologically one of the most remarkable oxyhalides detectable in drinking water because IO4- was not detected in the ozonated solution of iodide, and the ozonation condition to lower BrO3- is to keep it neutral in the presence of ammonium ion.

Oxidation of Iodide and Hypoiodous Acid in the Disinfection of Natural Waters. Bichsel, Yves; von Gunten, Urs. Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology EAWAG, Duebendorf, Switz. Environ. Sci. Technol. (1999), 33(22), 4040-4045.

Abstract:
In aq. oxidative processes with O3, Cl, or chloramine, naturally occurring I- can easily be oxidized to HOI which can react with natural org. matter (NOM) or be further oxidized to IO3-. Such processes can be of importance for the geochem. of I and for the fate of I in industrial processes (drinking water treatment, aquacultures). Whereas IO3- is the desired sink for I in drinking waters, iodoorg. compds. (esp. CHI3) are problematic due to their taste and odor. To assess the sink for I during oxidn. of natural waters, we detd. the kinetics of several oxidn. reactions of HOI. O3, Cl, and chloramine were tested as potential oxidants. O3 oxidized both HOI and OI- (kO3+HOI = 3.6 ? 104/M-s; kO3+OI- = 1.6 ? 106/M-s) in a fast reaction. Cl species oxidized HOI by a combination of 2nd- and 3rd-order reactions (k''HOCl+HOI = 8.2/M-s; k'''HOCl+HOI = 8.3 ? 104/M2-s; kOCl-+HOI = 52/M-s). Monochloramine did not further oxidize HOI. The probability of the formation of iodoorg. compds. during drinking water disinfection therefore increases in the order O3

Modeling of nitrate and bromate in a seawater aquarium. Grguric, Gordan; Coston, Christopher J. Marine Science Program, Richard Stockton College, Pomona, NJ, USA. Water Res. (1998), 32(6), 1759-1768.

Abstract:

Closed marine systems where there is no significant primary productivity and water changes are impractical exhibit increasing nitrate concns. over time. At the Living Seas artificial seawater aquarium, nitrate concn. reached 9700mM after 5 yr of operation. Concern about potential toxic effects assocd. with a further increase led to the development of a batch denitrification system, sep. from the Main Tank of the aquarium. The system was installed in early 1991 and after 350 days of operation, nitrate concn. in the aquarium decreased to 3200mM. Two models are applied to the empirical nitrate data - one designed specifically for nitrate and one originally developed for bromate. Both models have correlations greater than 0.95 with the empirical nitrate data over the period studied. The models were used to det. the steady state nitrate concn. in the aquarium: the first model predicts 850mM, assuming no idle time between denitrification runs. The second model predicts 2300mM, with the actual idle times taken into account. Potentially toxicity and carcinogenicity of bromate has been of concern in recirculating seawater aquaria, where bromate is produced from oxidn. of bromide during ozonation. By late 1990, bromate concn. in The Living Seas reached 4.6mM. After the installation of the denitrification system, bromate concn. has been controlled by the balance between ozonation and denitrification processes. We developed a model based on the existing kinetic data regarding bromate formation during ozonation and an empirically detd. rate of bromate loss during denitrification. The model predicts a bromate concn. of 3.6mM by early 1994, in reasonable agreement with the obsd. value of 3.4mM. The eventual steady state bromate concn. predicted by the model is 0.7mM. Verification of the model with the obsd. bromate and nitrate data from The Living Seas shows that it is a useful tool for predicting concns. of redox-reactive chem. species in a closed seawater system.
In addn., empirical data from this study suggest that denitrification can be used to control bromate concns. in seawater aquaria that employ ozone for disinfection.


Physiological effect of seawater treated by ozone on Chlorella sp. Wang, Chenggang; Tang, Xiaohua; Zheng, Bo; Ma, Shen. Shandong Marine Scientific and Technical Academy, Tsingtao, Peop. Rep. China. Shuichan Xuebao (2001), 25(2), 151-155.

Abstract:
The effects of seawater treated by ozone on reprodn., chlorophyll-a content, DNA and RNA content in Chlorella sp. were studied. Meanwhile, NH4+-N, NO2--N and NO3--N content in the seawater were analyzed. The results showed as follows: a certain concn. of ozone treatment could increase reprodn. and chlorophyll-a content, but higher concn. of ozone treatment could inhibit reprodn. of Chlorella sp.; DNA content showed relative stability, RNA content was more sensitive to ozone treatment than DNA content, and ozone treatment could increase RNA content; HN4+-N and NO2--N content decreased in seawater by ozone treatment, while NO3--N content increased compared with that in control seawater.


Qualitative assay of residual oxidants in seawater and effect of several oxidants on Japanese flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus, eggs. Mimura, Gen; Nagamitu, Takako; Nagase, Toshiya; Namba, Kenji. Ebara Jitugyo Aquaculture Engineering Lab, Nakahara, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan. Suisan Zoshoku (1998), 46(4), 579-587. CODEN: SUZOAV ISSN: 0371-4217.

Abstract:
An attempt was made to quantify oxidants by measuring trihalogenated methanes generated from reacting resorcin with TRO (total residual oxidants). The results showed that the residual oxidants in OPO (ozone-producted oxidants) seawater, TRC (total residual chlorine) seawater and electrolyzed seawater were mostly hypobromous acid. When seawater contg. hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine was treated with resorcin, no trihalomethane was detected. In addn., when NaClO was added to seawater dild. 3-30 times with distd. water, both chlorine-contg. and bromine-contg. oxidants were detected. Delayed hatching was obsd. frequently in Japanese flounder eggs exposed to OPO seawater, TRC seawater or electrolyzed seawater. Occurrence of the delayed hatching increased rapidly when the oxidant concn. increased to 2 mg O3/l or higher. No increment in dead eggs was obsd. When the eggs were exposed to seawater contg. hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine, few delayed hatching of eggs were found. Most of the eggs that failed to hatch died.

Acute toxicity of ozone-exposed seawater and chlorinated seawater for Japanese flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus, eggs, larvae and juveniles. Mimura, Gen; Katayama, Yasuto; Ji, Xiangrong; Xie, Jialin; Namba, Kenji. Ebara Jitsugyo Aquaculture Engineering Lab, Nakahara, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan. Suisan Zoshoku (1998), 46(4), 569-578.

Abstract:
The toxic effects of exposure to ozone-exposed seawater and chlorinated seawater were investigated in eggs and larvae aged 3-15 days and juveniles aged 44 days in the setting stage of Japanese flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus. For eggs, the 50% no-hatching concn. of OPO and TRC after 1 min exposure were both about 2.2 mg O3/l. The 24-h LC50 values of OPO and TRC in larvae aged 3-15 days were both 0.02-0.05 mg O3/l. The 24-h LC50 values of OPO and TRC for juveniles aged 44 days in the setting stage were both 0.14-0.15 mg O3/l. Light microscopy of branchial tissues showed detachment of the epithelium of the secondary lamellae after exposure to OPO or TRC. SEM of branchial tissues showed cell swelling and cell destruction of the secondary lamellae after exposure to OPO or TRC. The toxicity of OPO and TRC and damage to branchial tissue caused by OPO and TRC were exactly alike.