Aquarist007
New member
Believe me you are not alone for bonehead moves. :eek1:
Thanks for posting.....appreciation goes along way on here.
Bleach vs Acid
- Thread starter bheron
- Start date
Believe me you are not alone for bonehead moves. :eek1:
Thanks for posting.....appreciation goes along way on here.
Aquarist007
New member
That's a great observation...what test kit are you using
NaturalViolence
New member
I was hoping to ask randy this but he has PMing turned off so I guess I'll post it here.
Is there a way to chemically breakdown all or most of the organics on dry rock so that is does not need to be biologically cured? What chemical would you use for this?
Now I've been searching all over the web to gather information about this. Your name has popped up quite a few times during these searches. I notice that you seem to recommend bleach for this over all other chemicals. Why? If it's for the oxidation potential of hypochlorite wouldn't hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate be better choices since they are stronger oxidizers?
Many people recommend hydrochloric acid for this but that eats away a significant portion of the rock and still does not break down a lot of the organics on the rock. The same goes for bleach (minus dissolving the rock). We use it for whitening and disinfecting in households and it seems to be good for that but is it really the best choice for breaking down organic matter? Wouldn't sodium hydroxide be a better choice than hydrochloric acid? I know for a fact that hydrochloric acid will not breakdown a human corpse but NaOH will. It's why the mafia used it for so many years. Alkaline hydrolysis probably has a similar effect on organic matter as acid hydrolysis but since the PH of NAOH is further from neutral than HCl I would imagine it would do a better job. And with the added benefit of not dissolving any rock. So why not recommend this over bleach and HCl? There has to be a better way than what everyone else seems to be doing. Acid and bleach seem to help but I don't think they're the best choice from what I've been reading. Chemically it doesn't make sense to me why these two were chosen by the hobby to become the go to method and others disregarded.
Is there a way to chemically breakdown all or most of the organics on dry rock so that is does not need to be biologically cured? What chemical would you use for this?
Now I've been searching all over the web to gather information about this. Your name has popped up quite a few times during these searches. I notice that you seem to recommend bleach for this over all other chemicals. Why? If it's for the oxidation potential of hypochlorite wouldn't hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate be better choices since they are stronger oxidizers?
Many people recommend hydrochloric acid for this but that eats away a significant portion of the rock and still does not break down a lot of the organics on the rock. The same goes for bleach (minus dissolving the rock). We use it for whitening and disinfecting in households and it seems to be good for that but is it really the best choice for breaking down organic matter? Wouldn't sodium hydroxide be a better choice than hydrochloric acid? I know for a fact that hydrochloric acid will not breakdown a human corpse but NaOH will. It's why the mafia used it for so many years. Alkaline hydrolysis probably has a similar effect on organic matter as acid hydrolysis but since the PH of NAOH is further from neutral than HCl I would imagine it would do a better job. And with the added benefit of not dissolving any rock. So why not recommend this over bleach and HCl? There has to be a better way than what everyone else seems to be doing. Acid and bleach seem to help but I don't think they're the best choice from what I've been reading. Chemically it doesn't make sense to me why these two were chosen by the hobby to become the go to method and others disregarded.
Bleach will kill a lot of pathogens and is relatively safe to use. Lye and other alternatives are more dangerous to handle. I personally don't see much value in breaking down organics on rock more quickly, but if you want to use more toxic chemicals, lye or lime might do more.
NaturalViolence
New member
bertoni said:
Well we don't want it to breakdown in our tank and release nutrients so we need to cure it. And depending on the rock curing can often take many months. If you could do it in an hour instead of 3 months with 15 cents worth of chemicals you don't see the value of that? That would be a godsend for me. No more agonizing waiting.
If lye could do the trick even better. It's dirt cheap even for pharmaceutical grade, really easy to get rid of, doesn't dissolve rock, and doesn't produce any toxic vapors from its reactions. I have a shipment coming in next week that I'm going to test. Still wondering if NaOH is better or a strong oxidizing agent like potassium permanganate.
The amount of nutrients on live rock is tiny compared to the food that will be added to the tank over its lifetime, at least for most of us. I would cure rock in a separate container only if I thought it had a fair amount of phosphate in it. I don't think the process should take more than a couple of weeks.
Aquarist007
New member
The curing of rock in a tank really means encouraging the growth of bacteria that will handle the existing and future bioloads in the tank. This is a vital process that should be allowed to happen
NaturalViolence
New member
bertoni said:
It depends on the rock. Stick some pukani from brs in a 10 gallon tank with circulation and wait a couple of days. The water will look and smell quite foul. Within another couple of days the mineralizing bacteria population will have exploded and nutrient levels will start to spike. If I removed all of the filtration on my tank, stopped doing water changes, and resumed normal feeding it would take months to achieve the same effect in my tank. I know because I've done it before. The amount of organic material on this rock is equivalent to introducing a massive volume of food to the tank all at once.
capn hylinur said:
Cycling will happen regardless of how or if you cure the rock. As soon as the chemicals wear off and you introduce it to a tank it will begin. And if you're adding more rock to existing tank that's already cycled like I am it's not even necessary to cycle the rock.
Aquarist007
New member
I agree but with aerobic bacteria. Anaerobic bacteria will take a lot longer.
In your case I would not add seasoned rock as I would be more worried about possible leaching of nitrates and phosphates from it rather then ammonia spikes
NaturalViolence
New member
capn hylinur said:
And why does that matter? The same logic applies to anaerobic bacteria too. I'm not understanding your point here. There are three possible methods here and the end result is basically the same:
1. Do nothing. Stick the rock in the tank immediately and let it cure/cycle in the tank.
2. Biologically cure/cycle it in a separate container first then transfer it.
3. Chemically cure the rock then stick it in the tank where it will cycle.
All three end up with clean live rock filled with aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. The difference between these methods is amount of time needed, cost, complexity, and whether the tank takes on any additional nutrients during the process.
capn hylinur said:
What is "seasoned rock"?
Are you saying not to use dry rock period?
I would also like to point out that nitrates don't bind to rock. It's chemically impossible for them to precipitate out of solution like that.
Curing if done right will also remove phosphates from the rock. You can speed things up chemically by doing an acid bath first and using lanthanum chloride during the curing process afterwards. This process we've already optimized very well and I am therefore not concerned with it.
I still don't know what any of this has to do with any of the things that I brought up in my post. I'm just looking to find out the effects of various common/cheap chemicals on decomposition of organic matter to speed up or eliminate the curing process. This has nothing to do with cycling or phosphate leeching. I believe that with enough research and testing a chemical process can be derived to improve the speed and efficiency of the curing process. And I believe the current process people are using for this is far from optimal.
I'll be doing a lot of testing to refine this process over the coming weeks regardless of what happens here but having the input of a chemist would greatly help speed things along. Which is why I asked randy these things.
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
Good luck with your testing
NaturalViolence
New member
I appreciate that but seriously though what is "seasoned rock"? I think you were trying to tell me not to use dry rock because of potential phosphate leaching. Which in that case I addressed those concerns, but I still am not entirely sure that I interpreted that statement correctly. I don't mean to be rude, those statements just seemed very random.
Last edited:
I suspect that if I took all the food I fed my 29g tank over the 11 year period it was running, it'd create a lot more smell and mess. Over time, any feeding schedule I've seen here is going to add a lot more nitrogen and phosphate to the tank than the initial debris on the rock.
Last edited:
NaturalViolence
New member
Well of course that's true. 11 years is a long time. That's true of virtually any source of nutrients including dead livestock. If I took a dump in my tank tomorrow that too would probably contain significantly less nutrients than a decade worth of feeding. But that doesn't mean that I should do it or that there is no reason for concern in doing it.
Adding a lot of nutrients all at once is always a bad thing and should be avoided if possible. And that's what sticking dirty rock in your aquarium without curing it first does. Feeding adds a small amount of nutrients everyday. The total amount of nutrients may be high but it's spread out over a long period of time giving your tank and filtration the time it needs to process it.
Hell if enough nutrients are added at once it can progress your tank from an algae/bacterial bloom to a full blown crash. It's unlikely, but if the rock was dirty enough and you added a lot at once it could happen. Even if it doesn't happen any increase in nutrients over what the tank is normally receiving it going to have some negative consequences even if they're minimal. I think you can understand why I would prefer to avoid that. Both the benefits of curing pukani (or other dirty rocks) dry rock and the risks presented to tanks from sudden nutrient spikes have been very well documented over the decades so I don't think I'm pulling this out of thin air here. You're entitled to your opinion but I really don't see how wanting to remove all this organic crud before putting it in the tank could be considered pointless or unreasonable. I just want to find the best way to do it.
Adding a lot of nutrients all at once is always a bad thing and should be avoided if possible. And that's what sticking dirty rock in your aquarium without curing it first does. Feeding adds a small amount of nutrients everyday. The total amount of nutrients may be high but it's spread out over a long period of time giving your tank and filtration the time it needs to process it.
Hell if enough nutrients are added at once it can progress your tank from an algae/bacterial bloom to a full blown crash. It's unlikely, but if the rock was dirty enough and you added a lot at once it could happen. Even if it doesn't happen any increase in nutrients over what the tank is normally receiving it going to have some negative consequences even if they're minimal. I think you can understand why I would prefer to avoid that. Both the benefits of curing pukani (or other dirty rocks) dry rock and the risks presented to tanks from sudden nutrient spikes have been very well documented over the decades so I don't think I'm pulling this out of thin air here. You're entitled to your opinion but I really don't see how wanting to remove all this organic crud before putting it in the tank could be considered pointless or unreasonable. I just want to find the best way to do it.
Last edited:
Because they are readily available, for one.
I'd use bleach to remove organics. Hydrogen peroxide is not as effective at breaking down organics, and while permanganate may work (never heard of anyone trying it), it is just not as easily available.
The benefit of dissolving a bit of the rock surface with acid is to remove things like phopshate or metals attached to the calcium carbonate.
NaturalViolence
New member
Thank you for your response. I still have a few more questions though if you have time.
So are these. Trust me if I wanted to include chemicals that are difficult or expensive for me to procure the list would be a hell of a lot longer.
How come? It has a higher oxidation potential. 1.8 vs. 1.4 if I recall.
I had a feeling that you might say this simply because of the concentrations involved. Getting the concentration of H2O2 up to comparable levels can be quite expensive.
You can get pure KMnO4 on ebay and amazon for dirt cheap both in small quantities and in bulk. You can also find it at any hardware store near the water softeners. It is just as common as muriatic/hydrochloric acid.
But ignoring availability how would it fair at removing organics vs. bleach? That's what I'm more curious about.
True. But ignore that temporarily. I'm only interested in removing organics here. And hydrochloric acid happens to also be fairly good at that from what I've seen. In fact it seems to have done a better job than the bleach did.
And what about sodium hydroxide? How would it fair at removing organics compared to the rest of these?
Randy Holmes-Farley said:
So are these. Trust me if I wanted to include chemicals that are difficult or expensive for me to procure the list would be a hell of a lot longer.
Randy Holmes-Farley said:
How come? It has a higher oxidation potential. 1.8 vs. 1.4 if I recall.
I had a feeling that you might say this simply because of the concentrations involved. Getting the concentration of H2O2 up to comparable levels can be quite expensive.
Randy Holmes-Farley said:
You can get pure KMnO4 on ebay and amazon for dirt cheap both in small quantities and in bulk. You can also find it at any hardware store near the water softeners. It is just as common as muriatic/hydrochloric acid.
But ignoring availability how would it fair at removing organics vs. bleach? That's what I'm more curious about.
Randy Holmes-Farley said:
True. But ignore that temporarily. I'm only interested in removing organics here. And hydrochloric acid happens to also be fairly good at that from what I've seen. In fact it seems to have done a better job than the bleach did.
And what about sodium hydroxide? How would it fair at removing organics compared to the rest of these?
I just don't see any reason to think that any of these are appreciably more effective than bleach at removing organics.
I also don't think that lack of effectiveness is any concern. I've never heard of anyone who could not remove all the crud from rock with bleach.
I also don't think that lack of effectiveness is any concern. I've never heard of anyone who could not remove all the crud from rock with bleach.
