Cleaning with sodium hydroxide

[bheron]

Hi all,
I learned on a different thread how to use sodium hydroxide to clean dead rock. My general question is, aside from the obvious dangers and safety concerns, what are the guidelines with using it to clean other things like:

1) equipment
2) dead sand from former DSB

Specifically looking for dosage/ratio with water, application time, and rinsing.

I know this is rough stuff so want to make sure I use it right.

Thanks
Bryan

 

[bertoni]

Sodium hydroxide should help with organics. I'd probably just use bleach, myself, but you could try a tablespoon per gallon, and see how that goes. Is there anything in specific that you're trying to remove?

 

[dkeller_nc]

Sodium hydroxide will be very effective at breaking down organic crud into soluble (and therefore rinsable) compounds. But generally speaking, cleaning of equipment is an issue of removing (inorganic) calcium carbonate deposits, which sodium hydroxide won't be effective at.

The safest thing to use on equipment with calcium carbonate deposits is vinegar. If you're in a hurry, dilute hydrochloric acid is more effective and faster, though can be dangerous for someone not used to handling hazardous chemicals.

 

[bheron]

thanks. i'm looking at two areas:

1) rinsing sand from a dead DSB. Would like to re-use the sand
2) cleaning a glass tank sump and overflows of my display tank.
3) cleaning dead live rock that has already been soaked in a bleach/water solution

specifically i had a really strange dino-like slime that grew all over my live rock, sand, and tank walls. i couldnt stop it and battled it for almost a year. then a 5 day power outtage this winter killed the entire tank. am starting over and would like to make sure i knock out anything left over before restarting.

 

[dkeller_nc]

If you're interested in cleaning sand/rock, I'd go with a hydrochloric acid bath. The hydrochloric acid will remove the outer few millimeters of the sand/rock, and along with it, any absorbed phosphate, metallic contaminants, and organic compounds.

It's best to use pool-supply hydrochloric for this, as it tends to be more pure than the hydrochloric acid sold in home stores for concrete etching.

Read up on safety procedures for the use of hydrochloric acid if you're not familiar with it; and any such procedure for sand/rock needs to be done outside.

 

[bertoni]

I agree that the hydrochloric acid bath will remove adsorbed phosphate. Either approach will help with organics. I might use the lye on the rock, but I agree that it won't do much for equipment.

Whichever approach you use, please be very careful with these chemicals! I'd work outside with the hydrochloric acid, as suggested. The lye is a bit safer indoors, but splashes can cause a lot of harm. I'd wear arm-length gloves and safety goggles with either chemical.

 

[bheron]

If you're interested in cleaning sand/rock, I'd go with a hydrochloric acid bath. The hydrochloric acid will remove the outer few millimeters of the sand/rock, and along with it, any absorbed phosphate, metallic contaminants, and organic compounds.

It's best to use pool-supply hydrochloric for this, as it tends to be more pure than the hydrochloric acid sold in home stores for concrete etching.

Read up on safety procedures for the use of hydrochloric acid if you're not familiar with it; and any such procedure for sand/rock needs to be done outside.

Would the acid bath still kill all the potential dead organic material, ie - the dead dino scum that might be left over? Or is that best left to bleach or sodium hydroxide?

Mostly looking to do whatever I can to help prevent this dino scum from restarting.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Either high or low enough pH will kill anything if given sufficient exposure, but bleach is even better at killing and destroying organic matter.

 

[dkeller_nc]

Would the acid bath still kill all the potential dead organic material, ie - the dead dino scum that might be left over? Or is that best left to bleach or sodium hydroxide?

Mostly looking to do whatever I can to help prevent this dino scum from restarting.

At appropriate concentrations, a bath with a strong mineral acid such as hydrochloric acid, a bleach bath, a sodium hydroxide bath, or a bath of hydrogen peroxide will all completely and irrevocably kill all life on the rock, including down to the microorganism level.

Sodium hydroxide is very good at breaking down proteins to small constituent parts (peptides and amino acids), as well as converting lipids, fats and organic oils to readily water-soluble compounds. But it won't appreciably dissolve the outer surface of rock/sand, so it won't be all that effective at removing precipitated phosphate or potential metallic contaminants, such as copper.

Acid at a low enough pH is also capable of breaking down proteins by acid hydrolysis, but it's slower than a really high pH solution such as sodium hydroxide. But, since the acid will dissolve the outer few millimeters of the surface of rock/sand, and any organics will be on this surface, the acid bath has the effect of removing it as well.

Bleach is actually a mixture of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide, though the concentration of sodium hydroxide is quite low. But it will also remove organics by both oxidation and hydrolysis (because of the high pH).

The only reason I don't recommend using bleach to nuke rock/sand is that there are several procedures published on "cooking" rock that involves bleach followed by hydrochloric acid. Done correctly (with a good rinse after the bleach), this doesn't in and of itself present a problem. However, for someone unfamiliar with chemistry and that aren't following the procedures to the letter, there's a possibility that they might add the acid directly to the bleach bath, and that produces hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, both of which are extremely dangerous to get a good lungful of.

 

[HighlandReefer]

At appropriate concentrations, a bath with a strong mineral acid such as hydrochloric acid, a bleach bath, a sodium hydroxide bath, or a bath of hydrogen peroxide will all completely and irrevocably kill all life on the rock, including down to the microorganism level.

What effect might a mineral acid, bleach or sodium hydroxide have on a double cell layered cyst wall (dinosporin) of a dinoflagellate resting spore made of a cellulose like chemical? Could this double cell layer made of dinosporin, found around the resting spores of dinos resist these chemicals you noted protecting the spore?

See article below:

Towards an Ecological Understanding of Dinoflagellate
Cyst Functions 2014

http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/2/1/11/pdf

From it in part:

"Paleontologists studying fossil dinoflagellates were the first to recognize the physical and chemical
resistance of resting cyst walls. The multilayer wall was initially thought to be composed of cellulose
or sporopollenin, a still poorly defined, highly resistant, organic polymer found in spores and pollen
grains [48,49]. However, chemical studies questioned the presence of sporopollenin as a major
component of dinoflagellate resting cyst walls [50,51]. Its definitive chemical structure remains to be
resolved since it was partly defined from fossilized spores and pollen walls whereas it is now clear
that the structural changes in those preserved materials during burial and diagenesis have been
underestimated [52]. Recent studies reported that the walls of extant dinoflagellate resting cysts are
different from those of other algae as the former contain dinosporin, which is resistant to chemical
degradation and undergoes scant biodegradion, as evidenced by the rich fossil record of dinoflagellate
cysts. Yet, the structure of dinosporin remains a matter of discussion [50,53]. Its complex
macromolecule structure was initially thought to consist of aliphatic and aromatic moieties [50], with
the latter acting as a protective agent. However, recent analysis of L. polyedrum suggests that
dinosporin is not aromatic and is most likely carbohydrate-based. As such, it is much more closely
related to cellulose than to sporollenin or algaenan, the resistant biopolymer widespread in green
algae [53]. Yet, it is unclear whether the variability in dinoflagellate life cycles is reflected in
differences in the chemical composition of the cyst wall."

 

[HighlandReefer]

"Dinosporin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dinosporin is a macromolecular, highly resistant organic compound which forms or partly forms, the enclosing wall of fossilizable organic-walled dinoflagellate cysts.[1]

Composition[edit]

The walls of organic-walled dinocysts are composed of the resistant biopolymer called dinosporin.[2] This organic compound has similarities to sporopollenin, but is unique to dinoflagellates. Resistant biopolymers are non-hydrolyzable and fossilizable macromolecular organic compounds present in many microalgal cell walls and fossil palynomorphs. Thus far, only the motile stage of Gymnodinium catenatum has been shown to produce the highly aliphatic biopolymer algaenan.[3] Dinosporin has been shown to be a significantly different biopolymer from algaenan,[4][5][6][7] which demonstrates that dinoflagellates are able to produce a completely different biomacromolecule for their resting cysts. Previous descriptions of dinosporin having similar properties to sporopollenin were based on both compounds' resistance to hydrolysis and high preservation potential. However, further research has instead shown that dinosporin is compositionally distinct.[8][9][10] Despite the clear distinction between dinosporin and other resistant biopolymer groups, very little is known about the actual structure of dinosporin. A recent study has suggested that dinosporin present in cysts of Lingulodinium polyedrum does not contain significant amounts of long chain aliphatics, nor is it primarily aromatic, but that it is a highly crosslinked carbohydrate-based polymer.[11] Furthermore, dinosporin may be taxon specific as species within the same genus exhibited different compositions,[12] so that dinosporin may be more accurately thought of as a suite of related but chemically distinguishable biopolymers. Studies of dinosporin composition and structure are complicated by the fact that the cysts have to either have the cell contents effectively removed (cysts generated in culture) or be individually picked (cysts from sediments) in order to ensure sample purity. The culture-derived cysts risk condensation of the cell content and modification of the cyst wall while the cysts picked from sediment are time consuming to acquire and may have been altered by post-mortem processes. For example, the macromolecular composition of the fossil dinoflagellate cyst Thalassiphora pelagica was analyzed, but post-mortem alteration was noted.[13] Furthermore, dinocysts can be subject to selective preservation .[14] This has been speculated to reflect different dinosporin compositions in various dinocyst lineages, but so far, no conclusive differences have been shown. Recent FTIR work shows both differences and similarities between the major dinocyst lineages, which are suggested to be related to nutritional strategies.[15]"

 

[HighlandReefer]

AN EFFECTIVE PALYNOLOGICAL PREPARATION PROCEDURE USING
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE

JAMES B. RIDING1
JANE E. KYFFIN-HUGHES
BERNARD OWENS
British Geological Survey
Kingsley Dunham Centre
Keyworth
Nottingham NG12 5GG
United Kingdom
1corresponding author, e-mail: jbri@bgs.ac.uk
Abstract
Most pre-Quaternary palynology samples are currently prepared by demineralisation
of the sediment/sedimentary rock matrix using hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids
(HCl and HF respectively). If a consistently effective alternative to this procedure can
be developed, palynological processing will be made significantly less hazardous to
both laboratory personnel, and to the wider environment. Furthermore, most non-acid
processing methods are normally quicker and cheaper than matrix dissolution using
acid. Some authors have previously used hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to extract
palynomorphs by the physico-chemical disaggregation of the clay fraction. However,
H2O2 is a powerful oxidizing agent and hence can potentially destroy sedimentary
organic material, including palynomorphs. A new method using hot H2O2, where
exposure of the sample material to the H2O2 is minimised, has been developed.
Crushed sample material in a suitable vessel is placed on a hot plate for one minute,
treated with 15-30% H2O2 for 10 minutes, then the residue is diluted with cold
distilled water. Disaggregated sample material tends to float, and is decanted into a
large vessel containing distilled water to further dilute the H2O2. If any
undisaggregated sample remains, the procedure is repeated several times if necessary.
Relatively indurated sedimentary lithotypes normally require several treatments. The
reason for this stepwise treatment is that the organic material is not exposed to H2O2
for sustained periods, thereby reducing the possibility of palynomorph
damage/degradation due to oxidation. When the sample matrix has been fully
disaggregated, the residue can be further processed as appropriate.
In this study, eight samples of Carboniferous, Jurassic, Paleogene, and
Quaternary age were prepared quantitatively using the new H2O2 method. These were
all prepared using 30% H2O2. For comparison, they were also prepared quantitatively
using HCl/HF and/or sodium hexametaphosphate [(NaPO3)6]. Quantitative
preparations allow the concentration of palynomorphs extracted to be determined, and
therefore the effectiveness of the techniques used can be compared objectively. The
palynomorph residues derived from these three techniques varied markedly. The H2O2
method does not consistently disaggregate all the sample material, particularly the
older and more indurated lithotypes. Some evidence of oxidation effects was
observed. Two samples of Mississippian mudstone from the U.S.A. were prepared
using H2O2 and (NaPO3)6. Both methods produced abundant miospores, however the
H2O2 procedure yielded far higher palynomorph concentrations than the (NaPO3)6
2
technique. Minor degradation of palynomorphs in the H2O2 preparation was noted.
The H2O2 and HCl/HF methods were compared directly on a palynomorph-rich
sample of Upper Carboniferous mudstone from offshore Scotland. Both preparations
produced abundant miospores. The HCl/HF method had significantly higher recovery
levels than the H2O2 procedure. It appears that the H2O2 method simultaneously
macerates the matrix, and oxidizes any amorphous organic material (AOM) present.
In this sample, the HCl/HF residue was relatively rich in AOM. By contrast, the H2O2
preparation is virtually clear of this phytoclast type, which partially obscures
palynomorphs. Two samples of the Middle Jurassic Grantham Formation of eastern
England were processed using H2O2 and HCl/HF. The two methods produced
abundant palynofloras of similar palynomorph concentrations. Two dinoflagellate
cyst acmes within the Danian (Paleogene) part of the Lopez de Bertodano Formation
of Seymour Island, Antarctica were also tested using H2O2, (NaPO3)6, and HCl/HF.
The H2O2 preparation completely destroyed the dominant taxon, Palaeoperidinium
pyrophorum, in one sample. By contrast, the (NaPO3)6 and HCl/HF preparations
produced abundant, fully representative palynofloras. In the other sample, the acme of
Spinidinium spp. is completely unaffected by the H2O2 preparation procedure. The
final sample of this study is an unconsolidated clay of Late Pleistocene age from
offshore Scotland. Both the H2O2 and HCl/HF preparations proved similar in both
taxonomic content and overall palynomorph yield.
The new method of preparation using hot H2O2 has proved to be extremely
effective. In particular, it appears to be superior to the (NaPO3)6 procedure for
indurated lithotypes. However care should be taken because H2O2 can destroy certain
dinoflagellate cysts and kerogen macerals which are especially susceptible to
oxidation. Further development work, and more comparative testing of the H2O2,
(NaPO3)6, and HCl/HF procedures, should be undertaken.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The walls may help the animal resist for a period of time, and the wall itself may not hydrolyze rapidly, but the acid or base will penetrate into the organism and kill it. No normal creatures can live at pH 0-1 or 13-14.

 

[AcroporAddict]

A 2N solution of sodium hydroxide is an excellent chemical killer for aiptasia, majanos, and any nuisance coral/paly/zoa you need to control. I've been using it for pest control in my reef tanks for years.

Same active ingredient as in Aquavitro Balance, albeit much stronger. Balance is a dilute blend of sodium and potassium hydroxide.

Dissipates into the water and may slightly raise the pH of the system, but not much. You just need to gauge the amount you use by the system volume, meaning don't use a lot if you have a nano, and you can use more if you have a large system. I call the stuff Reef Napalm.

 

[HighlandReefer]

The walls may help the animal resist for a period of time, and the wall itself may not hydrolyze rapidly, but the acid or base will penetrate into the organism and kill it. No normal creatures can live at pH 0-1 or 13-14.

Thanks Randy.

 

[bheron]

Either high or low enough pH will kill anything if given sufficient exposure, but bleach is even better at killing and destroying organic matter.

Ok, great rule of thumb to keep in mind. and why i love this forum!

"¦.The only reason I don't recommend using bleach to nuke rock/sand is that there are several procedures published on "cooking" rock that involves bleach followed by hydrochloric acid. Done correctly (with a good rinse after the bleach), this doesn't in and of itself present a problem. However, for someone unfamiliar with chemistry and that aren't following the procedures to the letter, there's a possibility that they might add the acid directly to the bleach bath, and that produces hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, both of which are extremely dangerous to get a good lungful of.

:hmm5: Yep, mine is one of those threads (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1587539&page=20). And in there you helped us understand that bleach isn't the best a getting rid of dead organics as sodium hydroxide might be. Hence me now adding that into my research. Everything I'm cleaning now has been dead for quite some time. So looking at preventing anything from coming back or causing excess nutrients when I start my tank. I know, sounds crazy but this dino-like sludge is so scary I wont want to take any chances it will "˜rise from the dead' and continue to haunt me.

The walls may help the animal resist for a period of time, and the wall itself may not hydrolyze rapidly, but the acid or base will penetrate into the organism and kill it. No normal creatures can live at pH 0-1 or 13-14.

Nice!

Ok so more and more thinking acid is the way to go here. Kills everything and even removes the outer layer.

 

[bertoni]

The acid bath does have some advantages. As always, be careful with toxic chemicals! Hydrochloric acid gives off toxic fumes.

 

[dkeller_nc]

The acid bath does have some advantages. As always, be careful with toxic chemicals! Hydrochloric acid gives off toxic fumes.

Yep - to re-iterate, hydrochloric acid should always be used outdoors, and with reasonable splash protection for skin and eyes. Old clothes would be a good idea as well.

 

[bheron]

ok thanks. yep, i've learned this the hard way. i've experienced some irritation in my throat, really just some scratchiness that went away after a few mins. but even worse, first time i used this stuff to clean my rock i did it in the same room as my tank. within 15 mins half of my fish were dead or dying. the fumes were mixed with the water/air exchange in my sump and increased the PH.