Ozone use

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=5964804#post5964804 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
many folks notice that ozone at first improves skimmate performance... then later seems to reduce it. True indeed that at some point, especially in low bioload systems, the ozone and skimmer sort of "compete" for organics. But thats not a bad thing! Why should we care which gets what portion of the organic load first so long as they are processed soon and thoroghly!

Ozone clears the water by converting organics from a light absorbing form to a nonabsorbing form and can break down organics into smaller pieces. But once they are broken down, if the skimmer is not removing the nutrients, where are they going?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=5965689#post5965689 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
its advantages are many: increased RedOx (measure of water quality)

Exactly how is Redox a measure of water quality? Which leads to the question how does ozone make water quality (not clarity) better?

ORP is a measure of the relative oxidizing and reducing power of a solution. Iron, iodine, manganese, and nitrates are all oxidizers and will raise ORP. Should we be using them for their redox potential? You can also raise ORP by lowering your pH. Would you recommend this in a reef aquarium? My point is I don't see how ORP is a measure of water quality.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

kimoyo/Ed...

I think you are missing some serious fundamentals here.

Re: O2 saturation, it might be easily accomplished in your system without ozone... but that is rare. An understatement really. Even folks with large skimmers still find that they do not reach saturation in their aquaria and/or that ozone still increases O2 levels with use over without. Don't just take my word for it... go test a friends tank, LFS system water, etc. I've been doing it and my own, facilities I run/consult,etc for years. The numbers don't lie.

As for ORP as a measure of water quality, Paul... are you serious? I really don't even know where to begin to answer your question without a most remedial address. Let me ask you to start a new thread on the topic (how is Redox as a measure of water quality) if you feel the need to explore it via posts. But I think you simply need to dig deeper (Spotte, Moe, Escobal, etc.) and take some measurements of a sampling of systems and draw your own conclusion, which I feel will be similar inevitably.

 

[Big E]

Anthony, I tested my water years ago with Lamotte kits & I had O2 saturation levels with my undergravel filter setups as well as trickle filters.

With all the technology we have now to turn over water & the massive flow & turnover some systems have I'd be shocked if most systems weren't at saturation levels.

The only time O2 levels are a concern to me is when the power goes out & that's only till I hook up my generator.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Ed - your situation is unique IME, and also testimony to likely very good water quality, nutrient export, etc. It's not common with the masses of aquarists. Thanks for sharing.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6268776#post6268776 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
As for ORP as a measure of water quality, Paul... are you serious? I really don't even know where to begin to answer your question without a most remedial address. Let me ask you to start a new thread on the topic (how is Redox as a measure of water quality) if you feel the need to explore it via posts. But I think you simply need to dig deeper (Spotte, Moe, Escobal, etc.) and take some measurements of a sampling of systems and draw your own conclusion, which I feel will be similar inevitably.

Anthony,

I respect you and have argued for you in the past. But I don't think you are correct in your understanding of what ozone and orp are. Since this thread has been started I have seen many other threads with hobbyist talking about ozone and orp based on what you have said here, which is my main concern. I've been in several good discussion about ozone and orp since the summer and have read several articles. Here are some excerpts from Randy Holmes-Farley's ORP and the Reef Aquarium article.

Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
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.

I have spoken to Randy about this a few times and many others. Is there some research that has been done to back up what you have said? I would appreciate if you could take the time to explain what seems to go against what I have read up until now.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6268776#post6268776 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
As for ORP as a measure of water quality, Paul... are you serious? I really don't even know where to begin to answer your question without a most remedial address. Let me ask you to start a new thread on the topic (how is Redox as a measure of water quality) if you feel the need to explore it via posts. But I think you simply need to dig deeper (Spotte, Moe, Escobal, etc.) and take some measurements of a sampling of systems and draw your own conclusion, which I feel will be similar inevitably.

Anthony - Your voice carries in this hobby. You are advocating ozone use and I feel that it is important for you to back up what you are saying since it is contrary to what other experts have said.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6268442#post6268442 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Ozone clears the water by converting organics from a light absorbing form to a nonabsorbing form and can break down organics into smaller pieces. But once they are broken down, if the skimmer is not removing the nutrients, where are they going?

Exactly how is Redox a measure of water quality? Which leads to the question how does ozone make water quality (not clarity) better?

I think these are very important and not simple questions, although I don't feel I should be the one to discuss this with you because of my limited knowledge and experience. Maybe we could invite Randy to chime in here?

 

[Anthony Calfo]

I think we are having a difference in perspective here, Paul.

I often (redundantly) remind folks (like you now, my friend) that when I write posts, articles, books... I am preaching to the masses. And the masses in our hobby are beginning and intermediate aquarists.

So IMO, the best way to be effective is to not bury them in scientific jargon and citations, but rather give them my summary of what I've read and know.

There is also the matter of being a mentor that gives practical information that is useful and of "value" rather than making oneself appear smarter while losing, confusing or boring one's audience.

To summarize this line of thought by using a new fav saying of mine, "its better to seem generally knowlegable than specifically pretentious." To be clear too... I am not calling you pretentious, Paul. But I am concerned that you are being unrealistically semantic here... that is to say, you are not giving enough regard for the practical advice and application of what I have said to date on this issue.

Facts IMO:

- Ozone increases the saturation of oxygen in water.

- Ozone improves water clarity which improves the penetration of light at depth which improves the efficiency of lamps used as well as the value of their operation vis a vis the fact that more light produced (on watts consumed) makes it to the targeted photosynthetic organisms.

- There is a correlation between higher order species thriving naturally in higher RedOx waters and generally regarded as nusiance species in lower RedOx value water (field observations of species in specific niche on the reef... also see Moe on Paletta from the Marine Aquarium Reference, etc. as per above post).

- Without ozone, if you skim aggressively you can watch the Redox value of the water increase in large part from the export of DOs... and nuisance algae wane by the same actions. And in systems with a lack of such aggressive nutrient export which have the inevitable bloom/boon of nuisance algae that follows... you can watch the RedOx value of the system fall accordingly as DOs rise.

I am calling the above four comments/realities of ozone use an "improvement in water quality."

I don't know if I can spell out my position any clearer than that.

Can you tell me how I'm mistaken that an improved penetration of light, increased O2 saturation and desired responses by display and pest organisms alike by use of Ozone and correlative measure of RedOx is not an improvement in water quality? I can't see how that would be so.

You will notice that cyanobacteria struggles to survive in aquaria if at all in systems with a stable and high Redox. Same for many other pest algae. You will also notice that popular shallow water corals fare better (growth, longevity/health) in systems with high and stable RedOX values. Or do you have an different experience here?

 

[kimoyo]

Anthony,
I really don't know alot about this hobby. I have been taking it one thing at a time and trying to do my best to learn as much as I can. There are so many topics I feel you have helped in and its great how much time you take to help others (having forums in different boards). Ozone and ORP are complicated things and IMO should be approached with caution. I appreciate that you try to talk to all levels of hobbyist.

I agree with your facts.

Setting aside the harmful issues of ozone because that can be corrected by using carbon, the thing I'm having trouble with using ozone to accomplish these goals is that its not actually exporting anything. It is breaking down organics to simplier forms. It has been shown with ozone use there is an increase in nitrifying bacteria, and many have said they've seen their skimmer produce less with ozone. It seems that the ozone breaks down the organics and the bacteria (not sure about ammonia eating ones) are having a feast. But is this a good thing? Eventhough the bacteria are getting the goods, shouldn't we want to get as much nutrients out of the system as possible?

 

[Anthony Calfo]

it's a very good point you make about reduction versus export as with ozone versus skiming or water changes, for example, without use of ozone.

Given to choose... I would definitely opt for export of nutrients rather than reduction most every time. I do in fact skim aggressively (two skimmers per tank) and do very large water changes (weekly) on my own systems.

For aquarists that don't manage nutrient export as well for whatever reason (do not want to do large water changes, very heavy bioload, etc), ozone is often a useful tool to improve water quality. This is a prinipal reason why public aquaria use it (heavy bioloads on displays and they cannot afford to do large water changes).

indeed... it is not to be taken lightly. It can be misdosed and quite dangerous. But so can calcium hydroxide, iodine and other common reef treatments as has oft been pointed out. The key to all is understanding, respect and control (hence the admonitio to always and only apply ozone with an ORP controller).

Good points again Paul... thank you for your input.

Anth-

 

[kimoyo]

Anthony - Thanks for discussing this with me and considering what I have to say.

 

[Luis A M]

Great thread Much to learn and think about here

Now getting back to my possible switch from UV to ozone as a bactericidal device for my multi-tanks systems,and assuming both approaches have similar bacterial killing power within their rector chambers:

Pros of ozone are:

Easier maintenance-no need to pre- filtrate,clean biofilm from sleeve,or change lamps.

Additional WQ improvements-ORP,oxidizing "gelbstoff"and other organics.

Cons are:

Need of additional equipment-ORP controller,air drier.

Hazardous if misused.

Can not be hooked in the return line,so that all water passing to the tanks gets treated.This is because common reactors or skimmers are not pressurized.Could this be solved by sump partitions or placing return pump in a bucket fed with ozone treated water?

 

[Anthony Calfo]

yes, my friend... cansiters in series (ozone reactor with a carbon-filtered air effluent, and then carbon filled unit with flow through media) can do the job here as you have suggested.

 

[Big E]

Ed - your situation is unique IME, and also testimony to likely very good water quality, nutrient export, etc. It's not common with the masses of aquarists.

I don't think my system is unique, but I'll agree that a system with corals wall to wall, a heavy load of fish, running high temp, high salinity & a thick sandbed, would definately have a higher need for the extra O2.

This is your forum asking for your experiences/opinions & not mine, so I'll move on. Thanks for your insight.

 

[Luis A M]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6273779#post6273779 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
yes, my friend... cansiters in series (ozone reactor with a carbon-filtered air effluent, and then carbon filled unit with flow through media) can do the job here as you have suggested.

I didnÃ"šÃ‚´t make myself clear.A non pressurized deviceÃ"šÃ‚´like ozone reactors,skimmers or trickle filters can not be in between a pressurized return line,as they will overflow.
So how can we ozone treat 100% of the water returning to the tanks?.
This plumbing problem is similar to what we discussed in the skimmer thread.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

it can be done inline ala Ocean Clear filter styles, or a better example:

http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES00796

a pressurized ozone reactor that can be followed by a pressurized carbon filter if you prefer.

 

[Luis A M]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6276009#post6276009 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Anthony Calfo
it can be done inline ala Ocean Clear filter styles, or a better example:

http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES00796

a pressurized ozone reactor that can be followed by a pressurized carbon filter if you prefer.

How do they work?Where the injected air goes?
I was thinking to place the return pump in a bucket/compartment fed in excess with ozonized water...

 

[RobReefer]

I just received my red sea ozonizer / controller. I also bought the coralife ozone reactor. I am going to hook the reactor up to my old phosban reactor and fill it with carbon. But I was wondering if anyone knows of something that I can hook up to the reactor to filter the air. I know I have to hook something up to it, so I don't die. I went to about 3 LFS's and everyone looked at me like I had 3 heads. Any ideas? On the top of the reactor it has a connection for airline tubing. Is a sack of carbon enough? Or is there something that will fit the connection that I can buy?

 

[Puffer Queen]

A bag or panty hose with carbon on the effluent air tube or vent is fine. Just change the carbon weekly. You will notice a bleach like smell if you need to change the carbon more frequently - you will experience symptoms - headache, nausea. etc before anything catastrophic happens to you and believe me it would take large amount of exposure for a prolonged period before that would happen.

Best of luck,
Kelly

 

[RobReefer]

Thanks Kelly. I guess I can use the carbon that I bought for the carbon reactor for that. you would think that coralife or someone would make something to attach to the top of the reactor. My only real question now is how many Mgph to run the ozonizer at. It ranges between 0-100 mgph. It's only 80 gal of water, but has a moderate bio load. I've read this whole forum and a bunch of articles on ozonizers, but have not't come across this info. Unless I just missed it. It happens sometimes. LOL

 

[RobReefer]

Ok well I finally got everything up and running. I don't have the ozone pumping because I'm still waiting for my probe to adjust. I did a test run on the setup and found a problem. The water and O3 do not separate in the reactor. The only thing that comes out of the air outlet is water and a little air. Both the O3 and water move through the same tube into the Carbon filter, and bubbles and all back into the tank. I was wondering if this was ok, because it is passing through an almost filled canister of carbon. or if I did something wrong. I made a drawing of how it is setup. If anyone has any suggestions please let me know.