pH & ORP - What is the relationship?

ScottB

New member
So last night we fired up the gas fireplace for the first time this year. You can see from the plummeting pH that happened around 6:30. That was about the same time ORP start a rapid climb. So this begs some questions: "What is the relationship between ORP and pH?" and "Do these pH drops adversely affect my animals? And should I limit running the fireplace which I usually run a couple times a week for a few hours at a time in Jan/Feb?"

Screen%252520Shot%2525202011-12-23%252520at%2525207.22.35%252520AM.png
 
This simple version:

ORP and the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/rhf/feature/index.php

From Randy's article:

"What about pH? pH can impact the ORP readings in aquaria. Often, ORP goes down as pH rises. A typical aquarium ORP reading will change on the order of 59 mv/pH unit. The easiest way to understand this is to simply think of pH as a measure of hydrogen ions (H+) in solution, and to think of H+ as being on the side of the oxidizers. In reality, H+ doesn't usually oxidize things itself (though it can), but more typically it can hype up other oxidizers, like oxygen, making them much more potent. So during the course of a 24-hour day in a reef aquarium, ORP will vary as pH and O2 also vary."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The more technical version from Randy's same article:


"The Theoretical Relationship Between ORP and pH

One of the complications of ORP is that the measured value can sometimes depend on pH. Whether ORP does depend on pH or not, and to what extent, is determined by the exact redox reactions that are involved in controlling the ORP in that solution. There have been equations proposed that purport to "correct" ORP for changes in pH, giving a new parameter, sometimes called rH. This parameter was proposed in the 1920's by W. M. Clark.7 One form of this correction is shown below:

rH = mV / 29 + (2 x pH)

and sometimes a correction for changes in oxygen concentration is thrown in:

rH = mV / 29 + (2 x pH) + [O2]

where [O2] is the concentration of O2 in ppm. The use of rH, however, presupposes a detailed understanding of the reactions involved, and is simply wrong for general use (as shown below). In a book8 that he published 40 years after his initial publication, Clark stated:

"At this point the author must confess to the introduction of rH. He conceived that there might be occasions when it would be convenient to speak of relative oxidation-reduction intensity without having to specify both potential AND pH...
...Unfortunately both the original intent and the obvious limitations have been overlooked by many who have converted their potentials for SPECIFIC SYSTEMS to rH numbers...
...In brief, rH has become an unmitigated nuisance."

Nevertheless, many people still use rH. Since it is imbedded in many articles relating to aquarists, it is worth understanding where the pH dependence comes from, and why it is not always the same.

As an example of a solution where the redox is not pH dependent, take a solution of Fe++ and Fe+++ in water, with no other redox active species. In that case, the ORP is exactly determined by the relative concentration of the two iron species, and is unchanged with pH.

Fe+++ + e- �� Fe++

Specifically, the defining equation here is:


The main thing that is clear from this equation is that the ORP is independent of pH, and only depends on the relative concentrations of Fe++ and Fe+++.

The easiest way to think of the lack of pH dependence here is to recognize that neither H+ nor OH- participate in the reaction at all. So changing the pH has no direct impact on the reaction.

For many reactions where oxygen is an important participant, however, that is not the case:

O2 + 4H+ + 4e- �� 2H2O

In this reaction, H+ does participate. Consequently, the oxidizing power is related to pH. As H+ is raised (by lowering pH), the reaction is driven to the right. One way to think of this is by LeChatlier's Principle where increasing the concentration of one species drives the reaction to the other side. In this case, lowering the pH increases the oxidizing power of the oxygen, and consequently raises the ORP. This result is the basis for the development of rH for many systems.

It is beyond the scope of this article to go into the detailed mathematics behind the pH dependence of ORP measurements, but Pankow does cover such issues in great detail in Aquatic Chemistry Concepts.9 For our purposes, an important result is that the magnitude of the change in ORP with pH depends entirely on the number of H+ involved in the reaction per electron. In the case of the Fe+++/Fe++ situation, this value is zero. For the oxygen/water reaction, the value is 1.0. The standard definition of rH assumes that this ratio is exactly 1.0. Consequently, it may not apply to many redox reactions that take place in aquaria.

Shown below are some typical reactions that also take place in aquaria. First, the oxidation of acetic acid to carbon dioxide, again with one H+ per electron (this reaction typifies many reactions involving neutral organic materials):

2CO2 + 8H+ + 8e- �� CH3COOH + 2H2O

but if the same reaction proceeds with acetate, the reaction is:

2CO2 + 7H+ + 8e- �� CH3COO- + 2H2O

and the ratio of H+ to e- is no longer 1.0, but is now 0.875.

For the various reactions of the nitrogen cycle, we have ratios that vary from 1.0 to 1.33:

NO2- + 7H+ + 6e- �� NH3 + 2H2O

NO2- + 8H+ + 6e- �� NH4+ + 2H2O

NO3- + 2H+ 2e- �� NO2- + H2O

N2 + 6H+ + 6e- �� 2NH3

N2 + 8H+ + 6e- �� 2NH4+

The iodide/iodate reaction fits the 1.0 ratio:

IO3- + 6H+ + 6e- �� I- + 3 H2O

Some other redox reactions that have other ratios:

MnO2 + 4H+ + 2e- �� Mn++ + 2H2O

SO4-- + 10H+ + 8e- � H2S + 4H2O

SO4-- + 9H+ + 8e- � HS- + 4H2O

So if one really wants to understand how ORP would change with pH, one would have to know what the species are in aquaria that control redox. If it is a mixture of species, then the end result will come back as a complex averaging of the different reactions involved. Unfortunately, the species involved have not been clearly defined for seawater. In aquaria, which vary considerably in the concentrations of many redox active species, the situation is even more complicated"
 
I assume you have a ventless gas fireplace. Hopefully it has a properly working carbon monoxide alarm within it. Adding a separate carbon monoxide alarm in the same room is not a bad idea. Usually the manufacturer recommends to keep a door or window open to allow CO2 and carbon monoxide to vent out with these units. They do produce a lot of CO2 as well. Some states have banned the ventless units due to problems. ;)
 
Wow. I figured the answer would come from Randy, but I did not know he had a helper. ;-) Thanks. Admittedly though, the technical version causes my head to swim.

As for the fireplace, I have both vented and ventless (different floors), but no Carbon Monoxide detector. I will put one in soon. Thanks for the tip.
 
FWIW
The ph and orp pattens on your graphs are about the same inverse variations I notice in my aquaruim. The ph swings are not a major issue if the bottom stays at 7.8 or higher. Personally, I prefer ph higher, 8.15 swining to 8.3 but your range should be ok.
 
Actually, I believe my pH probe to be reading about .1 low when compared to a test kit. (It is time for a re-calibration.) So for my pH I believe I am in the 7.9 to 8.3 range. I do plan to run my skimmer inlet out the nearby window.
 
If you do that and run tubing a long way it might restrict air flow to the skimmer unless you use a large enough tube. I use a CO2 scrubber on the skimmer air intake and it gives me a .15 bump.
 
Well, if I could find a small scrubber, and I mean small, I would probably go that route. I have a 60 cube and a mandate to keep EVERYTHING hidden inside the cab. While it is not full yet, we are very close.

I might be able to mount a BRS unit sideways. I wonder if that would work? Let me ask this too. If I used a scrubber, I would get a bump, but would it dampen the swings that I saw last night? Or would it just move it up the scale?
 
I also have a gas fireplace in the same room as my tank and have seen the same result with pH declining rapidly. Though, this is the first winter that I have monitored pH electronically. We used the gas fireplace much more (before I started monitoring the pH) over the past few years, and really didn't see any obvious ill result from the tank. But now that I monitor pH, I'm much more concerned - possibly irrationally so. Now that I can see pH dropping like a rock, I don't want to use the fireplace much anymore. And, the wife isn't so happy about that, but understands when I showed her the graph data.

I have an all electric house, and use this fireplace as a backup heat source that has saved my tank from cold weather power outages, and frozen pipes, on more than a few occasions over the years - so, it has merits. But this winter, that has been the only time we've used the fireplace is when the power went out. I've concluded that low pH is less dangerous than low temperature.

Should I be obsessed with the low pH caused by the fireplace? If there were problems, how would they manifest themselves in the inhabitants, typically? Do you think a CO2 scrubber on the skimmer airline would help much?

Thanks in advance!
 
I also have a gas fireplace in the same room as my tank and have seen the same result with pH declining rapidly. Though, this is the first winter that I have monitored pH electronically. We used the gas fireplace much more (before I started monitoring the pH) over the past few years, and really didn't see any obvious ill result from the tank. But now that I monitor pH, I'm much more concerned - possibly irrationally so. Now that I can see pH dropping like a rock, I don't want to use the fireplace much anymore. And, the wife isn't so happy about that, but understands when I showed her the graph data.

I believe that being able to constantly monitor things like pH is going to give me an ulcer. I want to to try to explain/justify every .1 uptick in anything.:confused:
 
This study completed by Chris Jury (MCsaxmaster), one of our RC members, suggests that perhaps increasing your alk level may help offset negative effects that low pH may have on coral:

Effects of variations in carbonate chemistry on the calcification rates of Madracis auretenra (= Madracis mirabilis sensu Wells, 1973): bicarbonate concentrations best predict calcification rates
CHRISTOPHER P. JURY, ROBERT F. WHITEHEAD, ALINA M. SZMANTArticle first published online: 8 SEP 2009


Abstract

Physiological data and models of coral calcification indicate that corals utilize a combination of seawater bicarbonate and (mainly) respiratory CO2 for calcification, not seawater carbonate. However, a number of investigators are attributing observed negative effects of experimental seawater acidification by CO2 or hydrochloric acid additions to a reduction in seawater carbonate ion concentration and thus aragonite saturation state. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the physiological and geochemical views of coral biomineralization. Furthermore, not all calcifying organisms respond negatively to decreased pH or saturation state. Together, these discrepancies suggest that other physiological mechanisms, such as a direct effect of reduced pH on calcium or bicarbonate ion transport and/or variable ability to regulate internal pH, are responsible for the variability in reported experimental effects of acidification on calcification. To distinguish the effects of pH, carbonate concentration and bicarbonate concentration on coral calcification, incubations were performed with the coral Madracis auretenra (= Madracis mirabilis sensu Wells, 1973) in modified seawater chemistries. Carbonate parameters were manipulated to isolate the effects of each parameter more effectively than in previous studies, with a total of six different chemistries. Among treatment differences were highly significant. The corals responded strongly to variation in bicarbonate concentration, but not consistently to carbonate concentration, aragonite saturation state or pH. Corals calcified at normal or elevated rates under low pH (7.6"“7.8) when the seawater bicarbonate concentrations were above 1800 µm. Conversely, corals incubated at normal pH had low calcification rates if the bicarbonate concentration was lowered. These results demonstrate that coral responses to ocean acidification are more diverse than currently thought, and question the reliability of using carbonate concentration or aragonite saturation state as the sole predictor of the effects of ocean acidification on coral calcification.
 
Hmmm. I didn't realize the level Chris was referring too was only 5 dKH. ;)

That changes things quite a bit.

I know this article was discussed a while back when it was first published. Perhaps 5 dKH is a significant cut off point for maintaining alk in a reef tank?

Thanks for the calculations David. :)
 
I guess you should add a little bit for borate and other stuff in solution, and I think we're talking about measuring carbonate separately, so add another 1% for that. But we're still talking about pretty low alk level.
 
Well, I'll say: drop it below 6.5 to 7dkh and almost always sps will stn or rtn,ime.

The ph is important too. Less H makes it easier for the coral to squeeze out the H+ when it makes CO3 from HCO3. I understand the relevance of the study for ocean acidifiction insight but don't see an application to a reeftank.
 
I'm wondering if Chris may have comments regarding the other article I posted regarding internal pH levels of coral that were recently measured?


Relating to this statement that Chris made in the above thread:

Originally Posted by dan223
So I wonder if your using dosing pumps and only adding a few ml's of either bicarbonate or carbonate solution an hour would that small of an amount be enough to actually alter the ph beyond its equilibium when maintaining a constant KH, or would the additions be so small that there wouldnt be much of a ph change at all?

Let's say, hypothetically, we are able to exactly match the calcification rate of the critters in the tank and maintain alkalinity at a constant level 24/7 by dosing. In reality, this is completely impractical if only because the calcification rate of the organisms typically changes by at least a factor of 2-3 (if not more) from night to day. Hypothetically though, we are matching the calcification rate by dosing, or at least getting pretty close...

"Calcification removes alkalinity and inorganic carbon in a 2:1 ratio, no matter how it's performed. If you start with CO3= and remove it, that's 2 equivalents of alkalinity and 1 unit of carbon. If you start with HCO3- and convert it into CO3= inside the organism by pumping out an H+ (which is probably how most critters do it, more or less), you get the same things: lose one equivalent of alkalinity from the lost HCO3-, lose another one because you generate an H+ (2 total), and lose 1 carbon. No matter how you slice it, calcification is removing alkalinity and carbon in that 2:1 ratio.

Dosing CO3= alone replaces alkalinity and carbon in the same 2:1 ratio. If you were dosing at exactly the right rate to maintain alkalinity, then dosing pure CO3= (that is, a pure CO3= salt, like Na2CO3) would allow you to maintain alkalinity and pH at a constant level. You'd be replacing exactly what you are losing at exactly the same rate you're losing it.

If you use HCO3- alone (like from NaHCO3) then you are replacing alkalinity and carbon at a 1:1 ratio--you've got excess carbon. This means you'll have elevated CO2* in the water and slightly reduce your pH. The CO2 will be driven out of the water through gas exchange, but how fast that happens depends on a lot of things. How much lower your pH becomese depends on how fast you can drive off the excess CO2.

Getting out of the hypothetical world and back to something practical, most folks are dosing a whole day's worth of alkalinity in one shot (like with a two-part). Usually the tank isn't going to be toooo far from equilibrium with the air in terms of dissolved CO2*. If you add pure CO3= you'll raise pH of the tank immediately after addition. Adding CO3= compensates for changes in chemistry from calcification, but not from gas exchange, hence the pH goes up. If you add HCO3- you'll lower the pH very slightly, but because of where we are in terms of the equilibrium, the pH doesn't go down a whole lot. A very good method, as above, is using a mix of CO3= and HCO3- to get yourself close to a pH of 8.2, that way you can add as much as you want (within reason) without worrying much about what happens to pH--the addition should just move the tank toward 8.2, which is a fine pH.

Hope that helps,"
 
Well, if I could find a small scrubber, and I mean small, I would probably go that route. I have a 60 cube and a mandate to keep EVERYTHING hidden inside the cab. While it is not full yet, we are very close.

I might be able to mount a BRS unit sideways. I wonder if that would work? Let me ask this too. If I used a scrubber, I would get a bump, but would it dampen the swings that I saw last night? Or would it just move it up the scale?

You can make one for less than a dollar , any size you choose: Mine are here ,see post #54:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2092232&highlight=a+tank+of+the+month&page=3

I will just move it ; it's on 24/7

The swings are not a big deal ;much larger ones occur on reefs. I aslo run an opposite photo period refugium with chaetomorpha to take the edge of the swing but more to provide a source of oxygen when the display tanks stop photosynthesis.
Again , your numbers are fine but if you choose to raise ph a bit a CO2 scrubber might help. An open window or an airline for outside air can help too if you don't get reduced air flow through the line
 
Should I be obsessed with the low pH caused by the fireplace? If there were problems, how would they manifest themselves in the inhabitants, typically? Do you think a CO2 scrubber on the skimmer airline would help much?

Thanks in advance!


If the CO2 in the house air rises when you use the stove ,the higher CO2 will equilibrate into the water,hydrolize and free up extra H+ ,lowering ph.
Extra fresh air helps.
The CO2 scrubber media soda lime adsorbs CO2 from the air going to the skimmer thus injecting lower CO2 air.Soda lime is used in anesthesia applications to manage CO2 levels and in diving rebreathing devices. I get a.1 to .15 bump consistently with my scrubbers and have used them for over a year.

Dripping limewater( kalkwasser) in lieu of some of of the calcium and carbonate supplements you may be using helps as well since the oxide binds with the CO2 to form CO3, carbonate alkalinity.

I would not obsees over the ph unless it is dipping below 7.8dkh. Coral skeleton and other calcium carbonate materials in the tank will start to dissove at around 7.7 unless the alk is high; then it may need to be less than 7.7 for that effect. Generally, the recommended range for ph in a reeftank is 7.8 to 8.5 swings included. I prefer 8.2 to 8.3 though.
 
Back
Top