Starting new tank - codename Frankenstein - critique wanted

[client]

Hi Bio,

Could you at least quote me? It would be easier for both.

Hi Client,

Activated charcoal and most chemical filtration media used in our aquariums remove nitrogenous waste, dissolved organics that has the effect of reducing ammonia, along with various metals.

If I were overly concerned about ammonia in Florin’s aquarium, I would as I have many times before, recommend Zeolite.

• I know it is fun to pick answers apart without considering the context
  
• Since I believe there is excess organic material in Florins tank and
  
  
  • his plants are handling the ammonium quite well
    
  
  
• The object is to remove nitrogenous waste and dissolved organic materials
  
• I believe this will also reduce the ammonium,
  
  
  • since I do not believe ammonium is being separately added.
    

The main objective was organic waste, but some nutrients were removed and there were deficiencies on the floating plants. That's why I questioned the addition of that activated carbon. I even asked rhetorically about purigen, because the results were like there was purigen in that mesh, so, who says you were overly concerned about the ammonia? The ammonia went out with the organic material that was lowering the kh. Okay. But I wasn't counting the ammonium ions as nutrients anyway, there were some nitrates already present. The deficiencies came from where? I just blamed that activated carbon.

Generally, the industrial knock on activated carbon is that it reacts with oxygen, but that is at 300°C, temperatures that are “moderate” in the industrial context, but activated carbon leaching back organic material would be the least of Florin’s problems if the activated charcoal in his aquarium exceeded 300°C.

The simple truth is that the sorption isotherm, or equilibrium point, for activated charcoal is simply not going to release (leach back) significant adsorbate.

And I am stating somewhere that the steam activated carbon, that was used, will release it back? The rest is the theory everyone should know and obey and I am not posting around saying that I can bend that. It is weird to read something, to have the same view of things, but to realize that someone is actually telling that you are against it. The material was huge and it was obviously squeezed more that it should be allowed. I will just respond, but I have the feeling that it would involve slicing it and digest it in really small pieces.

I came to suggest more oxygen even though Florin has a wet/dry so I proposed some device, I came to propose an activated carbon that isn't taking a thing, so to speak, from the water and to leave nutrients alone, thinking that there is a lot of carbon dioxide and a bunch of nice people always advising about more and I don't even know if I should touch your responses because there is a pot of healthy information already, even if this subject about client's devices would not go on. Now to think that, at some point, Tom Barr will say that, well, there was a hot summer once, and some other folk came in and proposed yet another activated carbon that makes wonders in a planted tank, isn't actually right.

[Biollante]

Hi Client,

>

Could you at least quote me?

I will try.

>

It would be easier for both.

I am not so sure, since I prefer coherent thoughts. I suspect part of the problem is this broken up method of communications.

>

The main idea is that I was against nutrient removal.

Fine you have a different opinion; my reasoning and advice is what it is and has been. Your advice may be fine, it is your reasoning I am addressing.

>

There is no significant difference between them. Electrostatic attractions and pores.

I disagree there is a significant difference… I will now have to wait until I get to further comments before I can explain.

>

Some similar london forces are experienced with the substrates and the cat litter,

Definition: London dispersion force is a weak intermolecular force between two atoms or molecules in close proximity of each other. The force is a quantum force generated by electron repulsion between the electron clouds of two atoms or molecules as they approach each other.

The London dispersion force is the weakest of the van der Waals forces and is the force that causes nonpolar atoms or molecules to condense into liquids or solids as temperature is lowered.
London Dispersion Force Definition, by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., About.com Guide.

The London dispersion forces are no more or less important than Debye force or Keesom force, just weaker and I think you are being misled by the term “dispersion.”

>t

hough in some weaker extent, due to the lack of activation and/or strong oxidation.

Neither oxidation nor “activation” plays much of role since it is a discussion of adsorbents. Charcoal is “activated” in a two-step process, carbonization and activation. The whole “carbonization” thing may help explain why I do not think kitty litter has much of a future as activated carbon, kitty poop maybe, but not kitty litter.

• Carbonization is simply, drying, heating to remove tars, hydrocarbons from carbonaceous material.
  
  • Then heating the material in an oxygen free environment.
  
  
• Carbonized material is often “activated” is by steam (your apparent favorite) or CO₂ (at very high temperature.
  
  • This creates the pores, by manipulating this process various pore sizes and shapes can be created.

---

I do not think I can do this in this manner if a straightforward discussion is not possible I will have to withdraw.

Simply stated steam activated or not, activated charcoal at its sorption isotherm is not going to easily give up its adsorbates.

As to the nutrients, it was a change in strategy. You do not like it that is your privilege.

I gather you did not notice I also recommended more oxygen as well, an amount that I can calculate, and I can calculate material oxidized.

Biollante

[Biollante]

Hi Florin,

Look, I apologize for bringing up activated carbon; my primary reason was simply to try to determine the source or nature of the mystery DOC by reducing the amount of dissolved organic material floating around. Really it is a small part, just an attempt in the larger circumstance. I will continue working on the problem and catch up with you later.

To have every statement turned into nonsense pseudo-science is beyond me, just throwing words about like a drunken parrot.

Since you are so competent in measuring various factors, I thought it a good bet is all.

In Romania, apparently there are a different set of natural laws in place.

To be clear I do not in any way shape or form, think dissolved organic material (DOC) are the same as nitrates. Nitrates are a desired outcome, had the biological filtration worked as I hoped, the DOC would have drop to a range where 2-ppm of PP would oxidize the dissolved organic material with a little left over.

We tried quite a few things to get here, Tom Barr says it is nothing but bad CO₂; I give up, how wonky CO₂ produces these results I do not know, better, crank up the CO₂.

I have asked you to add a specific amount of Hydrogen peroxide, so that we can monitor it.

• Since it isn’t Client’s little magic machine that adds, well how about that Hydrogen peroxide, there is no Hydrogen peroxide, because it doesn’t come from the magic machine.
  
• Part of the problem with Client’s magic machine is I do not know how to calculate or control the amount of Hydrogen peroxide added
  
• It may well be a fine magic machine, I just have not been able to find specific information that allows me to calculate things, so for the moment I think adding specific amounts, of specific concentration Hydrogen peroxide is a better idea.
  

The ammonia is not a concern per se, since you keep the pH under 7, since I think it is likely the ammonium you are measuring will reduce as you remove DOC. If reduced DOC does not translate to reduce ammonium, it will help me understand the source, by process of elimination, this is all I have to go on. I wish I had Client's certainty of a world ruled by nonsense, I believe ultimately in a universe governed by natural law, physics, mathematics, chemistry, I have never done well in the face of willful ignorance.

For the record and as I have mentioned before the levels of total ammonia you are measuring are generally below the threshold of most hobbyist testing.

You do not have to use activated charcoal or Purigen or anything else, I was hoping to learn something about the nature (source) of these nutrients that is all.

Again for the record I expected a small immediate decrease in total ammonia, because high end activated charcoal will pick up a little and your testing procedures are good enough we would probably see the change. Activated charcoal will not, does not; pick up significant amounts of ammonia, nitrates or nitrites. DOC are however precursors to both, had there been a significant spike in Nitrates, good news all around that was a desired outcome.

I do not understand or comprehend the steam being released because of the way the charcoal was activated. I do not understand how the London dispersion force causes the release. I do not understand the whole activated charcoal leaches stuff back bit. I even saw in another thread someone with experience and I had thought reasonably bright repeating that nonsense.

There are as with most things better grades of activated charcoal and lessor grades. There are activated charcoals engineered to latch on to specific things, based on pour size or doping.

I do not understand Client’s assault on this particular item after all the stuff till now why this bizarre nonsensical attack is beyond me.

Oh well, I am finished with the public part.

Biollante

[Biollante]

Hi Florin, Client,

My most humble apologies to both of you.

Tom Barr suggested something I really had not given enough thought too, translations in general and translation software in particular.

I spent some time working back and forth with a couple versions of translation software and my rudimentary understanding of Romanian (I spoke it poorly years ago and have been studying it recently). I consulted a translation service (real human being) to help with the technical end and I think I understand what Client was trying o say. I even get the CEC, activated charcoal comparison.

While I disagree with some of Client’s suggestions, I understand the basis of those suggestions and it is not nonsense.

I apologize to Florin for blowing up the thread and failing to figure out what is going on.

Biollante

[Florin Ilia]

Hi Bio, Client,

My apologies to you both for apparently abandoning my own thread in the middle of a heated discussion. Not that I can add anything when you guys go that in-depth. It was an extremely crazy period at work.

Let me update you on what happened meanwhile with the aquarium:
- activated charcoal + fertilization seemed to work wonders to stop the crash from two weeks ago. The algae are also gone. The general impression I get of the tank is healthy plant growth, happy fish, somehow happy snails (less than 100% though; the couple Planorbella duryi that survived don't die, but don't breed either). The KH consumption has stopped.

Here is a pic of my floating plants taken July 12th (when I reported the deficiencies):



And the same floating plants on July 22nd:



They look about the same today.

A short while after adding the AC to the filter I realized that it was designed to remove DOC - leaving the H₂O₂ treatment potentially harmful to the fauna. Normally I would have posted a question here but being under stress from work I just stopped it (not being home a lot helped with stopping ).

Also, I am not sure if I reported already, the fauna of the tank now consists of 7 fish: 3 x P nicholsi and 4 Congo tetra.

I took some measurements today. This is a week after the last water change.

t=25.5°C
KH=84 ppm=4.7 dKH (I measured tap water KH, it is identical at 84 ppm, so the last week the KH consumption was minimal, equivalent in % with the water evaporation)
pH=6.79
CO₂=33 ppm (about 2 weeks ago I changed my regulator AND my diffuser, and still I can't stabilize it at my target value of 40, it either goes to 60-70 or to 10-20. And yes I make very small changes and give them 6-to-12 hours to stabilize)
TDS=288 ppm
ORP=212 mV
DO=7.65 ppm
NH_3/4=0.03 ppm
NO₂=0.032 ppm
NO₃=36.7 ppm
PO₄=7.40 ppm (did I overdo it?)
Fe=1.54 ppm

I have a 2 week long vacation coming in a week. Anything I should do before I leave - besides a good cleaning?

Thanks,

Florin

PS Here's a bonus pic with Aeschynomene fluitans, right after I added it to the tank. I love the way this plant looks, and it's African, but unfortunately it creates dams which quickly lead to biofilm and a swamp-like look. Also, it sheds a lot of those tiny leaves, and twigs, and makes a mess. Too bad!

[Biollante]

Hi Florin,

The activated charcoal, which really was not a big deal, since you had it, I thought it might help stabilize things and it has confirmed what we thought was happening. It may give your biological filter time to kick in. Change it regularly, or if you are around enough whenever KH consumption takes an uptick.

• Not to be controversial but it will not leach anything back, but it will stop removing stuff.

The phosphates are a bit high but not dreadful, I think something just over 5-ppm is the target, but I think high is better than low.

Interesting the iron stays up.

Should you decide to run off to some tropical paradise and leave the tank pack in as much fresh AC as you can, a mesh bag in the sump can do wonders. Be careful not to over clean, particularly filters and sump.

The Hydrogen peroxide would not have hurt, but as long as things are stable, this will work until we determine the source of the excess DOC.

I would feel more confident if that ORP value were 80-100-mV higher, but all things considered, I think it will work.

For now, CO₂ is your biggest problem… If you have to choose, an unstable 60-70-ppm is better than an unstable 10-20-ppm. Stable anything that keeps your pH under 6.9 or so is best.

I like Aeschynomene fluitans, makes a wonderful bog or marginal plant, it will turn your aquarium into a bog and when happy, grows alarmingly quickly, as in shrubbery size.

Biollante

[Florin Ilia]

Hi,

There is at least one P nicholsi juvenile in the tank. It is about 2 cm long and does a wonderful job of hiding - yesterday was the first time I saw it. Both females are holding again, so I think it's fair to say these fish are OK.

Today I am leaving for a 2 week vacation.

Yesterday I gave the tank a good cleaning. I gave away Aeschynomene fluitans . I put two new sponge pads in the sump. one of them AC treated, and also sandwiched some of my ROX AC between them.

Bio, your observation about the Fe not being removed by this AC is indeed intriguing. I can only speculate that it's a matter of AC-to-water ratio - in the old tank I had 4-5 times more AC to 5 times less water. I will test when I get back.

See you in 2 weeks!

Florin

[Florin Ilia]

I'M BACK!

Hello, dear fans

The 2 weeks turned to 3, but the good news is that I'm now a certified diver. My wife hopes this will help with my aquarium maintenance Here are some pics from the holiday: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1&l=bb54b8b511
END OFFTOPIC

My tank looked overgrown, with floating plants and the lotuses all over each other. But no major algae problems, no dead critters. I did a full set of analyses and (besides the predictable accumulation of ferts), everything looks as I left it:

t=26°C
KH=60 ppm=3.4 dKH
pH=6.60
TDS=377 ppm
ORP=222 mV
DO=7.55 ppm
NH_3/4=0.01 ppm
NO₂=0.026 ppm
NO₃=55.8 ppm
PO₄>2.5 ppm (I forgot to dilute, went above my test's limit and then ran out of time)
Fe=1.17 ppm

I also ran a 4-beaker KMnO₄ test (6, 6, 12, 18 ppm):



I still have DOC > 2 ppm (and this is with AC in the filter).

I removed half bucket of plants, cleaned the occasional algae, changed about 60% of the water.

Tomorrow I go to work. Ugh.....

Florin

[Biollante]

Hi Florin,

I’ll pm you some thoughts later…

No way I can answer publicly under the new rules.

Biollante

[Biollante]

Hi Florin,

Pm on the way.

Biollante