![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#151 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#152 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Naperville
Posts: 225
|
Maybe the better question is what is making the water yellow in the first place. I personally do not have that problem, nor do I see it in local reef club members tanks. I dont feel uniformed or ripped off by my expensive skimmer, the skimmate I dump out is plenty of proof to me that my water quality is enhanced.
If you water is yellow run some carbon, if your phosphates are out of whack run phosban, if you ph is low use kalk, etc. Might as well blame high end skimmer manufacturers for any other problems if you follow the logic.
__________________
Caution, driver does not carry any corals or inverts...just cash... Current Tank Info: 90 G mixed reef |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#153 | |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,670
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#154 |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brew City, WI
Posts: 10,156
|
Thats actually pretty well described by many biologists. I think it pretty much comes down to any organics that are left in the water long enough for the aerobic bacteria to convert. The process of the conversion to nitrate is what produces the 'yellow' as well as phosphates (byproducts). There are other things as well though. Algae, macro algae, etc... all these things contribute to yellowing the water in one way or another... but being that there are many proteins that a skimmer doesnt even have a chance of collecting, it would seem that yellowing of the water is something that cant be avoided. So all you can do is deal with it... ozone and carbon... oh, and water changes. Oh, and Im sure there are some zeovit/prodobio/ultralith products out there for dealing with yellow water as well. Vodka dosing included.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#155 | |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,670
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#156 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
No problem sherm... just wanted to make sure that you were growling at the right person
![]() This has been fun guys... but honestly, I have better things to do (like empty the skimmer cup). When you get it figured out and start selling tests and a skimmer that performs better than the other stuff out there.. let me know. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#157 | |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,954
|
Quote:
No need to apologize to anyone, Sherm. Your comments are very much appreciated. Thank you. Last edited by pjf; 09/04/2007 at 09:53 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#158 |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,954
|
![]()
To recap, this thread started with a request for information leading to a skimmer that can skim Gelbstoff or yellowing compounds, normally removed by carbon filtration. Some aquarists believed that tall counter-current skimmers of yore used to skim Gelbstoff but no one can find a current skimmer that can.
Now, yellowing compounds are simply proteins with greater solubility than surface proteins. Skimmers are great at removing surface proteins but not proteins that dissolve more readily in water. The thread starter then asked for skimmers that can skim proteins with higher solubility constants. Unfortunately, no one actually knew how much proteins or dissolved organic compounds (DOC) remained in their aquariums after skimming. An alternative suggestion was offered to choose the skimmer that collects the most skimmate. This suggestion was discarded because: • There is no cheap and easy way to compare the amount of organics in wet skimmate and dry skimmate. • Two skimmers may collect skimmate at the same rate but one can leave more organics in the aquarium because it requires a higher concentration of organics before it starts skimming. A Remora in a cesspool can collect more skimmate than a Bubble King in the Waikiki Aquarium. The consensus is that aquarium water purity is a better indicator of skimmer performance than observation of the collection cup. Ideally, skimmers should be measured by their ability to remove a protein, such as Gelbstoff, that can be seen. Since most dissolved organic compounds are colorless, a test must be developed. The Salifert Organics Test Kit was deemed to be too low in resolution. Ultraviolet spectrophotometers (280nm wavelength) were deemed to be too expensive for general use. The thread is moving on to discuss skimmer theory and the best way to remove proteins that are more soluble than the easy-to-skim surface proteins. Pedro Escobal’s (Aquatic Systems Engineering: Devices and How They Function) observation that some proteins require 2 minutes of dwell time for bubble attachment was cited. The esteemed Klaus Jansen, inventor of the Bubble King, honored all of us by joining the thread to offer his comments! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#159 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
Last edited by BeanAnimal; 09/04/2007 at 09:56 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#160 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 2,333
|
"Since most dissolved organic compounds are colorless, a test must be developed. The Salifert Organics Test Kit was deemed to be too low in resolution. Ultraviolet spectrophotometers (280nm wavelength) were deemed to be too expensive for general use."
Just a stab in the dark here, but has anyone considered petitioning a laboratory that already has the equipment to run the analysis. Would be tons cheaper, still not cheap though. This kind of equipment may even be available on some college campuses. Considering the number of students we have in this hobby, might be worth a try (I'm not volunteering though :P)
__________________
You are not brought upon this world to "get it" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#161 |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brew City, WI
Posts: 10,156
|
Wouldnt have to petition... our club has a resident Dr. in chemistry, doing enzyme research actually. As for spectrometer testing, my spectrometer just touches the 300nm range.
Anyways, to get back to the original 'challenge' for a skimmer that could actually make the water clearer... lower turbulence and a longer dwell time seem to make a huge improvement... I grabbed a review of the ATB vs. the ATI and posted it here: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...1#post10704231 Notice the nutrient levels as well as the water clarity improvements noted. Thought some of you might be interested. Keep in mind that the air throughput in both skimmers should be about the same, or if anything, the 'threadwheel skimmer' would have slightly more air intake. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#162 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
The question of testing still comes down to cost vs benefit and the fact that one test is not going to tell you much
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#163 | |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,954
|
![]() Quote:
It seems that in Germany, Gelbstoff is no longer a problem. Is that due to better skimmers or due to more water changes? Thanks! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#164 |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,954
|
![]()
Suppose someone developed a test for Gelbstoff, such as a color card. If a skimmer can skim Gelbstoff, then the same skimmer can skim all organics that are less soluble, such as surface proteins. Therefore, one test can tell us a lot!
The same applies for other organics. If a DOC of solubility K can be skimmed, then the same skimmer will be able to more readily skim DOCs of solubility j < K. It is unlikely that you will find skimmers A and B such that A will skim organic X better and B will skim organic Y better. Both skimmers will skim the less soluble protein better. The test does not need to measure only one DOC. In comparative testing (2 skimmers, 2 tanks, same water), it may work even if it tests for a class of DOCs. The test only needs to indicate which skimmer can reduce the concentration of the tested organics more. To better differentiate the "men from the boys," the test should measure moderately hard-to-skim organics that are more soluble than surface proteins, but not as soluble as Gelbstoff that few, if any, skimmers can remove. The Salifert Organics Test is designed to test for DOCs known as phenols. It may not have the requisite resolution now but it is a good starting point. Today, it is adequate for comparisons between Remoras and Bubble Kings. Tomorrow, it may be improved to test other skimmers. The Gelbstoff test is ready now and waiting for a skimmer to test! Last edited by pjf; 09/05/2007 at 07:27 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#165 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 2,333
|
"The question of testing still comes down to cost vs benefit and the fact that one test is not going to tell you much"
First of all, I wouldn't have the illusion that this test would be developed or used by any skimmer developer/manufacturer. If there is a test developed, it would be from purely hobbiest interest. I'm not really arguing for testing, but couldn't the argument of cost vs. benefit be pitted against our entire hobby? To many, the expense we pay to upkeep our aquariums would seem ludicrous already.
__________________
You are not brought upon this world to "get it" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#166 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
You can't have it both ways. You have proposed an idea (and not a bad one), but applied it as science based on assumption. The devil is in the details. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#167 | |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,954
|
Re: One Test Suffices & Already Developed!
Quote:
If there are dissenting assumptions, it would be nice to see your scientific references. Last edited by pjf; 09/05/2007 at 11:24 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#168 |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brew City, WI
Posts: 10,156
|
So, what the cichlid breeders did back in the day might be the easiest still... make a yellow-scale card to go behind the tank... as the tank gets more and more yellow, the darker and darker shades/bands of yellow will vanish. Its a purely subjective test though... as everyone would have a different card of yellows, and everyone's tanks would most likely have different lighting and thickness... but as a subjective comparative test, it would be informative enough for side by side comparisons.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#169 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 1,807
|
Quote:
This test would make the assumption that a skimmers relative performance can be based by comparing their ability to skim out this one substance. Personally, I believe that to be true. Any skimmer that is more effective at removing this compound will also be more effective at removing higher or lower solubility proteins than a skimmer which performs worse on this test. The biggest hurdle would be convincing people to mix up 50g of IO doing all of this just to test a skimmer. Also standardizing the color chart might be tough. Oh well, it's a nice thought.
__________________
Just getting back in, but trying to do it right! Current Tank Info: 40 gallon tank. SPS, LPS, few softies |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#170 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brew City, WI
Posts: 10,156
|
Quote:
I thought that the methodology was more in line with what we might consider practical, since the tester in this case also agrees that comparing amounts of skimmate is usually not a fair way to go about comparing. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#171 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Re: Re: One Test Suffices & Already Developed!
Quote:
Lets make this much simpler so that everybody else following along can possibly understand. We don't need any science or silly terms. You have a skimmer that has 10 bubbles per hour rising through it. Those bubbles have a certain propensity to attract certain things. Lets call those 'things' A, B, C and D. Let us also assume that we can very the "dwell time" or whatever variable controls the type of things that the skimmer is able to handle. I.E. what they have a propensity to attract. For THAT IS exactly what we are talking about. A = the least soluble (what you keep calling surface proteins) B= is a little more soluble C= is more soluble and what you call "Gelbstoff" (what an annoying word). and yellow D = is the hardcore yellow stuff Now lets give these things an arbitrary concentration. A=25 B=25 C=25 D=25 Lets also say that you have a skimmer that is capable of removing A, B, C, and D. If we have a finite interface (10 bubbles per hour in this example) then we have a finite number of items that can be removed in a given time. If we measure the D that is left in the tank, we still have to account for the A, B and C, or we have no idea how well the skimmer does overall. Remember it is removing more than just D. Lets say: Skimmer one removes: 10 A 20 B 10 C 10 D That is 50 items in 5 hours. Skimmer two removes: 20 A 20 B 5 C 5 D That is 50 items in 5 hours Skimmer three removes: 5A 5B 5C 35D That is 50 items in 5 hours. Which skimmer is better? We can make it even more complicated by changing the volume of skimmate over time X. If ONLY D is our concern then the test would be valid, D is NOT our only concern (as your first post stated, you want a skimmer that does it all!). Testing for D would say that skimmer 3 is better. It removes more yellowing compounds. BUT it leaves the less soluble stuff behind. What about skimmer 1? It does an overall good job. And skimmer 2? Thus, Randy, Habib et al. refrain from describing how we determine what the best skimmer is. It is all a matter of perspective. Remember the "moving target" and similar remarks made by those that have been cited? In the real world we have more than 10 bubbles per hour, but we still have a finite limit and a large range of proteins to choose from. Please don't let the simplicity of the example become a straw argument. It is fully scalable. Lets put this in another very simple context: It is a work/time problem. We can only do a finite amount of work in a finite amount of time, yet the work involves complicated interactive tasks. Changing one portion of 1 task changes the overall amount of the other types of work that get done. Each skimmer (or skimmer setting for that matter) will produce a different outcome. What exactly do you measure to rank performance? I will say it again, there are just too many variables to consider for any reasonable (cheap and easy) test to be of ANY real use. Though this conversation is enlightening and has produced some great responses and counters. However, it is merely a lot of serious tilting at windmills. Last edited by BeanAnimal; 09/05/2007 at 01:39 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#172 |
Premium Member
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,954
|
![]()
All bubbles have a propensity to attract hydrophobic compounds and repel hydrophilic compounds. You will not find different bubbles such that one is more attracted to surface proteins and another is more attracted to yellowing compounds. All bubbles will be more attracted to surface proteins than “Gelbstoff” or “Gilvin” or chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM). All bubbles will repel hydrophilic or polar molecules.
Let’s take your 4 compounds (A, B, C, D), of equal concentration but different solubility such that on the solubility scale, less of A will dissolve in aquarium water than D (A < B < C < D). • Compound A will quickly bind to a bubble and be removed by the skimmer. “Nearly any hydrophobic or amphipathic molecule can be skimmed out to some extent. This list includes amino acids, vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, many combination biomolecules (e.g., lipoproteins, liposaccharides), RNA, DNA, etc. This list includes most, but certainly not all, organics. Fortunately, it includes many of the organic compounds that lead to yellowing in marine and reef aquaria, so skimming can help reduce the yellowing of aquarium water.” - Randy Holmes-Farley (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php) • Compound B may bind to a bubble only to be replaced by compound A as the bubble rises. “Additionally, different organics have different binding strengths to the air/water interface. Compounds which bind more strongly will slowly replace those already at the interface which have weaker binding. Thus, a bubble which is completely occupied with organics might still be changing with time upon further exposure to aquarium water.” - Randy Holmes-Farley (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php) • Compound C may take two minutes of contact time to bind to a bubble. “Some organics require up to 2 full minutes of contact time with air bubbles in a skimmer before they are removed via foam fractioning.” – (http://www.hawkfish.org/snailman/skimmer101.htm) • Compound D may never bind to a bubble “Most highly polar organics will not be removed by skimming. Simple sugars, acetate, oxalate, methyl alcohol, choline, citrate, etc. will remain behind. They simply are not sufficiently attracted to an air water interface. Most charged species are, in fact, repelled from the air/water interface, so they are not collected. Fortunately, many of these highly polar organic materials are readily metabolized by bacteria and other organisms, so they do not continually build up in marine aquaria.” - Randy Holmes-Farley (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php) Conclusions: 1. All skimmers will remove compound A better than compound B, B better than C, and C better than D. 2. Skimming “deeper is better:” • If a skimmer can remove B, it will also remove A. • If a skimmer can remove C, it will also remove A & B. • If a skimmer can remove D, it will also remove A, B & C. 3. “Shallow skimming is worse:” • If a skimmer can’t remove C, it can’t remove D. • If a skimmer can’t remove B, it can’t remove C & D. • If a skimmer can’t remove A, it can’t remove B, C & D. If Randy is right, we may not need a test kit to measure CDOM (C & D). Maybe a color card is all we need. Bottom Line: Popular skimmer designs are based on rapid removal of surface proteins with large air to water ratios in order to impress uninformed aquarists with the amount of foam generated and the amount of skimmate collected. Their tanks still look yellow with chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) and require ozone, carbon or water changes to be presentable. “A fool and his money are soon parted.” Last edited by pjf; 09/06/2007 at 10:00 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#173 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 1,807
|
Re: Deeper is Better
Quote:
FB
__________________
Just getting back in, but trying to do it right! Current Tank Info: 40 gallon tank. SPS, LPS, few softies |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#174 |
Registered Member
![]() Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 9,666
|
The way I see it is just because a skimmer is capable of removing C & D, does not mean it will ever remove C & D. If the skimmer is not efficient enough at removing A & B it will never have the opportunity to remove C & D. Even if it has the recommended 2+ minute dwell time. This may mean that the best skimmer performance may be measured by the skimmer that removes the most A & B.
__________________
Greg Carroll I will be at REEF-A-PALOOZA! SPS = Stability Promotes Success Be wary of advice coming from those who will not show you the fruits of their success! Current Tank Info: building: 250g AGE Euro tank, Abyzz A200, Vertex Supra-G filtration, Ecotech Radion Pro LEDs, ... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#175 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
PJF, you are making a lot of assumptions to come to your conclusion. You have actually just reinforced my point. Your conclusions are fine as a postulate, but nothing more.
Just because it can remove A, B, C and D does not mean that it will do so at a predictable rate, and that is exactly what you are basing your entire premise on. Try this please: 1. All skimmer can remove compound A better than compound B, B better than C and C better than D. But will do so at different ratios depending in operating parameters. 2. We are not sure if deeper skimming is better. Furthermore: • If a skimmer can remove B it MAY also remove A • If a skimmer can remove C it MAY also remove A & B • If a skimmer can remove D it MAY also remove A, B & C 3. There is no inverse logic here, as the point is redundant. The skimmer may remove A and C better than B and D, even though it is capable of removing all four. So you can NOT just measure the "color" of the water to determine how well the skimmer performs. You are just measuring the color of the water. There is a finite amount of compound that is removed over a given time. HERE IS THE KEY POINT: If we follow your proposed logic, and the skimmer was able to remove A, B, C, and D... And it did so according to your explanation of binding... Then the D component would have to be fully removed from the system before the skimmer removed ANY C. Etc. So your logic equates to: IF and ONLY IF D where non existent or skimmed out, would the skimmer remove any C IF and ONLY IF C and D where non existent or skimmed out, would the skimmer remove any B IF and ONLY IF A, B and C were non existent would the skimmer remove A. You can't have the logic both ways. The wonderful thing about logic is that a simple table can be used to show the possible outcomes. So you say "that is not what I said!". Well then we MUST conclude that a skimmer does not pull the compounds out in the manner that you have proposed. Instead, it pulls out compounds in a mixed fashion according the the settings and type of skimmer. The ratio of the compounds removed can vary vastly, even if a skimmer IS capable of removing ALL types. Therefore, you CAN NOT measure the extraction of ONE compound and draw a conclusion about the other compounds that have been removed. Your logic would also dictate that for a D to be bound it MUST take the place of a C, but the C MUST have taken the place of a B and the B the place of an A. You say "that is not what I said:. Well then we MUST conclude that a skimmer can bind a D without replacing another compound in the process. That therefore means that the resulting extraction ratio of A : B : C : D is NOT fixed and therefore testing for ANY single compound tells you NOTHING about the concentration of the other compounds. It also does not indicate the overal performance of the skimmer. It just shows that the performance as it relates to what you tested for ![]() If your ONLY CONCERN is that ONE COMPOUND, then you measure for it and select or tweak a skimmer try and maximize the amount of that compound that is removed. You have stated the exact opposite, you want a skimmer that does it all and a test that confirms the efficiency at which it does it all. It is not going to happen my friend, at least not with a yellow card and a few bucks. Last edited by BeanAnimal; 09/06/2007 at 11:07 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|