SMSREEF
Valuable Member
Don’t you think if we talk in ppm it will translate to other’s tanks, 10 gallon or 500 gallon tanks.
I don’t even know what 65 ml of 35% peroxide means in a 120 gallon tank without the calculator.
Bacteria...let's really start understanding them! part one
- Thread starter flampton
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don’t even know what 65 ml of 35% peroxide means in a 120 gallon tank without the calculator.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
Here are some the calculations:
35% H2O2 = 35 ml/100 ml = 0.35
.35 x5 ml =1.75 ml pure H2O2
10 gallons = 10 x 3.79l/gallon = 37.9 liters
1.75ml / 37.9 l= .046. ml/l
0.046 ml/l x 1000ppm/(1ml/l) = 46 ppm H2O2
3% H2O2 = 3 ml/100 ml or 30 ml/liter. (used to disinfect)
30 ml/l x 1000ppm/(1ml/l) = 30,000 ppm.
So when you consider that both temperature and alkalinity greatly increase the decomposition of H2O2 - as well as the fact that almost immediately any H2O2 added to a tank full of live rock (as compared to a glass jar) there are so many catalysts - that it would seem that much of any added H2O2 would rapidly be degraded to Water and Oxygen before killing much of anything. Thus at least to me - I dont see much 'surprise' that the dose used didn't affect the tank. To me it also suggests that the lower concentrations used are even doing 'less'. But - my calculations may be off etc etc.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
If you check out my calculations - you can see the 'ppm'. And when you compare the dose used (46 ppm - vs the 'disinfecting dose' 30,000 ppm) - its easy to see why very little bacteria is affected with addition of H2O2 to the tank. (Even at the "high" @taricha dose)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
If you look at the calculations - it is really not a high dose - especially when you consider the number of catalysts in a 'tank' as compared to a 'dip'. In a tank from the second it hits the warm alkaline water - with algae - stuff floating in the water etc - it will start to immediately degrade. When you then consider that H2O2 has to be kept cold (i.e. refrigerated as compared to in a cupboard) - and the minute it is opened - it starts degrading (for example a 3% bottle of H2O2 is completely degraded in about 3 months) - so who knows what people are 'really dosing'?
SMSREEF
Valuable Member
This is seems to be a good calculator to determine the amount of H2O2 to use to create a certain ppm concentration in different tank sizes.
Chlorine Dilution Calculator; Hydrogen Peroxide, Quat, Iodine, Peracetic Acid Too!
Dilute chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, quat, peracetic acid and iodine sanitizers accurately with this easy to use calculator. Works whether you need 10 or 10000ppm. PPM and % are decimal based so the calculator is designed for metric units. We list American equivalents so you can convert.
www.indigoinstruments.com
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
Thanks I did the math just because - I wanted to compare these doses people are using - with bactericidal doses of H2O2 - they are not comparable. I'm glad that we got to the same result - that it was about 50 ppm. My strong guess is that if you put that dose in your sump - but the time you got to the tank - it would be 1/10 or lower of that level
tvan
Active Member
Ok, according to @brandon429, if I provide link to a thread with over 50 pages saying the world is flat. Then the world must be flat. 
Proved what exactly?
65 mls=2.19791 oz of which only 35% =0.7602685 oz is active, in 120 gallons = 15360 oz.
Proved what exactly?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
Think the math was already done - its a minuscule amount of H2O2 - in an active reef tank. its 46 ppm. Consider using the metric system? - which btw was a mistake when people say 'use 5 ml/10 gallons' Agree with you it just make it difficultOk, according to @brandon429, if I provide link to a thread with over 50 pages saying the world is flat. Then the world must be flat.
65 mls=2.19791 oz of which only 35% =0.7602685 oz is active, in 120 gallons = 15360 oz.
Proved what exactly?
tvan
in order to round out your contribution, I'll read any work you've done at all regarding peroxide
Let's see if you have an opinion i can support or not
The case has been made that no measurable harm is being done to biofilters in marine systems, by me, it's my claim from working with it for years in a few different settings.
Not many else agree that is an accurate statement
Which is the only real fun gradient to work in, of course.
You're getting to read work that exceeds safe dose predictions, these are people who choose to investigate new approaches, can't wait to see what you're about to offer beyond a second calculation for the dose.
post for us to read any usage of 35% that harmed a biolfilter in a reef tank, and how that was ascertained, that would be a contributing/substantive post from you. We are using the measure/post to set the high bar for in-tank testing in case you missed all the context for the matter.
I'll even read you posting someone else's work on the matter, a standard scholar snippet will do, anything that pertains to data on peroxide in a reef tank not already covered. What's your opinion on peroxide, and what's it based on can I see it
soon we will move on to another subject here-don’t get caught without any work links whatsoever it’s the default standard in forum point making, I think you can do better than that.
heres a mere four pages, and we have already fixed two tanks using the exact microbiology I’ve been posting about - surface area concepts and peroxide burning while never harming a biofilter.
www.reef2reef.com
We apply the rules and test the outcomes in our work threads. I dont see very many other logged tests going on here.
in order to round out your contribution, I'll read any work you've done at all regarding peroxide
Let's see if you have an opinion i can support or not
The case has been made that no measurable harm is being done to biofilters in marine systems, by me, it's my claim from working with it for years in a few different settings.
Not many else agree that is an accurate statement
Which is the only real fun gradient to work in, of course.
You're getting to read work that exceeds safe dose predictions, these are people who choose to investigate new approaches, can't wait to see what you're about to offer beyond a second calculation for the dose.
post for us to read any usage of 35% that harmed a biolfilter in a reef tank, and how that was ascertained, that would be a contributing/substantive post from you. We are using the measure/post to set the high bar for in-tank testing in case you missed all the context for the matter.
I'll even read you posting someone else's work on the matter, a standard scholar snippet will do, anything that pertains to data on peroxide in a reef tank not already covered. What's your opinion on peroxide, and what's it based on can I see it
soon we will move on to another subject here-don’t get caught without any work links whatsoever it’s the default standard in forum point making, I think you can do better than that.
heres a mere four pages, and we have already fixed two tanks using the exact microbiology I’ve been posting about - surface area concepts and peroxide burning while never harming a biofilter.
Algae Identification
Any opinions on what type of algae this is growing on my rocks and sand bed?
www.reef2reef.com
Last edited:
tvan
Active Member
Actually, I was looking for work you have done @brandon429.. The only real work I've done personally with peroxide is pouring 3% on a wound until it stops foaming. You know direct contact to kill bacteria... Your information you postis not yours.... Your facts, few that there are, aren't yours either or complete. And since you didn't answer my question, I'll have to assume you can't. But thank-you for your opinion.
ours is just a bunch of patterns extracted from web posts, nothing peer reviewed formally but a lot of it is peer reviewed by people who got their algae fixed lol the gold is in the repeats/ they make predictable patterns of using it in a reef tank in this way fwiw:
-no harm to biofiltration
-a select group of sensitives, about five organisms total to watch out for when tank dosing, such that we can dose peroxide in safe ways to any reef it’s wanted-we routinely do this in large systems, a benefit of fifty pages is feedback testimony good and bad from people volunteering. Haphazard outcomes don’t happen in our collections because we find peroxide to be highly predictable and not harmful. the number of ways our findings go against common thought on peroxide warrant fair consideration for sure.
-a select group of receptive targets are known to die as a pattern when peroxide is dosed into a reef at certain levels, the predictability is very high we think based on collections. If we stunk at killing targets nobody would post in our collections.
none of this can be proved, but you can imagine what res publica’s thoughts on pico reefs were twenty years ago. They were lies, plumbed to something larger under the counter, coral allelopathy would not ever allow it, and the corals that are reproducing and adding new mass were being harmed. I come here for staunch gate keeping if nothing else
anecdotes arranged in ways to reveal patterns are legit science in my opinion
-no harm to biofiltration
-a select group of sensitives, about five organisms total to watch out for when tank dosing, such that we can dose peroxide in safe ways to any reef it’s wanted-we routinely do this in large systems, a benefit of fifty pages is feedback testimony good and bad from people volunteering. Haphazard outcomes don’t happen in our collections because we find peroxide to be highly predictable and not harmful. the number of ways our findings go against common thought on peroxide warrant fair consideration for sure.
-a select group of receptive targets are known to die as a pattern when peroxide is dosed into a reef at certain levels, the predictability is very high we think based on collections. If we stunk at killing targets nobody would post in our collections.
none of this can be proved, but you can imagine what res publica’s thoughts on pico reefs were twenty years ago. They were lies, plumbed to something larger under the counter, coral allelopathy would not ever allow it, and the corals that are reproducing and adding new mass were being harmed. I come here for staunch gate keeping if nothing else
anecdotes arranged in ways to reveal patterns are legit science in my opinion
That 100% of you guys would have voted in a poll oppositely of its action on a reef, totally harmful, had the threads never been posted.
the bar is set so high, even the current works won’t matter to some. peroxide will be deemed harmful until we get it so common it seems flat earthing to deny its endless handiness.
anything that goes against the predictions of chemists and microbiologists is good good fun and worthy of further review
the bar is set so high, even the current works won’t matter to some. peroxide will be deemed harmful until we get it so common it seems flat earthing to deny its endless handiness.
anything that goes against the predictions of chemists and microbiologists is good good fun and worthy of further review
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
first there is no proven benefit to H2O2. second. thus most people dont use it so a poll Is meaningless. third - ive shown you the chemistry - calculations - suggesting that there are issues dosing h2O2 in general. whats the point
DxMarinefish
GazuntaiReef
- Joined
- May 18, 2019
- Messages
- 383
- Reaction score
- 769
I was following this thread, but now I am signing out...
...it just got degraded by conjecture, unproven so called “facts”, wild assumptions about “not killling biofilter/ bacteria”, pointless arguments, ego-r-us personal slamming.
Sounds like another forum I no longer visit .
good luck peeps.
back to reading scientific articles and learning from experience.
...it just got degraded by conjecture, unproven so called “facts”, wild assumptions about “not killling biofilter/ bacteria”, pointless arguments, ego-r-us personal slamming.
Sounds like another forum I no longer visit .
good luck peeps.
back to reading scientific articles and learning from experience.
MN have you earned after pics like we do using a different tool, enough for pages? The point was how they present vs left, obviously.
it’s a powerful anti algae tool, very very powerful. Saved thousands of dollars in coral from being bearded over by passive reefing. Things we can discern from a click, but I know we are operating as if everyone likes to design home move threads, or algae rescue threads, using other people’s time and money on the line and then be open to scrutiny of findings
wanted to recommend we consider veering down the potentially inflammatory rabbit hole of surface area in this thread, since bacteria in a reef aren’t that awesome in our manipulation tests until they’re attached.
here it is mentioned and reinforced that removing bioballs will risk a nitrification inability for a system, bioballs thread in gen forum:
www.reef2reef.com
and again, as a pattern, most here will agree am assuming? Perhaps the most common rule we can search out in all reefing regarding bacteria has to do with equilibrium of filtration bacteria during changes - such as removal of surface area
- once we install new surface area, our reefs are then linked to those acquired bacteria until new bacteria are given sufficient time to build up higher on leftover surfaces, should some of the new surface area get removed, this is the common rule and I haven’t met anyone in reefing who disagrees with it.
what if it doesn’t work that way at all, and the truth is backwards from the common thought? to discuss what bacteria do is to discuss procedural boundaries for the aquarium. We need to be right
We can use the patterns from other posters testing a certain method for pages to validate vs invalidate claims. it’s how fluconazole got popular.
MN don’t spoil the bait
it’s a powerful anti algae tool, very very powerful. Saved thousands of dollars in coral from being bearded over by passive reefing. Things we can discern from a click, but I know we are operating as if everyone likes to design home move threads, or algae rescue threads, using other people’s time and money on the line and then be open to scrutiny of findings
wanted to recommend we consider veering down the potentially inflammatory rabbit hole of surface area in this thread, since bacteria in a reef aren’t that awesome in our manipulation tests until they’re attached.
here it is mentioned and reinforced that removing bioballs will risk a nitrification inability for a system, bioballs thread in gen forum:
Bio balls...a thing of the past?
As I recall the term nitrate factory did not refer to the bio- balls “creating” nitrate. Like most things left unattended they become detritus traps. We found that replacing a small portion every so often mitigated this. They were as one said part of the “trickle”. Any filter media I think...
www.reef2reef.com
and again, as a pattern, most here will agree am assuming? Perhaps the most common rule we can search out in all reefing regarding bacteria has to do with equilibrium of filtration bacteria during changes - such as removal of surface area
- once we install new surface area, our reefs are then linked to those acquired bacteria until new bacteria are given sufficient time to build up higher on leftover surfaces, should some of the new surface area get removed, this is the common rule and I haven’t met anyone in reefing who disagrees with it.
what if it doesn’t work that way at all, and the truth is backwards from the common thought? to discuss what bacteria do is to discuss procedural boundaries for the aquarium. We need to be right
We can use the patterns from other posters testing a certain method for pages to validate vs invalidate claims. it’s how fluconazole got popular.
MN don’t spoil the bait
Last edited:
Remove my bio balls in wet/dry
Ok so never thought of it but my tank is established not over a year and I’ve got 65gal tank with about 50lbs live rock and about to add 20lbs this week. Can I go ahead and take the bio balls out and should I put anything in that section of the sump?
www.reef2reef.com
here’s a clear request for what bacteria allow and don’t allow.
see how common the notion is that when removing accessory surface area, time must be given for new bacteria to stack onto old surfaces? That’s cycling Lamarckism.
(playing on geneticists joke of cutting tails off generations of mice in order to produce eventual mice born without tails, Lamarckism cause effect error)
when you remove accessory, unneeded surface area in stages nothing new happens to the old surfaces-water shear and overall nutrients and surface area set the degree of bacteria on submerged surfaces including surface area not affected by removal
if you remove all the accessory, unneeded, redundant surface area from a reef at once, same effect as removing in stages
nothing new happens to the old surfaces still in the tank. The final amount of surface area left is either enough to run the system on its own or it’s not, and the tank dies.
in five hundred literal pages of reef tank sandbed and filter removals, no reef using any degree of live rock was lacking surface area. Even a few pounds of common aged live rock will run an entire reef, all bare bottom keepers know.
when reefkeepers remove sandbeds or filters in steps, there was no benefit to that vs instant removal. The rule that the masses holds is wrong, and since there aren’t any books or articles on surface area mechanics in reef tanks giant test threads will do for a while.
the reason to investigate these issues is because people also buy retail purchases to ‘build up’ bacteria that have no new places to reside.
by dis factoring surface area and only thinking about bacteria, we waste money and impose restrictions on procedure with no basis in fact. It’s robbing the poster of safety to state that partial removal is safe, all the troubleshooting needs to aim at the final degree of surface area being enough and in the direct path of flow in the system. Removing in stages will never, ever make insufficient surface area sufficient. If you stack bacteria in layers on limited surface area you reduce filtration efficiency, vs increase it, because layering reduces surface area.
the greater-held rule is actually the dangerous mode, thats ironic. The reason it never harms to remove filters in stages is because everyone winds up using live rock to some degree in the display, but they lucked into it. Keep an eye out in posts coming up across forums regarding bacteria and see which remarks factor in surface area during the assessment
Bacteria boundaries posts are numerous, daily, even if bacteria isn’t in the title.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
I asked you really carefully - if youre talking about killing algae locally on rocks - yes - it works - there is no reason to think it would cause a problem. If youre talking about dosing an entire tank - thats a different issue - IMHO - it will not work - so pick your topic - and answer the questions.MN have you earned after pics like we do using a different tool, enough for pages? The point was how they present vs left, obviously.
it’s a powerful anti algae tool, very very powerful. Saved thousands of dollars in coral from being bearded over by passive reefing. Things we can discern from a click, but I know we are operating as if everyone likes to design home move threads, or algae rescue threads, using other people’s time and money on the line and then be open to scrutiny of findings
wanted to recommend we consider veering down the potentially inflammatory rabbit hole of surface area in this thread, since bacteria in a reef aren’t that awesome in our manipulation tests until they’re attached.
here it is mentioned and reinforced that removing bioballs will risk a nitrification inability for a system, bioballs thread in gen forum:
Bio balls...a thing of the past?
As I recall the term nitrate factory did not refer to the bio- balls “creating” nitrate. Like most things left unattended they become detritus traps. We found that replacing a small portion every so often mitigated this. They were as one said part of the “trickle”. Any filter media I think...
and again, as a pattern, most here will agree am assuming? Perhaps the most common rule we can search out in all reefing regarding bacteria has to do with equilibrium of filtration bacteria during changes - such as removal of surface area
- once we install new surface area, our reefs are then linked to those acquired bacteria until new bacteria are given sufficient time to build up higher on leftover surfaces, should some of the new surface area get removed, this is the common rule and I haven’t met anyone in reefing who disagrees with it.
what if it doesn’t work that way at all, and the truth is backwards from the common thought? to discuss what bacteria do is to discuss procedural boundaries for the aquarium. We need to be right
We can use the patterns from other posters testing a certain method for pages to validate vs invalidate claims. it’s how fluconazole got popular.
MN don’t spoil the bait
Similar threads
-
- AMS: Article
