OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
lol, ok. But im only testing once a dayA good suggestion - but please keep on your measurements till we see nearly zero in ammonia - after that I will not "hunt" you anymore
Sincerely Lasse
Effects of tap water on Nitrifying during Rip-Clean method: Experiment
- Thread starter Coxey81
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So, if you get algae problems in your display, will you clean the rocks, equipment and tank etc by brushing in tapwater? This thread was about your tank, after all. Happy reefin, youre gonna do great.
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
No, I would probably do it with with saltwater though. But I wouldn't do it all at once. Few rocks a day, etc.So, if you get algae problems in your display, will you clean the rocks, equipment and tank etc by brushing in tapwater? This thread was about your tank, after all. Happy reefin, youre gonna do great.
ETA: I would clean the tank and equipment in tap.
Last edited:
Hi @Coxey81 and @sixty_reefer
First off, thank you both for running the testing. It’s been great to follow along.
I will give you my take on the results so far, with quite a bit of it being assumptions.
If I got everything correctly (sorry, the post come way to fast to keep detailed track on everything), sixty’s rock’s were almost completely capable of consuming all ammonia in 24 hours at the start of the trial (is my memory correct?). On the other end Coxey’s need a few days to build up the bacterial communities.
I suspect a lot of the bacterial communities in Coxey’s tank may have been on the glass and water, which is why the results are so dramatic. In reality you only needed about 800cm2 (or 124sq inches if google is correct) to convert the amount of ammonia used (assuming 2mg l or twice as much if it’s actually 4). I assume the glass in the tank could provide that much. We could have seen this with a two step process, but too late for that, so not much point in worrying over this. Having said that I think your rocks return to approximately their original state (in terms of their capability of processing ammonia), right @Coxey81 ? What was the original amount converted when you first started and what was the value after the cleaning? If so, I still think that the drop on the rocks themselves was probably less extreme. However, this is just an assumption.
In Sixty’s case, as pointed out by @Lasse , plenty of other processes at play and since the cleaning did not remove all of them, the effect was much smaller.
It feels to me that these treatments where somehow a bit of both extremes: worst case scenario of deep cleaning of a bare bottom tank and deep cleaning of a tank with animals which tolerate the treatment quite well.
It was asked before if its safe to do this. Here goes my 2 cents.
As I mentioned before, ammonia is mainly a result of feeding. So if you are careful feeding after the cleaning process, I would not be worried. Even If you remove 80% of bacteria, they will slowly build up. Just adjust feeding accordingly.
I would actually think that if you employ this process to get ready of nuisance algae (for example hair algae), the removal of the algae and its vast capacity for ammonia uptake (as pointed by Lasse before) would actually be the what has the biggest impact on the ammonia uptake and transformation, not so much the effect on nitrifiers. Again, just my assumption.
If anyone is planning on repeating this experiments (or something simillar) there are a few tweaks you could do, which could give more direct comparisons to a “standard” application of scrubbing rocks and also save a lot of time.
They will however be a different type of experiment.
Start by measuring the uptake rate of the rocks at day 0 by transferring the rocks to the test aquarium holding the right amount of water (lets say 1 pound per gallon). Dose 2mg l of ammonia and measure again in 24 hours) .This is your initial capacity for ammonia uptake. Rinse and scrub the rock nad change the water in the tank and repeat the test. This will tell you what is your uptake after cleaning. The difference is the effect of the cleaning on the rocks. If you want to elaborate a bit more, see how long it takes to return to the original state. This way you do not affect the communities with a long acclimation process. The only consideration here is that the rocks need to uptake enough ammonia in 24h to get stable and repetitive readings.
On this subject, it was nice to see so many readings and in general looking quite consistent. Kodus to both of you.
Great testing so far.
I will have a read and see if I can comment some more
edit: I need more sleep in order to write better
First off, thank you both for running the testing. It’s been great to follow along.
I will give you my take on the results so far, with quite a bit of it being assumptions.
If I got everything correctly (sorry, the post come way to fast to keep detailed track on everything), sixty’s rock’s were almost completely capable of consuming all ammonia in 24 hours at the start of the trial (is my memory correct?). On the other end Coxey’s need a few days to build up the bacterial communities.
I suspect a lot of the bacterial communities in Coxey’s tank may have been on the glass and water, which is why the results are so dramatic. In reality you only needed about 800cm2 (or 124sq inches if google is correct) to convert the amount of ammonia used (assuming 2mg l or twice as much if it’s actually 4). I assume the glass in the tank could provide that much. We could have seen this with a two step process, but too late for that, so not much point in worrying over this. Having said that I think your rocks return to approximately their original state (in terms of their capability of processing ammonia), right @Coxey81 ? What was the original amount converted when you first started and what was the value after the cleaning? If so, I still think that the drop on the rocks themselves was probably less extreme. However, this is just an assumption.
In Sixty’s case, as pointed out by @Lasse , plenty of other processes at play and since the cleaning did not remove all of them, the effect was much smaller.
It feels to me that these treatments where somehow a bit of both extremes: worst case scenario of deep cleaning of a bare bottom tank and deep cleaning of a tank with animals which tolerate the treatment quite well.
It was asked before if its safe to do this. Here goes my 2 cents.
As I mentioned before, ammonia is mainly a result of feeding. So if you are careful feeding after the cleaning process, I would not be worried. Even If you remove 80% of bacteria, they will slowly build up. Just adjust feeding accordingly.
I would actually think that if you employ this process to get ready of nuisance algae (for example hair algae), the removal of the algae and its vast capacity for ammonia uptake (as pointed by Lasse before) would actually be the what has the biggest impact on the ammonia uptake and transformation, not so much the effect on nitrifiers. Again, just my assumption.
If anyone is planning on repeating this experiments (or something simillar) there are a few tweaks you could do, which could give more direct comparisons to a “standard” application of scrubbing rocks and also save a lot of time.
They will however be a different type of experiment.
Start by measuring the uptake rate of the rocks at day 0 by transferring the rocks to the test aquarium holding the right amount of water (lets say 1 pound per gallon). Dose 2mg l of ammonia and measure again in 24 hours) .This is your initial capacity for ammonia uptake. Rinse and scrub the rock nad change the water in the tank and repeat the test. This will tell you what is your uptake after cleaning. The difference is the effect of the cleaning on the rocks. If you want to elaborate a bit more, see how long it takes to return to the original state. This way you do not affect the communities with a long acclimation process. The only consideration here is that the rocks need to uptake enough ammonia in 24h to get stable and repetitive readings.
On this subject, it was nice to see so many readings and in general looking quite consistent. Kodus to both of you.
Great testing so far.
I will have a read and see if I can comment some more
edit: I need more sleep in order to write better
Last edited:
I know you plan on creating a new thread with all this info @Coxey81 , but it could be good if you could edit the very first post of this thread and add you results there once you finished measuring the values Lasse asked you for.
Not sure if you can still edit it, but if so, it would give a place to check all results.
Also, remember to buy your wife a nice present or take her out on a romanting dinner, for putting up with all this experiments and for putting up with all of our extra requests
Not sure if you can still edit it, but if so, it would give a place to check all results.
Also, remember to buy your wife a nice present or take her out on a romanting dinner, for putting up with all this experiments and for putting up with all of our extra requests
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
Hi @Coxey81 and @sixty_reefer
First off, thank you both for running the testing. It’s been great to follow along.
I will give you my take on the results so far, with quite a bit of it being assumptions.
If I got everything correctly (sorry, the post come way to fast to keep detailed track on everything), sixty’s rock’s were almost completely capable of consuming all ammonia in 24 hours at the start of the trial (is my memory correct?). On the other end Coxey’s need a few days to build up the bacterial communities.
I suspect a lot of the bacterial communities in Coxey’s tank may have been on the glass and water, which is why the results are so dramatic. In reality you only needed about 800cm2 (or 124sq inches if google is correct) to convert the amount of ammonia used (assuming 2mg l or twice as much if it’s actually 4). I assume the glass in the tank could provide that much. We could have seen this with a two step process, but too late for that, so not much point in worrying over this. Having said that I think your rocks return to approximately their original state (in terms of their capability of processing ammonia), right @Coxey81 ? What was the original amount converted when you first started and what was the value after the cleaning? If so, I still think that the drop on the rocks themselves was probably less extreme. However, this is just an assumption.
In Sixty’s case, as pointed out by @Lasse , plenty of other processes at play and since the cleaning did not remove all of them, the effect was much smaller.
It feels to me that these treatments where somehow a bit of both extremes: worst case scenario of deep cleaning of a bare bottom tank and deep cleaning of a tank with animals which tolerate the treatment quite well.
It was asked before if its safe to do this. Here goes my 2 cents.
As I mentioned before, ammonia is mainly a result of feeding. So if you are careful feeding after the cleaning process, I would not be worried. Even If you remove 80% of bacteria, they will slowly build up. Just adjust feeding accordingly.
I would actually think that if you employ this process to get ready of nuisance algae (for example hair algae), the removal of the algae and its vast capacity for ammonia uptake (as pointed by Lasse before) would actually be the what has the biggest impact on the ammonia uptake and transformation, not so much the effect on nitrifiers. Again, just my assumption.
If anyone is planning on repeating this experiments (or something simillar) there are a few tweaks you could do, which could give more direct comparisons to a “standard” application of scrubbing rocks and also save a lot of time.
They will however be a different type of experiment.
Start by measuring the uptake rate of the rocks at day 0 by transferring the rocks to the test aquarium holding the right amount of water (lets say 1 pound per gallon). Dose 2mg l of ammonia and measure again in 24 hours) .This is your initial capacity for ammonia uptake. Rinse and scrub the rock nad change the water in the tank and repeat the test. This will tell you what is your uptake after cleaning. The difference is the effect of the cleaning on the rocks. If you want to elaborate a bit more, see how long it takes to return to the original state. This way you do not affect the communities with a long acclimation process. The only consideration here is that the rocks need to uptake enough ammonia in 24h to get stable and repetitive readings.
On this subject, it was nice to see so many readings and in general looking quite consistent. Kodus to both of you.
Great testing so far.
I will have a read and see if I can comment some more
edit: I need more sleep in order to write better
The original amount (due to the overdose) was 4ppm in 99.5 hours. I can't say directly what was reduced in ammonia in the first 24 hours do to it being off scale.
However, I can say basically the same amount of nitrate was created. 2 ppm NO3 was created in first 24 hours after dosing 4ppm and the same in 19.5 hours after the rinse. And only 3ppm after 31.
Based on that and the fact I never really read any nitrites I would have to assume it is safe to agree with you that I was reduced to basically what I started with.
That may be more conclusive if it takes the same amount of time to reach zero with the 3ppm I have dosed now as it did to reach 1ppm with the initial first dose of 4ppm.
Would you agree with that assessement?
Hi Coxey.
This is what I'm leaning towards. Again, I need to point out that this is just an assumption on my part.
I believe Lasse was also surprised by the size of the reduction and I was also a bit.
Is it impossible to have such a reduction? Not really, but I still think it was "exagerated" by the bacteria present in the water and sides of the tank.
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
I know you plan on creating a new thread with all this info @Coxey81 , but it could be good if you could edit the very first post of this thread and add you results there once you finished measuring the values Lasse asked you for.
Not sure if you can still edit it, but if so, it would give a place to check all results.
Also, remember to buy your wife a nice present or take her out on a romanting dinner, for putting up with all this experiments and for putting up with all of our extra requests
If I could edit the first post I would have done it a week and a half ago. Lol
As a leaving thought; you may not have come across algae turf scrubbers yet. The best way to ensure the screen doesn’t mature and it supplies continuous algae growth is to scrape the screen under freshwater. Yes, the screen can mature and eventually the growth stops.
Pretty sure this is what I seen as I battled algae on my rock when I scrubbed the problem areas and coraline replaced it. Just in reverse as rock cured.
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
Well I don't know if you saw, but i mentioned to Lasse the idea that they couldn't settle due to the current or at least weren't settling on the rocks cause it was so strong. But he seems to think since the bacteria started on the rocks it would have pretty much stayed there within its biofilm.
Last edited:
I was surprised of the there was no nitrite building up - that the NO keep the same rate that the AO. What I have seen in thousand of measurements (yes I have been active with this since the 70:ties) in freshwater is that if ammonium load rise a lot - you will see an upbuild of nitrite for some time. That´s the reason why I want to see what´s happen now - after the rinse.
Sincerely Lasse
I noticed, but if I had to guess, they will still settle on the glass (and any other surfaces available).
Bacteria can be exposed to some brutal conditions and still attach to the surfaces (hence why you get growth of all sorts of things on circulation pumps. We also see this in Aquaculture systems all the time.
Nonetheless, you may also be right, and maybe not so much grew on the tank walls. Hard to say
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
I noticed, but if I had to guess, they will still settle on the glass (and any other surfaces available).
Bacteria can be exposed to some brutal conditions and still attach to the surfaces (hence why you get growth of all sorts of things on circulation pumps. We also see this in Aquaculture systems all the time.
Nonetheless, you may also be right, and maybe not so much grew on the tank walls. Hard to say
There was definitely a film on the equipment. I didn't notice it as much on the glass cause I used a rag more than my hand with it.
sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
Test run 4.2 filtered in 24 hours
Day 1
2.2ppm added and 0,2 left in 24 hours
Day 2
2.4ppm added and zero at 18 hours
day 3
3.6ppm added and it is zero now 24 hours later.
(Don’t know the exact time that it was depleted)
test undertaken:
rock submerged for 8.34 minutes
85% water change
tank disassembled and scrubed
lights left on
lots of organic die off from dead critters
DIFFERENCE FROM THE OTHER TEST
15% water was kept
Light
Dead organic matter
Exposure to tap water of 17 TIMES LONGER (described as “extreme” for most on the tread)
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
I don't know if the 17 times longer part is accurate, if comparing to me. I had 5 rocks and rinsed each for approximately 1 minute. That's probably my fault if anyone misunderstood what I did time wise.
sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
I read a quick 30 seconds a few pages back, rinsed
OP
OP
Coxey81
Well-Known Member
I did 1 minute to 30 seconds depending on rock size. For each rock.
I say average of 4 minutes
sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
The exposure time is per rock, you can’t total them all together wend rinsing them individually.
Similar threads
