Nano micro bubbles methodology.

chefjpaul · Jan 17, 2016

I read an article on Reef Builders by Michael Paletta, regarding his new build, (nice start btw), and he briefly discussed introducing nano bubbles as a form of nutrient buildup reduction.

Interesting, as I haven't heard of it in a reef tank. Japan is doing it in their Tokyo harbor.

Thoughts? Not a lot out there yet....

https://reefbuilders.com/2016/01/16/and-now-for-something-completely-different/

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1634370570158512&id=1511705699091667

cmcoker · Jan 17, 2016

I read about this last year when there were some links up from elegance corals. I wish Paletta was adding it to an existing tank as it sounds like he is doing MANY things differently from his other tanks, so I don't know how you pick out which is making any difference..

chefjpaul · Jan 17, 2016

cmcoker said:
I read about this last year when there were some links up from elegance corals. I wish Paletta was adding it to an existing tank as it sounds like he is doing MANY things differently from his other tanks, so I don't know how you pick out which is making any difference..

That's kinda what my thoughts were last night. A new sterile tank may take years to see a result, if you are even able to pinpoint any accuracy.

An older / established tank would be a good experiment.

I'm just not sold on this bubble right now I guess.

Randy Holmes-Farley · Jan 17, 2016

It is possible the method provides more benefit than just better skimming by using the whole tank as a skimmer, but the mechanistic explanations leave something to be desired.

For example, they claim the bubble surfaces attain a net negative charge (possible, but whatever it is will be the same as the bubbles in a skimmer). But then they claim this charge binds "positively charged" bacteria. The fact is that most bacteria have a net negative charge. Do any bacteria have a net positive charge in seawater at pH 8? I've not looked carefully for it, but if any exist, they are definitely not the norm. The positively charged bacteria mentioned in the literature are mentioned primarily because they have that unusual feature.

Far more likely is that bacteria attach through hydrophobic interactions to the organics bound to the air/ water interface.

Electrobes · Jan 17, 2016

Was what Weatherson doing back then the same? http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-04/totm/

Randy Holmes-Farley · Jan 17, 2016

Electrobes said:
Was what Weatherson doing back then the same? http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-04/totm/

That does sound similar.

chefjpaul · Jan 17, 2016

Same concept.

I'm was curious as to efficiency of method and thought it was cool is all, something different and uncommon.

Practically in a tank?

Electrobes · Jan 17, 2016

I remember reading that article in '08 and thinking "cool!!" Then realized that amount of salt creep I would produce.

Cruz_Arias · Mar 30, 2016

Randy Holmes-Farley said:
It is possible the method provides more benefit than just better skimming by using the whole tank as a skimmer, but the mechanistic explanations leave something to be desired.

For example, they claim the bubble surfaces attain a net negative charge (possible, but whatever it is will be the same as the bubbles in a skimmer). But then they claim this charge binds "positively charged" bacteria. The fact is that most bacteria have a net negative charge. Do any bacteria have a net positive charge in seawater at pH 8? I've not looked carefully for it, but if any exist, they are definitely not the norm. The positively charged bacteria mentioned in the literature are mentioned primarily because they have that unusual feature.

Far more likely is that bacteria attach through hydrophobic interactions to the organics bound to the air/ water interface.

I understand, Randy... how would you post about observations by someone else?

This isn't truly a scientific forum nor is Facebook (marketing and social media)

I'm willing to learn from you how to properly post a new method if you will, please.

brandon429 · Mar 30, 2016

http://www.reefs.org/forums/topic27584.html

hot topic

we should check to see how far back the topic goes

we had an 08

Above, an 03

do I have any 90s

Randy Holmes-Farley · Mar 30, 2016

Cruz_Arias said:
I understand, Randy... how would you post about observations by someone else?

This isn't truly a scientific forum nor is Facebook (marketing and social media)

I'm willing to learn from you how to properly post a new method if you will, please.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

IMO, it would be perfectly reasonable to claim that some bacterial attached to the air/water interface in these bubbles or in a skimmer, especially if there are measurements that show it.

But I'd be very reluctant to claim the reason for those bacteria adhering to the surface is a charge based effect with the surface having a negative charge (at least in the absence of charged organics already absorbing onto the interface) as opposed to a hydrophobic interaction.

http://aem.asm.org/content/62/7/2593.full.pdf
Bacterial Enrichment at the Gas-Water Interface of a Laboratory Apparatus
last sentence of the abstract:
"The strong effect of d and the lack of effect of I and p support the hypothesis that hydrophobic interaction dominates bacterial adsorption to the GWI."
(GWI = gas water interface)

Cruz_Arias · Mar 30, 2016

Randy Holmes-Farley said:
I'm not sure what you are asking.

IMO, it would be perfectly reasonable to claim that some bacterial attached to the air/water interface in these bubbles or in a skimmer, especially if there are measurements that show it.

But I'd be very reluctant to claim the reason for those bacteria adhering to the surface is a charge based effect with the surface having a negative charge (at least in the absence of charged organics already absorbing onto the interface) as opposed to a hydrophobic interaction.

http://aem.asm.org/content/62/7/2593.full.pdf
Bacterial Enrichment at the Gas-Water Interface of a Laboratory Apparatus
last sentence of the abstract:
"The strong effect of d and the lack of effect of I and p support the hypothesis that hydrophobic interaction dominates bacterial adsorption to the GWI."
(GWI = gas water interface)

So in essence the hydrophobic attraction of the bubbles to the bacterial film?

Randy Holmes-Farley · Mar 31, 2016

My interpretation is that there is a driving force for hydrophobic molecules to be exposed to the air in the bubble as opposed to the water. That is why proteins and other hydrophobic organics are skimmable. The surfaces of some bacteria also display hydrophobic moieties,a nd those will bind to any air/water interface, such as a bubble.