New Nitrifying Bacteria Experiment.

[MnFish1]

If rinsing produces little or no effect, maybe redo the experiment with more “intense” rinsing.

The plan is to 1) Rinse with Saltwater (Done - no effect).
2) Rinse and Scrub with Saltwater
3) Rinse with Tank temp RODI
4) Rinse with Cold RODI
5). Rinse with Warm RODI 104
6) Rinse with tank temp tap water (no chloramine)
7) Rinse with Cold tap water
8) Rinse with Hot (104) tap water.

Then replicate with and without scrubbing.

 

[Dan_P]

The plan is to 1) Rinse with Saltwater (Done - no effect).
2) Rinse and Scrub with Saltwater
3) Rinse with Tank temp RODI
4) Rinse with Cold RODI
5). Rinse with Warm RODI 104
6) Rinse with tank temp tap water (no chloramine)
7) Rinse with Cold tap water
8) Rinse with Hot (104) tap water.

Then replicate with and without scrubbing.

I am in round two of rip cleaning 2 g of aragonite sand. So far the Bio-Spira is impervious to tap water and 2 minutes of vortex mixing with tap water. Every round I will increase duration of treatment until I see an effect. I have no idea how to translate these results to large scale aquarium cleaning, but thought I’d share results in case you see liitle or no effect.

 

[Treefer32]

I'm coming late to this game, but I would highly recommend a control tank. One where only salt water changes are done, except ammonia is dosed and processed daily. No water changes, light or no light (depending on control) same water temp, ph etc as the experiments. One needs to know is there a change in ammonia processing ability because of rinsing the rock or is it just because of salt water changes? If we do a 50% water change, do we lose 50% of the ammonia processing bacteria? Or is it because of the rock being washed?

Just my $.02 without reading all ten + pages of the thread. Please disregard if this is already considered.

 

[Dan_P]

I'm coming late to this game, but I would highly recommend a control tank. One where only salt water changes are done, except ammonia is dosed and processed daily. No water changes, light or no light (depending on control) same water temp, ph etc as the experiments. One needs to know is there a change in ammonia processing ability because of rinsing the rock or is it just because of salt water changes? If we do a 50% water change, do we lose 50% of the ammonia processing bacteria? Or is it because of the rock being washed?

Just my $.02 without reading all ten + pages of the thread. Please disregard if this is already considered.

I am on the sidelines myself but think the suggestion to have a control has merit.

Typically, aquarium water consumes little or no ammonia. Not saying can’t or never, just not an expectation. That’s why I think the study will be OK without a control. Would not mind being proven wrong

 

[MnFish1]

I am in round two of rip cleaning 2 g of aragonite sand. So far the Bio-Spira is impervious to tap water and 2 minutes of vortex mixing with tap water. Every round I will increase duration of treatment until I see an effect. I have no idea how to translate these results to large scale aquarium cleaning, but thought I’d share results in case you see liitle or no effect.

2 g? meaning grams?

 

[MnFish1]

I am on the sidelines myself but think the suggestion to have a control has merit.

Typically, aquarium water consumes little or no ammonia. Not saying can’t or never, just not an expectation. That’s why I think the study will be OK without a control. Would not mind being proven wrong

I would suggest - that - no matter how well I rinse - its not the same as your type of rinse. I think you should have a control. JMHO

 

[Dan_P]

2 g? meaning grams?

Yes. I am femto-reefing

 

[Dan_P]

I would suggest - that - no matter how well I rinse - its not the same as your type of rinse. I think you should have a control. JMHO

In my study, it’s have a control or go home

 

[MnFish1]

I am on the sidelines myself but think the suggestion to have a control has merit.

Typically, aquarium water consumes little or no ammonia. Not saying can’t or never, just not an expectation. That’s why I think the study will be OK without a control. Would not mind being proven wrong

The tank acts as its own control. 1. Each time - the entire tank water was changed - thus far - so - there is no possibility for the water to play a role. 2. Today - the tank will be wiped down dried - and the filter surfaces, etc - will be dried - killing nitrifying bacteria. So. - There is no reason for a control. The control has been done 1000 times - but the experiment today - will answer the question - hopefully

 

[MnFish1]

Yes. I am femto-reefing

Hopefully you realize the smaller the sample the bigger the error? Unless you're using technology that can measure 'femto' amounts'?

 

[MnFish1]

BTW - I appreciate the suggestions - they have come a little late. as far as the control part is coming. IN this case. there is no need for a control to - prove/disprove the hypothesis - as the prior experiments have already acted as controls. Note - its taken about 2 weeks

 

[MnFish1]

In my study, it’s have a control or go home

Great - but this study was designed to be its own control.

 

[Dan_P]

Hopefully you realize the smaller the sample the bigger the error? Unless you're using technology that can measure 'femto' amounts'?

2 g of sand takes up enough ammonia in 24 hours to easily measure.

 

[MnFish1]

2 g of sand takes up enough ammonia in 24 hours to easily measure.

I would disagree with you - because - I don't trust the accuracy of the testing equipment you're using - BUT - all good - Lets believe it. Its such a small sample - that it just magnifies any POSSIBLE (Key word) error. .

 

[MnFish1]

OK - SO - FYI

EXPERIMENT 4A - Done - here are the results. The 2 ppm ammonia was actually processed in both tanks before 24 hours with similar nitrate measurements. So the replicate worked - I messed up - I called one on the spreadsheet 4A - and the other 5. SO - just so everyone knows - The next is experiment 6

Which is posted now:

1. Both tanks - dark - Tank 1 Sump rock , tank 2 Display rank Rock.
2. Both tank - rinsed - wiped down with chlorinated tap water - paper toweled until dry
3. Wait 3o minutes. Tank Equipment - Soaked - both in chlorinated tap water 10 minutes - Dried - and further dried for 30 minutes. I didn't feel the need to clean the small heaters - 1) bacteria will not grown on them. 2) it would be extremely difficult with their coverings).
4. New water added - to the dried equipment - rock was kept wet the whole time.
5. The .78 cc of Dr. Tims - in the volume I've used - comes out nearly exact to the 2 ppm mark in the API test.

Before and After ammonia shots - and API test:

 

[MnFish1]

Great - but this study was designed to be its own control.

By the way - sorry to respond multiple times - you're absolutely correct. Theoretically - there should be a negative and a positive control for this study. I.e. the negative control should just be 'saltwater - with rock'. The positive control should be 'sterile rock'. But - the problem is - that the work, and testing involved - becomes exponentially more difficult. I.e. how do you 'guarantee' that the positive and negative controls - exactly match the other tanks (and theoretically, you would need a positive and negative control for both the sump rock - and the display rock) etc etc. It is just unmanageable. But - as the experiment is repeated over and over - and the results keep repeating - I think its clear that they are reproducible and correct.

In thinking about it - though - lets say - there is a time - lets say - hot tap water - stops the ammonia processing. You're correct - the perfect thing would be to have something to prove it wasn't a secondary 'thing' that caused the problem.

 

[DrZoidburg]

smaller the sample the bigger the error

100% true. Is why I use 10 ml volumetric pipettes vs 1 ml. For example the margin of error can throw density measurements off. Even though it is only a difference of about .001.

 

[MnFish1]

OK - SO - FYI

EXPERIMENT 4A - Done - here are the results. The 2 ppm ammonia was actually processed in both tanks before 24 hours with similar nitrate measurements. So the replicate worked - I messed up - I called one on the spreadsheet 4A - and the other 5. SO - just so everyone knows - The next is experiment 6

Which is posted now:

1. Both tanks - dark - Tank 1 Sump rock , tank 2 Display rank Rock.
2. Both tank - rinsed - wiped down with chlorinated tap water - paper toweled until dry
3. Wait 3o minutes. Tank Equipment - Soaked - both in chlorinated tap water 10 minutes - Dried - and further dried for 30 minutes. I didn't feel the need to clean the small heaters - 1) bacteria will not grown on them. 2) it would be extremely difficult with their coverings).
4. New water added - to the dried equipment - rock was kept wet the whole time.
5. The .78 cc of Dr. Tims - in the volume I've used - comes out nearly exact to the 2 ppm mark in the API test.

Before and After ammonia shots - and API test:

EXPERIMENT 6 RESULTS (Actually kind of interesting).

So the results after wiping, soaking (in tap water - chlorine) - and allowing to dry - all of the equipment - ok - well lets say 90 percent of the surface area - is as follows:

1. The ammonia was processed completely 2 ppm - 0 ppm in 24 hours.
2. I monitored - by eyeball - the Seachem alert (totally non-scientific) - But - to me there was no difference in ammonia processing from the prior days

I.e. - after wiping the glass, and equipment - and presumably killing the nitrifiers - the tank still processed 2 ppm. SO:

Either:

1. The glass and water do not provide much ammonia processing ability - as compared to the rock itself *since the water is changed each day anyway*.
2. The Rock itself has developed enough bacteria after being so frequently exposed - that the glass, etc - has become a non-issue (where it could have been previously)
3. The speed of ammonia processing went down without the glass, etc - (I am not testing every x minutes)... THIS @brandon429 - where a seneye might be helpful - i.e. testing the speed of ammonia processing.
4. The Seachem alert badges continue to seem to match the API tests.
5. I have not seen the phantom API .25 measurement errors - that so many people see.

One caveat - when you look at the pictures - you will see - One vial has a lot less fluid than the other. That was due to spilling after mixing - which should not - and did not affect the test - otherwise I would have repeated it.

Question - Tomorrow - Repeat this experiment again? or move on to rinsing the rock?

 

[DrZoidburg]

What about the hob filter does that fall in the equipment category? Was that, and inside pads cleaned?

 

[MnFish1]

What about the hob filter does that fall in the equipment category? Was that, and inside pads cleaned?

1. There are no 'pads' - its only there for circulation
2. Yes it was cleaned/wiped in and out. (except the tube)