Wkłady biologiczne - porównanie

Skuteczna filtracja wody w akwarium.
michal_j
Posty: 13
Rejestracja: niedziela 09 maja 2021, 11:27
2
Lokalizacja: Ursynów
Imię: Michał
Has thanked: 4 times

inerkoma pisze:Wahałem się ostatnio między Maxspect Nano-Tech Biosphere 2kg a Seachem Matrix 4l ostatecznie wpakowałem 5l gąbki również 30ppi, niebawem jak chwyci biologia zawędruje kolejne 5l gąbki tym razem 20 ppi. Możliwe, że mimo wszystko kiedyś się skuszę na Seachem Matrix ale to za jakiś czas.
Daj sobie spokój, miałem matrixa, siporax i względem gąbki nie zaobserwowałem żadnej różnicy. Wydasz niepotrzebnie pieniądze a nic to nie poprawi.

Poza tym, że gabka nie podbija pH jak siporax.

Na pewno nie wrócę to tych cudownych koralików (wszelka ceramika).

Tutaj są ciekawe artykuły na ten temat : https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/7-filter-media/.
Jarzy
Posty: 1058
Rejestracja: poniedziałek 15 mar 2021, 00:44
3
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 64 times

@michal_j W starej Około 250 miałem tylko gąbkę. Tak zarastała glutami,że aż przepływ stawał :) W eheimie mam biobale i ceramikę Eheima,bo koło sprzedał mi w zestawie. Co jednak gąbka to gąbka :) Aczkolwiek jakbym napchał Eheima samą gąbką to chyba przepływ by był marny.
Awatar użytkownika
inerkoma
Posty: 463
Rejestracja: niedziela 14 mar 2021, 15:18
3
Been thanked: 26 times

@Jarzy z tą gąbka w Eheimie to niekoniecznie. Mam tak w 2228 i nicsię nie zapycha. Kwestia ppi oryginalnej gąbki Eheima.

@michal_j ciekawy artykuł. Wprost wychodzi, że gąbka jest najlepsza. Sprawdzę to empirycznie :)
Myślałem też nad 45ppi ale IMO byłaby już mocno za gęsta i trochę się obawiałem że będę ją czyścił co dwa dni
A bleak garden to cry When my inamorato died...
michal_j
Posty: 13
Rejestracja: niedziela 09 maja 2021, 11:27
2
Lokalizacja: Ursynów
Imię: Michał
Has thanked: 4 times

inerkoma pisze:[mention]Jarzy[/mention] z tą gąbka w Eheimie to niekoniecznie. Mam tak w 2228 i nicsię nie zapycha. Kwestia ppi oryginalnej gąbki Eheima.

[mention]michal_j[/mention] ciekawy artykuł. Wprost wychodzi, że gąbka jest najlepsza. Sprawdzę to empirycznie :)
Myślałem też nad 45ppi ale IMO byłaby już mocno za gęsta i trochę się obawiałem że będę ją czyścił co dwa dni
45 ppi będzie za gęsta. Byłaby dobra do filtra kasetowego gdzie można szybko wyjąć do płukania co tydzień.

Do kubełka 30 ppi albo 20 ppi jeżeli mówimy o dużym obciążeniu typu duże pielegnice.
michal_j
Posty: 13
Rejestracja: niedziela 09 maja 2021, 11:27
2
Lokalizacja: Ursynów
Imię: Michał
Has thanked: 4 times

Widoczność przez 120cm.Obrazek
Awatar użytkownika
EyeQueue
Posty: 434
Rejestracja: środa 03 lis 2021, 20:14
2
Lokalizacja: Rembertów(-Ursynów)
Imię: Andrzej
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 101 times
Wiek: 52

Dodatek w kwestii gąbek. W idealnym świecie, w którym materiał gąbki ma zerową grubość, czyli gąbka składa się wyłącznie z porów, można założyć, że:
Głębokość wnikania tlenu to maksymalnie 0,4 mm, czyli taką grubość może mieć film bakteryjny. Oznacza to, że grubszy nie urośnie. Tj. urośnie, ale od spodu bakterie będą zamierać i nastąpi samorzutne oderwanie filmu - na tym polega m.in. magia filtrów fluidalnych (prawdziwych), które w ogóle nie zawierają porów, tylko powierzchnię zewnętrzną.
Załóżmy zatem, że chcemy pozostawić trochę miejsca na przepływ wody, w tym także możliwość usuwania filmu. W takim przypadku dostaniemy optymalną średnicę poru 2 × 0,4 + 0,2 = 1,0 mm (mniej więcej, rzecz jasna = dwa filmy i dziura między nimi). To ile ppi wychodzi? 1 cal to 25,4 mm...
Oczywiście prawda jest bardzie złożona (zaraz @tencin się przyczepi... ;) ) i grubość filmu zależy od wielu czynników, w tym stężenia tlenu w wodzie zasilającej, temperatury i co najważniejsze, zawartości żarcia. W akwarium przerybionym (dużo ryb, duże ryby, srajtuchy, czyli żyworódki, lub dowolna kombinacja tych okoliczności) stężenie tlenu spada szybciej, bo „wierzchnie” bakterie zużywają go więcej i szybciej. Często podawana grubość filmów bakteryjnych to ok. 0,15 mm. Wtedy wyjdzie nam z tych samych obliczeń ok. 50 ppi, czyli prawdziwa gąbka 45 ppi, mająca niezerowe ścianki, plasuje się w okolicy tego wyniku. Ergo – ma prawo działać. Obserwować trzeba tylko, czy wciąż jest przepływ. Jak spada — czyszczonko.
Nic więcej bakteriom nie potrzeba, ale dobre samopoczucie kosztuje tyle, co superzłoża z superpowierzchniami...

PS. Literatura (przykładowa, rzecz jasna, bo artykułów na ten temat są tysiace):
Hoehn, Robert C., and Arliss D. Ray. (1973). Effects of Thickness on Bacterial Film. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), vol. 45, no. 11, Water Environment Federation, pp. 2302–20
Stewart P. S. (2003). Diffusion in biofilms. Journal of bacteriology, 185(5), 1485–1491
Oba artykuły dostępne przez sci-huba.
Si possides amicum, in tentatione posside eum et non facile credas illi. (Sir 6:7)
Ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam. (EyeQueue)

ʎuмızp ozpɹɐq ʇsǝ! ʇɐıмş
Awatar użytkownika
inerkoma
Posty: 463
Rejestracja: niedziela 14 mar 2021, 15:18
3
Been thanked: 26 times

@michal_j piękna widoczność :)
A bleak garden to cry When my inamorato died...
Jarzy
Posty: 1058
Rejestracja: poniedziałek 15 mar 2021, 00:44
3
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 64 times

@michal_j Łeee bez zielska to się nie liczy ;) Swoją drogą gdzie są rośliny?
michal_j
Posty: 13
Rejestracja: niedziela 09 maja 2021, 11:27
2
Lokalizacja: Ursynów
Imię: Michał
Has thanked: 4 times

@EyeQueue z tym, że 45ppi będzie za gęsta miałem na myśli to co napisałeś o przepływie.

Ona daje jeszcze lepszą klarowność niż 30 ppi, ale szybciej się zapycha i w kubełku to nie jest najlepszy pomysł, bo trzeba go często otwierać. W innym filtrze o łatwym dostępie do gąbki - jak najbardziej.

30ppi nawet po kilku miesiącach nie ogranicza przeplywu. U mnie są małe i "czyste" ryby, ale jest ich jakieś 600g, więc wcale nie tak mało.

W kwestii dobrego samopoczucia - dobrze napisane. To jest po prostu marketing.

@inerkoma dzięki :)

@Jarzy na górze :) , to miał być zbiornik obszarowy i w miejscu występowania tych ryb praktycznie nie ma roślin ( Liści i szyszek jednak nie chcę - herbata mi się nie podoba (miałem przez jakiś czas), wyjąłem i zostało jak widać. Jedynie na górze mam skrzydłokwiaty i philodendrona (stare zdjęcie) - ciągną z wody azot i co tam znajdą.

To jest zbiornik do oglądania wieczorem :)
ObrazekObrazek
boro1
Posty: 820
Rejestracja: poniedziałek 15 mar 2021, 12:22
3
Lokalizacja: Błonie
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 42 times
Wiek: 48

michal_j pisze: sobota 05 lut 2022, 05:23
To jest zbiornik do oglądania wieczorem :)
ale super
michal_j
Posty: 13
Rejestracja: niedziela 09 maja 2021, 11:27
2
Lokalizacja: Ursynów
Imię: Michał
Has thanked: 4 times

boro1 pisze:
michal_j pisze: sobota 05 lut 2022, 05:23
To jest zbiornik do oglądania wieczorem :)
ale super
Dzięki :)
macek
Posty: 2
Rejestracja: piątek 26 lis 2021, 18:22
2
Been thanked: 6 times

Witam nie chce tutaj,"spamowac" przez elaboraty dotyczace bakteri,wkladow filtracyjnych itp. Ogolnie na anglojezycznych stronach jest bardzo duzo naukowej wiedzy,,Andrzej tutaj wlasnie przywoluje kilka prac,ja przedstawie kilka odnosnikow,w tym do testu, oraz np. opini Dr. Hovaneca dotyczacych bakteri w butelkach.

Ogolnie nie ma najmniejszego sensu przeplacac za firmowe wklady,np...

The effectiveness of nitrifying bacteria's ability to colonise your media has nothing to do with how porous it is. K1 media is not porous, and its be shown to be one of the best out there both statically, and fluidly. Porous media clogs easily, and encourages Heterotrophic bacteria which can slow down, and even stall your filter altogether. Bacteria needs a good flow of oxygen so it easily colonises onto media instead of through it. The structure of a lot of 'porous' media is to tight to allow the flow of water through the media which the bacteria thrives on.
Przechwytywanie.PNG
Przechwytywanie.PNG (356.47 KiB) Przejrzano 1996 razy
Na jednym z Amerykanskich portali mozna znalezc rowniez ciekawy test.
Przechwytywanie.PNG
a.PNG
b.PNG
c.PNG
d.PNG
e.PNG
f.PNG
itd itd..

Podsumowanie:


From the above experiment many interesting things follows:

An empty aquarium with a filter without filter media can break down at least the same amount of ammoniacal nitrogen as an aquarium with a handful of high-quality filter media (Seachem Matrix alias pumice) in 24 hours.
The use of filter media in the filter is most likely unnecessary (at least in terms of nitrification) in a planted aquarium with a reasonable fish stock.
To break down such an extreme concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen as 30 ppm NH3/NH4+ virtually zero filter media is needed. This means that even the minimal amount of nitrifying bacteria that can be produced on ordinary surfaces inside an aquarium, in hoses or in an empty filter, is enough to break down virtually any amount of ammoniacal nitrogen that could occur in a normal planted aquarium.
To say that there may be so-called "peaks" or mini-cycles in the aquarium, during which there is a local, short-term or sudden increase in the concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen, which can lead to the germination and subsequent proliferation of algae, are (given the enormous nitrification capacity of the empty aquarium) most likely nonsense. It can be assumed that even some reasonably large increase in ammonia concentration (e.g. dead fish decaying somewhere unnoticed) may not pose any problem for an already established colony of nitrifying bacteria, especially considering that even in an empty aquarium (with a filter without filter media) it can arise a large enough colony of nitrifying bacteria to break down an incredible 30 ppm of NH3/NH4+ in 24 hours. So why should an aquarist have an oversized filter when an empty aquarium (without filter media, substrate, plants, and other potential areas for bacteria) can host such a "huge" amount of nitrifying bacteria that there is a reserve for at least 30 ppm of NH3/NH4+? Or does anyone find such a reserve inadequate? Alternatively, a 275 mℓ of Seachem Matrix media (or the same amount of ordinary pumice) provides a nitrification capacity for no more than 30 ppm NH3/NH4+. An empty aquarium represents a nitrification capacity to break down at least 30 ppm NH3/NH4+ (maybe more ... the test was terminated when this value was reached). Is there anyone who sees any difference between these 30 vs 30 ppm?



For an idea of how much ammoniacal nitrogen is generated from 2 g of fish food, which is the recommended feed dose for 100pcs of adult (2 inches [5 cm] long) Neon Tetra in 25G (100ℓ) aquarium:

Aquarium volume: 25G (100ℓ)
Fish weight in aquarium: 185 g (100pcs * 1.85g)
Daily feed dose: ~2 g (= 1% of body weight)
Protein content in fish feed: 23%
Nitrogen content in proteins: 16%
Calculation formula: Amount of NH3 (g) = g feed * (% protein in feed / 100) * (% N in protein / 100) * (% waste N / 100) * (1.216 NH3 / 1 N)
Calculation: 2 * (23/100) * (16/100) * (61/100) * (1.216/1) = 2 * 0.23 * 0.16 * 0.61 * 1.216 = 0.055 g NH3

100 pieces of Neon Tetra fed daily by 2 g of feed produce less than 0.055 g = 55 mg NH3 every day, which when dissolved in 25G (100ℓ) aquarium is 0.55 ppm NH3. This means that in an empty 100ℓ aquarium there are so many nitrifying bacteria that it would not be a problem for them to break down ammonia from 5,454 pcs of adult Neon Tetra (or 10 kg of well fed fish).
The importance of filtration (or filter media) appears to be overestimated (at least in terms of nitrification). It is also quite possible that many filters may increase ammonium concentration in the aquarium rather than reduce it effectively. Some filters may function as "traps" and producers rather than "degraders" of organic waste.
A high concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen results in an increase in nitrite concentration, which is converted by bacteria into nitrates. Consequently, with high production of ammoniacal nitrogen, nitrates will accumulate to a large extent in the aquarium (up to 76 ppm of NO2- followed by 103 ppm of NO3- can be theoretically generated in the aquarium from 30 ppm NH4+). High nitrate concentrations (>150 ppm) may lead to inhibition (collapse) of nitrification. Therefore, in order to avoid nitrification decline or interruption at high nitrate concentrations, it is important to change water regularly when cycling the aquarium.
Filtration has several functions, of which nitrification (the biological conversion of ammoniacal nitrogen to nitrites and subsequently to nitrates) is only one of them. Regarding nitrification, it seems to be proven that filtration (or filter media) is superfluous in a normal, well-functioning planted aquarium. However, filtration may have other useful functions in the aquarium, such as mechanical removal of fine particles from water, chemical absorption and adsorption of harmful molecules into the resin or other filter media, or biological (microbial) decomposition of complex organic compounds into simpler compounds or elements (nutrients) → so-called mineralization. Whether the different types of aquarium filtration actually help in the mineralization itself (i.e. in the conversion of complex organic compounds into simple inorganic plant nutrients) remains to be verified. The experience of many aquarists suggests that some types of filters may act rather as organic waste producers in the aquarium instead of water purifiers. The filters compete with plants because some nutrients can often precipitate in them (most often iron and phosphorus). In addition, some filter media will soon become clogged with organic detritus or inorganic precipitates, and anaerobic decomposition will begin to occur with all the negative consequences (e.g. production of toxic compounds). This also leads to disruption of mineralization and begining of humification, the products of which are mainly hard-to-decompose humins, humic acids and fulvic acids. Increased concentrations of dissolved organic matter in the water can then promote the growth of some algae.
The most effective filter medium in the degradation of ammonia (nitrification) has proved to be an ordinary foam filter called sponge filter. It managed to break down an incredible 3.15 grams of pure ammonia (70 ppm) in a 12G (45ℓ) aquarium in 24h.
For an idea: This amount of ammonia is produced by more than 10 kg of adult Neon Tetras in 24 hours.



Przejdzmy teraz do bakteri w plynie

Na tak postawione pytanie:

I've also been a very long term keeper of aquarium fish in planted tanks.I have a particular interest in developing stable and robust techniques for biological filtration, which aren't reliant on chemical testing and follow a risk management approach of removing single points of failure.

We are not asking you for any commercial information, but our questions are:

In the light of recent scientific research on aquarium filters, the discovery of COMAMMOX Nitrospira, and the ever increasing assemblage of ammonia oxidising microorganisms found to perform nitrification, we are interested in:

Whether the production method for "One and Only" has changed? and
Whether the assemblage of microbe present in the product has changed to reflect this new research?

We've contacted you following reading your, very interesting, article "Bacteria Revealed" and some wider questions on the forum about nitrification: "whether ammonia addition is necessary", "do bacterial supplements work" and "is cycling as a concept useful?".

The debate has "spilled over" from my work and is based on the research in papers like

Bagchi et al. (2014) "Temporal and Spatial Stability of Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaea and Bacteria in Aquarium Biofilters".
Koch et al. (2019) "Complete nitrification: insights into the ecophysiology of comammox Nitrospira"
Sauder, L. et al. (2018) “Candidatus Nitrosotenuis aquarius,” an Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaeon from a Freshwater Aquarium Biofilter".


Dr. Hovanec :

Thank you for the email. Perhaps when we are allowed to travel sometime, I could give a talk to your club (right now I am giving Skype/zoom talks due to COVID) as I always like discussing bacteria !

The short answer to your question, and I am not trying to be flippant, is that the more we learn the more we don’t know.

By this I mean that there doesn’t seem to be ‘one’ answer that covers all aquarium situations.

There are definitely difference between freshwater and saltwater - I showed that back in 1998 ! More research such as Bagchi 2014 and the attached paper confirmed that.

Marine Comammox Nitrospira have not been found what that means hard to say at this point

There are few studies done on aquariums, more on aquaculture can one use aquaculture results for aquariums

As to your specific questions

Whether the production method for "One and Only" has changed?

One and Only has changed from my previous ‘invention’ which was BioSpira® or now Tetra SafeStart. I did not wish to incur any problems with my previous company which was acquired by the company that also owned Tetra and my lab shutdown. One and Only was a different product compared to BioSpira® from the start of DrTim’s Aquatics

Whether the assemblage of microbe present in the product has changed to reflect this new research?
I am not sure how this will sound but the ‘recent research’ is really not that recent it is just not widely published. The Comammox Nitrospira yes, but the AOA - no. However, as a private company there was no benefit to publishing research and to tell you the truth most people don’t seem to believe anything coming from a private company that sells bacteria. If you look at the forums the overwhelming opinion (at least by the very vocal minority of self-proclaimed experts) is that bacteria can’t live in a bottle, supplements don’t work and it is all just snake oil. I gave up fighting that long ago. This vocal minority seems to think science does not pertain to aquariums but it very much does and biology is complex - that’s the fun part!

That said, DrTim’s One and Only has had AOA’s since the beginning. I hedged the product by only making two types - freshwater and marine and adding AOB, AOA and Nitrospira to each. The exact details I will not disclose for obvious reasons but I am very good at growing these bacteria - I have been doing it for 25 years!. I have attached a recent paper by Urakawa and Sipos that details the assemblage make up on One and Only for your review it is mostly correct.

As to these questions

whether ammonia addition is necessary? - yes it is but the amount should be limited – never go above 5 mg/L ammonia-nitrogen or nitrite-nitrogen.

do bacterial supplements work? - mine do and the Tetra product is still pretty good but I have not been involved with that for 13 years. However, most of the products on the market are 100% crap. They do not contain nitrifiers at all. Just marketing BS in bottles covered with bright labels. I am in the process of writing a paper about this and you are welcome to check back periodically to ask if I am finished and I will gladly send you a copy.

is cycling as a concept useful? I am not sure what is meant by this. If you set-up an aquarium and add fish you are going to get ammonia and most likely the fish will die of ammonia poisoning (or nitrite poisoning) if you don’t intervene in some fashion. Of course, it is not a cycle because you are not, and don’t want to, create ammonia as in ammonia—>nitrite—>nitrate—>ammonia but I long stopped quibbling over the wording. You need nitrification and you need bacteria - I just call them nitrifiers in most cases to the general public. That said, my bacteria products are like any other living organism - they have preferences and just tossing them into some water does not guarantee success. The user has some responsibility to provide a decent environment.

I looked quickly at the forum post and one thing that comes to mind is that people need to know that not all Nitrospira are Comammox organisms - it seems people are confusing this. There are Nitrospira that are traditional nitrite-oxidizers and other Nitrospira that are Comammox

I have attached some info for you to review - paper and video


Happy to answer any questions
Mozna tez obejrzec,akurat dotyczace marine tank.



Ogolnie odniesien jest bardzo duzo,gdzies mam jeszcze conajmniej kilka bardzo ciekawych naukowych i nie tylko artykulow itp.

Pozdrawiam.
ODPOWIEDZ