Ozone

[Brian and Vanessa Smythia]

Does anyone know if the ASM G-3 skimmer is ozone safe?

[Marc Levenson]

Do you plan to run Ozone on your reef tank? Skimmers such as the ASM remove
DOCs, and Ozone definitely has an effect on water quality.

JB NY has run Ozone on his tank for quite some time now, so he might be the one
to contact. You can find JB NY on reefcentral.com as one of the 50,000+
members.

Marc


Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:

> Does anyone know if the ASM G-3 skimmer is ozone safe?

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Brian and Vanessa Smythia]

Yes, I am planning on running ozone on a 110 Gallon reef tank I am putting
together (finally moving up from my 55 Gallon)

I know skimmers remove dissolved organics before they break down into
ammonia and nitrite but I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
mean?



"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
...
> Do you plan to run Ozone on your reef tank? Skimmers such as the ASM
remove
> DOCs, and Ozone definitely has an effect on water quality.
>
> JB NY has run Ozone on his tank for quite some time now, so he might be
the one
> to contact. You can find JB NY on reefcentral.com as one of the 50,000+
> members.
>
> Marc
>
>
> Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know if the ASM G-3 skimmer is ozone safe?
>
> --
> Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
> Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
> Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com
>
>

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon.

Skimmers also remove particulates.

**************************
Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:
> I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
> mean?
>

[Marc Levenson]

Almost.. Dissolved Organic Compounds. :)

Marc


Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:

> DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon.
>
> Skimmers also remove particulates.
>
> **************************
> Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:
> > I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
> > mean?
> >

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[stoutman]

Nope. It's Dissolved Organic Carbon.

http://www.algone.com/protein_skimmer.htm









"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
...
> Almost.. Dissolved Organic Compounds. :)
>
> Marc
>
>
> Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
> > DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon.
> >
> > Skimmers also remove particulates.
> >
> > **************************
> > Brian and Vanessa Smythia wrote:
> > > I am unfamiliar with the term DOC's. What does it
> > > mean?
> > >
>
> --
> Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
> Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
> Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com
>
>

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

No, actually. "Carbon" was correct. DOC is only one class
of material in various the nutrient cycles.

DIP - Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorous
DIN - Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
DOP - Dissolved Organic Phosphorous
DON - Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon
POC - Particulate Organic Carbon
PON - Particulate Organic Nitrogen
POP - Particulate Organic Phosphate

Each of these reflect the primary bio-material cycles on
Earth. Carbon, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen. There are others,
such as Silicon.

The rule is simple. We have Dissolved/Particulate,
Organic/Inorganic, and the nutrient cycle we're talking
about. We use these terms because each class requires
certain forms of remediataion. One doesn't, even remotely,
treat DIN the same way as POP.

Here's some scientific lit. where the term(s) are used
correctly...

http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/solas/summerschool/handouts/LC2.pdf
http://jacquet.stephan.free.fr/engel_ame_2004.pdf

*****************************
Carbon.Marc Levenson wrote:
> Almost.. Dissolved Organic Compounds. :)
>
> Marc
>

[Ross Bagley]

Bill Kirkpatrick > writes:

> No, actually. "Carbon" was correct. DOC is only one class of
> material in various the nutrient cycles.
>
> DIP - Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorous
> DIN - Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen

> DOP - Dissolved Organic Phosphorous
> DON - Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
> DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon

These three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
DOM - Dissolved Organic Matter

Which would then be a substantially better term to use than "Dissolved
Organic Compounds" which, as is the topic of discussion, collides with
"Dissolved Organic Carbon".

> POC - Particulate Organic Carbon
> PON - Particulate Organic Nitrogen
> POP - Particulate Organic Phosphate

While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
POM - Particulate Organic Matter

I can certainly shift to use these terms from the larger scientific
discussion in my own language on aquariums.

One question, are phytoplankton (algae, bacterial agglomerates, etc.)
part of POM or are POC, PON, and POP limited to particles that are
nonliving? Seems like it would be useless to attempt to divide them
out, so I may have just answered my question...

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature...
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

Ross Bagley wrote:

> While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
> POM - Particulate Organic Matter

Sure, but wouldn't it be kind of limiting if we just used
the term "Color" (Matter/Compounds) to describe all various
forms of "Red"(DOC), "Orange"(POC), "Yellow"(DIN), etc.?

Of course, if you don't understand the subject or it is not
applicable to you (like a total color blind), then the broad
term is all you need.

In both aquaria, and waste water treatment, it would seem we
surely can't say these terms are inapplicable. We use
various filters/media/methods, each to specifically address
the various classes of pollutants, and their makeup components.

If you take it to the extreme, why not just say there is
"junk", or "pollution", in our tanks. Not very scientific
sounding, perhaps, but if "we" should use DOC in the way you
suggest, then why not use a simpler and less confusing word
for the stuff?

[Ross Bagley]

Bill Kirkpatrick > writes:

> Ross Bagley wrote:
>
> > While these three would seem to sum up to describe the category of
> > POM - Particulate Organic Matter
>
> Sure, but wouldn't it be kind of limiting if we just used the term
> "Color" (Matter/Compounds) to describe all various forms of
> "Red"(DOC), "Orange"(POC), "Yellow"(DIN), etc.?

But I see it as wanting to know if the color is red or blue, and
you keep asking me which wavelength near 450nm do I mean.

A particular scientist's mapping of a symbol space into language is
not the only mapping, nor is it necessarily the best mapping merely
because it is the most precise.

> Of course, if you don't understand the subject or it is not applicable
> to you (like a total color blind), then the broad term is all you need.

No need to condescend to make your point. In hobby aquariums, we care
about phosphate, nitrate (along with nitrite and ammonium), calcium,
carbon (as carbonate and bicarbonate), particulate organic material,
and dissolved organic material, and to a lesser extent silica, iodine,
magnesium, and iron.

Most, if not all of the interactions we have with our tank water are
limited to these categories. To suggest that we as a group need to
subdivide the categories that we find useful in order to be "right" is
missing the point of jargon in communities.

> In both aquaria, and waste water treatment, it would seem we surely
> can't say these terms are inapplicable. We use various
> filters/media/methods, each to specifically address the various
> classes of pollutants, and their makeup components.

Except that I've never participated in a discussion of how to filter
just dissolved organic phosphate from the water. Skimmers remove
unknown fractions of lots of different dissolved organic compounds
(DOC, DOP, etc.) and smaller particulate organic material. Given that
resolution of knowledge, does it make sense to use an overly precise
term when the precision doesn't match to the available information?

As the hobby evolves and we acquire more information about what's
really going on in the skimmer and in our water, more precise terms
may begin to make sense. Until that level of research has been done,
to say that skimmers remove Dissolved Organic Carbon when Dissolved
Organic Phosphorus is the next entry down (and also partly removed by
skimming) makes no sense to me.

> If you take it to the extreme, why not just say there is "junk", or
> "pollution", in our tanks. Not very scientific sounding, perhaps, but
> if "we" should use DOC in the way you suggest, then why not use a
> simpler and less confusing word for the stuff?

Use the term that best describes the substance in question. If we're
measuring something, I'll be looking for a phosphorus-specific
measurement (described by a phosphorus-specific term), or a nitrogen-
specific measurement (described by a nitrogen-specific term). But
if all I've got is a cup full of gunk, then "gunk" might just be
the best possible use of language to convey a description of my
mental model so that someone else can understand me.

I can completely understand not wanting to use jargon that collides
with an established nomenclature in a related field (which is why I'll
start using DOM instead of DOC to refer to the dissolved elements in
skimmate). What I'm not following is the logic that we should use
that other jargon, even if it doesn't map well to the concepts that
need relating in our community.

What we've got is a mapping problem. You've got thirty shades of
light with a wavelength near 450nm. All I see is a rich deep blue.

Who's right?

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature...
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

[Dr Drudge]

"stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message news:<l%m2c.125089$Xp.543218@attbi_s54>...
> Nope. It's Dissolved Organic Carbon.
>
> http://www.algone.com/protein_skimmer.htm
>
>
>
>
>

Isn't that term (Dissolved Organic Carbon) redundant? I thought
Organic implies a Carbon compound?
In other words, is there such a thing as an In-organic Carbon compound
(in or out of aquaria)?

[Ross Bagley]

(Dr Drudge) writes:

> Isn't that term (Dissolved Organic Carbon) redundant? I thought
> Organic implies a Carbon compound?
> In other words, is there such a thing as an In-organic Carbon compound
> (in or out of aquaria)?

Sodium Bicarbonate NaHCO3 is an inorganic carbon compound often used
in aquaria (bicarbonate and carbonate ions are most of what you're
detecting with an alk test).

However, I can't think of any covalent inorganic carbon compounds
at the moment. They're out there, I just can't think of any :)

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature...
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

[Richard Reynolds]

> In both aquaria, and waste water treatment

be careful mixing different fields when dealing with acronyms. it doesnt always work even
when parts of the field overlaps.

to point out

what is PVC

in plastics/plumbing its Polyvinyl chloride
in cardiac medicine its a premature ventricular contraction a form of arythmia
as I went quickly searching for more than 2 examples its also the name of a punk band :D
hehehehe

not the same things.

there are plenty of examples ill let you search if you desire :D


--
Richard Reynolds

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

Sure, but, the difference between aquaria and waste water
treatment would be... What?

A fish tank is a waste water treatment device, through and
through.

************************
Richard Reynolds wrote:
>>In both aquaria, and waste water treatment
>
>
> be careful mixing different fields when dealing with acronyms. it doesnt always work even
> when parts of the field overlaps.

[Brian and Vanessa Smythia]

Sorry to have caused all the extra typing but all I really needed to know
was whether my ASM G-3 skimmer was ozone safe. I apologize if someone has
already answered this, but I have been working 70 hour weeks and haven't
been able to check in on this thread in a while.

Thanks,
Brian Smythia


"Bill Kirkpatrick" > wrote in message
...
> Sure, but, the difference between aquaria and waste water
> treatment would be... What?
>
> A fish tank is a waste water treatment device, through and
> through.
>
> ************************
> Richard Reynolds wrote:
> >>In both aquaria, and waste water treatment
> >
> >
> > be careful mixing different fields when dealing with acronyms. it doesnt
always work even
> > when parts of the field overlaps.