Skimmer efficiency

ichthyoid

Trustee
Staff member
Supporting
Messages
4,345
Reaction score
2,496
Location
Cherokee
We may all want to read this article about skimmer efficiency. It is very well written, and one of the only, if not the only thorough scientific attempts to quantify skimmer function related to design, that I have read. I will quote from the 'Conclusions'...

Conclusions

Protein skimmers have become indispensable for many aquarists who strive to maintain the high water quality necessary to keep stony corals. This singular piece of equipment is typically the second largest expense after the tank itself, and as of this writing, there are at least 23 different skimmer vendors in operation. The advertising that accompanies these products often boasts of superlative performance, but no skimmer manufacturer has offered any quantitative support for their claims, in part because no useful metric for skimmer performance exists. In this article, we introduce two different measures for skimmer performance; (1) how fast the skimmer removes organic matter from salt water, and (2) how much of the existing organic material actually is removed. We demonstrate how these quantities can be obtained via experimental measurement and mathematical modeling on a model system consisting of Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) in freshly prepared saltwater. In addition, we demonstrate that the trends among the numerical values obtained in the BSA model system also are observed with TOC removal from authentic aquarium (reef tank) water. The correlation between the BSA model system results and the TOC reef tank water results supports the hypothesis that BSA in saltwater can be used as an effective surrogate for TOC in aquarium water.
Four skimmers having four different reaction chamber volumes and representing four distinct types of bubble generation (needlewheel, venturi, airstone, and downdraft) were tested under the manufacturers' specified conditions. These tests revealed that there was no demonstrable difference between the Euroreef CS80 needlewheel skimmer, the Precision Marine ES100 venturi skimmer, the Precision Marine AP624 airstone skimmer, and the ETSS evolution 500 downdraft skimmer with respect to the rate constant for either TOC or BSA removal. Thus it is fair to conclude that, at least for the skimmers tested under the specified conditions, the individual manufacturers' claims of superior performance are without merit. Whether this conclusion can be extended to other skimmers remains to be seen.
Two operational parameters were examined; airflow rate and water flow rate. For the one skimmer tested at different airflow rates (Precision Marine AP624), the rate constant k for BSA removal did increase significantly as air velocity increased. The performance response upon varying water flow rate was not unequivocal. Using the Precision Marine AP624 airstone skimmer as a test system, increasing the water flow rate at first increased, and then decreased, the rate constant k. The basis for these divergent results has not yet been elucidated.
All four skimmers were quite similar in the second performance figure-of-merit, the total amount of organics removed. The skimmers typically removed greater than 80% of the BSA. In contrast, perhaps one of the more interesting observations to emerge from these studies is the fact that all four skimmers tested removed only 20 - 30% of the total organics present in authentic reef tank water.
Several critical questions that cannot yet be answered concern the generality of the conclusions drawn above. Can any skimmer beat the 30% organic removal level, or is that an intrinsic property of the TOC (cf. Fig. 1)? What are the effects of either gas flow rates or water flow rates that are far outside of the examined range, on k? Are there other unrecognized factors buried in the "k" term involved in determining skimmer performance? These questions can only be answered by examining more skimmers under a wider range of conditions.
From a different perspective, the methodology introduced in this article, in particular the BSA model system, presents a real opportunity for skimmer designers/manufacturers actually to optimize skimmer design/operational parameters in a deliberate and rational manner. Through these types of product development studies, skimmer manufacturers finally might be able to include descriptors in their advertising such as "best", "fastest" etc. that really mean something

Here is the link to the full article:
aafeature2
 
Yeah, Ive read this many times. Its a very limited study using only a few skimmers.
 
jmaneyapanda;453048 wrote: Yeah, Ive read this many times. Its a very limited study using only a few skimmers.

Agreed, but the fact that the efficiency did not vary dramatically between four randomly selected skimmers of different design is, to me, very interesting in the least. I am also never comfortable with limited sample populations (in this case, one each = zero confidence).

But, it makes me want to see a head to head comparison with multiples of each design conducted, under controlled conditions as this one appeared to be. Based on the authors' lack of statistical reference, their parting shot statements are particularly harsh.
 
Since this study, skimmers have improved significantly, in my opinion. Both in terms of productivity, as well as effeciency. I am not surprised to see all these sub-par skimmers perform equally bad.

Sadly, I HIGHLY doubt there will ever be a study to make a comparison of contemporary models like this.
 
Thats when the ADvanced Aquarist article came out. These skimmers are very outdated models from well before the studyty was conducted, and I believe the research was in 08.
 
MRK;453120 wrote: Sadly, I HIGHLY doubt there will ever be a study to make a comparison of contemporary models like this.
Why? cost?[/QUOTE]

In a word, yes.

Who will pay for the study?

Also something to consider:

Every skimmer manufacturer stands to loose much based on the results, and to gain little. Why? They all claim to make the best product, and until someone proves otherwise, they get away with it.

After 'the study' there is either a clear winner, and the others loose sales; or there is no clear winner, and nothing changes (other than perhaps the informed consumers opinion of their prior claims).
 
ichthyoid;453121 wrote: Why? cost?

In a word, yes.

Who will pay for the study?

Also something to consider:

Every skimmer manufacturer stands to loose much based on the results, and to gain little. Why? They all claim to make the best product, and until someone proves otherwise, they get away with it.

After 'the study' there is either a clear winner, and the others loose sales; or there is no clear winner, and nothing changes (other than perhaps the informed consumers opinion of their prior claims).[/QUOTE]

Correct. I cant think of one profit driven manufacturer of ANYTHING that would willingly put its product to an empirical and critical test against its definitive competitors. Anywhere, of any products. Thats why Consumer Reports magazine exists. Unless a welathy benefactor wants to buy all the brands of skimmers and pay for the study, it aint gonna happen.
 
All four of the major design themes I can think of were represented in the comparison. Unless there were significant operational errors, I think this says something about skimming in general.

-Needle wheel

-venturi

-air stone

-downdraft

I have felt for some time that skimmer design is probably 90% pump/foam production, and 10% design. I have nothing to back that up other than my gut, which is in itself pretty honest and objective, I think.
 
jmaneyapanda;453124 wrote: In a word, yes.

Who will pay for the study?

Also something to consider:

Every skimmer manufacturer stands to loose much based on the results, and to gain little. Why? They all claim to make the best product, and until someone proves otherwise, they get away with it.

After 'the study' there is either a clear winner, and the others loose sales; or there is no clear winner, and nothing changes (other than perhaps the informed consumers opinion of their prior claims).

Correct. I cant think of one profit driven manufacturer of ANYTHING that would willingly put its product to an empirical and critical test against its definitive competitors. Anywhere, of any products. Thats why Consumer Reports magazine exists. Unless a welathy benefactor wants to buy all the brands of skimmers and pay for the study, it aint gonna happen.[/QUOTE]

+1, exactly
 
ichthyoid;453125 wrote: All four of the major design themes I can think of were represented in the comparison. Unless there were significant operational errors, I think this says something about skimming in general.

-Needle wheel

-venturi

-air stone

-downdraft

I have felt for some time that skimmer design is probably 90% pump/foam production, and 10% design. I have nothing to back that up other than my gut, which is in itself pretty honest and objective, I think.

This suggests that ALL needlewheels are equal, and all downdrafts (beckett styles included) are equal, etc. I think this is a fatal flaw in interpretation. There are ENORMOUS difference between the individuals in these styles.

Design = foam production, for most of these. I am confused by your statement.
 
jmaneyapanda;453131 wrote: This suggests that ALL needlewheels are equal, and all downdrafts (beckett styles included) are equal, etc. I think this is a fatal flaw in interpretation. There are ENORMOUS difference between the individuals in these styles.

Design = foam production, for most of these. I am confused by your statement.

Foam production mechanism is a major factor, body designs are minor factors, though neither without relative merits. That's all.

I think you and I both know that over generalization can be dangerous/misleading.
 
ichthyoid;453140 wrote: Foam production mechanism is a major factor, body designs are minor factors, though neither without relative merits. That's all.

I think you and I both know that over generalization can be dangerous/misleading.

Abolutely agreed. But..... what are we talking about? bubble and foam production mechanisms in skimmers (venturis, downdrafts, etc). These designs play a direct role in foam production.
 
In thinking of this more, I dont see body design as a minor consideration. Would a Reeflo hammerhead work well ona 6" diameter 1 foot tall skimmer body? There has to be a consideration of the WHOLE unit.
 
jmaneyapanda;453145 wrote: In thinking of this more, I dont see body design as a minor consideration. Would a Reeflo hammerhead work well ona 6" diameter 1 foot tall skimmer body? There has to be a consideration of the WHOLE unit.

You are referring to body volume, which as I recall was normalized in the study. Other than volume and surface energy (they all use acrylic to my knowledge), body design does not strike me as a major determinant in functionality. If body designs were 'it', we would all own either 'Cones or Turboflotors' (aka-angled and curved risers). The rest are pretty vanilla.

Body design is almost the only thing that the manufacturers can claim uniqueness on. I can assure you, design patents are worthless/almost indefensible. Process patents are where the value is, and there upon stands the value. However, except for only one company that I am aware of, all foam production methodology is public domain (available for everyone to use).
 
Back
Top