Skimmer performance ???? let's call Mythbusters

[grouper therapy]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature">http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature</a>
Follow up study to an earlier study on skimmer performance. Interesting read.

 

[johniii]

Now my head hurts:banghead:

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ralph atl]

we agree, Skimmers don't really remove that much and because "we are stupid"...we just keep doin' what we keep doin'.......

Rox Carbon will take out 10 times the amount of organic carbon....in a week or two....

Skimmers should be obsolete.............

 

[gregwiechardreefr]

So unplug skimmer and throw rox in a reactor?

 

[sleepyreef]

Holy crap, I've been blinded by science!

My $300 skimmer is on back order. It is not too late to cancel!

 

[rdnelson]

Didn't read the thread because it is late and 4:45 comes early but.......

Based on what I dump out of my collection cup, I can't imagine it is bad to remove that stuff so since I already have one I will continue to use it.

 

[glxtrix]

My brain just flashed a BSOD....time to restart.

 

[camellia]

SMH, I understand their conclusion but holy cow...
I need to get out my mystery novel to relax after that read 0:

 

[grouper therapy]

I (sadly) understand the study and I would by no means get rid of my skimmer even after their conclusions. I still think that a protein skimmer is extremely beneficial for what they do remove and the oxygenation (correct term?) that they supply. I do however consider myself to be some what more knowledgeable/wary as to the performance of the various skimmers and the claims made by the manufacturers and/or owners.I think the dissapointed responses by some who read the article are due to the hype that that they were fed and ingested of the skimmer's abilities and importance. IMO the studies are at least the genesis of a method to measure a skimmer's performance instead of the "look at my skim mate method :doh:".

 

[midas]

Although I agree with their conclusion that "protein skimmers appear to have a much larger variation in their prices than they do in their ability to remove TOC from aquarium water</em>.", I don't agree that removing as much as 30% of TOC in their test case makes a skimmer "not very effective".

 

[grouper therapy]

Midas;810340 wrote: Although I agree with their conclusion that "protein skimmers appear to have a much larger variation in their prices than they do in their ability to remove TOC from aquarium water</em>.", I don't agree that removing as much as 30% of TOC in their test case makes a skimmer "not very effective".

Is this the statement that you are referencing?
"None of the skimmers tested removed more than 35% of the extant TOC, leading to the conclusion that bubbles are really not a very effective medium for organic nutrient removal."
I think that is a fair statement if the whole</em> is considered. No?

 

[ripped tide]

grouper therapy;810338 wrote: I (sadly) understand the study and I would by no means get rid of my skimmer even after their conclusions. I still think that a protein skimmer is extremely beneficial for what they do remove and the oxygenation (correct term?) that they supply. I do however consider myself to be some what more knowledgeable/wary as to the performance of the various skimmers and the claims made by the manufacturers and/or owners.I think the dissapointed responses by some who read the article are due to the hype that that they were fed and ingested of the skimmer's abilities and importance. IMO the studies are at least the genesis of a method to measure a skimmer's performance instead of the "look at my skim mate method :doh:".

+1 on the oxygenation. As far as waste removal, even if they only remove a small percentage of the organic waste, well that small percentage is better out of the tank than in!

 

[grouper therapy]

brchapm;810350 wrote: Interesting article. I suppose the next step will be for the high priced skimmer companies to come up with their own study to justify their prices.

Ahh! there in lies the difference in many opinions. The PERFORMANCE (removal of the TOCs) is only one part of the equation for many in determining VALUE of the skimmer. I for one can appreciate quality craftsmanship,ease of use,customer support, efficiency and low maintenance. I try to achieve a balanced view of all of those while considering the part of the equation I control MY BUDGET. What I take away from the study is that a skimmer does not have to be expensive to remove TOC's from my system some of the less expensive skimmers can do the same or better even.

 

[containerman1]

grouper therapy;810353 wrote: Ahh! there in lies the difference in many opinions. The PERFORMANCE (removal of the TOCs) is only one part of the equation for many in determining VALUE of the skimmer. I for one can appreciate quality craftsmanship,ease of use,customer support, efficiency and low maintenance. I try to achieve a balanced view of all of those while considering the part of the equation I control MY BUDGET. What I take away from the study is that a skimmer does not have to be expensive to remove TOC's from my system some of the less expensive skimmers can do the same or better even.

I am with you on Performance, Value, Budget
I feel like if my skimmer is removing 25-30% then my water changes remove additional waste, that puts me right back in good shape ( Plus alot of us also use GFO and Rox. Carbon)
But I still would like to get a New Bubble King or Vertex

 

[grouper therapy]

containerman1;810356 wrote: I am with you on Performance, Value, Budget
I feel like if my skimmer is removing 25-30% then my water changes remove additional waste, that puts me right back in good shape ( Plus alot of us also use GFO and Rox. Carbon)
But I still would like to get a New Bubble King or Vertex

They do seem to be set it and forget skimmers. For that kind of bucks I would definitely go MRC ORCA Pro all the way. Larger capacity for the same or less money. Build quality is superior to all IMO, Local Company, I like the taller chambers as well for the dwell time even if it does not equate to higher removal rates it makes me feel good about it.

 

[kayakatl]

That was not exactly reading Harry Potter now was it? I would like to see these test performed with more data points, and over a larger variety of skimmers. It would also be interesting to include some ORP readings. I would love to see data on the "other" reasons we run skimmers. It is nice to see how price does not necessarily directly correlate to organic matter removal, but once again this article does outline the importance of the almighty water change. You can run a $5000 skimmer on your 50 gal system all day, but it is no replacement for dilution.

Excellent reading, thanks for sharing!

 

[gaul]

One finding was that the large bovine protein was completely removed. Compare this to around 70% of the usual DOC that was not removed. I assume the size of the DOC is the limiting factor for skimmer efficiency (E.g., monomer sugars and peptides and fatty acids resist skimmer removal while large macromolecules like proteins and polysaccharides succumb to skimmer removal.) If so, the trick to getting all the DOC out of a water sample would be to encourage those smaller molecules of DOC to accumulate into larger ones. Vodka dosing, for example, would use bacteria to pull the smaller DOCs from the environment and accumulate them into a lump that the skimmer could remove. I'm not sure the goal for DOC levels, though. A sterile tank with no DOC could be less healthy than a tank with some moderate amount of DOC.

Edit: I do appreciate the clinical examination that they did. The more data and investigation in the aquarium hobby, the healthier our critters will be. One point of contention (mainly because I just plopped down a nice chuck of change for a SRO3000 for my 200g) -- they say Reef Octopus has an unsatisfactory k rating (which is the rate of TOC removal) but they say the Reef Octopus removed a better than average amount of TOC.

Edit: I do appreciate the clinical examination that they did. The more data and investigation in the aquarium hobby, the healthier our critters will be. One point of contention (mainly because I just plopped down a nice chuck of change for a SRO3000 for my 200g) -- they say Reef Octopus has an unsatisfactory k rating (which is the rate of TOC removal) but they say the Reef Octopus removed a better than average amount of TOC.

 

[ichthyoid]

I am still 'digesting' the methods and conclusions in this article.

With that said, I don't think that molecular weight (molecule 'size') is as important as whether the chemicals being skimmed have both oil loving (lipophilic) and water loving (hydrophilic) groups in their structure.

Compounds that have this characteristic are known as 'amphophyllic' compounds. Some practical examples are the active ingredients in soaps and detergents, also referred to as surfactants (although that is a broader term). Amphophyllic chemicals form bubbles easier than other type compounds. This makes for more foam, and easier capture in the collection cup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphiphile">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphiphile</a>

There are lots of bacteria and fungi in aquaria, which all have a role in molecular metabolic process. This should not be understated. Short chain fatty acids for example, are known to have crucial roles in higher organisms, through a symbiotic relationship with the microflora and microfauna living in association with them. That includes corals and fish.

The amount of organic carbon processed via these organisms was not mentioned. Organic carbon in the ocean, and certainly in our reefs, is a 'limiting factor'. One reason carbon dosing is successful, is that it removes the rate limit that exists. Carbon dosing adds TOC to the system.

Aside from removing 'organic carbon' (TOC) compounds, skimmers provide a crucial function in our reefs. They help substitute for the lack of waves. The gas exchange that occurs is not simply oxygenation, although that is certainly an imporatant function. The balance of CO2 is also very important, as is electron transport.

ORP, which is basically a measure of the potential for chemical reactions to occur, is greatly affected by skimming, and is based on 'electron availability'. The skimmer can greatly increase ORP, which is a direct indication of the overall health of the chemical system in our reefs.

I have been following the work these folks have done, and look forward to the next study. I would agree that more data points (replications) for each experiment are needed. Anything below 20 replications, starts to draw statistical variance into the equation (higher standard deviation).

Good read, thx.