Testes & Analises

[Celso Suguimoto]

Resolvi sintetizar os testes e analises de varios produtos em um topico. Não é exatamente um artigo, mas uma forma de facilitar a consulta futura

[Celso Suguimoto]

CARVíO

Is all Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) created equally?

ABSTRACT:
This is a review of two carbon types, a generic carbon and Two Little Fishes, Hydrocarbon. Each carbon type (unused) was tested for its ability to absorb an organic blue dye and to what degree, if any, that it leaches phosphate. The Hydrocarbon absorbed organic dye in 90 seconds and leached zero phosphate. A used sample of Hydrocarbon (1 month old in Phosban reactor) was “almost exhausted” and leached zero phosphate. The generic carbon absorbed organic dye in 150 seconds and leached 10ppm phosphate. A used sample of generic carbon was not available and not tested.


INTRODUCTION:
Not all Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) is created equal. I have been in pursuit of an efficient carbon source for many years for the use in reef tanks. In the past, I have had issues with phosphates in the range of 0.25ppm to 3ppm. High phosphates led me in a search to find products for use that do not contribute to an ongoing problem, phosphate. Over the years I have tried many different carbon sources none met these standards.
A quality carbon source is expected to absorb organic nutrients while binding to them tightly and preventing release of the organics even after the material has become exhausted. Furthermore, carbon should not release any substances into the aquarium, which may be harmful, thus identifying phosphate. The longevity of carbon is another concern. It should last at least one month. Cost to benefit ratio is also important, but not determined in this study. This is a measure of product cost vs. product longevity. Some carbons, generally less expensive brands, become saturated and ineffective long before other carbons. Although, the initial cost of a carbon may be less, one may use more of it, which offsets the cost to benefit ratio. As a result, highly efficient carbon may cost more initially, but less frequent changing and less quantity used per event may produce a better cost to benefit ratio.
This experiment has been conducted to compare two carbon sources, a generic GAC and Two Little Fishes brand Hydrocarbon 2. The comparative criteria are its ability to absorb an organic dye, how much phosphate is released back into the aquarium, and its physical characteristics determined by observation.
This experiment is also a prequel to another study, which will determine the cost to benefit ratio of these two carbon sources. Since the generic carbon has yet to be used in the test aquarium, it is impossible to test the cost to benefit ratio at this time. However the cost of products are known. The generic carbon costs $15.00 per five pounds or $3 per pound. The Hydrocarbon costs $30.00 for 3.5 pounds or $8.57 per pound.


METHODS and RESULTS:

SIZE
Direct observation was used to compare carbons. Metric calipers measured size.
The Hydrocarbon is a consistently sized granular carbon measuring from 3mm to 8mm in cross section with a thickness of 1mm to 3mm. The overall shape is flat, rock-like, and irregular. The surface coloration is dull black with some shiny spots. The generic carbon is cylindrical in shape with a consistent diameter of 4.25mm. The length varies from 5mm to 13mm. The color is dull black with no shiny surfaces at all. Some cracks are seen on the surface of the carbon.

POROSITY
Fresh GAC when immersed in water is known to sizzle when water penetrates the porous structure. A rudimentary way of detecting the porosity of GAC is to observe this sizzle. Hydrocarbon has a rapid sizzle sound with streams of air bubbles radiating from its surface when immersed in seawater. Generic carbon produced approximately half the sizzle and one-fourth the air bubble streamers when immersed in seawater.

ABSORPTION OF ORGANIC DYE
Efficiency of carbon was determined by using a Salifert Activated Carbon Profi-Test. The directions were precisely followed, although a timer was instituted to measure the amount of time necessary for the organic blue dye to be absorbed by the carbon source.
The procedure is as follows: 4ml seawater added to test vial. Carbon added to raise water level to 5ml. One drop of blue organic dye is added. Vial is sealed and tilted from end to end to allow for mixing. The tilting speed occurs with about 2 tilts per second. The carbon granules will slide from end to end. The initial color is royal blue. The timer is stopped when the color fades to a pale blue. The following Table summarizes the results section provided by the Salifert kit.

Drops Added Condition
1 Exhausted
2 Almost Exhausted
3 Some Capacity Left
4 Can still be used, test again after 1 week
5 Still Good

Three tests were done. The first tested unused Hydrocarbon. Second tested unused generic carbon, and the third tested 1-month-old Hydrocarbon.

Test 1 Unused Hydrocarbon (refer to pictures 4-8):

Drops Added Time Elapsed (+/- 10s.) for solution to turn from royal blue to pale blue.
1 90s
2 90s
3 90s
4 90s
5 90s
Color of solution 10 minutes after completion of drop number 5 revealed virtually no blue color with a faint gray (suspended carbon fines).



Test 2 Unused Generic Carbon (Refer to pictures 1-3):

Drops Added Time Elapsed (+/- 10s.) for solution to turn from royal blue to pale blue.
1 180s
2 150s
3 150s
4 150s
5 180s
Color of solution 10 minutes after completion of drop number 5 revealed virtually the same pale blue color.


Test 3 One Month Used Hydrocarbon
For this test, 2 cups of Hydrocarbon was placed in a Phosban reactor (110 gallon total system water). A Maxijet 1200 powerhead located in the sump before the skimmer was used to supply a feed of sump water to the reactor at a rate that barely caused surface agitation. It should be noted that the Hydrocarbon instructions recommends 1 cup per 100 gallons placed in a nylon bag for passive filtration. This test system used twice the recommended amount placed in a reactor chamber.

Drops Added Time Elapsed (+/- 10s.) for solution to turn from royal blue to pale blue.
1 180s
2 Failed to turn pale blue
This test revealed that the Hydrocarbon was “almost exhausted”. Furthermore, this test determined that this was the proper amount and time to use the Hydrocarbon for this system.

LEACHING OF PHOSPHATE
Phosphate released by GAC was measured using a Salifert Phosphate Profi-Test. The directions were followed with some modification. In step one of the instructions 10ml of RO/DI water was used in lieu of seawater to prevent any artifact from phosphate found in seawater. After step three, 0.25 oz. of carbon was added to the test vial. The timer was set for ten minutes and the solution color was compared with the supplied test chart. The following Table summarizes the results section provided by the Salifert kit.

ppm Phosphate ppm Phosphate-Phosphor
0.03 (good) 0.01
0.10 (critical) 0.03
0.25 (coral growth retarded) 0.08
0.5 0.17
1.00 0.33
3.00 1.00



Test 1: Unused Hydrocarbon released 0.0ppm phosphate after ten minutes.

Test 2: Unused Generic Carbon released 0.25ppm phosphate after ten minutes.

Test 3 One Month Used Hydrocarbon released 0.0ppm phosphate after ten minutes.



DISCUSSION:
Hydrocarbon is superior to the generic carbon in terms of absorbing an organic dye. While both carbon sources were capable of absorbing 5 drops of the dye, only the Hydrocarbon produced a colorless solution after ten minutes. Hydrocarbon is the only carbon source I have tested that released zero phosphate. Even the one-month-old Hydrocarbon released zero phosphates as promised by the manufacturer.
The most convincing observation to the superiority of Hydrocarbon is how it behaves during the organic dye test. You could see the Hydrocarbon sizzle and release air streamers as it is agitated in the mixing phase. This could be observed even after adding the fifth drop of organic dye. This has a direct relationship to its porosity. The Hydrocarbon also absorbed the organic dye almost twice as fast as the generic carbon. Another distinction lies within examining the data of generic carbon in the organic dye test. When first immersed in seawater, the generic carbon is slow to begin sizzling, as indicated by a longer than average absorption time when adding the first drop of organic dye. This relates to the lack of porosity of the generic carbon. Once the seawater penetrates the carbon it tends to sizzle with more passion as seen with adding the second through fourth drop of organic dye. As the fifth drop of organic dye is added to the generic carbon, the time to absorption lengthens back to three minutes.
There are some concerns with testing to be noted. First, both carbon sources were rinsed in RO/DI water before testing. The generic carbon rinsed well and was complete within one minute. During testing the generic carbon remained intact and released no fines. The color of the solution did not become cloudy with carbon fines. The same cannot be said of the Hydrocarbon. After two minutes of rinsing the Hydrocarbon produced clear water. However, during agitation in the mixing phase of the organic dye test, carbon fines created a cloudy solution. This cloud of fines did not alter the blue color of the solution. In fact, it is testament to its porosity. The Hydrocarbon is a finer granule compared to the generic carbon and is more brittle. When testing the one-month-old Hydrocarbon, it produced the same cloudy effect during agitation.

The one-month-use Hydrocarbon was used in a heavily stocked 110-tall, mostly sps, reef system. The test system also has an adjacent 16gallon nano tank and a 40gallon sump. The actual water volume of this 166gallon system is 110gallons. The Hydrocarbon was placed in a Phosban reactor as described in the methods section. The Hydrocarbon would likely perform well if placed in a nylon mesh bag and placed in the sump with water flow directed through it. However, the generic carbon is unlikely to perform up to standards without the additional agitation provided by a reactor chamber. This is based on the time required for the generic carbon to absorb organic dye with agitation during testing.
Another concern is that testing the two carbon sources was done by equal weight. There were no instructions provided with the generic carbon, so it is unknown if this carbon should be used in larger amounts than the Hydrocarbon. However, it may be speculated that adding twice the amount of generic carbon may have produced the same result as the Hydrocarbon. This was not tested, but would be a worthy future test for the comprehensiveness in determining the cost to benefit ratio. Since the generic carbon is nearly a third the cost, you would be able to use more of it before determining that Hydrocarbon is more cost effective too. At the end of this test, one may only conclude that Hydrocarbon is more efficient when compared to equal weight quantity of the generic carbon.

In conclusion, Hydrocarbon absorbed organic dye nearly twice as fast as the generic carbon while sizzling throughout the process. The Hydrocarbon also absorbed all the blue color ten minutes after the fifth drop of organic dye had been added, while the generic carbon failed to remove any significant amount of more organic dye. Both used and unused Hydrocarbon released zero phosphates, while the generic carbon released 0.25ppm of phosphate. Hydrocarbon is more efficient in absorbing organic dye than generic carbon when used in equal amounts.

Picture 1: This is a clear solution of Generic Carbon in seawater before adding organic dye.


Picture 2: This is the royal blue color Generic Carbon in seawater after adding one drop of organic dye.


Picture 3: This is the pale blue color of Generic Carbon in seawater after agitating. Note that the solution is not cloudy from carbon fines after mixing.


Picture 5: This is the royal blue color Hydrocarbon in seawater after adding one drop of organic dye.


Picture 6: This is the pale blue color of Dydrocarbon in seawater after agitating. Note this solution is cloudy from black carbon fines after mixing.


Picture 7: This is a side view of the pale blue color of Hydrocarbon in seawater after agitating. The pale blue color is noted while the cloudiness caused by carbon fines is less apparant in this view.


Picture 8: This is a side view of the clear color of Hydrocarbon in seawater ten minutes after completion of adding the fifth drop of organic dye. Carbon fines is less apparant in this view.

Fonte : http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... ost7550121

[Celso Suguimoto]

TESTE DE NITRATO



http://www.korallenriff.de/downloads/nitratmessung.pdf

[Celso Suguimoto]

ALCALNIDADE

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/8/review/view

Salifert and Seachem test kits performed well in this ‘competition’. Both were within approximately 10-11% of the ‘true’ alkalinity value. Does it really matter to you that alkalinity is 3.3 meq/l but is reported at 3 meq/l? No two situations are exactly alike, but, generally, these easy-to-perform tests deliver results that should be acceptable to the majority of hobbyists.

The Tetra test did not perform as well. It is difficult for me to believe that the reagent was properly prepared at the factory. I tend to think the reagent was simply old and had lost potency.

And this brings up a point – Only Salifert marks their reagents with an expiration date. Although shelf life is probably at least year or more with the others, it would be comforting to know that reagents are fresh. Expiration dates are standard on Hach reagents, and it is not unheard of in the pet industry (besides Salifert, I seem to recall the German company Dupla once - and perhaps still does - marked their reagents with an expiration date). However, Seachem, on their website, states they will replace ‘old’ reagents (see that site for details).

As a general rule, reagents should be discarded 6 months after being opened. It is good lab practice to mark the bottle with the date it was opened. Project your realistic use of these kits – how often will you perform alkalinity tests in the next six months? Although large amounts of reagent might seem like a good idea, chemicals could ‘spoil’ on the shelf while waiting for use or become contaminated with use.

The Rea Sea test is, at least in this grouping, in a category of its own in that it simply reports alkalinity in rather vague ranges. This is not to say that the kit is without use – those wanting to monitor the buffering capacity of marine fish-only aquaria might find this test of value.

[Celso Suguimoto]

FOSFATO

http://www.korallenriff.de/artikel/528_ ... _2006.html

[Celso Suguimoto]

CALCIO E MAGNESIO

http://www.korallenriff.de/artikel/522_ ... _2006.html

[Celso Suguimoto]

Silicato



pH



nitrito



Iodo



Fonte : http://www.acquaportal.it/_archivio/art ... tampa=true

[Celso Suguimoto]

Apenas um complemento de um artigo de como funcionam os testes

http://web.archive.org/web/200307020604 ... efault.asp

[Mauro Becker]

[Celso Suguimoto]

Outro teste de sais feito por um aquarista na nano-reef

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.p ... pic=161449

D-D H20
Temperature - 26c
Salinity - 35ppt
pH (Salifert) - 8.60
pH (Pinpoint) - 8.90
Ammonia - 0ppm
Nitrite - 0ppm
Nitrate - 0ppm
Phosphate P - 0ppm
Potassium - 370ppm
Strontium - 4ppm
Calcium - 415ppm
Magnesium - 1350ppm
Alkalinity - 8.1Dkh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Sea Coral Salt
Temperature - 26c
Salinity - 35ppt
pH (Salifert) - 8.50
pH (Pinpoint) - 8.52
Ammonia - 0ppm
Nitrite - 0ppm
Nitrate - 0ppm
Phosphate P - 0ppm
Potassium - 340ppm
Strontium - 22ppm
Calcium - 405ppm
Magnesium - 1170ppm
Alkalinity - 8.6Dkh

[Celso Suguimoto]

Em verde a vazao medida e em azul anunciada pelo fabricante





http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/7/aafeature

As Tunze tiveram resultado aquem do anunciado tanto em eficiencia qto vazao

Resposta da Tunze em relacao aos resultados de suas bombas

http://reefbuilders.com/2011/07/13/tunz ... statement/

[Celso Suguimoto]

Sal pra aquarios nao é apenas cloreto de sodio... tem calcio, magnesio e outros elementos que sao apenas traços.

Esse tema já deu muita confusao em outro forum.... Tem um fabricante de sal marinho (Issal se nao me engano) q tentou comercializar esse sal pra aquarios marinhos... o pessoal fez um teste basico dele (calcio, ra, magnesio) .... nao servia.

[Celso Suguimoto]

Imprecisao dos densimetros de plastico

[Celso Suguimoto]

Um teste de sal feito em 2008

http://www.aqua-medic.com/aquariumwater ... s_0208.pdf

[Celso Suguimoto]

Mais um de sal



Contribuicao de erick camargo

[Elder Luis]

Celso, muito bom essa coletânea de informações! Principalmente sobre os testes de sal!

Este mês vou mudar de marca de sal, vou analisar com carinho para ver o melhor que de adapte ao meu bolso

[Ramon Brescovici]

eu já vi varias vezes esse topico
mto bom mesmo

[Celso Suguimoto]

Essa é a pagina do Sanjay... la sintetiza quase todos os testes que ele fez de iluminacao. O legal é q da pra comparar o espectro e PPFD (PAR) das lampadas atraves de graficos

http://www.manhattanreefs.com/lighting

[Celso Suguimoto]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/3/review

Esse teste é bem legal... foram testadas tres lampadas T5 da UV Lighting 'Super Actinic,' 'Actinic White,' e 'Aquasun' e comparados os espectros. PAR, comparacao com T8, PUR, etc

[Celso Suguimoto]

Hanna Checkers: Alcalinidade e fosfato

http://www.advancedaquarist.com//2011/8/review