ZEOvit. Lets talk

[invincible569]

Saturation of a clinoptilolite “sodium aluminosilicate” depends on the temperature, amount of flow passing over the rock, the volume of liquid, the size of the zeolite, and concentration of elements that will compete and exchange with zeolites.

Here is a source speaking of the same zeolite in a swimming pool. The swimming pool is tons of gallons of water and it reached equilibrium at 3 wks with 1.5 kg.

In an initial test, about 1.5kg of clinoptilolite (zeolite) has managed to absorb all the iron and manganese at the point of entry to our plumbing system. Unfortunately it reached saturation after 3 weeks.

I know this is not marine related, but the time of complete exhaustion really depends on a lot of factors.

 

[invincible569]

I almost for got Invin

How could that ever take place when the rocks are covered/coated with bact's ? It would have to be a virgin site, like new zeo. Tumbling will not create that.NH4+ is a weak "magnet", compared to the likes of Ca++, Mg++, etc.

Weak magnet, but definitely a magnet compared to any other place in an aquarium. This is where theories go against each other and for me, I stand by the theory of bacteria falling off the rocks especially when they rub against each other by pumping the reactor so many times. This then gives the zeolite the ability to perform ionic exchance once again until bacteria colonizes once again for another days of tumble.

 

[Boomer]

Saturation of a clinoptilolite “sodium aluminosilicate” depends on the temperature, amount of flow passing over the rock, the volume of liquid, the size of the zeolite, and concentration of elements that will compete and exchange with zeolites.


That means nothing, we are dealing with zeo's covered in bacteria

and concentration of elements

And that is why zeo's are virtually useless in seawater. Have you even looked at the concentration of ammonia required to eject a Na+ ion from its site, be it FW or SW. And have you looked at the requirements to reject/ion exchange a NH+4 from its site to be replaced with x, y or z.

The swimming pool is

A reef tank is not a swimming pool with an Is of 600mmol. It does not have Na+ @ 10,000ppm, K+ @ 3,800 ppm ad Cl- @ 19,000ppm

I stand by the theory of bacteria falling off the rocks especially when they rub against each other by pumping the reactor so many times

I'm not saying that is not happening to a point, but it WILL NOT produce a clean surface for ionic exchange. The point being, if the tumbling creates new fresh surface areas, never exposed to bacteria. Any even if there are fresh sites why do thy bacteria require ammonia on that site when it is all over them in the water column. That is the whole problem with the ZEOvit theory, that ZEOviter's push out, is what you are suggesting in regards to ammonia and ionic exchange. It goes like this;

Zeolites can remove ammonia from water, thus they must use it , taken from the zeolite. Nothing says that at all. For two decades we have used clino's for nitrification and denitrification. They are rarely ever washed/tumbled, etc. but still carrier out the process of nitrification and denitrification just like live rock. There is no ionic exchange, the are not feed special foods or cleaned. And if they were what would you have....ZEOvit System, more efficient, better enriched food for corals


This then gives the zeolite the ability to perform ionic exchange once again until bacteria colonizes once again for another days of tumble.

No it does not ! You will never remove all those bacteria. Their slim alone would plug up the holes. You would have to use bleach or something like H2O2 to get free them up and produce a clean surface.


This is where theories go against each other and for me

That is not a theory you have at all. That is magic

Weak magnet, but definitely a magnet compared to any other place in an aquarium

No it is not, it is covered with bacteria, just like most things are in the aquarium. It will be neutral without a clean surface.

 

[invincible569]

Im not going to go through this again causing a mud slinging battle. You can believe what you would like as it doesnt affect my way of thinking with the ZEOvit method. I think a lot of it is a misunderstanding but I dont want to dissect every detail i spoke of just to argue over it without proven facts. There's no point and Im not up for it.

 

[mojoreef]

Even if the zeolite was in play or not in play I dont think it kills the system!! the zeovit system is comprised of a few different components, zeolite rocks just being one of them. As far as I can see I dont see that it is a major player either way??


Mike

 

[wrightme43]

What happens to the zeovit system if say carbon was used to replace the zeovit? They had to of settled on zeovit for some reason. If the other 3 parts of the system all seem to make sense, the food, bac, and AA stuff. Will they work independent of the zeovit. If not there has to be some thing that zeovit is providing that is being missed by people trying to understand it. Steve

 

[Forestal]

it seems to me that the zeovit is doing nothing regarding ammnia, but is acting as a nitrate sink.
The zeolites will contain ammonnia and exchange this for nitrate, bringing in bacteria to colonize their surface and absorbing the nitrate produced by the bacteria, shaking the system up every so often will be analagous to stirring up the detritus and suctioning, so it can be skimmed and coral food.
although ion exchange is taking place, i think the zeolite without exchanging will also have an affinity for other substances perhaps nitrate
i am new to the concept, but lets say for arguements sake it takes 2 weeks for the volume of the zeolites to reach saturation, then changing the zeovit every 2 weeks gives a fresh substrate to start all over again. then the new bacteria added can colonize the new zeolite media added which i think is recommended to be changed monthly.

i just came up with it as atheory, i have been reading up on this stuff but have been away from biochem/organic chem for 2 decades, so i may very well be way off

 

[Boomer]

Vin don't run off the deep end, there is no mud slinging going on. Give me a chance to show your view, in more detail. I have been sitting here for hrs trying to dig up good info and views. I'm still on this subject now matter what the outcome.

You seem to have forgot all the info on RC that often supported your view. Also why can't we or us have a different view than yours ? It is like we have to agree with the ZEOvit theory or we are a bunch of jerks and in some cases we are jerks also . Many of us have changed some of our thoughts from long ago, more to the ZEOvit side. That does not mean we have to buy into it hook-line & sinker, when there is no data to back it up. That also does not mean all ZEOvit ideas by you guys is correct either. There is data that backs up some of it on both sides. Even Randy and Habib can't agree. The ZEOvit theory isn't a theory, it is an idea/guess of what is going on. The other part is you can not take data from FW tests and equate it to SW = the same thing must be going on.

Does Clino enhance nitrification...yes there are professional papers on it that say so. Clino that already have or are allowed to uptake NH4+. Can NH4+ diffuse into the zeolite even with a film of bact's on it. Some say yes, some do not buy it at all and some are not sure. It is allot more complex than most think and as of yet no one has a real working theory as to what is taking place.

You should know some this info you were on that thread and is where your view comes from


Jörg Kokott
When bacteria settle on a given surface they release strong organic glues to the surface to attach themselves. As these biofilms may break off the substrate, the glue would still stick to the surface and would clog the pores. Consequently, the ion-exchange capacities of the zeolite would strongly decrease with time or even would approach zero. However, if the zeolite grains scratch against each other due to the strong current in the filter, and rub off the surface which is thereby regularly removed to a degree, that ammonia could newly be adsorbed, and new AOB settle on the surface.

And I said this to a point. Notice he is saying if, other say they do not think that is all that possible. He has played around allot with zeolites in seawater

The point being, if the tumbling creates new fresh surface areas, never exposed to bacteria. Any even if there are fresh sites why do the bacteria require ammonia on that site when it is all over them in the water column.

Many educated chemists do believe this, to a point. Is there a need for any ionic exchange to take place ? Some say maybe, yes, no

That is a possibility put it has not shown to be true yet or false yet.

If ammonia is high enough at the zeo site can it exchange, some say yes some say no or they are not sure.

Something else not mentioned here yet. Do not forget that zeo's are also molecule sieves and plug up pores making ionic exchange not very possible at all.

With that being said I think it is best for those interested to see all of the views and arguments brought out here, a very peaceful thread on the chem. forum. I think all interested should read it.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showt...age=25&highlight=zeolite ammonia&pagenumber=1

Take note that if you read all this stuff some of my ideas don't look all great good either. So go ahead and pick on me

 

[Boomer]

Wright

What happens to the zeovit system if say carbon was used to replace the zeovit?

I have brought that up before but no body has tested it or is willing to test it. If you read the pdf that Mojo posted you will see where carbon is actually a better uptaker of NH4+ in seawater.

Forest


it seems to me that the zeovit is doing nothing regarding ammnia, but is acting as a nitrate sink.
The zeolites will contain ammonnia and exchange this for nitrate,

See, now I have to fight for Vin No, I think that any NH4+ in the zeolite may be able to be uptaken by nitro's/denitro's. As I said above there are a number of papers on it and some are posted on that link above on our chem. forum.


The zeolites will contain ammonnia and exchange this for nitrate

No, they just excrete the NO3-. We have yet found any zeolite that can ionic exchange NO3- in seawater. The FAB just pick it up and convert it to N2 gas which is released into the water.



I need to take break been at this for hrs :lol:

Vin, sorry if you think I was or am going to start mud slinging.....NO

 

[Forestal]

Boomer, thanks, like i said , i know next to none on this subject

 

[NaH2O]

I don't feel like I have a brain anymore! Great thread and info everyone - I really want to get down to what's happening here, as my tank may benefit.

This might be a really really dumb and basic question, but the ZEObak is different strains of bacteria in a bottle, right? How do these bacteria stay alive in the bottles? I'm assuming there is a food source there?

 

[MikeS]

Been lurking on this one...good thread all, nice and civil for a controversial subject... I'll go into my post stating I have never tried ZeoVit....I'll admit I'm a skeptic....

There are some debates on the actual mechanics of the process. These are all somewhat similar to debates I've seen on other boards concerning this topic. Yet the question I always have at the end of the debate hasn't ever really been answered yet (for me anyway)...

In a very general nutshell the concept of this system (correct me if I'm off on the basics please) is that you are dosing a nutrient and a bacteria culture, and providing it with an environment to thrive. The goal of this, as I see it is to reduce nutrients (primary) and to serve as a food sorce for corals and other microfauna (secondary) by artifically pumping up bacteria populations in the tank. Now, what I'd like to know...is this a safe/sound practice in the first place? And if so, how does ZeoVit differ from any other method of increasing bacterial populations? It is real easy to elevate bacterial populations after all....

There are three main things that concern me with this system. First, I'd like to know how the ZeoVit bacteria differs from any of the bacteria that occur in our tanks naturally to start with.

Second...if you are actively introducing a specific bacteria and providing it with a favorible environment to thrive in the hopes of elevating its population, won't this bacteria eventually become dominant in the tank, making your system rely completely upon it to remain stable?

Third, if you are artificially elevating bacteria levels greatly to deal with nutirents, don't you run the risk in the long run of flux and unstability as the dynamics of your tank change? Lots of varibles can affect this...incorrect dosage, increase in bioload, ect....

I guess I fail to see where this system is superior to (or even differs from) any number of bacteria based nutrient reduction systems we currently employ in our tanks. To me it seems like they are trying to sell us something we already have in our tanks anyway....

Ok...open season...remember this is a civil thread...

MikeS

 

[Boomer]

Steve

In a very general nutshell the concept of this system (correct me if I'm off on the basics please) is that you are dosing a nutrient and a bacteria culture, and providing it with an environment to thrive. The goal of this, as I see it is to reduce nutrients (primary) and to serve as a food sorce for corals and other microfauna (secondary) by artifically pumping up bacteria populations in the tank.

Yes

Now, what I'd like to know...is this a safe/sound practice in the first place?

I do not think so. I know for some of the ZEOvit guys, please correct me if I'm wrong, corals do not fare well if you stop the metod

And if so, how does ZeoVit differ from any other method of increasing bacterial populations?

see below

It is real easy to elevate bacterial populations after all....

Sure if you give them a food source

There are three main things that concern me with this system. First, I'd like to know how the ZeoVit bacteria differs from any of the bacteria that occur in our tanks naturally to start with.

Me too

Second...if you are actively introducing a specific bacteria and providing it with a favorible environment to thrive in the hopes of elevating its population, won't this bacteria eventually become dominant in the tank, making your system rely completely upon it to remain stable?

Yes I is believe that strongly, just like any ecosystem

Third, if you are artificially elevating bacteria levels greatly to deal with nutirents, don't you run the risk in the long run of flux and unstability as the dynamics of your tank change? Lots of varibles can affect this...incorrect dosage, increase in bioload, ect....

It does not appear so, some have run their system for a couple of years or maybe more.

I guess I fail to see where this system is superior to (or even differs from) any number of bacteria based nutrient reduction systems we currently employ in our tanks. To me it seems like they are trying to sell us something we already have in our tanks anyway....

Not really, it appers to be more of a color thing for corals from what I see and not natural. I haven't looked but anyone have any data on growth rates in their ZEO tank vs a none ZEO tank under the same conditons other than the ZEO. I do not remember if anyone has tried to run their tank with the ZEO system but without the zeolite. We will need some commets from the ZEO guys. One of the reasons I wanted Alex here. IMHO he is the most knowlegeable about the system and its ups and downs.

I will PM Alex to see if he will come here

 

[MikeS]

Thanks for the response boomer...

Steve

It's Mike, not Steve... :lol:

Now, what I'd like to know...is this a safe/sound practice in the first place?

I do not think so. I know for some of the ZEOvit guys, please correct me if I'm wrong, corals do not fare well if you stop the metod

My point exactly....corals are not going to fare well if you yank a nutrient removal carpet out from under them suddenly, so to speak...

It is real easy to elevate bacterial populations after all....

Sure if you give them a food source

Again my point exactly....vinager, Vodka, Marc Weiss products...the list goes on and on...

There are three main things that concern me with this system. First, I'd like to know how the ZeoVit bacteria differs from any of the bacteria that occur in our tanks naturally to start with.

Me too

anxiously awaiting a good answer to that one....

Second...if you are actively introducing a specific bacteria and providing it with a favorible environment to thrive in the hopes of elevating its population, won't this bacteria eventually become dominant in the tank, making your system rely completely upon it to remain stable?

Yes I is believe that strongly, just like any ecosystem

agreed, which leads me to my point on unstability....

Third, if you are artificially elevating bacteria levels greatly to deal with nutirents, don't you run the risk in the long run of flux and unstability as the dynamics of your tank change? Lots of varibles can affect this...incorrect dosage, increase in bioload, ect....

It does not appear so, some have run their system for a couple of years or maybe more

Here is where I have to disagree. I'm going to use my very own beloved DSB as an example. It's 5 years old, and doing fine until December, when a heater failure killed off some bacteria and sent the tank into a state of bacterial flux. Directly following the heater failure, my water quality began to swing wildly back and forth. It's slowing now, but still present 6 months later. Point being, any system that heavily relies on bacteria is not stable or viable long term, there are simply too many varibles (temperature, water chemistry, bioload, ect, ect...) to make it an inheritly stable system long term.

I guess I fail to see where this system is superior to (or even differs from) any number of bacteria based nutrient reduction systems we currently employ in our tanks. To me it seems like they are trying to sell us something we already have in our tanks anyway....

Not really, it appers to be more of a color thing for corals from what I see and not natural. I haven't looked but anyone have any data on growth rates in their ZEO tank vs a none ZEO tank under the same conditons other than the ZEO. I do not remember if anyone has tried to run their tank with the ZEO system but without the zeolite. We will need some commets from the ZEO guys. One of the reasons I wanted Alex here. IMHO he is the most knowlegeable about the system and its ups and downs.

I will PM Alex to see if he will come here

Hmmm...didn't quite follow this...are you saying it doesn't differ from other systems we use other than the color aspect?

MikeS

 

[mojoreef]

It's Mike, not Steve

Well Joe let me chime in

My point exactly....corals are not going to fare well if you yank a nutrient removal carpet out from under them suddenly, so to speak...

That would seem a little unfair I would think. What would happen to your tank if I came over with a shop vac and pulled your DSB?? or if you came over to me and pulled my skimmer and such??

Again my point exactly....vinager, Vodka, Marc Weiss products...the list goes on and on...

Well we are talking about different things here Mike. Using vinage, vodka and so on gives the existing bacteria a carbon source to reduce at a higher rate. From what I am seeing here is the addition of alot of extra bacteria looking for a meal?

anxiously awaiting a good answer to that one....

Well thier are not to many bacterias it could be, would this matter?

Here is where I have to disagree. I'm going to use my very own beloved DSB as an example. It's 5 years old, and doing fine until December, when a heater failure killed off some bacteria and sent the tank into a state of bacterial flux. Directly following the heater failure, my water quality began to swing wildly back and forth. It's slowing now, but still present 6 months later. Point being, any system that heavily relies on bacteria is not stable or viable long term, there are simply too many varibles (temperature, water chemistry, bioload, ect, ect...) to make it an inheritly stable system long term.

Again I am guessing here but I believe the idea is that you overload the bacterial population make it available and then through the use of heavy skimming and carbon you remove the excess. The excess being those that have avoided capture and are probibly assocaited with detritus. Sorry this removal of detritus is probibly a little foriegn to you put in time you should get the idea


mike

 

[wrightme43]

Thanks for the response boomer...



It's Mike, not Steve... :lol:
Yeah no way I can qualify as Dark Lord of the Sand.
LOL
Steve

 

[reedman]

Is it possible that the zeolite is there primarily to provide a surface that is smooth enough to easily release the "mulm" but rough enough to provide a surface for bacteria to colonize on? I'm just trying to think out loud (hurts sometimes), but even if the zeolite was able to bind some of the nutrients, you would have to replace the zeolite pretty often to make it a reasonable nutrient export. No different than a refugium has to be trimmed and tossed regularly, otherwise you are just recycling. I beginning to think we might be trying to make something out of nothing (or next to nothing).

First off, the system is based in the same foundation as other popular methods (i.e. big skimming (nutrient export), high flow (keep detritus suspended to go to skimmer), and good food source that doesn't introduce more nutrients than necessary. In my mind, you could dose the zeo-bacteria cultures and get the similar results with any type of media in a "reactor" acting as a mechanical filter that also works as a bacteria culturing/gut loading area.

I just can't seem to see how a zeolite would have any nutrient removal/conversion/binding capabilities in SW for any length of time. I will have to dig into the link that Mike posted and digest the rest of the Boomer dump first .

Great info...let's keep the info coming and try to keep the emotions in check. We aren't knocking the system or trying to disprove it...just trying to better understand it.

 

[MikeS]

Well Joe let me chime in

Anytime, Billy...always enjoy your input.... :lol:

That would seem a little unfair I would think. What would happen to your tank if I came over with a shop vac and pulled your DSB?? or if you came over to me and pulled my skimmer and such??

Not trying to be unfair, just trying to compare it and contrast to other methods that rely heavliy on bacteria, like my DSB...(your BB and skimmer don't quite fall into the same category as I see it, however...don't worry mojo, there is a compliment in there from me for your type of system, just wait... :lol: )...sure, the shop vac would wreck havok on my system, but so would any number of varibles that impact the bacteria population....that's the point I'm trying to get at here...

Well we are talking about different things here Mike. Using vinage, vodka and so on gives the existing bacteria a carbon source to reduce at a higher rate. From what I am seeing here is the addition of alot of extra bacteria looking for a meal?

Different paths to the same destination, right? Both result in elevated bacteria levels...bacteria are going to quickly try to seek an equalibrium based on available food....

Well thier are not to many bacterias it could be, would this matter?

probably not...but then they are simply selling us something that already exists in our tanks to start with...kinda the point I was hinting towards...

Again I am guessing here but I believe the idea is that you overload the bacterial population make it available and then through the use of heavy skimming and carbon you remove the excess. The excess being those that have avoided capture and are probibly assocaited with detritus. Sorry this removal of detritus is probibly a little foriegn to you put in time you should get the idea


mike

I got it...lots of varibles there still....lots can still go wrong I think...ie wrong dose of bacteria and nutrients vs. bioload, perhaps inadequate skimming...ect, ect...

I have heard nothing but postives from those using it, so maybe it is not quite as unstable as I see it...that means I must be missing something here. :?:

MikeS

 

[Jeremy B.]

So my head is spinning in about five different directions right now!!!!!!

Mojo,

So what you are hypothesizing is that the excess nutrient is not actually being removed by any filtration at all, other than biological. The biological of course being the overdose of bacteria in the tank? This overdose of bacteria is what people are seeing as "darker skimmate" and "heavier" skimmate out of their foam fractionaters?

 

[NaH2O]

In my mind, you could dose the zeo-bacteria cultures and get the similar results with any type of media in a "reactor" acting as a mechanical filter that also works as a bacteria culturing/gut loading area.

Reed - I was thinking along those same lines. I also tossed around - if the bacterial strains aren't any different than those already found in our systems, then we could simply feed the bacteria we have, "gut load" them, then give them a shake.....say in a carbon bag of rubble or similar. Just playing around with thoughts on this one.

Boy, my question must have been really dumb, since noone has offered an answer, yet. I know bacterial cultures can stay alive, just want to know what the food source is in the bottles (and what would end up in the tank).....its been awhile since my microbiology labs.