Temperature Effects on Skimmer

[jeremai]

Q: how does temperature effect protein skimming?

Increasing T decreases the efficiency of skimming.

There are several reasons for this:

1) Higher T means that the foam is less stable, because of the higher mobility of the surface active molecules and slightly high solubility in the salt water.

Actually, that is two reasons inthe one, opps, should have separated it. Oh well.

The two reason are then higher solubility of the surface active molecules, therefore the foam will be less stable.

And also the higher mobility of the molecules

 

So, my question is: will a skimmer be more productive in a 65 degree tank? And why?

 

Oh yeah, the quote is from here.

[travisurfer]

interesting

[jeremai]

Hehe, ok, I'm going to try and work this out, before MrAnderson whacks me over the head with a week-old skipjack.

 

The bubbles are more stable because of the lower mobility of the molecules; more intact bubbles equates to better foam production, eh? Anything I missed?

 

Would this still apply at 65 degrees, as opposed to lower 'tropical' temperatures? And, would it effect how the skimmer is adjusted; meaning, will the lower temperature effect the skimmer to the point that a consumer model cannot be adjusted sufficiently?

[jeremai]

Not even an educated guess?

[Mr. Fosi]

The bubbles are more stable because of the lower mobility of the molecules; more intact bubbles equates to better foam production, eh?

 

I suppose this would be true, but I wonder at how much of an effect this would really have. If the water were near boiling I am sure that it would do quite a bit, but a 10-15F difference?

 

His comment about things being more soluable in the water at higher temps is also technically correct. In chem labs, a person usually influences temperature-depedant soluability with an ice bath, not by reducing the temp by 10-15F.

 

Would this still apply at 65 degrees, as opposed to lower 'tropical' temperatures? And, would it effect how the skimmer is adjusted; meaning, will the lower temperature effect the skimmer to the point that a consumer model cannot be adjusted sufficiently?

 

I can't think of why...

 

Have you found any other info on this?

[jeremai]

I can't think of why...

 

Have you found any other info on this?

That's pretty much it, but I'll run some terms through Google again and see what I can come up with.

[SplitSequence]

Well, chemically speaking, the water will hold a lower quantities of dissolved solids, and the surfaces of the bubbles will have less entropy, and hence be more stable, yes.

 

Numerically speaking, I don't know if the quantities of removed solids would be noticably different in either case. As Mr. Fosi points out, usually these numbers are changed with ice (or using a burner to boil or near-boil) and these very dramatic changes exhibit noticable changes in the solubility.

 

Either way, your skimmer will still work at 65f.

[jeremai]

Either way, your skimmer will still work at 65f.

Perfect. Thanks, guys - I think I have this project pretty much figured out...

[Nuhtty]

I dont buy it. He is talking about molecular stability in a span of 8 degrees Celsius. I dont think so.

 

The basis of protein skimming is based on water tension.

 

Drastic changes in SALINITY will affect your skimmer far more than any temperature differences.

[jeremai]

I dont buy it. He is talking about molecular stability in a span of 8 degrees Celsius. I dont think so.

 

The basis of protein skimming is based on water tension.

 

Drastic changes in SALINITY will affect your skimmer far more than any temperature differences.

So it shouldn't work any differently then, eh? That's good to know.

[Nuhtty]

So it shouldn't work any differently then, eh? That's good to know.

 

I cant see why it would.

 

The greatest difference you could notice is if you put your skimmer on a freshwater tank. The surface tension isnt great enough to function efficiently on a small scale.

 

Ever notice the protein skimmers in the LFS? Clean, white foam...not the crappy stuff in our tanks. Why? Not because those tanks are cleaner! Because they keep their salinity much lower...1.021 at best...saves $ on salt and also keeps some parasites away so the fish stay healthy, at least until someone buys them and puts them in a regular salinity tank.

 

Now, a salinity with SG of 1.021 and 1.026 can show a discernable difference inthe function of the skimmer.

 

One time I did a water change and my skimmer wasnt skimming great afterwards...no biggie, wait a day or so but it never improved. I check and my SG was 1.015. Some poor measurements on my part (ok, I admit...very poor) let the tank drop to that and my skimmer tipped me off.

 

Of course, 2 days later when my snails stopped moving, that tipped me off too.

 

If you are worried about a skimmer underproduving on a coldwater tank, Im telling you dont. You should shoot for a more powerful skimmer regardless so any deficit you may have would be accounted for.

[apophis924]

Skimmers are in fact a CHEMICAL means of filtration. The filtration takes is based on the hydrophobic properties of protien molecules. One end of the molecule is hydrophobic, the other end is hydrophilic. which means one end of the molecule is repelled by water and the other end is attracted to water. add in some bubbles and one end of the protien molecule will attach to the "surface" of the bubble and the opposite end will position itself 180 degrees from the "surface" of such bubble. Long story short, the protien attaches to the "surface" of the bubble where it can be carried to the collection cup. Since we are dealing with a chemical reaction temp plays a large role. warmer temps increase reation rates. Your skimmer will be more productive at a high PH and warmer temp.

[Mr. Fosi]

Long story short, the protien attaches to the "surface" of the bubble where it can be carried to the collection cup.

 

Indeed, but if you increase temp, you increase energy. Increased energy means more kentic movement of molecules and their bonds.

 

Since this is purely a polar/non-polar association, increased kentics could very easily translate into increased protein/bubble sparation rates. This, of course, would be offset by an increase in molecule/bubble collisions, but we are getting into shaky territory.

 

warmer temps increase reation rates.

 

True, but there is no chemical reaction here. A skimmer is a purely mechanical extraction unit.

 

Chemically, what we have is are areas on various soluable organics that are conducive to an increased affinity for polar or non-polar environments. I just don't see the soluability of organics being noticeably effected by a 10-15F shift.

[SplitSequence]

Fosi is, again, correct. This isn't a chemical reaction, it's a mechanical reaction involving chemicals, and higher temperature means more energy that will compete with the electrical affinity of the micro-bubbles.

 

It should also be noted that warmer temps only usually increase reaction rates, especially in the biochemical setting.

[Nuhtty]

Skimmers are in fact a CHEMICAL means of filtration.

 

 

Sorry man, not true.

 

In order for something to be classified as a chemical reaction there must be a change in state of the reagents involed. In this case, "protein" and "a bubble". Doesnt fit the mold.

 

This is indeed a purely mechanical action. Just like adding soap to a greasy pan. It breaks up the grease but doesnt change its formulation or chemical structure. It just breaks it into smaller pieces that are more easily removed with scrubbing.

 

Now, if you had a protein skimmer than emulsify lipids and turn nitrogenous compounds into non detectable nitrous elements, ######...you would be rich and then you would have your chemical filtration.

 

Leave this discussion to people who have been past college freshman chemistry.

 

 

 

Since this is purely a polar/non-polar association, increased kentics could very easily translate into increased protein/bubble sparation rates. This, of course, would be offset by an increase in molecule/bubble collisions, but we are getting into shaky territory.

 

I think they cancel out...which I think is what you are hinting at.

 

A skimmer is a purely mechanical extraction unit.

 

Yep

 

 

Chemically, what we have is are areas on various soluable organics that are conducive to an increased affinity for polar or non-polar environments. I just don't see the soluability of organics being noticeably effected by a 10-15F shift.

 

Exactly.

[apophis924]

Sorry man, not true.

 

In order for something to be classified as a chemical reaction there must be a change in state of the reagents involed. In this case, "protein" and "a bubble". Doesnt fit the mold.

 

This is indeed a purely mechanical action. Just like adding soap to a greasy pan. It breaks up the grease but doesnt change its formulation or chemical structure. It just breaks it into smaller pieces that are more easily removed with scrubbing.

 

Now, if you had a protein skimmer than emulsify lipids and turn nitrogenous compounds into non detectable nitrous elements, ######...you would be rich and then you would have your chemical filtration.

 

Leave this discussion to people who have been past college freshman chemistry.

I think they cancel out...which I think is what you are hinting at.

Yep

Exactly.

 

 

Skimming is CHEMICAL filtration, no one said it was a chemical reaction, just as carbon is chemical filtration. dont be confused becuase skimming appears to be a physical process, it takes place on the molecular level and there is chemical interaction between hydophobic protiens and water, the same type of interaction that causes detergents to to break up an oil slick. as far as college chemistry goes, i have a slice more training than freshman level. Review your basics and you will see skimming actually is classified as chemical filtration. At anyrate the effetc will be the same whether you understand the process or not,,, nuff said.

[Mr. Fosi]

Skimming is CHEMICAL filtration, no one said it was a chemical reaction, just as carbon is chemical filtration. dont be confused becuase skimming appears to be a physical process, it takes place on the molecular level and there is chemical interaction between hydophobic protiens and water...

 

You are making a pretty fine point.

 

By your given definition, the fact that your fingers can interact with the keyboard (a property of electrostatic repulsion) is chemistry as well, since it takes place on a molecular level and involves the basic molecular parts.

 

I suppose if van der Waals forces can be classed a chemical phenonemon, then you can say that polar interactions are purely chemical, but it does little more than cloud the issue.

 

... the same type of interaction that causes detergents to to break up an oil slick.

 

Indeed it is, but the polar interactions in a skimmer are orders of magnitude less than your detergent example.

 

Regardless, the effect of a 10-15F temp shift is going to be negligible.

[Nuhtty]

as far as college chemistry goes, i have a slice more training than freshman level. Review your basics and you will see skimming actually is classified as chemical filtration. At anyrate the effetc will be the same whether you understand the process or not,,, nuff said.

 

Dont turn this into a ####### contest.

 

My CV would make yours look silly.

 

You ever do any HIC work?

 

By the nature of hydrophobic interactions your argument is flawed. The entire basis of phobics is that hydrogen bonds cannot form.

 

Now, if you want to get into a lengthy discussion on enforced hydrophobic interaction (yes, go google that one) and HIC and how they are entropy driven mechanisms, I would be more than happy to go there.

 

I have more than enough research to back this up.

 

'apophis924', I would refer you to the following:

 

Please read them BEFORE you try to come back with your opinions.

 

Soper A.K. and Finney J.L. Hydration of Methanol in Aqueous Solution Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4346-4349 (1993)

 

Finney J.L., and Soper A.K. Solvent structure and perturbations in solutions of chemical and biological importance. Chem. Soc. Revs. 1994, 1 - 10, (1994)

 

Turner J., Soper A.K. and Finney J.L. Water Structure in Aqueous Solutions of Tetramethylammonium Chloride. Mol. Phys. 77, 411-429 (1995)

 

Bowron D.T., Filipponi A., Lobban C. and Finney J.L. Structural determination of the hydrophobic hydration shell of Kr". Phys. Rev. Letts, 79, 1293-1296 (1997)

 

Bowron D.T., Finney J.L., and Soper A.K. Structural investigation of solute-solute interactions in aqueous solutions of tertiary butanol. J. Phys. Chem. 102, 3551-3563, (1998)

 

Bowron D.T., Finney J.L., and Soper A.K. The structure of pure tertiary butanol, Mol. Phys. 93, 531-543 (1998)

 

Bowron D.T., Filipponi A., Lobban C. and Finney J.L. Temperature induced disordering of the hydrophobic hydration shell of Kr and Xe. Chem. Phys. Lett. 293, 33-37 (1998)

 

Bowron D.T., Filipponi A., Roberts, M.A., and Finney J.L, Hydrophobic hydration and the formation of a clathrate hydrate. Phys. Rev. Letts 81, 4164-4167 (1998).

 

Bowron D.T., Finney J.L. and Soper A.K. Structural Investigation of Solute-Solute Interactions in Aqueous Solutions of Tertiary Butanol J. Phys. Chem. 102, 3551-3563 (1998)

 

J.L. Finney, "The Structural Basis of the Hydrophobic Interaction". In 'Hydration Processe in Biology', ed. M.-C. Bellissent-Funel, IOS Press 1999. pp 115-124.

[apophis924]

whatever, like i said the results are still the same whether you understand the process or not. I stand by my statements. there is no contest. I know the facts and i stand by them. as i stated, the results remain the same if YOU understand the process or not. I know i have a firm grasp of them.

No need to get upset, I am sure this is not the first time nor will it be the last time misunderstandings of chemical prcesses have occured. I'm not sweating it. to each his/her own. I'm done.

[Nuhtty]

whatever, like i said the results are still the same whether you understand the process or not. I stand by my statements. there is no contest. I know the facts and i stand by them. as i stated, the results remain the same if YOU understand the process or not. I know i have a firm grasp of them.

No need to get upset, I am sure this is not the first time nor will it be the last time misunderstandings of chemical prcesses have occured. I'm not sweating it. to each his/her own. I'm done.

 

Im not turning anything into a contest. You want to bring your knowledge, back it up. Thats all I say. Ive defended my share of theses and when doing so you cant spout out a bunch of scientific information and hope the panel doesnt ask you to give evidence where you got it from.

 

Silly...now if you were a scientist you would know that!

 

[jeremai]

You know what the best part is? This entire thread is now completely irrelevant to me. Go figure.

 

[Nuhtty]

You know what the best part is? This entire thread is now completely irrelevant to me. Go figure.

 

 

Jeremai

 

Temperature wont effect your skimmer.

 

Skim in peace my brother.

[jeremai]

No no, irrelevant - I'm no longer planning a cool-water nano; too much work, hehe. But thanks - some poor schmuck will undoubtedly find this fascinating in the future.

[Nuhtty]

No no, irrelevant - I'm no longer planning a cool-water nano; too much work, hehe. But thanks - some poor schmuck will undoubtedly find this fascinating in the future.

 

 

Hahaha!

 

Oh man...

 

Nuhtty OUT!

[supersecretshinto]

I'm that schmuck! Most entertaining post I've read thus far! Like listening to the family discuss religion and politics over thanksgiving dinner.