Skimmer Performance Article - Thoughts?

Ace25

www.centralcoastreefclub. com
Oct 3, 2005
5,753
0
36
www.centralcoastreefclub.com
So I have been reading this article over and over for about the past month. It takes that many times to start to understand what the heck they are saying.. lol.. but I do find it very interesting and would love to hear other peoples thoughts on it. Is it nonsense, factual, somewhere in between?

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

The conclusion in the article is still a little shocking to me. They did a similar test last year with cheaper skimmers and the big question then was "Do the new $1200+ skimmers like an ATB change the test results?". The answer seems to be NO, which is what shocks me.

Conclusions
Many factors contribute to the "value" of a skimmer to an aquarist, including quality of construction, size, footprint, noise level, ease of cleaning, energy efficiency of the pump, and of course, the ability to remove organic waste from aquarium water. Our data show that there are not compelling or remarkably large differences in measurable skimmer TOC removal metrics among the seven skimmers tested, although the Reef Octopus 150 consistently underperformed compared to the other skimmers. However, in the larger picture, it is equally apparent that if an aquarist runs a skimmer continuously (24/7), then any of the skimmers tested would perform adequately in terms of rate of TOC removal; the only practical differences might involve the frequency of skimmer cup cleaning. A perhaps more interesting observation to emerge from these skimmer studies involves not the rate of TOC removal, but rather the amount of TOC removed. 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. If fact, the presence of refractory, or unskimmable, TOC, coupled with the likelihood that endogenous TOC consumers (bacteria, among others) also do not remove all of the TOC present (cf. Fig. 4), suggest that in an operational sense, TOC can be categorized as follows:

TOC that a skimmer removes
TOC that a skimmer does not remove
TOC that is consumed by microbes
TOC that is not consumed by microbes
TOC that is (indirectly or directly) harmful to tank livestock
TOC that is not harmful to tank livestock

The last two categories must be included as a result of recent work of Forest Rohwer (See the January 2009 Advanced Aquarist article for a discussion), and they really highlight why an aquarist might be concerned with rising tank TOC levels. Of course, there will be much overlap between these categories. Ultimately, the crucial question for sustaining aquarium livestock health over the long term is, "How much of the harmful TOC (#5) is removed by either biological consumption or by skimming?" That question remains unanswered at present.

The results to date on protein skimming as a means of aquarium water remediation form a consistent picture that is at odds with some of the cherished dogma in the marine husbandry area. According to the data presented in this and the earlier paper (Advanced Aquarist, January 2009), protein skimmers appear to have a much larger variation in their prices than they do in their ability to remove TOC from aquarium water. Recent design innovations like bubble plates, conical sides, or pinwheel impellers do not seem to impact significantly on either rate of TOC removal or amount of TOC removed, at least for the skimmers tested. Thus, skimmer manufacturer claims about enhanced organic removal capabilities should be met with skepticism in the absence of compelling and quantitative TOC removal data.
 
Yeah, I had always figured that things like carbon were more adept at organic removal, but I just didn't realize that skimmers were as low as this article shows. I wouldn't call it a shock for me, but it went a bit further than my expectations would have suggested. Makes you think, huh?
 
Thank you! I have had the same thoughts as well about carbon, actually I relied almost solely on carbon being my DOC removal for the past year until I upgraded my skimmer and always thought it did a great job. I removed the carbon when I got the new skimmer and my tank seemed to go downhill even more, so I recently added a BRS dual media reactor to my setup and filled the carbon chamber with ROX. Within an hour there was a noticeable clarity difference in the water.

I tried to bring this topic up on my local reef forum and had it deleted by the admin telling me "It was too controversial to post and would only have a negative effect on the community discussing it". Needless to say, last time I will be visiting that forum. I tried to say a cheaper skimmer like a Bubble Magus along with 2 media reactors (GFO + Carbon) would do MUCH more good for the tank than something like a $600 Warner Marine skimmer. The admin has a WM skimmer and won't have anyone saying anything negative about his skimmer so he deleted my posts as soon as he saw them.

I love AC for this, no mods pressing personal agendas like on every other forum I have ever been on... plus this place has always been a much friendlier atmosphere for discussions than any other aquarium forum I have ever been on... which is the reason I am always here. :)
 
AquariaCentral.com