Is this from dosing H2O2?

[cdnco2004]

In my 220g I had a velvet outbreak. I pulled all fish into QT tanks treated for Velvet and Urenoma. Ran tank fallow for 60 days. Added the fish back and after a month I saw fish scraping their face and gills on the rocks or sand, made me think the fallow period did not work. Pulled fish from the tank put back in QTs with copper power. I have sand beds and rock work in the QTs to help fish stay more comfortable. While they were back in QT some people mentioned that wrasse often will scratch on rocks and sand not because of parasites but because they get sand embedded in gills when digging in the sand for food or burrowing. It was always the wrasse that I saw scratching. None of the other fish. They were doing the same in the QT tanks with copper. I went ahead and left them all in the copper for 14 days and moved them back into the DT. During that time I sent of an eDNA test. While waiting on the results and still paranoid about velvet I started to dose H2O2 during the day and via doser at night. I also have a very large UV running on the system and low speeds. I figured that if I did still have anything the H2O2 and UV should mitigate it pretty well. After about a week of dosing I had to turn off my skimmer because even wide open and at lowest setting it would overflow my 2 liter collection cup in seconds. I have Purit and Rox carbon in canisters in the sump. I stopped dosing did 3 30% water changes in less than a week and it still generates so much foam. I got my eDNA test back and its clean no signs of any parasites in the water sample sent. So my fallow was successful. And H2O2 un needed. I can't get rid of all this foam that builds up. It even builds up where the water overflows out of the main chamber into the return chamber builds up a lot of foam. The only thing different was the H2O2. Is this what is causing all the foam? If so how do I get rid of it? I have refreshed my Rox carbon and Purit but the system is still extremely foamy. Any advice?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don’t think hydrogen peroxide generally causes foaming. What exact material did you add?

 

[cdnco2004]

Standard H2O2

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’m not a fan of hydrogen peroxide, in part due to the inability to know what stabilizers are used. The peroxide itself does not cause foam, but it is possible the stabilizers might.

That said, I think the explanation most likely lies elsewhere.

 

[cdnco2004]

I just cant figure out what. Nothing new has gone into the tank. I am going to be pulling all the fish and rock out in a few weeks to move the tank. It will be getting a full water change at that time. So hopefully it will be gone at that point. I just cant figure out what it could be. The H2O2 was the only changes made in like 3 months since I replaced the sump with a larger sump.

 

[cdnco2004]

Actually I did get new filter socks but I have 2 sumps that take 7" socks and I use them for both and the other is not foaming. So I don't think it's the new socks.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Do you use GAC? It should bind many surfactants.

 

[cdnco2004]

Yes Rox 0.8 carbon. Which I refreshed a few days ago.

 

[vic5hands]

The bottle does not state that it is 3 % Hydrogen Peroxide. It states its a tropical blend. Maybe the blending is causing your problems. I dose 35 ML of hydrogen Peroxide daily with no problems in a 300 gallon system.

 

[cdnco2004]

It DOES NOT SAY TROPICAL BLEND. It say "TOPICAL solution". It is saying TOPICAL because you don't use it internally, you use it on the TOP of your skin, ie TOPICAL. Big big difference. And its standard 3% plus 97% water.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Correct. The only unknown is the stabilizer, which I do not think is causing these issues.

 

[GARRIGA]

I’m not a fan of hydrogen peroxide, in part due to the inability to know what stabilizers are used. The peroxide itself does not cause foam, but it is possible the stabilizers might.

That said, I think the explanation most likely lies elsewhere.

Why I'm leaning food grade and avoid the unknown binders or sodium percarbonate although that contains soda ash and not sure how much extra sodium it will then add which might require adding additional calcium chloride plus part C to balance. No clue how excess sodium impacts the system as not something I've ever aimed for or considered worrying about therefore done zero research but latter would be the cleanest application and cheapest route too.

 

[GARRIGA]

While waiting on the results and still paranoid about velvet I started to dose H2O2 during the day and via doser at night. I also have a very large UV running on the system and low speeds.

Assuming that UV outputs UV-C then that would dissipate the H2O2 passing through it creating hydroxyl radicals. To what extent unknown to me based on the flow and wattage used but the action is occurring. Something I'm in the process of setting up and running experiments to see how it affects various aspects of the hobby. Research only helps so much. I prefer to find out for myself.

Assuming the UV is post skimmer. Try running it prior and see what happens. I'm assuming the hydroxyl radicals would also remove the binding. Randy would be best suited to answer that.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Assuming the UV is post skimmer. Try running it prior and see what happens. I'm assuming the hydroxyl radicals would also remove the binding. Randy would be best suited to answer that.

What binding?

 

[GARRIGA]

What binding?

In the store bought hydrogen peroxide.

 

[GARRIGA]

Should have said stabilizer.

 

[cdnco2004]

They don't list the stabilizer.
The UV-C 36" 90w running at 250gph. It is post skimmer and can't move it before the skimmer without pulling directly from the DT. However currently the skimmer is off due to the foaming issues. When I was dosing it was going into the return chamber with the main return pump and the UV-C pump.

 

[GARRIGA]

They don't list the stabilizer.
The UV-C 36" 90w running at 250gph. It is post skimmer and can't move it before the skimmer without pulling directly from the DT. However currently the skimmer is off due to the foaming issues. When I was dosing it was going into the return chamber with the main return pump and the UV-C pump.

Easy enough to test the UV effluent for trace of hydrogen peroxide. If it's present in the influent yet absent in effluent then that would suggest the UV-C component is dissipating the hydrogen peroxide. The final unknown being if there are stabilizers and if those can be removed by hydroxyls created by UV-C contacting hydrogen peroxide. I suspect all store brand hydrogen peroxides have some stabilizers otherwise how are they able to remain viable after opening. I had a bottle lying around for a year plus since it was opened and still registered high amounts of hydrogen peroxide. Was expecting it to be zero and yet no mention on the bottle of having any stabilizers.

Consider reading up on advanced oxidation process (AOP) and how UV-C combined with ozone and/or hydrogen peroxide form hydroxyl radicals. Strong enough to remove pesticides and why I suspect it will remove any stabilizers added.

The manufacturer of your UV should list the wattage of UV-C produced. Pantair does. Those that don't could be contacted although I'd consider using the Pantair listing as a general gauge. Not that it would help in this situation but knowing that and flow rate used after confirming hydrogen peroxide was fully depleted in the effluent would be good knowledge to have as we can then start sizing this application as I expect once figured out could be used to keep pathogens in check by 100% eradicating that which travels through the UV without worry about matching up overall wattage with flow rate since the OH (hydroxyl) will eliminate all pathogens first pass. Something I'm going to be testing shortly using Biome to confirm introduction of various pathogens and eradication from the water. Or might not. Only one way to find out. Won't remove what's on the fish or not in the flow but reduction my focus. Keep the enemies in check and allow natural immunity from small infections that are survived to build that defense. Going FOLLOW with main I'm designing not an option for me and why I must think outside the box and progress, if possible. Might not. As mentioned.

 

[cdnco2004]

You evidently are not reading what I said.. ITs in the first sentence of the second line its a 36" 90watt bulb

 

[GARRIGA]

You evidently are not reading what I said.. ITs in the first sentence of the second line its a 36" 90watt bulb

That 90w bulb indicates full wattage. Not what is being put out in the form of UV-C. For example, below you will find where a 40w bulb only puts out 12w UV-C. Trying to help. I can stop if you prefer as my reading skills may not be the best but I try