August 16, 2002

This is a test to monitor how water parameters change from a basic life support system (aeration and one foam fractionator) to the increasingly sophisticated. A male ragged-tooth shark (grey nurse, sand tiger in the USA) of 120 kg., was placed in a container with 1,000 litres of water (biomass 1 kg/8,3 litres). The test was run for 43.30 hours. SG of the water was 1,030. All chemical tests were done with JUNGLE Dipsticks and SALTWATER MASTER Liquid test kits. Where there was a difference between the two, the SALTMASTER figures are cited in brackets

Table 1. Two spray bars powered by 2x1,900 litre/hr DC Rule pumps and one foam fractionator (Berlin/Red pHarm Ltd., processing 360 litres/hour), powered by 12 V. 115 amp/hr., battery.

Result: pH drops at an hour +. Ammonia present at 7 hrs. +. It is possible that the nitrate reading is an error or due to contamination.

Table 2. Add 2 cylindrical custom-made uPVC filters of 75 cm x 7,5 cm, each with a capacity of 7,0 litres (mass 8,75 kg) activated carbon. The brand, identified as NC 8x30(C), is made from coal and not washed with any chemicals. The specifications are : Moisture < 5%, Ash < 14%, Hardness > 90, Iodine value 950 mg/g MIN, Particle > 8 Mesh < 5%, 8-30 mesh >90% Min, < 30 mesh 5%. Activation process unknown. Water is pumped up from the bottom of the crate through the filters and exits via the spray bars.

Result: Activated carbon does not stop the drop in pH and has no effect in reducing ammonia which increases dramatically with time. De-burp = Ragged-tooth sharks bloat through accumulation of air in the stomach, rise in the container and will eventually invert (drift with belly up and head and tail hanging down). The belly will be distended, distorting organs, interfere with circulation and lead to death if the animal is not de-burped. This is done by pulling up the shark's snout to open its mouth and inserting a rigid plastic pipe of 20 mm diameter down the throat into the stomach. The trapped air escapes with an audible noise and the animal sinks to the bottom of the tank into a normal resting position. In the holding tank, the animal will begin to swim.

Table 3. Add Amquel.

Result: Amquel neutralizes nitrite and causes a dramatic drop in ammonia as tested with dipsticks but not with the liquid test which show the reverse.

Table 4. Add another foam fractionator (specifications as above) but this time run off AC. current.

*Using SEAMASTER Liquid Test Kit only

Result: Amquel inhibited build-up of nitrite and ammonia for at least 8,20 hrs. hrs. and probably more, as per dipstick readings but increased as per liquid test readings.

Addition of another foam fractionator did nothing to decrease ammonia during 9.30 hrs. operation. The original foam fractionator, run off DC power, produced 20,25 litres of dissolved foam in 44 hours and the second foam fractionator, run off AC current produced, 18,5 litres of dissolved foam in 16 hours 30 min.s. The effectiveness of AC power on the water throughput of the foam fractionator is enhanced 100% +.

Conclusion: Amquel showed an improvement in water quality if the dipstick readings are accepted and this for in excess of 8,20 hrs. The performance of the foam fractionators in disposing of proteinaceous matter was most impressive and most certainly prevented much earlier termination of the test and as such played a major part in - if not improving water quality - then preventing quicker and disastrous deterioration. The poor effect of activated carbon was a surprise, especially so considering the amounts recommended by marine aquarists per 1000 litres (2 cup fulls, viz., 480 cc., to 280 litres of water = 1,714 cc, 36 oz.s (1,08 litres) per 50 gallons (189.25 litres) (Thiel, 1988) and 500 gms per 100 litres (Wilkens, 1986), i.e., 5,7 litres and 5 kg., respectively, as compared to what we used, viz., 14,0 litres and 17,5 litres.

Louis-Pierre la Grange, Curator at the Aquarium, did all tests at the specified times during the period 12.20 hrs., 31/07/02 to 10.10 hrs., 2/08/02, when the shark was released back into the main tank. It is alive and well at the time of writing (16/08/02).

NOTE: This test will be compared with one that proceeds in our routine manner when packing sharks for shipment. With this we give the shark that has been caught up out of the holding tank a spell in a 1500 litre container with fresh, aerated water for a varying period. Profuse slime production is the immediate result of catching up the shark. If necessary, the shark is given a second bath and placed into the shipping crate at a time when all slime production has stopped. The shipping crate will have two spray bars. A foam fractionator and two filters in operation as also two small aerators already running when this is done.

Herewith chemical results of some previous shipments for which water parameters were taken on arrival.

August 17, 2002

This test was set up in the same way as for the ragged-tooth shark of 120 kg. except that the one cylindrical uPVC filter was smaller. The container had 450 litres and there was one spotted gully shark (Triakis megalopterus), 3 dark sharks (Haploblepharus fuscus) and 3 leopard sharks (Poroderma pantherinum) with a total estimated biomass of 30 kg., (1 kg/15 litres).

Table 1. With one spray bar powered by one 1900 l/hr DC pump.

Result:

Within an hour, pH will drop to 7,4 and at 7 hours, ammonia will show at the level of 0.25. The increase in nitrate at 3 hrs., and its return to 0 for the remainder of the test could be associated with the replacement of a fully charged battery which would increase the velocity of water exiting from the spray bar and provide increased oxygenation (voltage on the original battery had dropped to 10 V. and it was obviously faulty).

Table 2. With activated carbon filter

Result: The activated carbon had no effect in reducing the ammonia during a period of 15.20 hours during which time one would have expected a positive result.

Table 3. Add Amquel.

Result: Amquel had no immediate effect on reducing ammonia. It may have kept it constantly at 0,25 for the next 3.10 hrs (perhaps longer). We expected to see an immediate drop as happened during the test with the ragged-tooth shark.

General: The variation in the two different test kit results was a surprise with readings showing very little correlation with time. The sharks were released into the holding pools and as this time show no adverse effects from the test.