# Ultrasonic algae control?



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

Ultrasound of swept frequencies from 25-75 khz is apparently being used with success in ponds to kill algae, without harming fish and plants. It's also used as one method to rupture algal cells, to release oil for producing biofuels. And it can destroy bacteria. Different effects can be achieved by varying frequency and power.

So out of pure curiosity, is anyone aware of any experiments using ultrasound in an aquarium?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Does not work in aquariums, we tried it some years ago.
Does not work in ponds either.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

It's good at repelling critters away from your pond. Not sure how those frequencies can rupture cell walls. Those are standard frequencies for pest repellers.

And even if it ruptures cells, wouldn't it rupture plant cells, animal cells?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

A few folks did some research with the AMPS publications, but the power requirements and other issues seemed to be limiting.

I'd suggest a UV instead.

Higher greens are structurally more like plants, at which point you kill the plant cells and the algae...........not much selectivity.

We used these products in a couple of tanks and never saw any differences as far as diatoms or other species. Diatoms tend to be the more sensitive species so we expected to see shifts in species composition etc.

Total Chl a level also remained unchanged(metric for all algae on media).

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

mistergreen said:


> It's good at repelling critters away from your pond. Not sure how those frequencies can rupture cell walls. Those are standard frequencies for pest repellers.
> 
> And even if it ruptures cells, wouldn't it rupture plant cells, animal cells?


I've DIY'ed a few pest repellers. The commercial ones are usually too weak to be effective, but the DIY ones sure work. With a little retuning they become effective people repellers as well. 

But back to ultrasound in water.

Obviously, a powerful ultrasonic emitter would just kill everything.

The trick is to use a frequency that is resonant with some structure in the target organism (not necessarily the cell wall). Damage is not needed, only disruption. Given the size and/or cell structure differences between algae and plants/fish, I can see how the right frequency _may_ be able to selectively disrupt certain organisms at limited power, without affecting others. Whether this works _in practice_ is the question.

Aside from the claims from manufacturers of ultrasonic devices, I did find a few credible-looking research papers reporting that result, especially in wastewater treatment; but at certain frequencies only, and one even reported a frequency that boosted BGA growth.

Which is why this...



plantbrain said:


> Does not work in aquariums, we tried it some years ago.
> Does not work in ponds either.


...is useless for comparison against those claims. No references. No mention of frequency, power, algae type, or other treatment details. You can't just throw an ultrasonic mister at a fixed 1.6 mhz frequency in an aquarium and expect it to work; and for all I know, that's what "we" did. Who is "we" anyway? :tongue:

Not that I have a vested interest in this, or am trying to falsely convince myself that it works, but come on!

EDIT: Ninja'd by Plantbrain. Any of those AMPS publications avaiable online?


----------



## CarolineLems (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm a representant from one of those companies.

DarkCobra is pretty close. He must have studied micro biology or something in the right direction.

Tom Barr's claim of diatoms being more sensitive is also a bit nonsense... Diatoms are made of a hard silicone cell wall and there would thus be NO reason for them to be more sensitive than other species.

Indeed different algae are effected in different ways. By some the cell wall breaks, by others the inside of the cell (called plasmalemma) comes lose from the cell wall and the algae cannot feed itself anymore.

In bluegreens it's the gas vesicles that is the weakest point.

And... some algae are so far to strong for us and we're trying to figure out the right frequencies.

FOX Business Network did a reportage on us last June. You can view it on youtube if you like. If you search for Chemical Free Way to Destroy Water Toxins 

Feel free to contact me directly. Lots of proper studies at hand and willing to answer any questions. We wouldn't exist for more than 10 years while giving a money back guarantee if it was all that bad.....


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

CarolineLems said:


> We wouldn't exist for more than 10 years while giving a money back guarantee if it was all that bad.....


title loan companies have been around peddling junk for a lot longer than that... cash for gold... used car dealerships... half of Ebay...

making money off suckers is easier than one would think.

Not that your product does or does not work, I haven't tried it, but being "around" for a decade certainly isn't proof of it's functionality.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

CarolineLems said:


> I'm a representant from one of those companies. DarkCobra is pretty close. He must have studied micro biology or something in the right direction.
> 
> Tom Barr's claim of diatoms being more sensitive is also a bit nonsense... Diatoms are made of a hard silicone cell wall and there would thus be NO reason for them to be more sensitive than other species.


The frustrals are not what makes them more sensitive, I never stated that did I?

I actually used a product in a client's tank with plants, it did nothing, we used glass slides and measured the Chl a levels and then in the sump, we also measured the Chl a levels via hot ethanol extraction. Since with aquarist, their concern is solely with epiphytic algae, this is a standard method.

Diatoms are used as bio assays since they have a wide range of parameters, thus are more sensitive to environmental change. Whether or not they are due to sonication energy or frequencies, pulse widths, number, shape and so on........who knows?

Anyway, the Chl a levels where no different in the tank or in the sump where the control was placed, we used the same PAR: 55micromols for both locations.

Where's your evidence?:icon_idea
We spent over 2k$ on one of these and post test.

By simply reducing the light down slightly, we achieved a far greater effect, 84% reduction in Chl a by going from 55 down to 35 micromol.

In the lake, we had no effect are several weeks and trials.
The client gave up on it.




> In bluegreens it's the gas vesicles that is the weakest point.


Oscillitoria is the only species that causes issues for anyone here.......and the sonication is a poor method since the epiphytic species are protected from the energy by the plants and rocks, wood, gravel etc. and that is where this species is typically. 



> And... some algae are so far to strong for us and we're trying to figure out the right frequencies.


I doubt the higher greens like Caldophora will be affected by not fine needle plants like Myrios in the submersed state.

BTW, who is going to spend 700$ or more for one of these units for dubious claims on this or any hobby site?

Let's be realistic:wink:



> Feel free to contact me directly. Lots of proper studies at hand and willing to answer any questions. We wouldn't exist for more than 10 years while giving a money back guarantee if it was all that bad.....


This is baloney as as defense argument, there's plenty of things that really do not work but they have a good marketing dept.
jargonchipmunk made mention of this already.

Here's a paper on aquatic plants from the APMS:

http://www.apms.org/japm/vol45/v45p076.pdf

Instead of coming here complaining that this small group of hobbyists are poo pooing the product you peddle........ try supporting your claims and backing them up with some citations if you disagree. You have not done that.

I'm all for non chemical control methods, but they have to be selective, this is not the Pond Forum. We use far more sensitive livestock and plants. I have also used these for client's lakes, we also found no differences when using the larger sonicator units.

Does it help for suspended phytoplankton?
Maybe, maybe not, we do not have management issues, nor do aquairst with those species. When plants are added, we tend to have gin clear water, no plants=> pea soup.

UV works fine for taking care of suspended species.
I honestly wish sonication worked, would be nice. But wishing it to be true is not how I judge it. I've seen no evidence it really does much since if so.........we'd seen a difference, which in several locations and cases over time, we did not.

Those are the facts as far as I know and have experience with, but I'm not a sales person either. If it was really an effective method, say like copper.........most folks would see some effects. I cannot confirm any effect in 2 cases and multiple efforts to try it.

So.......why has it not done anything for my clients?
Wishful thinking/marketing/anecdotal evidence alone are not enough for me.

With copper, UV, light management etc.........we got that evidence.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> Here's a paper on aquatic plants from the APMS:
> 
> http://www.apms.org/japm/vol45/v45p076.pdf


Thanks for the link. It was interesting, and also amusing.

Because this paper is on ultrasonics to eliminate _water chestnut_; which is a plant, not an algae. That's a whole different matter, as killing organisms that large requires too much power to be practical (as they found), and is certainly not useful in a planted tank.

It did have a little to say about algae though:

_"Ultrasound was found to cause cell structural damage and death of algae by the disruption of the connections between the plasmalemma and the algal cell walls (Center for Aquatic Plant Management 2003). Sonication can effectively remove algae, Microcystis aeruginosa, by collapsing of its gas vesicles and causing algae cell to loss its buoyancy (Zhang et al. 2006). Ultrasonic treatment systems have been installed in eutrophied lakes and effectively controlled cyanobacterial blooms (Lee et al. 2002)."_

So you've posted a reference that refutes, rather than backing up, your claims that ultrasonics are useless for algae control. :hihi:

That obvious of an error leads me to doubt the veracity of your other claims, and whether you performed a fair and proper test; more than I doubt by default the claims of anyone who has a financial interest in the effectiveness of a product.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

CarolineLems said:


> I'm a representant from one of those companies.


Thanks for taking the time to join and reply. Thanks also for not making this a commercial posting by referencing your company/product directly.



CarolineLems said:


> DarkCobra is pretty close. He must have studied micro biology or something in the right direction.


Not really, I have a casual interest in all science. Mechanical resonance is really just basic physics.



CarolineLems said:


> FOX Business Network did a reportage on us last June. You can view it on youtube if you like. If you search for Chemical Free Way to Destroy Water Toxins


I will look it up. If you have any additional references to independent full-scale trials or case studies, such that would be considered unbiased, they would be appreciated.


----------

