# How liquid carbon might work



## akwarium (13 May 2020)

I was doing some reading on the metabolism of plants because I want to improve my fertilizer formula, and stumbled across an interesting part of cells called peroxisome.  One of its functions is to help breakdown toxic substances and waste by producing hydrogen-peroxide (H2O2).   I realized that any organic molecule fully oxidized would give water and carbondioxide.
For gluteraldehyde, (C5H8O2)  the reaction would look like 12 H2O2 + C5H8O2 = 16 H2O + 5 CO2.

The interesting part is that the CO2 will be formed inside the plant cell, that is very efficient compared to dosing CO2 to the water column.

it is just a theory, but I wanted to share it and find out what you think about it?


----------



## ian_m (13 May 2020)

I think you will find though, the actual levels of CO2 produced from metabolism on a liquid carbon are still way below the levels one can achieve by injecting gaseous CO2 in to the water. To achieve equivalent gaseous levels of CO2 from a liquid carbon would require liquid carbon levels that would be quite toxic to both plants and fish.


----------



## zozo (13 May 2020)

It is a mystery how and why it really works, many theories about it, but definitive proof is never determined. It simply works positively on most plants. I recall an article from Tom Barr, more like a thread at his forum about it and he claimed to know, but was unable to elaborate on it due to confidentiality agreement with Seachem. What good is that and why would you claim this? It has little value.

Where the truth hides behind the myth? Who knows... He maybe knows things other laboratory technicians have tried to find and overlooked.

Could be and most likely the case, IMHO. Since its a disinfecting agent with algicidal properties, it was simply implemented for that goal and the rest was coincidental luck. Taken advantage of with a harmless sounding but fake tradename Easy or Liquid Carbon...


----------



## akwarium (13 May 2020)

ian_m said:


> I think you will find though, the actual levels of CO2 produced from metabolism on a liquid carbon are still way below the levels one can achieve by injecting gaseous CO2 in to the water. To achieve equivalent gaseous levels of CO2 from a liquid carbon would require liquid carbon levels that would be quite toxic to both plants and fish.



Yes,  I absolutely agree, the effect of liquid carbon is nowhere near similar as injecting 30 ppm CO2 .  It is not a substitute.
But we should also realize that inject gaseous CO2 is not very efficient, most disappears into the atmosphere, some is  dissolved in the water and a little is used by the plants.   Imagine you could inject the CO2 straight into the plant, it would save you a lot of CO2-bottles.  If Gluteraldehyde is able to enter the plant cells,  the CO2 will be formed there, inside the cells.  That is what makes it interesting.

For the record, in don't use the stuff, and probably never will, but for the first time I consider that it can actually be a carbon source (limited but still) instead of just an algaecide.


----------



## alto (13 May 2020)

In a previous (same) topic I included a link to a study where researchers noted an increase  in aquatic plant mass (growth) when dosing  Seachem Excel 
Also the process by which glutaraldehyde releases CO2 is  well defined


----------



## Witcher (13 May 2020)

It's not a mystery and metabolism from glut to CO2  in aerobic conditions is well documented. As an example abstract from "Aerobic and Anaerobic Metabolism of Glutaraldehyde in a River Water–Sediment System", H.-W. Leung, 2001:

_Material balance studies of glutaraldehyde in a river water–sediment system demonstrate that glutaraldehyde preferred to remain in the water phase. Glutaraldehyde was metabolized rapidly under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The pseudo-first-order half-life of catabolism, based on the loss of glutaraldehyde from the water phase, was 10.6 h aerobically and 7.7 h anaerobically. In contrast, under sterile conditions at pH 5 or 7, no appreciable degradation of glutaraldehyde was observed over a 31-day period. At pH 9, about 30% of the glutaraldehyde degraded over the same period. The major degradate was identified as 3-formyl-6-hydroxy-2-cyclohexene- 1-propanal, a cyclicized dimer of glutaraldehyde. The extrapolated half-life of abiotic degradation was 508 days at pH 5, 102 days at pH 7, and 46 days at pH 9. *Under aerobic conditions, glutaraldehyde was first biotransformed into the intermediate glutaric acid, which then underwent further metabolism ultimately to carbon dioxide.* Metabolism of glutaraldehyde under anaerobic conditions did not proceed ultimately to methane, but terminated with the formation of 1,5-pentanediol via 5-hydroxypentanal as an intermediate._


----------



## tiger15 (13 May 2020)

akwarium said:


> Peroxisome.  One of its functions is to help breakdown toxic substances and waste by producing hydrogen-peroxide (H2O2).   I realized that any organic molecule fully oxidized would give water and carbondioxide.
> For gluteraldehyde, (C5H8O2)  the reaction would look like 12 H2O2 + C5H8O2 = 16 H2O + 5 CO2.
> 
> The interesting part is that the CO2 will be formed inside the plant cell, that is very efficient compared to dosing CO2 to the water column.


Interesting read.   There is an inherent assumption that plant cells can uptake Glut  for the reaction to take place inside the cells.  That said, any uptake of DOC not limiting to Glut  by plant cells will react similarly by generating CO2  internally. The catch is that it is an oxidation reaction that will use up O2.  So to generate say 30 ppm of CO2 one has to dose enough Glut or DOC to use up all (roughly another 30 ppm O2) available oxygen.

The official explanation from Seachem on how  Excel works is uptake of intermediate photosynthetic compounds as described below.  It’s purely theoretical with no  experimental proof that it is happening. 

_The reason plants need CO2 is to produce longer chain carbon compounds also known as photosynthetic intermediates. Photosynthetic intermediates includes compounds such as ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate, and 2-carboxy-3-keto-D-arabinitol 1,5 bisphosphate. Although the names are complicated, the structures are quite simple (5 carbon chains). Flourish Excel™ does not contain these specific compounds per se, but one that is quite similar. By dosing with Flourish Excel™ you bypass the involvement of CO2 and introduce the already finished, structurally similar compounds. It is in its structural similarity that Flourish Excel™ is able to be utilized in the carbon chain building process of photosynthesis. Simple chemical or enzymatic steps can easily convert it to any one to any one of the above named compounds (or a variety of others)._


----------



## jaypeecee (20 May 2020)

Hi Folks,

_Very_ interesting thread. I need to read it several times to take it all in.

I have no intention of detracting from the OP's original post but would it be appropriate to also consider the following thread...

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/whats-this-then.58077/#post-599444

It seems very relevant to me.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (20 May 2020)

alto said:


> Also the process by which glutaraldehyde releases CO2 is well defined



Hi @alto 

I'd like to read more about this. Do you have any scientific papers or articles to which you can point me?

TIA

JPC


----------



## AqueousJungle (21 May 2020)

This article by JBL is not very easy to use I’m afraid as it is split across a few pages and the links didn’t always work last time I visited but it makes for very interesting reading nevertheless:
https://www.jbl.de/?lang=en&mod=blog&func=detail&id=123
of course we know glut to also be an effective algecide, but I personally have my doubts about its suitability for use alongside fish (but I won’t open that debate up here!)
There also a few “Bio CO2” products appearing now based on humic substances / bacteria from what I could find out. I would imagine their effectiveness is even less but MicrobeLift make some quite decent claims about them, I think it was on one of their videos they mentioned reducing CO2 injection requirements by half if I recall correctly - admitedly I can’t find the video now. I’ve no idea how these work in reality at all - anyone more knowledgeable on these products than me?


----------



## jaypeecee (22 May 2020)

AqueousJungle said:


> This article by JBL is not very easy to use I’m afraid as it is split across a few pages and the links didn’t always work last time I visited but it makes for very interesting reading nevertheless:
> https://www.jbl.de/?lang=en&mod=blog&func=detail&id=123
> of course we know glut to also be an effective algecide, but I personally have my doubts about its suitability for use alongside fish (but I won’t open that debate up here!)
> There also a few “Bio CO2” products appearing now based on humic substances / bacteria from what I could find out. I would imagine their effectiveness is even less but MicrobeLift make some quite decent claims about them, I think it was on one of their videos they mentioned reducing CO2 injection requirements by half if I recall correctly - admitedly I can’t find the video now. I’ve no idea how these work in reality at all - anyone more knowledgeable on these products than me?



Hi @AqueousJungle

I'm not a fan of that article by JBL. In fact, the more times I read it, the less I find that it contains anything 'of substance'. Regarding 'Bio CO2' products, thanks a lot for mentioning _MicrobeLift_. This is of interest to me and is very relevant to the thread mentioned in post #8 above, i.e:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/whats-this-then.58077/#post-599444

In the above thread, @X3NiTH was suggesting that _Dennerle Carbo Elixier BIO_  is "likely to be Humic and Fulvic acids...".  It would appear that the _MicrobeLift_  product is also based on these same compounds.

JPC


----------



## Zeus. (22 May 2020)

Was chatting with Clive a bit back on this



ceg4048 said:


> No one except for Tom Barr and Seachem know what LCO2 is and why it works.



Think T Barr did the research got the results and sold them to Seachem - well we all have bills to pay in the end


----------



## X3NiTH (22 May 2020)

I dose Microbe-Lift BioCO2 every other day, have done for the last year or so. My Micro is unchelated (except the Fe) so I use it to mop up free elements and also provide a long chain carbon molecule as a wrapper that plants can utilise fully.

As far as nutritional benefit to plants when these have chelated metals I see it like this  -

Fulvic Acid = Vol au Vont
Humic Acid = Cornish Pastie
EDTA/DTPA etc = Boil in the Bag

The plant has to eat the wrapper and if it can’t digest it then it has to be transported back out as waste.


----------



## jaypeecee (22 May 2020)

Hi @X3NiTH 



X3NiTH said:


> Fulvic Acid = Vol au Vont
> Humic Acid = Cornish Pastie
> EDTA/DTPA etc = Boil in the Bag



Wonderful!!  

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (22 May 2020)

X3NiTH said:


> I dose Microbe-Lift BioCO2 every other day, have done for the last year or so. My Micro is unchelated (except the Fe) so I use it to mop up free elements and also provide a long chain carbon molecule as a wrapper that plants can utilise fully.



Hi again @X3NiTH 

Are you also using CO2 or is the _Microbe-Lift Bio-Carbon_ the only source of carbon? Whilst it's obviously a bonus if this product acts as a chelator, my main interest in it is as a source of carbon.

JPC


----------



## X3NiTH (22 May 2020)

I use it alongside Co2 gas and by my current estimate if I can’t get my bottles refilled by Monday  the Buce will be going solo on the BioCO2. If they do I’ll be tuning the lights way down just in case.

In the absence or poor implementation of supplemental gaseous CO2 any additional carbon sources added I assume would be beneficial, you most likely won’t see the same growth rates.

Humic/Fulvic Acid is an efficient way of getting nutrients into plants along with an additional carbon bump.


----------



## jaypeecee (22 May 2020)

X3NiTH said:


> Humic/Fulvic Acid is an efficient way of getting nutrients into plants along with an additional carbon bump.



Hi @X3NiTH 

What is meant by a "carbon bump"?

JPC


----------



## X3NiTH (22 May 2020)

The ‘bump’ is a euphemism to describe the addition of a vague amount of molecular carbon just a little more than what would be available by other means.


----------



## jaypeecee (23 May 2020)

X3NiTH said:


> The ‘bump’ is a euphemism to describe the addition of a vague amount of molecular carbon just a little more than what would be available by other means.



Hi @X3NiTH 

Interesting. Where would I read about this? I couldn't find any references to it on Google _Scholar_, for example.

JPC


----------



## X3NiTH (24 May 2020)

It’s not a scientific term it just describes height above a level like a bump in the road, the road is level but there is a slight temporary rise in its height. So in this case it means a carbon rise (the dose) above a level (either equilibrium or top of injection profile) for a temporary period (it will be uptaken so the level will fall).


----------



## Nick72 (24 May 2020)

"Last week's overtime gave his wages a bump"


----------



## jaypeecee (24 May 2020)

X3NiTH said:


> It’s not a scientific term it just describes height above a level like a bump in the road, the road is level but there is a slight temporary rise in its height. So in this case it means a carbon rise (the dose) above a level (either equilibrium or top of injection profile) for a temporary period (it will be uptaken so the level will fall).



OK, I'm with you now.


----------

