Calculating CO2 invassion/diffusion into water

  • Thread starter Thread starter jarvik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Co2 Water
AI Thread Summary
Calculating CO2 diffusion in a stagnant aquarium is challenging due to the slow nature of diffusion over larger distances. The discussion highlights that convection currents, even without aerators, can significantly affect CO2 distribution in the water. The experiment aims to understand the isotopic labeling of water by aquatic cellulose and the relationship between CO2 uptake and oxygen exchange. It is emphasized that diffusion is negligible at room temperature for distances greater than a few microns, making it an ineffective method for CO2 transport in this context. For further insights, a referenced paper on oxygen diffusion may provide useful information.
jarvik
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I trying to help someone with an aquarium Experiment. Anyways I'm trying to find sources on how to calculate how fast CO2 should diffuse through their still water surface in response to CO2 demand due to their plants. I have the aquarium dimensions, plant biomass produced over the time period in question but I'm having trouble tracking down appropriate physics info to work it out.

I'm expecting the plants to have been drawing down the CO2 to very low levels such that I think it was being used about as fast as it could enter the system. Any recomendations on formula or good sources to find the appropriate physics solution to calculate how fast/slow the CO2 would entering the system across a stagnant air/water boundary and then diffuse through the water to the plants about 15 cm away?

Thanks for any advice,

Cheers,

Johan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Diffusion is an extremely slow process at distances greater than a few microns. In an aquarium you can forget about it. It is convection a currents induced by aerators which mix the water.
 
Hi,

My friend had no aerators or anything mixing the water. He was trying to look at stable Isotope lableing of water by aquatic cellulose with basic Idea that CO2/cellulose should take on the isotopic signature of the water due to 18O exchange between water and dissolved CO2 (which is supposed to be fast). However his results indicate more of an atmosphereic CO2 labeling was being incorparating than expected so I'm trying to work out if the plant CO2 uptake from the water was faster than 18O exchange between dissolved CO2 and water.

Cheers,

Johan
 
Even if there are not mixing devices, convection is almost impossible to stop. It would ask to maintain the temperature of the aquarium and the room at the same temperature, really the same or maybe at no more than 0.001°. Even when you enter a room, you change the temperature more than this.

I have not understood the " at stable Isotope lableing of water by aquatic cellulose".
In fact a read your explanations several times and still I do not see exactly the situation. You tried to be short, but it is too short for me. Please give a longer explanation. Anyhow, I insist, forget about diffusion. It is really inexistent at room temperature for distances bigger than a few microns (for solids and liquids, for gases in gases it works better).
 
You should have a look to this paper. It is about oxygen, but it could give you a starting point:
http://www.css.cornell.edu/compost/oxygen/oxygen.diff.water.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top