Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

duncan61 wrote:
I am not seeing the problems you are.I have no faith in the media.Yesterday I read an article in the paper that started with everytime you walk on the beach you are walking on micro plastics.I was at Cottesloe and all I could see was sand.It went on to cry about all the reefs bleaching and they have not.Apparently if we vote in Labor and the green party it will all get better

squeal over's sock wrote:These microplastics are, by definition, microscopic.

squeal over's sock wrote:This may help to explain why they are not visible to the naked eye on the beach.

squeal over's sock wrote:They are everywhere now, including the food chain.

duncan61 wrote:
I am not seeing the problems you are.I have no faith in the media.Yesterday I read an article in the paper that started with everytime you walk on the beach you are walking on micro plastics.I was at Cottesloe and all I could see was sand.It went on to cry about all the reefs bleaching and they have not.Apparently if we vote in Labor and the green party it will all get better

squeal over's sock wrote:
Put that sand in water and see what floats to the top. ... If you can get a microscope, you can collect the fine dust that floated to the top, and you can see what microplastics look like.

duncan61 wrote:
I am not seeing the problems you are.I have no faith in the media.Yesterday I read an article in the paper that started with everytime you walk on the beach you are walking on micro plastics.I was at Cottesloe and all I could see was sand.It went on to cry about all the reefs bleaching and they have not.Apparently if we vote in Labor and the green party it will all get better

squeal over's sock wrote:Photos of marine microplastics from a credible source.

squeal over's sock wrote:Duncan61, you have displayed the ability to locate credible sources of information, such as the accurate description of what biogeochemistry is.

squeal over's sock wrote:You gained my respect from the start as a member who ...

squeal over's sock wrote:More respect for the ability to rationally discern what constitutes objective evidence, versus absurd conspiracy theories or flat out anti reality lies.

squeal over's sock wrote:There are credible sources for photos of marine microplastics.

squeal over's sock wrote:They sure don't look like plankton, or anything else of biological origin.

squeal over's sock wrote:Biogeochemistry might even be of some value here.

squeal over's sock wrote:Some of our plastics would make good food for bacteria, if they could just make the right enzymes.

IBdaMann wrote:
The ocean will break it down. I would have thought that a professed preacher of biogeocarpentry would avoid underestimating the power of the ocean.

You should expand your understanding of nature.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The ocean will break it down. I would have thought that a professed preacher of biogeocarpentry would avoid underestimating the power of the ocean.

You should expand your understanding of nature.

It is ironic that this so-called 'expert' on bacteria can't figure out the bacteria that each such plastic in pretty short order. It's the same ones that eat oil slicks.

Yup. Poof...it's gone.

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover
I will be there tomorrow so I will take a sample and do what you have described.I am confident with the size of the ocean V the amount of plastic claimed I may struggle to find anything conclusive

I like this forum and its not personnel to me.It affects my life not at all.Thank you for suggesting field work I had not considered.If I find nothing I will send a sample to a lab.Suggestions

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The ocean will break it down. I would have thought that a professed preacher of biogeocarpentry would avoid underestimating the power of the ocean.

You should expand your understanding of nature.

It is ironic that this so-called 'expert' on bacteria can't figure out the bacteria that each such plastic in pretty short order. It's the same ones that eat oil slicks.

Yup. Poof...it's gone.

Absolutely, but such bacteria is only one of the forces out there. The ocean's constant churning of the alkaline and saline water will destroy anything eventually.

But apparently, biogeocrybabies think plastic is somehow invulnerable.

.

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Sealover
I will be there tomorrow so I will take a sample and do what you have described.I am confident with the size of the ocean V the amount of plastic claimed I may struggle to find anything conclusive

I like this forum and its not personnel to me.It affects my life not at all.Thank you for suggesting field work I had not considered.If I find nothing I will send a sample to a lab.Suggestions

Im a BM wrote:
The black carbon that gets separated out as petroleum coke is MORE dense than water.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
After the last big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, two contaminant plumes were monitored.

One was floating on the surface, blown by the wind, and carried by the surface current.

The other was snaking its way along the seafloor. Heavy with black carbon, this part of the oil spill sank to the bottom, where currents flow differently than at the surface, and gravity pulled the stuff downhill along the paths of least resistance along the seafloor.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Some bacteria have been successfully bred to degrade many of the alkanes in petroleum.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
All alkanes have the same basic chemical formula, C(n)H(2n +2).

Methane, CH4 = C(n)H(2n+2) up to the paraffins C(100)H(202).

The chains vary in length, but their chemistry along the way is uniform.

All single bonds, either C-C or C-H.

So, selectively breeding for one good enzyme wasn't so tough.

Plastics are another story. Lots of C=C double bonds. Depending on the plastic, other ingredients such as oxygen, halogens, etc.

An alkane degrading enzyme can't touch them.

Polyethylene and polypropylene might be the easiest ones to start with, as far as accelerating the evolution of new enzymes go.

Then, the bacteria can do the clean up work for us, if it turns out that the "problem" is not imaginary.

The halogenated xenobiotics are a tougher nut to crack, but much successful work has been done by creating extreme reducing conditions and utilizing bacteria that can perform reductive dehalogenation, when provided with carbohydrate or other energy-rich organic carbon food source.

Then upon return to aerobic oxidizing conditions, other bacteria easily clean up the leftovers.

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover
I will be there tomorrow so I will take a sample and do what you have described.I am confident with the size of the ocean V the amount of plastic claimed I may struggle to find anything conclusive

I like this forum and its not personnel to me.It affects my life not at all.Thank you for suggesting field work I had not considered.If I find nothing I will send a sample to a lab.Suggestions

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover
I will be there tomorrow so I will take a sample and do what you have described.I am confident with the size of the ocean V the amount of plastic claimed I may struggle to find anything conclusive

I like this forum and its not personnel to me.It affects my life not at all.Thank you for suggesting field work I had not considered.If I find nothing I will send a sample to a lab.Suggestions

maybe add one drop of gasoline.

Gasoline is almost 100% heptane and octane.

These two alkanes are basically inert for spontaneous chemical reactions other than combustion with oxygen.

They are also pretty good solvents for polyethylene and polypropylene.

So, if you can get a good look at a slide under a microscope, first get a good look at all the visible objects.

Add one drop of gasoline and wait a while.

Put the cover slide back on and see how many of them dissolved.

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover
I will be there tomorrow so I will take a sample and do what you have described.I am confident with the size of the ocean V the amount of plastic claimed I may struggle to find anything conclusive

I like this forum and its not personnel to me.It affects my life not at all.Thank you for suggesting field work I had not considered.If I find nothing I will send a sample to a lab.Suggestions

maybe add one drop of gasoline.

Gasoline is almost 100% heptane and octane.

These two alkanes are basically inert for spontaneous chemical reactions other than combustion with oxygen.

They are also pretty good solvents for polyethylene and polypropylene.

So, if you can get a good look at a slide under a microscope, first get a good look at all the visible objects.

Add one drop of gasoline and wait a while.

Put the cover slide back on and see how many of them dissolved.

duncan61 wrote:
I had a magnificent lunch overlooking Cottesloe beach and all I could see is sand.I was reading the west paper and next to the letters page was an article on plastics in the ocean.It claimed when Australians pick up sand on the beach they are picking up micro plastics in the sand.I am going looking for this stuff.

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover
I will be there tomorrow so I will take a sample and do what you have described.I am confident with the size of the ocean V the amount of plastic claimed I may struggle to find anything conclusive

I like this forum and its not personnel to me.It affects my life not at all.Thank you for suggesting field work I had not considered.If I find nothing I will send a sample to a lab.Suggestions

maybe add one drop of gasoline.

Gasoline is almost 100% heptane and octane.

These two alkanes are basically inert for spontaneous chemical reactions other than combustion with oxygen.

They are also pretty good solvents for polyethylene and polypropylene.

So, if you can get a good look at a slide under a microscope, first get a good look at all the visible objects.

Add one drop of gasoline and wait a while.

Put the cover slide back on and see how many of them dissolved.

The off the cuff suggestion certainly applies to polyethylene and polystyrene.

One drop of gasoline will dissolve these two common plastics, and others.

Polypropylene and polyurethane, not so much...

The color from the dissolved plastic, if they had color added, will bleed out.

There should be a visible difference under the microscope. Fewer particles, and more color in the matrix.

And if I do what I said and give it more thought and look up a few things, there are other simple things you could try at home.

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I had a magnificent lunch overlooking Cottesloe beach and all I could see is sand.I was reading the west paper and next to the letters page was an article on plastics in the ocean.It claimed when Australians pick up sand on the beach they are picking up micro plastics in the sand.I am going looking for this stuff.

Just so you know that I'm taking your question seriously.

And because I'd love to think up a triple cocktail of the kind of solvents one can find at home so that anyone else who is interested could try it.

Nail polish remover is most often acetone.

Acetone also dissolves many plastics, PVDF, polycarbonate, polysulfone, cast acrylic, PVC, and CPVC, among others.

The combo of gasoline and acetone will dissolve a wider array of plastics.

Now, to find a third household solvent to dissolve some of the others.

duncan61 wrote:
I have plumbing cleaning fluid. It takes the shine of of uPVC pipes before the solvent is applied. I will put the sand in a steel bowl then fill it up with cleaner and let it evaporate. The plastic may coagulate and be a lump at the bottom of the bowl.

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have plumbing cleaning fluid. It takes the shine of of uPVC pipes before the solvent is applied. I will put the sand in a steel bowl then fill it up with cleaner and let it evaporate. The plastic may coagulate and be a lump at the bottom of the bowl.

Hi duncan61

I'm not real big on recycling plastic.

It would be better not to make most of it in the first place.

The TV ads hyping how great the plastic recycling is for the world usually forget to mention that they only catch a very small fraction, less than 10%, of the total.

The sure fire techniques to dissolve plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene generally require about 160 degrees Centigrade to work.

You probably don't have any xylene or 1, 2, 4 - trichlorobenzene at home.

But it's a chance to preach about the hazards of recycling plastic.

In the 1980s, before plastic waste was everywhere...

Some poor folks in poor countries did this at home.

They collected plastic waste, washed it, and dried it.

Then they added their non polar or chlorinated benzene solvent and heated it up, breathing poison in the process.

The "melted" (dissolved) plastic could then be molded into wash basins, etc.

I watched a guy get sick while doing it.

I'll get back to you with more ideas for home experiments.

Im a BM wrote:
Halogenated xenobiotics in the ocean.

Much attention is being paid to plastics in the ocean.

Some of these plastics, such as PVC (poly vinyl chloride), are very difficult to degrade because their molecular structure contains halogens such as chlorine.

Halogens include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine.

Many of the halogenated xenobiotics that humans have put in the ocean are not plastics.

Im a BM wrote:
Take DDT as a case study.

DDT is an insecticide that was once widely used in agriculture and other pest control.

Birds up the food chain, after feeding on insects and other critters that had sublethal doses of DDT in their bodies, ending up laying brittle eggs and bird populations plummeted.

Im a BM wrote:
Rachel Carson wrote the famous book "Silent Spring" about it.

Im a BM wrote:
She was wrong in her prediction that DDT would prove toxic to human beings.

The use of DDT in malaria control was never banned.
...deleted fiction and spam...

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was my first post, a little less than six months ago.

That's how I know there were 1587 members at the time.

Earlier today, this post was described by the dominant troll:

"You(r) first post was a veiled attack on the posters of this site who think independently..."

Hmmm...

Within hours of this first post, the dominant troll said:

"You are a liar. You came to this site to preach non-science gibber babble."

Well, it's only natural to be offended by such a "veiled attack".

Calling someone a "liar" is a very low form of "debate".

Posting a map to a member's home and providing names of that member's family is an even sleazier way to win a "debate" about science.

And the website owner really doesn't give a shit.

That is probably the single biggest reason that fewer than 16 out of 1619 members have posted more than twice in the last six months.

Im a BM wrote:Posting a map to a member's home and providing names of that member's family is an even sleazier way to win a "debate" about science.

Im a BM wrote:And the website owner really doesn't give a shit.

Im a BM wrote:That is probably the single biggest reason that fewer than 16 out of 1619 members have posted more than twice in the last six months.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.

sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms?

Im a BM wrote:However, the abstract contains something the fills me with pride.

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

sealover wrote:

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One year ago today, this was my first post at this website.

I had high hopes for the potential of this website.

I should have realized that the worst trolls had already been here for more than seven years.

Make that eight years now.

Never did find another member who was interested in real world environmental chemistry.

But I look in once in a while, just in case someone new joins who might be competent to discuss these things.

A new member would not have to be exposed to troll attack by posting.

I still check once in a while to see if I received any PMs.

Kind of sad to see a year later there are even FEWER members participating in the discussion.

squeal over furniture wrote:But I look in once in a while

IBdaMann wrote:

squeal over furniture wrote:But I look in once in a while

Wrong. You never leave. Never. You can't. You just can't.

Something about this site drew you here like a magnet and now has you so obsessed that you cannot leave.

Welcome aboard.



p.s. - you sure whine a lot.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

squeal over furniture wrote:But I look in once in a while

Wrong. You never leave. Never. You can't. You just can't.

Something about this site drew you here like a magnet and now has you so obsessed that you cannot leave.

Welcome aboard.



p.s. - you sure whine a lot.

LOL, it is true that none of your schizzo personalities can leave, as they just float in your head until needed. Whine away and shake your jelly-donut loaded finger again while you point it at me and tremble.

PS. Any resemblance to real jelly-donut loaded fingers is unintentional.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

squeal over furniture wrote:But I look in once in a while

Wrong. You never leave. Never. You can't. You just can't.

Something about this site drew you here like a magnet and now has you so obsessed that you cannot leave.

Welcome aboard.



p.s. - you sure whine a lot.

LOL, it is true that none of your schizzo personalities can leave, as they just float in your head until needed. Whine away and shake your jelly-donut loaded finger again while you point it at me and tremble.

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snarky replies:

LOL, the fact is that tons of hydrogen sulfide pour into the oceans every day if not minute, and that this is over 500 degrees centigrade, and it's completely normal and has been happening for billions of years

Im a BM wrote:So, some of the hydrogen sulfide entering sea water is of geologic origin.

It's net effect is acidifying.

Im a BM wrote:But sulfuric acid is a minor player in ocean "acidification".

Carbonic acid, a very weak acid formed by carbon dioxide in water, is added to the ocean at a rate orders of magnitude greater than sulfuric acid.

Im a BM wrote: As far as the "billions of years" go, geologic emission of hydrogen sulfide is tiny today compared to what it used to be.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snarky replies:

LOL, the fact is that tons of hydrogen sulfide pour into the oceans every day if not minute, and that this is over 500 degrees centigrade, and it's completely normal and has been happening for billions of years

Yes, "tons of hydrogen sulfide pour into the oceans every day."

A small fraction of the total hydrogen sulfide coming into contact with sea water is of abiotic, geologic origin. Deep sea vents and other contact points where H2S from deep underground comes up into the sea. A small fraction of the total.

Where does the vast majority of H2S coming into contact with sea water come from?

Microbial reduction of sulfate.

Sulfate reducing bacteria live in low oxygen conditions.

They use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from oxidation of organic carbon.

Often the reactions are carried out over multiple steps by more than one species of bacteria.

One example of the overall reaction is with oxidation of methane.

sulfate + methane = hydrogen sulfide + carbonate + metabolic energy

SO4(2-) + CH4 = H2S + CO3(2-) + energy

So, what happens when H2S contacts sea water?

H2S = HS- + H+ It just released a proton to act like an acid

A more complete look at sulfate reduction coupled to methane oxidation:

SO4(2-) + CH4 = HS- + HCO3- + H2O

You already got one mole of alkalinity produced, as bicarbonate (HCO3-)

Where does the HS- go?

Most of it ends up as iron pyrite, FeS2, a solid iron sulfide, consuming another proton to neutralize more acidity

Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity.

Bicarbonate supplies most of the alkalinity in sea water.

Carbonate is the second largest source of alkalinity in sea water.

They are both oxidized forms of carbon (aka "inorganic")

So, some of the hydrogen sulfide entering sea water is of geologic origin.

It's net effect is acidifying. Especially when sulfide oxidizes (with oxygen) to make sulfuric acid.

But most of the hydrogen sulfide contacting sea water is generated during sulfate reduction by microorganisms, as part of an acid neutralizing reaction.

Anaerobic sulfate reduction, which consumes no free oxygen, generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of sulfate reduced to sulfide

Conversely, aerobic sulfide oxidation produces two moles of acidity.

H2S + 2 O2 = H2SO4 (an acid with two protons for two moles of acidity)

But sulfuric acid is a minor player in ocean "acidification".

Carbonic acid, a very weak acid formed by carbon dioxide in water, is added to the ocean at a rate orders of magnitude greater than sulfuric acid.

As far as the "billions of years" go, geologic emission of hydrogen sulfide is tiny today compared to what it used to be.