Yes, you could do that, if..............we burn every available fossil fuel, and wait about 1000-8000 years.
Then bubbling the CO2 enriched air would give you about 25ppm.
The issue is the rate of diffusion is so slow in water and boundary layer formation.
10,000 slower and 10,000 more energy required to overcome that.
We can dramatically help that by increasing flows and concentration.
That's why we get 1000%-2500% faster rates of growth.
Nutrients ike N and P are small potatos.
Also, a word of warning, just because it's on the web does not mean it's correct.
Never stake your life etc on it
Oxygen Solubility in Fresh and Sea Water
This is a good graph of O2 and air in both FW and Marine.
Here's a calculator:
Oxygen Solubility
Knock yer selves out.
CO2, let's consider CO2 and O2 for fish and plant CO2 uptake across a membrane within a discussion:
Carbon dioxide Solubility in Lungs
Ah.........it may be very different once we add a lipid membrane in the way huh?
A polar solvent and non polar gases (Think oil and water), but CO2 ionizes from CO2 to form polar HCO3 etc, O2 does not. So you end up with a lot more CO2 being able to dissolve than you might predict just looking at the non polar gases.
O2? Not much. Same for N2 gas.
This is a fun question and stumps many.
The above gives a reasonable quick guide about why.
Here's another good discussion about CO2, O2 and also N2 as a non polar gas as well(not bad to look at other like situations)
:
Applied Aquatic Ecosystem Concepts - Google Book Search
This gives yet another ratio between O2 and CO2. Since we deal with biological systems(plants, bacteria, fish, inverts etc) and things having to go across membranes, I'm more inclined to go with the 20:1 ratio.
Note, for us and for fish and plants etc..........all gas exhgcnage goes into "water solutions", not as a "gas". Your lungs dissolve O2 and CO2 release etc from liquid solutions(blood).
If you look at pH's effect on CO2 solubility, as many new hobbyist do, you might think that simply lowering pH will give you more CO2.
No..........it does not! Adding salts or pH lowering chemicals that are not carbonates etc, will not does this with CO2.
If you want more CO2, add more CO2 gas. This is rather self evident, but folks confuse themselves and others confuse them even further by not understanding it either. The pH is determined by how much KH is there, not pH in and of itself directly. Yes, you can dissolve CO2 more easily(more will be in the form of CO2[aq]), but this really does not matter much since we add gobs of CO2 gas anyway. That's the part that counts for us.
KH/pH will vary at equilibrium from many folk's differing tap waters. So do not concern yourself too much with that, stick with KH and CO2.
Focus there.
But do not try and save all the CO2 etc you can either while ignoring O2.
Make sure to have a good amount of O2 for the rapid biological cycling of waste and for fish health and vigor.
CO2 dissolving efficacy is mildly important, we can always turn the valve a little bit more one way to adjust the CO2. O2 needs more exchange with the air most of the time and the little CO2 loss is easily made up for. During the day/light cycle, O2 is high from plants/algae etc.
So it's less important to crank the surface movement.
So night time aeration while not needed typically, can be done also.
I prefer good current all the time so that makes up for the aeration and I just add a bit more CO2 for the 8-10 hours of light I use.
But...............you can do that+aeration at night also.
This is a redundant 2nd back up, and also provides even more room for error with CO2 in case you added a bit too much for the fish during the day, it's quickly blown off at night. The higher current keeps the surface scum at bay, adds O2, and mixes the CO2/nutrients very well, so that's a good thing whether you use aeration or not.
They complement eachother redundantly.
Now...........all this is far more complex than many hacks on the web will suggest, they gloss over CO2, barely mention O2.......and then blame nutients for every woe they have and how their own unique method will cure all that ails ye. I make no such claim, I've long said CO2 is the root of 95% of folk's issues. I might consider 80% and then 15% O2. 5% the rest. If you look at light and do not simply assume whatever light they have and adjust CO2 from there, then light is about 40%, CO2 about 40% and O2 about 15% and nutrients about 5%(and the easiest to manage/test with confidence).
If all you have is 1/3 of what plants use to grow to base your ideas on and are able to test, then it's no wonder there's too much focus on nutrients by hobbyists.
So they are hardly to blame.
Regards,
Tom Barr
