WT rent PAR meter

[dshel1217]

Does anyone rent out or come by and do PAR readings?

Thanks

[jolt]

River City Aquatics. I think it's $5 for a week or something like that.

[something to reef on]

I have their par meter right now and will be returning it later today. They didn't charge me, just took down my info and let me use it for the week. Not sure if they have more than one or a waiting list, but like I said I will be returning it later today.

[victoly]

George Monnat donated the PAR meter for club usage. RCA holds it and lends it to club members.

[something to reef on]

When I picked it up no one there was quite sure how to use it. A quick Google search lead me to a post on reef central that was a snip from a post by Victoly. Thanks for your help Victoly!

[jolt]

I remember now, they ran my credit card but it was only for insurance. They did not charge me, they tore up the charge when I returned it.

[victoly]

When I picked it up no one there was quite sure how to use it. A quick Google search lead me to a post on reef central that was a snip from a post by Victoly. Thanks for your help Victoly!

I'm internet famous! Thank George Monnat, he's the one who donated it and did almost all of the legwork.

[something to reef on]

Well thank you to sir! This does appear to be his post. Below if anyone wants to check it out, it definately helped me.

LEDs and PAR/Quantum Meters Part 3: Quantum Sensors and LEDs

Posted 05/02/2012 at 11:17 AM by GeorgeMonnatJr
Updated 06/18/2012 at 08:30 AM by GeorgeMonnatJr

I've finally reached the meat of my blog where I post the stuff that I find myself repeating in multiple threads, continuing from my general thoughts on technologies (Part 1) and the definition of PAR (Part 2).

As before, this blog is as much a place for me to keep my thoughts straight and engender discussion and something to refer to instead of retyping the same material a lot as it is a place to share information.

I'm not even close to being an expert on reef tanks, yet (maybe in a couple of decades), and I'm not a biologist or botanist. If you are an expert and you see something factually wrong please let me know, and I'll correct it. (Comments on my grammar and citation style will probably be ignored )

I do know LEDs and silicon-based photometers/photo-sensors (my title at work is Optoelectronic Engineer). I find myself re-posting the same graphs and explanations, so I figured I'd put it all in a blog that I can refer people to as needed.


Quantum Sensors and LEDs

The Apogee Quantum Sensor

As discussed in Part 2, Photosynthetically Useful Radiation (PAR) is defined as all photons, or light, in the range of the visible spectrum, 400nm-700nm, because that is the light energy needed for photosynthesis of all types to occur. Silicon-based light or photon sensors, like the photo-diode, have a sensitivity or response to light in that range, but the response is not uniform. Photodiodes are much more sensitive to amber or orange/red (600nm-650nm) than to blue (400nm-480nm). Apogee's SQ line of quantum sensors is calibrated to make the photodiode curve more uniform, but it still isn't perfect (and can't be close to perfect for less than $1,000's) [10].



Here again are the spectra for my TMC AquaRay LEDs (based on CREE LEDs) [4].



If you overlay the blue-driven white LED spectrum over the curves for chlorophyll, it looks pretty much like this chart from MARINELAND [11]. (I call them blue-driven white LEDs instead of just white LEDs as a reminder from Part 1 - it's very important.)



The two major things that I notice from that graph are:

1) the high AquaRay blue and MARINELAND white LED peaks line up very nicely with the ~460nm chlorophyll b blue peak and the high AquaRay white LEDs line up nicely with the ~440nm chlorophyll a blue peak (without either creeping below 400nm into the dangerous UV-A) and

2) the Apogee SQ-110 quantum sensor [10] that I own is only about 80% "sensitive" to blue light around 450nm.

Here's the crux of my discussion: If the lights over the aquarium are blue and blue-driven white LEDs with the majority of light energy around 450nm and the quantum sensor only reads 80% of photons with wavelengths around 450nm, then the PAR meter reading for those LEDs must be multiplied by a 1.2 correction factor. Some will say it's technically 1.25 (1/0.8), but without accounting for the phosphor generated non-blue contribution I don't think 1.25 is perfectly accurately and maybe a little worse.

To back that up, I'll quote a second-hand email that a friend posted in my local forums, Austin Reef Club (ARC) [12].

Quote:

Originally Posted by victoly in ARC

Email from Apogee Instruments on Measuring LED with Quantum Sensor:

"In regards to measuring LEDs with our quantum sensor, there are some caveats to doing so. The following link shows the spectral response of our quantum sensor (http://www.apogeeins...alresponse.html). As the graph shows, Apogee quantum sensors underweight blue light, and as a result, photon flux measurements for blue LEDs will be too low. They also overweight red light up to a wavelength of approximately 650 nm, above which they do not measure, and as a result, photon flux measurement for red LEDs will either be too high (if the LED output is all below 650 nm) or too low (if a non-negligible fraction of the LED output is above 650 nm). Additionally, LEDs often have a very narrow spectral output, with a sharp peak of only a few nanometers. So, unless the quantum sensor has a perfectly flat spectral response, meaning it weights all wavelengths of light exactly the same, there will be errors. Electrically calibrated Apogee quantum sensors will likely provide a reasonable measurement for white LEDs because they are broadband, and because electrically calibrated quantum sensors are calibrated under CWF lamps. However, for narrowband LEDs, like red and blue, Apogee quantum sensors will not provide an accurate measurement.

As a less accurate method you can use the same spectral response graph as mentioned above to get a relative idea of the error. For example, a 450nm blue LED will have a relative response of approximately 0.8. Therefore, you can figure that the photon flux reading from the sensor is reading approximately 20% low. Just remember, this approach is only relative so give yourself a wide margin of potential error. A blue/white configuration should give you reasonable accuracy, particularly from the broadband spectrum of the white.

It would be more accurate to figure out the non-blue component of the LEDs and multiply that by 1.0, then figure out the blue component of the LEDs and multiply that by 1.2. That is a lot of work I'm not currently equipped to handle. I've chosen to multiply the total by 1.2 for the main reason that it's conservative and helps prevent bleaching of corals and others due to light shock or too much light.

One thing to remember is that pretty much any quantum sensor you buy for < $500 will be based on the same technology as the Apogee SQ-110 and will have a similar response curve, meaning that the rough factor of 1.2 still applies.

I've noticed a lot of posts here on Reef Central and elsewhere where people complain about corals and/or others bleaching with the root cause of too much light discovered later. A perfect example is
is it just me or it seems many LED users get coral bleaching/ lightening?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevensquint

I hang out in 3 forums in different parts of the world and everyday there is a new thread or two with coral bleaching under LEDs. I myself have been frustrated with the same situation under my Radion. Some may blame poor or lack of acclimatizing the corals to the light, maybe the case sometimes. But I'm going to propose an idea based on what I have experienced...

How I Put Together My Equipment

Instead of paying hundreds of dollars on a PAR meter, I bought an Apogee SQ-110 sensor (click on "Order Sensors" on left) and borrowed the digital multimeter (DMM) from work. As long as your DMM reads in millivolts (mV), or thousandths of a volt, then you can use it with the SQ-110 quantum sensor to get PAR readings. There are a lot of cheap DMMs available that will work just fine. You simply multiply the mV reading (or thousandths of a volt) by 5 to get the PAR value. As a bonus, you have a DMM that can be used to test for stray voltages, grounded circuits, live wire and many more things, too, instead of just a more expensive meter that only reads PAR.

The gain/output on the Apogee SQ-110 is 5.00 µmol m-2 s-1 (or written as µmol*m2*sec) per mV, so if you get a mV reading of 20mV (0.020 V) that's 100 PAR. Since I have LEDs, I then multiply it by 1.2 for 120 PAR.

(20 mV) * (5 µmol*m2*sec/mV) * 1.2 = 120 PAR

or

(0.020 V) * (5000 µmol*m2*sec/V) * 1.2 = 120 PAR


Note: Don't make the same mistake I did of paying for a Fluke 113. I spent the extra money ($95), because I wanted accuracy and needed to use the DMM for other, non-aquarium things. Unfortunately, the Fluke 113 doesn't work with the SQ-110. It's a low impedance DMM for better accuracy and doesn't have the option to change its impedance. The sensor was built to work with a standard voltmeter.



Part 1: Technologies

Part 2: PAR


References

[4] Quality Marine: AquaRay USA, Spectrum of Marine White and Reef Blue LEDs [pdf], 02MAY2012

[10] Apogee Instruments, Inc., Quantum Sensors and Meters: Spectral Response, 02MAY2012

[11] MARINELAND, Light sustains life, 02MAY2012

[12] victoly, Austin Reef Club (ARC), My First Coral and Clam post #9 on 29APR2012, 02MAY2012