Well, according to Mr. Barr and a few others, CO2 micro bubbles are better than dissolved CO2, even though there is no concrete proof. The theory is that 30 ppm CO2 in water is not as good as CO2 bubbles on leaves (2000ppm). Did you just observe the opposite?
Actually there is "proof", I'd prefer to call it "solid evidence".
It's called a dissolved O2 meter.
Control: tank with reactor that dissolves the gas 100%: add 30ppm of CO2 or slightly more
Take a tank with mist, measure the dissolved CO2 accurately(target 30ppm dissolved).
You can use the same tank but the order of the control/treatment is important: do the Reactor (no mist) control after the mist method. You should not prune the plants in between.
This difference in time between treatments will produce more plant biomass(and thus higher O2 levels as well) for the control test tank.
So you skew the O2 levels to the control.
Allow the tank to grow well for 1-2 weeks prior.
Maintain good light/Nutrients/water changes etc.
Do the mist for 2 days and measure the O2 at various times
Do the control for 2 days after the mist and measure the O2 at the same times as the control.
Maintain similar dissolved CO2 levels or a little higher in the control tank.
This will also skew a higher O2 level towards the control.
Even with the skewing, I found on average of 3 runs, 10-40% higher levels of O2 for each time data point.
Now if there was no effect, I should see equal or less.
Unlike watching pearling, O2 meters are quantifying the production by the plants, this production is growth.
And the pearling is only measured by O2 levels, not any other gases.
And O2 meters have temp compensation ATC (the tank changed 3F with the lights on over the day).
So explain that.
Sounds like the higher O2 is a direct result of the mist effect.