phosban reactors

[randythereefer]

Okay I have three questions:

1) Is Synthetic ferrous oxide hydroxide the same as 100% German made Granulated Beta-Ferric Hydroxide.

2) What is the best test kit to get? I've used seachem's but it has this goofy green scale thing and after a while it all looks the same. I prefer titration tests. And if all that can be removed by these products is inorganic phosphate shouldn't I just test for that? I mean I know that I think hatch or lamonte or someone makes some super expensive test for phosphates that tests everything. I dunno I'm confused on the whole test kit thing and what to use.

3) Has anyone used the 100% German made Granulated Beta-Ferric Hydroxide is being marketed by Dr. Fosters and Smith on their website as a product called phospure. Phosban which is synthetic ferrous oxide hydroxide says that their product "has the Largest adsorption capacity of any phosphate filtering media". So from that statement I would say that theirs is the best but I don't know the difference between phospure and phosban?

 

[liveforphysics]

For the answer to #2, no kit can test for something that isnt present in the water. Only the inorganic PO4 ion is in the water(in measureable quanity) to test. The other forms of P are tied up in living matter.

 

[DonW]

Don W- I saw your question back there and I will try to answer it for you.

My nitrates on a salifert low range test have stayed undectable for about 6months or so now (since i bought the low range kit). The PO4 has just NEVER been above zero except during the time I freaked when my xenia crashed from lack of Iodine and I set the skimmer up for a couple days thinking it might have been something IN the water rather than something (I2) missing from the water. After those couple days of skimming, my P jumped to something like 0.1ppm. This was the first time in months I experienced a slight haze coating of visible on the glass. After doesing some nitrate rich water to spur a blast of cheato growth, the PO4 was imeadiately back to zero (nitrates were also zero again by the next day), and I havent has a single bit of algae appear since.



Now, for your answer. During this entire time nitrate and phosphate has been undectable, the cheato has been growing like crazy. I dont harvest it unless I have a pet store to trade it in for store credit, or a member of the board to give it to. Ideally, I should harvest it more often to try to maintain the smallest amount of cheato required to keep up with the rate nutrients enter the tank. Im just not paranoid about it crashing though, so I dont really care when I have it accumulate to a few lbs before I havest it.

I'm really not following. If you have cheato it must be alive? If its growing, it must be healthy? If its healthy its getting nutrients? Its in your refugium getting nutrients from your tank?
If I put macro in my sump it starves to death and dies. Why would I want to add "nitrate rich water" just to keep the macro alive and growing?

Don

 

[liveforphysics]

What you need to understand is the reason the nutrient levels are zero'd out is because the cheato is constantly consumeing them to continue its growth.

There is no shortage in the production of the nutrients, the tank is recieveing and produceing tons of nutrients. However, the rate the cheato consumes them is equal to the rate they are being produced. This is the same way the inland aquatics system maintains its nutrients undetectable as well.

The only time the cheato starved was when I fired up the skimmer and it pulled a bunch of nitrogen rich compounds out of the water and into the collection jug. Since the PO4 doesnt increase surface tension on a bubble, the ballence of nutrients was thrown off between PO4 and NO3.

Cheato can only consume about .1ppm PO4 for every 1ppm nitrate it consumes. That would of course be the 10:1 N ratio which is as low as it can still grow with.

You need to think of this like limiiting reactants. Think of cheato as a fire, and N and P as O2 and gasoline. Your tank is produceing a steady stream of O2 and gasoline, which the fire eagerly consumes maintaining zero dectable gasoline and O2 levels. Now, lets say you start removing a portion of the O2 production before it reaches the fire. You are going to begin to accumulate unburnable gasoline. The solution is to add O2 to quickly remove the excess gasoline.


Now, if you wana question the growth of macro algaes in low nutrient levels, just dive, or ask a diver about the 1000s of tangs you see in massively dense groups that roam the reefs like giant living lawn mowers. These reefs of course are all haveing nutrient levels well below whats possible in our tanks.

There have been experiments done where a section of reef is caged off from being mobbed by tangs. With in a few weeks, its thick with macro algaes. After they remove the tang barrier, its back to bare rock with just the stubbles of macro algaes which are constantly growing again.

 

[DonW]

The only time the cheato starved was when I fired up the skimmer and it pulled a bunch of nitrogen rich compounds out of the water and into the collection jug.

Your explanation makes a little sense except for this part. Is there not P04 bound in the nutrients that the skimmer is pulling out.
So asuming you have a system that displays 0 on all nutrient test and has a thriving refugium. You add a skimmer and all your macro starves to death.
Are you saying that the skimmer removed too much N03 and left all the P04 behind.

Don

 

[liveforphysics]

Thats right, PO4- ion does not increase surface tension on a bubble. Inherently only things that increase surface tension on a bubble are extracted by skimming. P is mainly stored in bio mass in the tank where it is unable to be skimmed/tested for/ filtered/ phosban'd etc. The P storage and release method in the tank is very signifigantly differnt from the N method. Also, not being able to eventually arive at a point with just N2 gas evolving from the water is another bummer with P for people without cheato or phosban.


"Are you saying that the skimmer removed too much N03 and left all the P04 behind."

Yes, exactly sir.

I hope this helps.

 

[DonW]

Thats right, PO4- ion does not increase surface tension on a bubble. Inherently only things that increase surface tension on a bubble are extracted by skimming. P is mainly stored in bio mass in the tank where it is unable to be skimmed/tested for/ filtered/ phosban'd etc. The P storage and release method in the tank is very signifigantly differnt from the N method. Also, not being able to eventually arive at a point with just N2 gas evolving from the water is another bummer with P for people without cheato or phosban.


"Are you saying that the skimmer removed too much N03 and left all the P04 behind."

Yes, exactly sir.

I hope this helps.

Let me put it differently. Is there not PO4 in the detritus, micro algae and excess food that the skimmer removes?

Don

 

[liveforphysics]

It is in the live micro algae, and excess food of course. The excess food skimmed out is no different than feeding less however, its not part of any cycle.

Its released rapidly from dead bio mass (detritus), so its not present there. This release is the nitch in the P cycle where a phosban reactor or cheato has the potential to nab it. However, during this time which it is PO4 (the only inorganic form in our tanks) its unskimmable/filterable.

Essentially, as far as P which is available to cause unwanted algae growth goes, the skimmer does nothing. This is why the phosban reactor exists.

 

[Krish]

These reefs of course are all haveing nutrient levels well below whats possible in our tanks

I thought you had 0 nitrates and 0 phosphates in your tank" Isn't that as low as it can go? Do you mean below 0 ppm? I'm all confused now...How about this one, "when I'm asleep I'm awake"

 

[DonW]

P is mainly stored in bio mass in the tank where it is unable to be skimmed/tested for/ filtered/ phosban'd etc.

This is where it got confusing. If its in the water column and availible to the macro it has to be availible to the phosban? With skimmer you can remove more N03 than the macro, thus explaining the die off. Since the same po4 that is availible to the macro is also availible to the phosban. Once the phosban removes the P04 all in all the nutrient levels are lower?

Don

 

[liveforphysics]

Krish, if we could measure in PPB or PPT, it would be obvious and easy to quantify the amount.

When our tests read zero, it means the level is lower than dectable by the precision of our crappy little tests. The salifert low range is OK. It can read down to 0.2 NO3. This means when the level is below 200ppb, we see a zero result with the test.

Think about it, you know ammonia is released into the tank everytime a fish releases it. It reads zero all the time becuase its lower than the precision of the kit.

The nutrient levels in healthy reefs of course read zero on our tests, however, if they were zero, there could be NO corals. The corals ALL require nutrients in the water to survive.

I am trying (sometimes forget) to always say "measure zero" or "undectable" as it doesnt imply the absence of nutrients (which of course is foolish).

 

[Krish]

The nutrient levels in healthy reefs of course read zero on our tests, however, if they were zero, there could be NO corals. The corals ALL require nutrients in the water to survive.

I am trying (sometimes forget) to always say "measure zero" or "undectable" as it doesnt imply the absence of nutrients (which of course is foolish).

Cool...That's what I couldn't understand. Saying 0ppm to me means 0 to me.

 

[liveforphysics]

Don- Thats correct. If its available to macros, its available to phosban. They both do the same job.

As far as the skimmer removeing MORE (more than the macro alone is able to remove) no3 explaining the die off, I dont belive thats the case, but its certianly possible, we would be looking at values in the low PPB range. I belive the reason is because you have 100,000 algae cells to divide whatever tiny bit of nitrate remains among. This causes the starving and die off. Im sure if you placed 1-2 little strands (whatever you system has left) of cheato it would survive, but there would be no point.

Remember, these things are rates. Related rates. We are limited with our tests to just observe simple quanites present in the water sample. When consumption is ballenced with production, you can get the illusion something is absent when in fact its being produced in large amounts.

Its truely dynamic, and we need to be looking at the derivitives and intigrals of these values we can test for. Unfortunately, I cant think of a way to do it yet, but I will be thinking about it.

 

[mojoreef]

Thats right, PO4- ion does not increase surface tension on a bubble.

Yea but it will adhere to the surficants that surface coat the bubble first. Also if you run a slightly wet skimm you get particualte matter.

Don- Thats correct. If its available to macros, its available to phosban. They both do the same job.

Which brings us back to my first comment that they are alike without the Live factor or the fact you need to dose a none toxin (to corals) to get it to operate properly.
Liveforphysics thier is a very important relationship in your system. The relationship that makes it work for you is the sand/cc in the refugium. In the wild thier have been many studies that show that the chaeto beds feed off the Nitrates being spewed out by the sand sediment below them. It can be so much that it can make the water in the algae bed anoxic. This goes with the common premise that a sand sediment system facilitates the export of N and P not so much via cycle but more along the lines of it facilitates the export throw algal harvest.


Mike

 

[ethanriley]

Gabby I use a similar method to Krish in filtering the media through filter floss as it comes out of the reactor. I use an old nano cube pump I had to run the reactor. Make sure whatever company you get it from sends you the new reactor with far less screws that is the one pain in the pattooty I have with mine.

Mike I liked the TKO with live for physics! Just teasing you asked him to substanitate Luke and I think he did. The one challenge I have with your theories is your bio-load compared to alot of the tanks in this forum including my own your bio-load is really tiny. Not to hijack, but if you want a real test on your own tank lets bump up that bio-load with a few more corals and see how they fare. I am an oh natural guy myself, but tanks aren't natural they are man made and like anything we throw out of balance we are always trying to put it back in balance. Mike "anything that is alive is unstable" is a fair comment, however, chemicals and skimmers are no less unstable and can react as visciously as algae. My phosban pump when I first started up was set to high and it caused the media to freak out which in turn tortured and killed one of my early softies. Gabby some medias come with warnings to watch for excessive heat when they are first emmersed so be careful ther as well. Two little fishes recommends their own media and I think that is the one Krish sent you. Please note I may be stating the obvious but for use in the reactor you have to take it out of the media bag it comes in. For some reason you get great tunicate and worm growth in the reactor (at least in mine and Krish's) so it does improve conditions for some natural fauna. I couldn't grow corraline a lick until I added my reactor now I use one in my fresh water tank as well.

 

[DonW]

As far as I know both are proven in their own right. I for one think that both Mojo and Liveforphysics gave us some good info.

Thanks
Don

 

[Skimmy]

you know, i did the whole "lee eng natural tank" thing for probably 10 years, and what i found at the end of that is that my taste for complex corals that required higher water quality than what my macro algae could supply made that methodology insufficient for the results i desired.
again, as stated many times on this website, i really think it comes down to what kind of corals you wish to keep as to which methodology is going to be most appropriate for you. there are corals that simply will never do well in a nutrient poor sps system, and visa versa.
all the anectdotal evidence that i should dump my skimmer and replace it with macro really doesnt pertain to my particular setup, or anybody with a thriving sps set up for that matter. like mojo said,
"been down that road 10 years ago and i dont want to go back"

all of my personal experience tells me that a system that relies on purified water and heavy skimming and the use of media reactors is going to be more stable than one that relies on a dsb, macro, or any other natural means of nutrient export. i prefer to "take away" and then add what i want. but admittantly, if all i was into was some zoanthids, mushrooms, leathers and such it wouldnt much matter which methodology i used.

 

[ethanriley]

Couldn't have said it better myself Skimmerwhisperer. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers Don. My point is that Mojo substantiated his opinions with third party information and pointed out some of "the nasties" that Krish always refers too. Like Luke I take "risks" with my tank. To me that is the beginning of science and I don't discourage him, however, I don't agree with disparaging other methods that quite clearly have an extensive proving ground with far more densely populated tanks and diversity of livestock. If these discussions are ground in personal opinion rather than compounded evidence they begin to lose substance and become ad homminem (check spelling) which neither serves the hobby or reef frontiers

 

[ethanriley]

I think one critical point that may be established by Luke is that if you are looking for diversity of sea life and not diversity or density of coral life then tanks like Mojo's offer an incomplete experience. One of the greatest challenges I am looking to uncover is how to grow some of the gorgeous macro algaes and calcareous algaes we have down here in harmony with my coral growth as it occurrs on our reefs. One of the pictures that Krish took on his Bahamian thread he has a picture of what he thought was a coral it actually is a macro algae that has many differnet hues of pink blue and brown, but I can't get it to grow in my tank. He also has a pitcure of a very clacareous algae that looks like a dense scrub bush but is pink like corraline. In fact when you put it in your tank it generally goes white and then covers with green and pink corraline. I often read some of the "algae problems" that people have and wonder how to recreate their problem in a more harmonic environment with the corals I have. But I think we have gone off the phosban subject so I won't elablorate further. Perhaps we should start a thread tanks in harmony with nature that are working and have been working for an extended period of time. Just my opinion.

 

[spongebob lover]

I'm seriously learning a lot from this thread, so thank you Luke and Mike .
Andrew if you have anymore to say please feel free to ask or say.