Skimmer functionality when running a scrubber

[Floyd R Turbo]

I wanted to get some discussion going regarding changes in skimmer functionality when running a skimmer and a scrubber.

I recall reading people mention that their skimmer tends to skim less, lighter, etc after installing a scrubber. The mantra of the past has been the desire to get rid of the skimmer in place of the scrubber. However I have shifted my feeling on this issue. So hopefully those of you who run both can chime in with some before and after type experience.

Things like - does your skimmer:

Produce more or less? (I guess this depends on settings...)

Produce lighter or darker?

Act more tempermental, or is it more consistent?

Etc...the latter was one that actually caused me to start this thread. 2 of my customers have noticed (on 3 tanks total) that their skimmers have "calmed down" - meaning, they can adjust to a set point, and the skimmer will stay there, whereas in the past they would get more erratic output like overflowing and bone-dry skimming, with no predictable pattern.

[sabbath]

Yes my skimmer is running unusually consistent in a scrubbed system. Not sure if it is because it is cleaning up algae at the time or not?

I would say that the skimate is medium colored. I have the foam head higher then I did without a scrubber. So I'm also finding that it is skimming less and that the foam is also very stable.

I'm running both of my setups with the water going to the skimmer first. Then the scrubbers inlet is at the skimmers output where there is a bunch of micro bubbles going into the scrubber. Then I have a carbon reactor with Rox8 last. This is doing as good of a job at cleaning the algae in both of

[elveloz]

I have a Pro Clear Aquatic skimmer which I noticed is only one setting. After I made scrubber the first 4 weeks the skimate produce was very dark colored and not to much in volume. Now after four months the scrubber is growing a more light green algae and skimate produce is more in volume but is a very light brown colored, like when you add water to coffee; the smell is not as strong as before.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Thanks for the info elveloz

All skimmers have a setting function, it's just that some are better than others. For all intents and purposes, it is the only setting on every skimmer out there - changing the level of the water inside the skimmer body, which is done by restricting the outflow. Not to go too far off the topic, but from a google search it looks like yours is adjustable by extending or shortening the outflow pipe, which looks like it has a coupler of some kind on it, so if you wanted to skim more, you would raise (extend) this pipe. Others might perform this function with a gate valve or ball valve, but it's the same end effect really.

The other thing that is important for consistent skimmer functionality is to have it running in a chamber with a constant water level - without that, your skimmer will skim more heavily with a higher water level and less with a lower level as the level inside the skimmer is also relative to the water level outside of it, and the difference in the 2 levels is mandated by the pump head pressure (more so on gate valve controlled skimmers than output level control skimmers).

So back on the topic...is yours running in a constant level chamber/etc?

[elveloz]

So back on the topic...is yours running in a constant level chamber/etc?
Yes, it's running in a constant level water. The chamber has a water level mark and the water is at the mark. I bought the tank used with all the equipment and the outflow pipe came like that. I use to own an Octopus but I like this one more, is so easy to clean! The sump has a constant water level too.

[Skinnysloth]

I have noticed more skimmate production, which could be the result of the skimmer's new-found consistency. I haven't had to mess around with the water level setting inside the skimmer for months. Usually what happens is my skimmer would start to over flow and I would have to dial down the water level inside the skimmer. I'm assuming it has something to do with more 'junk' in the water, because after a water change I have to raise my water level settings again.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I had to read that a few times. So what you are thinking is that without the scrubber, the skimmer would "act up" as more time had passed since the last PWC, then when you did the PWC, the skimmer would "calm down", forcing you to raise the level in order to get it to skim. Right? Then, as time went on, you would have to lower the level as the water got "dirtier".

So the net effect of the scrubber is that it keeps the water more consistently clean, allowing the skimmer to keep working at an even pace. This would make sense I think. What it might also mean is that the skimmer might be actually functioning differently.

The idea of the past is that the scrubber and skimmer serve different functions. While this is undoubtedly still true, there likely is some crossover. So if the scrubber picks up part of the job that the skimmer was doing, this would allow the skimmer to "concentrate" on other aspects of it's function.

Could it be that not only to "skimmers help scrubbers breathe" (another thread) but also that scrubber help skimmers....umm....looking for a word here....besides "skim"...

[elveloz]

The skimmate production before had a lot of particles (thick) very dark and not enough volume, have to clean skimmer every week. Now skimmate is extremely light and like 70% more volume and I'm cleaning every two weeks but I easily can clean it every three.

[Garf]

You know what I think Floyd, so I'll keep my response to

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/33cb01e764bd53fbcb15b0b2556331ad_zpsd53728e2.jpg

[Floyd R Turbo]

Dude, you must keep that link permanently on your clipboard.

[Garf]

Yup

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/Garf1971/33cb01e764bd53fbcb15b0b2556331ad_zpsd53728e2.jpg

[alum]

LOL, whose that?

[alum]

When I start my new ATS my refugium going withered (Coulerpa) ,
I am afraid if I use iron cause would be produce a lot algaes, is that right?
4270

[SantaMonica]

No, iron will not produce algae.

[Floyd R Turbo]

LOL, whose that?

Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen)


When I start my new ATS my refugium going withered (Coulerpa) ,
I am afraid if I use iron cause would be produce a lot algaes, is that right?

Did you post this on the wrong thread? This thread is about how scrubbers affect skimmers.

[RkyRickstr]

I noticed my skimmer produced more when it was almost time for the screen to be cleaned. Then less for a few days while the screen got full again.

My theory is that the scrubber would produce additional aminos and vitamins that the skimmer removed.

[kotlec]

I cant compare pre and after ,because I added skimmer after scrubber. But there's what I noticed. :
Skimmer produces A LOT of foam. No matter how I adjust it - skimmate is always light color and almost no smell . Only its volume is changing. Foam head always looks clean - almost sterile. No yellow or brown tint that I can often see browsing pictures on the forums.

I added skimmer to help "scrubber braethe" and also having feeling that ATS is not removing "something" what should be removed. Possibly skimmer is to small, as I did not notice any difference over tank after skimmer addition.

[Skinnysloth]

I had to read that a few times. So what you are thinking is that without the scrubber, the skimmer would "act up" as more time had passed since the last PWC, then when you did the PWC, the skimmer would "calm down", forcing you to raise the level in order to get it to skim. Right? Then, as time went on, you would have to lower the level as the water got "dirtier".

So the net effect of the scrubber is that it keeps the water more consistently clean, allowing the skimmer to keep working at an even pace.

Yeah, pre-scrubber, I constantly had to adjust the skimmer. Post-scrubber, consistent skimmer function with predictable skimmate production.

[alum]

Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen)
Did you post this on the wrong thread? This thread is about how scrubbers affect skimmers.
sorry OOT.

what I think is they are has different functions.

[iforgot]

IME my skimmer is producing a lighter color skim and less of it since adding an algae scrubber. I have the sca 301 skimmer, it is set up in the first compartment of sump and my scrubber is in the third compartment. I have also had to adjust my skimmer to nearly the max setting in order to get the amount of skim that i get.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Thanks to all who have posted and hopefully more will continue to post. As I'm talking to my customers I'm hearing a lot of this - the skimmers work more reliably when a scrubber is also on the system

[Garf]

Might have something to do with this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae


Reactive oxygen species are present in low concentrations in seawater and produced primarily through the photolysis of organic and inorganic matter.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-KeiberDavid-12) However, the biological production of ROS, generated through algal photosynthesis and subsequently 'leaked' to the environment, can contribute significantly to concentrations in the water column.


The production of ROS has also been shown to be dependent on algal cell density. Marshall et al.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Marshall_a-17) found that for Chattonella marina, higher concentrations of cells produced less superoxide per cell than those with a lower density. This may explain why some raphydophyte blooms are toxic at low concentration and non-toxic in heavy blooms.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Twiner-50) Tang & Gobler[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-51) also found that cell density was inversely related to ROS production for the alga Cochlodinium polykrikoides. They found, in addition, that increases of ROS production were also related to the growth phase of algae. In particular, algae in exponential growth were more toxic than those in the stationary or late exponential phase. Many other algal species (Heterosigma akashiwo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosigma_akashiwo), Chattonella marina, and Chattonella antiqua) have also been shown to produce the highest amounts of ROS during the exponential phase of growth.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Twiner-50)[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-PortuneKevin-52) Oda et al.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Oda-16) suggest this is due to actively growing cells having higher photosynthesis and metabolic rates. Resting stage cells of Chattonella antiqua (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chattonella_antiqua&action=edit&redlink=1) have been shown to generate less superoxide than their motile counterparts.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-53)


The reduction product of superoxide is hydrogen peroxide, one of the most studied reactive oxygen species because it occurs in relatively high concentrations, is relatively stable, and is fairly easy to measure.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-KeiberDavid-12) It is thought that algal photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis) is one of the major modes of hydrogen peroxide production, while the production of H2O2 by stressed organisms is a secondary source.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Palenik-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Palenik_a-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Wong-15) In marine systems, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) exists at concentrations of 10−8-10−9 M in the photic zone,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Wong-15) but has been found in double those concentrations in parts of the Atlantic Ocean.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-35) Its lifetime, ranging from hours to days in coastal waters, can be as long as 15 days in Antarctic seawater.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-KeiberDavid-12)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Blough-30) H2O2 is important in aquatic environments because it can oxidize dissolved organic matter and affect the redox chemistry of iron, copper, and manganese.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Moffett-33) Since hydrogen peroxide, as an uncharged molecule, diffuses easily across biological membranes it can directly damage cellular constituents (DNA and enzymes) by reacting with them and deactivating their functions.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Fridovich_a-2) In addition, hydrogen peroxide reduces to the hydroxyl radical, the most reactive radical and the one with the greatest possibility for damage


It is not surprising that ROS production may be a form of chemical defense against predators, since at low levels it can damage DNA and at high levels lead to cell necrosis.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Lesser-25) One of the most common mechanisms of cellular injury is the reaction of ROS with lipids, which can disrupt enzyme activity and ATP production, and lead to apoptosis.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Halliwell-37) Reactions of ROS with proteins can modify amino acids, fragment peptide chains, alter electrical charges, and ultimately inactivate an enzyme's function.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-62)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-63) In DNA, deletions, mutations, and other lethal genetic effects may result from reactions with ROS.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-64)[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-65) Reactive oxygen species are especially inexpensive to produce as defense chemicals, simply because they are not composed of metabolically costly elements such as carbon, nitrogen, or phosphate. Reactive oxygen species produced by phytoplankton have been linked to deaths of fish, shellfish, and protists, as well as shown to reduce the viability and growth of bacteria.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-IshimatsuAtsushi-20)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Twiner-50)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-66)[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-KimDaekyung-67) In addition, a study by Marshall et al.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Marshall_a-17) showed that four algal species used as bivalve feed produced significantly lower concentrations of superoxide, suggesting that ROS production by other algal species may be a way to decrease grazing by bivalves. The most direct evidence for ROS as a defense mechanism is the fact that many icthyotoxic algae produce greater concentrations of ROS than nonichthyotoxic strains


It is possible that ROS may not be the actual toxic substance, but may in fact work to make other exudates more toxic by oxidizing them.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Marshall_a-17)[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Okaichi-68) For instance, ROS from Chattonella marina have been shown to enhance the toxic effects of fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on exposed fishes.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Marshall_a-17)[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Okaichi-68) Similarly, free-fatty acids released from diatom biofilms as products of ROS oxidation of EPA are known to be toxic to zooplankters.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-69) In addition, Fontana et al.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-70) suggested that the interaction of ROS and diatom exudates (such as fatty acid hydroperoxides) are responsible for inhibiting embryonic development and causing larval abnormalities in copepods. Finally, ROS oxidation of algal polyunsaturated fatty acids have also been shown to deter grazers.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-71)


In addition to impacting predator-prey interactions, the production of ROS may also help an alga get an advantage in the competition for resources against other algae, be a way to prevent fouling bacteria, and act as a signaling mechanism between cells.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Graneli-60)[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-KimDaekyung-67)[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Oda_a-72) ROS can inhibit photosynthesis in algae[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Lesser-25) Thus an alga that is more tolerant of ROS than another may produce and release it as a means of decreasing the other species competitive ability. In addition, Chattonella marina, the most well studied raphydophyte for ROS production, may produce a boundary of ROS that deters other marine microalgae from using nutrients in its vicinity.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Marshall-27) Similarly, this boundary could also be a way to discourage bacteria fouling, since the production of ROS is known to inhibit growth and bioluminescent ability in the bacteria Vibrio alginolyticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrio_alginolyticus) and Vibrio fischeri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrio_fischeri), respectively.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-KimDaekyung-67)[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Oda_a-72) Lastly, Marshall et al.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species_production_in_marine_micro algae#cite_note-Marshall-27) showed that Chattonella marina cells were able to change their rate of superoxide production in as little as one hour when in different cell densities, increasing the rate from 1.4 to 7.8 times the original. They suggest that this quick response in altering rates of production may be a form of chemical signaling between cells that works to provide information about cell density.

[Ace25]

To answer the 3 questions in the OP.

1. Produces less skimmate
2. Produces darker and much stinkier skimmate
3. More temperamental, as it can go weeks and not skim more than 1/2" in the cup and then overnight it will overflow the cup with no changes done to the tank or skimmer. The water level is at a constant 9" depth for the chamber the skimmer is in.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Dang! Thought this would be perfectly consistent.

[kotlec]

We talk about scrubber as a standard unit , but never consider what type of algae it is mostly growing. Im not biologist , but thing that different species can have different habits. No ?

[Garf]

We talk about scrubber as a standard unit , but never consider what type of algae it is mostly growing. Im not biologist , but thing that different species can have different habits. No ?

Yes :)

[kotlec]

:D

[sabbath]

To answer the 3 questions in the OP.

1. Produces less skimmate
2. Produces darker and much stinkier skimmate
3. More temperamental, as it can go weeks and not skim more than 1/2" in the cup and then overnight it will overflow the cup with no changes done to the tank or skimmer. The water level is at a constant 9" depth for the chamber the skimmer is in.

So yours appears to be the exception to many peoples findings. So I wonder if there is something else that you may have changed sense you ran a skimmer without a scrubber. Are you adding something that is causing a reaction with the skimmer in a scrubber system? Maybe it is your nitrates being so low and or your phosphates up is effecting this?

[Mud]

I started my system with a scrubber and a skimmer. For the first 6 months of running this way, the skimmer would go for a day or two without skimming anything then all of the sudden overflow with almost-clear skimmate. During this time, my corals grew beautifully and parameters were all perfect, so I had no complaints. Then I went camping for five days, came home to a burnt-out pump (fed both my display and scrubber). My scrubber screen died, so I took this time to completely redo my sump plumbing and change my scrubber over from CFL to LED. I have found that in the week since my pump blew, my skimmer has produced consistently dark skimmate, which it never did before. I did, however, cut back dramatically on feeding of both frozen foods and liquid coral foods since my scrubber died. Overall, my experience has been that while runner a scrubber my skimmer was way more temperamental. I have yet to see how my skimmer will react to my new scrubber screen maturing, but I'll report my findings.

[sabbath]

I wonder now if there is certain combined filter methods that make the skimmer more or less stable? It would be nice to find the answers to this. As I still am finding it more stable then the same setup was without a scrubber. The only other thing that I can think of that has changed is I'm running less LR.

I'm running skimmer first then Floyd's scrubbers in the sumps. I'm also running a half dose of rox8 in a reactor last that is changed out after a few weeks. I'm doing very little water changes, but when I do I siphon the sand. Oh and minimal LR with a sallow sand bed.

Not sure what is affecting this but this combo is working for 3 systems.

[SantaMonica]

I have found that in the week since my pump blew, my skimmer has produced consistently dark skimmate

Because of all the extra food particles in the water.

[Garf]

It would be helpful to try and assess if there is a correlation between certain screen growth stages and these periodic dark skimmate, light skimmate, unpredictable stages. Ie. do they occur after cleaning, thin screen growth, thick growth etc. Theres probably an algae growth/death/exudate/oxidation relating factor. (assuming the skimmer is operating reliably in all cases).

[holidayz]

Stopped skimmer after scrubber, after about 3 months, everything still cool, out of curiosity added skimmer back.
Very dark skimmate, smells very bad, but it fades to very light and no smell within a week.
Before was medium skimmate, consistant, both level and amount of skimmate.
Now run it for a week every month and results as above....dark in the beginning and light towards the end.
But level flucturates, mainly during scrubber light-on light off period. Don't know why.....

[Mud]

Cleaned my new scrubber for the third time today. I have a very strong base coat of brown on the ruffed-up portion of my screen, a few spots of green showing up here and there, and my nitrates have just begun to fall (went from 0 to about 15 after my old scrubber died during a pump failure, back down to 10 now). My skimmer never worked right with my original scrubber. It skimmed dark and consistent after the screen died, but has been skimming lighter and more watery as the new screen is breaking in. I really hope it doesn't go back to it's old habit of skimming nothing then all of the sudden overflowing.

[joelespinoza]

Stopped skimmer after scrubber, after about 3 months, everything still cool, out of curiosity added skimmer back.
Very dark skimmate, smells very bad, but it fades to very light and no smell within a week.
Before was medium skimmate, consistant, both level and amount of skimmate.
Now run it for a week every month and results as above....dark in the beginning and light towards the end.
But level flucturates, mainly during scrubber light-on light off period. Don't know why.....

I would guess that whatever you are skimming out was alive in your tank then died in your skimmer. It could be microalgae or something along those lines.

I understand the idea of heavy aeration pre scrubber, and could even see how a skimmer + scrubber could provide some stability in tanks that have a large swing over the course of a scrubber cleaning cycle... But if tank stability and scrubber growth is not an issue, then is there a point to running both together?

Or is that the question that is being looked at now?

[Floyd R Turbo]

It was more along the lines of looking for a pattern. A few of my customers mentioned their skimmers would act differently before & after adding a scrubber. I thought that there might be a connection between running a scrubber and more efficient skimming, or rather the scrubber and skimmer overlapping function. So when a scrubber was added to the system, the skimmer might be skimming less or differently, producing less or lighter skimmate. I thought that might mean that the skimmer would have a slightly different or tighter "focus" or something, rather than being a broad-system filter.

Not sure if that explains is well. Hard to describe.

But the idea here is that most people seem to center around a primary piece of equipment as the workhorse of their filtration system. Everyone has seen the mega skimmers. Bill Waan, Volcano, etc. They costs thousands of dollars and are ridiculously huge, but seemingly do the job very well. This filtration component has been around long enough and there are enough argument for it's effectiveness, even at 15-20% efficiency, that it has a place in the reef hobby industry, and it's not going away, nor do I feel it should.

However, that doesn't mean it has to be what everyone thinks of to get first, or is told to get first. I think there are benefits beyond simple nutrient removal that a scrubber provides that a skimmer cannot. If a scrubber can tighten the efficiency focus of a skimmer, this means one could get the same effectiveness out of a smaller skimmer than what is currently "recommended" for a given tank size.

Couple that with the change over from volume-based to feeding-based scrubber sizing, why should the rating of a skimmer not be related to feeding volume as well, or at least the skimmer's fractional role in the overall filtration system? That is, if you feed 3 cubes/day, why not have a 2 cube/day scrubber and a 1 cube/day skimmer?

Rant over.

[sklywag]

Missing from this I think is skimmer placement or if it matters. Before or after scrubber?
Is it not fact that saltwater airates(?) more than fresh? So placement wouldn't matter? Or is super airation(?) a key factor?
I've been looking at skimmers lately and interestingly enough Floyd/Bud, at ones rated less than my tank thinking it would only be supplemental seeing my main filtration is my scrubber. Real thinking behind it was an oxygenating/ph reason than filtering thus a lower rated skimmer and footprint. We have no AC and it's warm here.

[Snoopy]

Hi Folks

So what's the latest ? To skim or not to skim?

If I'm reading this thread right it looks like running the skimmer with the ATS could be more beneficial but it's not clear why. Plus a few folks have skimmers that play up with the use of an ATS. One of my favorite reef tanks has an ATS, skimmer and biopellets (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2013/1/aquarium).

I've been running a horizontal ats on my system for a few months now with okay results and i'm very tempted to remove my skimmer and just run a vertical ATS. I could plumb it into the display return pipe in my sump (where my skimmer currently sits) and not worry about an extra pump to run or I could keep my skimmer as is (in the first sump compartment) and set up the new ats in my fuge section (but would need another pump).

I was all set to remove my skimmer as in the first option until I read this thread?

Any comments / updates welcome?

Snoops

[Floyd R Turbo]

Give this a read, it's one of the better articles out there

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/index.php

While this article has to do with phosphates, it also helps you understand the role that a skimmer can play in removal of organic phosphate. There is also mention of non-filtration benefits of skimmers


2. Skimming is another big winner, in my opinion. Not only does it export organic forms of phosphate, reducing the potential for them to break down into inorganic phosphate, but it reduces other nutrients and increases gas exchange. Gas exchange is an issue that many aquarists don't ordinarily recognize, but it is the primary driver of reef aquarium pH problems.

So this and other reasons are why I have shifted over to a more off-center opinion instead of hard-line against when it comes to skimmers. You just don't need a mega gigantor skimmer, IMO, at least not for most people. But, it's hard to say, for instance on a large heavy SPS tank, if a scrubber + moderate skimmer would do better, worse, or no different than the no-scrubber + mega-skimmer typical setup that you see. Simply because you don't have many people with 2 mega tanks that they are willing to experiment on with this concept.

I guess I don't know why skimmers run differently when a scrubber is employed, but for the majority of people (unless you're someone like Ace) this seems to be the case. I talked to one of my users the other day (he's not online often) who again confirmed this on 2 of his tanks: before scrubber, emptying skimmer cup every other day, after scrubber, doesn't have to empty it for a week, no matter what the level setting.

But anyways, as with many aspects of this hobby, we do what appears to work and try not to draw any conclusions until it seems to work consistently for a lot of people, and then we incorrectly call it a fact. :)

[SantaMonica]

Organic phosphate is just food. If you want to remove food particles, just feed less and save yourself the money and the extra equipment.

Also, photosynthesis from scrubbers tend to super-saturate the water with oxygen; thus a skimmer's bubble do not add any more oxygen.

Lastly, if results are the same with scrubber-only and with scrubber+equipment1+equipment2+equipment3, why not just run with scrubber only? That lets you simplify the system down like I did on the reef pool, which has zero maintenance (not even glass cleaning), zero food purchases, zero water changes, and very low electrical use. Only top off, and dosing cal, alk, and rarely mag.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Organic phosphate is just food. If you want to remove food particles, just feed less and save yourself the money and the extra equipment.

That is a vast oversimplification of a complex system.


Also, photosynthesis from scrubbers tend to super-saturate the water with oxygen; thus a skimmer's bubble do not add any more oxygen.

scrubbers also can take all CO2 out and then start pulling down alk, so a skimmer can still act in a complementary role and enhance scrubber growth. Theoretically.


Lastly, if results are the same with scrubber-only and with scrubber+equipment1+equipment2+equipment3, why not just run with scrubber only? That lets you simplify the system down like I did on the reef pool, which has zero maintenance (not even glass cleaning), zero food purchases, zero water changes, and very low electrical use. Only top off, and dosing cal, alk, and rarely mag.

Because the results are not necessarily the same. There are very likely to be benefits to running a skimmer that are difficult to quantify. Similarly, there are very likely benefits of running a scrubber that are difficult to quantify. We all know that you believe in the scrubber only system, and I am not saying that a scrubber only system is bad, just that it won't necessarily work for everyone. Also there is value in diversity of filtration, for many reasons, especially with larger systems.

Your particular setup may work well for you, but that doesn't mean that everyone should do it. Also each system has its own particulars, so even close to identical duplication of a system may yield completely different results. Just ask BeanAnimal about that, he had his system running for year trucking along like clockwork and swore up and down that it was the way to go, then the tank just crashed. And he was no slouch in the reef community.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Also, a point: we all know that you are pretty much against skimmers, but not everyone is, or maybe not as much as they used to be (myself included). I started this thread to discuss how skimmers may function differently before/after or with/without a scrubber on the same system, because there are many people who use both because that is what they wish to do. I did not intend this thread to turn into yet another debate about why or why not a skimmer.

[kotlec]

I am very big fan of scrubber , but idea of runing SPS dominated tank with ATS only is total BS in my opinion.
Some LPS and softies can be very happy in scrubber only tank though .
My 1 cent

[Snoopy]

Thanks for the replies - given the info in this thread on skimmer functionality -

A question is then that if excess food is/could be eaten by sump fauna (crabs, cucs, snails, urchins etc) then would you need a skimmer?

As far as the thread topic
I would have the ATS placed after the skimmer as the pods that are produced get a chance to feed the DT before being skimmed. Pods boom and bust so I'm wondering if this could be the cause of a skimmer over producing Skimmate after operating normal for a period? Especially if the skimmer is situated after an ATS ?

Cheers
Snoops

[Floyd R Turbo]

That is one factor that I didn't think of that might affect the skimmer function - placement of the skimmer in relation to the scrubber.

To answer the question, I would have skimmer first so that aerated water hits the scrubber and provides CO2, this theoretically should reduce a scrubber's tendency to deplete CO2 out and then uptake Alk

[sklywag]

I asked that back in post #37

[Floyd R Turbo]

oops sorry man I missed that one...

[sabbath]

I agree that this thread should stay as it started. A thread about what happens if or you do run both a scrubber and a skimmer. But I will add a little comment that so far my SPS look better then ever with both. The colors are even a little darker then when I ran full Zeovit. So I do not think that I have stripped the system to much for my SPS. UpdateI'm still getting very consistent skimate with my skimmer. I also have the water level up much higher in the skimmer then I could without a scrubber! I'm only changing about 10% water per month and siphon the sand when I do. As my main goal in corals is the SPS's health. So I'm stripping more out of the system then most need to.

[Snoopy]

Well I've all but finished my new 2sided led powered ATS today but back working away now for a week so the connect up will have to wait. I've gone and installed it in the 3rd sump compartment after the DSB (2nd) and skimmer (1st). I have been getting half a cup full per week with no Skimmate fluctuations for nearly 2yrs so this will be a good test to see if the skimmer is affected.

I'll update with details over the next month or so.

Cheers
Snoops

[rygh]

A few months ago, my scrubber pump jammed without me noticing, and scrubber died.
So my tank went from good scrubber, to no scrubber, to recovering scrubber, and eventually back to good scrubber.
I did not notice any difference in my skimmer at all during that time.
Although I was not actively checking of course.

I don't really see why a scrubber would directly effect a skimmer.
Scrubbers slurp up ammonia and nitrates, which skimmers do not touch.
My bet is that effects are secondary, such as if you have a scrubber, you may feed more,
which increases skimming of course.
Although perhaps some dead bits of algae falling off the scrubber are hydrophobic?

[Ace25]

That is one factor that I didn't think of that might affect the skimmer function - placement of the skimmer in relation to the scrubber.

To answer the question, I would have skimmer first so that aerated water hits the scrubber and provides CO2, this theoretically should reduce a scrubber's tendency to deplete CO2 out and then uptake Alk

I have a different reason for the placement of my skimmer. I put it after my ATS (which is on my overflow). My reasoning is that algae releases oils, lipids, etc... and all those things are skimmable. So my thinking is 'scubber first to remove what it can, then skimmer to remove what the scrubber creates'. That was my thought process.. but I am not claiming either way is better or worse than the other, just different lines of thinking went into placement.

[Floyd R Turbo]

A few months ago, my scrubber pump jammed without me noticing, and scrubber died.
So my tank went from good scrubber, to no scrubber, to recovering scrubber, and eventually back to good scrubber.
I did not notice any difference in my skimmer at all during that time.
Although I was not actively checking of course.

I don't really see why a scrubber would directly effect a skimmer.
Scrubbers slurp up ammonia and nitrates, which skimmers do not touch.
My bet is that effects are secondary, such as if you have a scrubber, you may feed more,
which increases skimming of course.
Although perhaps some dead bits of algae falling off the scrubber are hydrophobic?

...but the opposite seems to be the majority case, add a scrubber and the skimmer skims less.



I have a different reason for the placement of my skimmer. I put it after my ATS (which is on my overflow). My reasoning is that algae releases oils, lipids, etc... and all those things are skimmable. So my thinking is 'scubber first to remove what it can, then skimmer to remove what the scrubber creates'. That was my thought process.. but I am not claiming either way is better or worse than the other, just different lines of thinking went into placement.

So there is logic to doing this either way. Perhaps having the skimmer and scrubber inlet and outlet both in the same chamber, just kicking water back and forth at each other, along with some influx of tank water would be the best way!

[Snoopy]

Be good to set up 3 identical systems (water only) and position skimmer first, skimmer second and no skimmer. Dump same amount of nutrients into the water and test for a period?

[Snoopy]

Got home today (day 5 of my new waterfall install) to find my skimmer over flowing :(

This skimmer has run stable for the entire time I've had the tank (2&1/2 yrs).
http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee391/Choppa_Dan/Algae%20Scrubber/36EB47C1-12AE-457F-BC68-BDA8A9D43328-6745-000000C7E2806CB6_zps32fa08c8.jpg
http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee391/Choppa_Dan/Algae%20Scrubber/C487A0D9-4DB9-438E-809C-AAD566764A94-6745-000000C825EFB1F2_zps707c1f11.jpg

I adjusted the skimmer to off and still had this
http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee391/Choppa_Dan/Algae%20Scrubber/21306289-2F1D-44D8-8061-CB40844F5B32-6745-000000C84C72123B_zpsbb453bb7.jpg

Video
(Deleted sorry - cant work it out but the stills show it all)

The section where the skimmer is has a stable water level but I had to raise the skimmer 2inches to get it to stop overflowing.

???????

Snoops

[Floyd R Turbo]

Was your scrubber brand new, as in bare screen, no growth?

[Snoopy]

Yes, I just installed a new one

Here's my build thread
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?2345-Semi-Scrubbed

[Floyd R Turbo]

Rather odd. One possible explanation is that if you went to brand new plastic canvas, this is usually a food source for bacteria (as is most soft plastics) and until you get growth started, that's what it will do - feed bacteria. So your skimmer might have reacted to the change in bacteria levels? Not sure...could have been sometime else I suppose...

[Snoopy]

Sounds more plausible then my thinking :)

I was thinking it could be something to do with more oxygen?
But not sure why other than making a wetter skimmate somehow?

This morning the skimmer was still working ok (how I left it last night)
I'll report back on any more fluctuations at the new higher level the skimmer is now at.
Snoops

[Snoopy]

Just on the bacteria idea - does the plastic mesh get eaten away over time (like bio-pellets do)? If so then this could definately be the case.

Snoopy

[Floyd R Turbo]

I don't know that it does, but I know that when I put unroughed mesh anywhere in a tank (like for a strainer, bubble blocker, etc) it becomes a slimy mess for a few months, then that goes away. I can only think that this is bacteria eating away at the surface of the mesh. On one screen I used to get the long slimy dinoflagellate type algae, but that could have also been diatoms as the also grow long and stringy. They eventually seemed to have disappeared. Incidentally the same stages seemed to occur with the use of egg crate for similar purposes (strainers, baskets, etc)

[sklywag]

Well I did it. I bought a skimmer. A BM Nac-7. Skimmers have come a long way since I owned one. Got a deal on it. Dropped it in sump. Made bubbles like nobodies business. Settled down after a day.

Having lost five fish in one night and a a major algae breakout for some reason unknown made me buy it. And after only a 5 gallon water change on a 90 gallon system with 20 gallon sump. Things are looking up, really up. Corals are open again, algae going away and the last of my fish are out and about again.

Amazingly quiet this skimmer is. I plan on building another sump with sections in it as compared to with none in mine now.
Question. Would skimmer go first or scrubber? I see some people have them on timers and only run them for so many hours a day like a scrubber. Good idea or not. Seems they only do it for energy conservancy.

Anyway. Happy I got the skimmer. It seems to have saved my system.

[sabbath]

Question. Would skimmer go first or scrubber? I see some people have them on timers and only run them for so many hours a day like a scrubber. Good idea or not. Seems they only do it for energy conservancy.

Anyway. Happy I got the skimmer. It seems to have saved my system.

My .02, I run my setup with the skimmer first then the output blowing in front of the scrubber pump. This is working well for me. I tried running mine part time but my tank looks better with it running all the time.

[sklywag]

Aye... I thought of that. Running a Herbie and putting the intake to skimmer at bottom of pipe and then as you said. Scrubber pump at the skimmer exit. Currently feed scrubber from overflow and like knowing all the water passes over it. Trying to figure out how to get as much flow through both as possible.
Thought about leaving scrubber fed from overflow and putting skimmer in same chamber as it too once I find a good deal on an acrylic tank to rehab into a sump.
This skimmer is so quiet I don't even know it's running. 24/7. The wattage on it too is really low. heat wise enh! But not worried about saving energy.
Don't know if it's cleaner water, more oxygen or what, but things seem better for sure.

[greenmachine]

I put my aqua-c urchin skimmer online when I first read this and left it for a few weeks just to see what happened. The skimmer took a few days to "break-in" then it started to make lots of green skimate. It only made the skimate for about a week. After that it just made light tea collared water. during this time of skimming my algae did grow a bit faster than normal. My displays water looked a little more "sparkely" but my corals spent much more time closed , and my pod populations wear on the decline! I took the skimmer off line last week and put it back in storage where it has been for the last 5 years :) I know this is not a skimmer vs scrubber thread BUT I am sold on the scrubber and my skimmer will be getting dusty as it sits in storage! Hope this helps!

[Sigmoid]

Well it's quite obvious that what a skimmer does is remove microflora and microfauna, which forms the ecological basis of life.

[sabbath]

I put my aqua-c urchin skimmer online when I first read this and left it for a few weeks just to see what happened. The skimmer took a few days to "break-in" then it started to make lots of green skimate. It only made the skimate for about a week. After that it just made light tea collared water. during this time of skimming my algae did grow a bit faster than normal. My displays water looked a little more "sparkely" but my corals spent much more time closed , and my pod populations wear on the decline! I took the skimmer off line last week and put it back in storage where it has been for the last 5 years :) I know this is not a skimmer vs scrubber thread BUT I am sold on the scrubber and my skimmer will be getting dusty as it sits in storage! Hope this helps!

Interesting info and so I thought it would be nice to have a thread of peoples findings of running with and without a Skimmer thread.
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?2877-*What-happened-when-you-ran-with-and-witout-a-Skimmer-Thread!*&p=33206#post33206