+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718
Results 171 to 180 of 180

Thread: Phosphate that won't go away

  1. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,710
    He's saying there needs to be a balance between

    1) the size of the screen, which is feeding based, and
    2) the width of the screen in combination with the flow rate compared to the actual water volume of the system.

    It could be possible to have too much flow per linear inch of screen width, so there is a limiting factor there.

    Take it to the extreme. A 1000 gallon system that is only fed 2 cubes/day. Screen is 6" wide x 4" tall. Flow per guideline is 210 GPH. Let's say it's 250. That's only 1/4 of the system turned over the screen per hour. Compare that to a 100g system and that's 2 turns/hour. On the old guideline, a 100g system running a SM100 used a 20" wide screen @ 700 GPH. That's 7 turns/hour over the screen.

    I think the new guideline is appropriate for feeding rate size basis, however there very well may be a factor for turnover rate that has not really been considered, and this affects all types of scrubbers.

  2. #172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by kotlec View Post
    Sizing guidelines are only good if you want to maintain healthy system with constant nutrient (food) income.
    Since you have problems it means you have to deal with additional pollutants. In this situation tank size does matter as every gallon of tank water has some and same part of pollutants in it. Same with rock that leaches phos. Bigger tank - bigger scrubber needed.
    You snuck that in while I was writing my post. I would add that it is not necessarily bigger tank means bigger scrubber, but bigger tank means wider scrubber = higher turnover rate. You can still size per feeding, but then a 1 cube/day 12" wide scrubber is pretty ridiculously dimensioned.

  3. #173

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    57

    Photoperiod

    Has anyone ever looked into photoperiod?

    I don't know 100% how algae metabolize nutrients, but in the plant world the majority of nutrient assimilation occurs during the dark hours. If it's the same with algae, then it may be counterproductive to run the scrubber or refugium lights opposite from the display tank.

    If the display algae are utilizing phosphates during the DT dark hours, when the scrubber is lit, the scrubber is not really binding phosphate, giving the DT algae the ability to grow. Whatever phosphate is remaining in the water column after the DT has used it up, is then available for the scrubber, and so on and so forth depending on what time of day you feed, etc.

    It would seem to make more sense to run the scrubber lights at the same time as the DT so that you can achieve maximum competition for nutrients in the water. Or at least, if you are using the 2-light scrubber system, try and alternate the timing on each side of the waterfall so that at least half the algae is always in the dark.

    Another aspect to consider is how algae physiology changes in starvation conditions, which may be occurring when a nutrient is limited. Again, going back to the plant kingdom, there are a whole group of plants that have adapted to heat and drought by modifying the citric acid cycle. These are C3/C4 and CAM plants, which are able to photosynthesize while keeping stomata closed to conserve water and prevent respiratory gas exchange. Are algae also doing something fundamentally different when they encounter starvation such as super-low nitrate???

    Just some things to consider.

  4. #174
    kotlec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Lithuania
    Posts
    710
    Another very interesting theory

  5. #175
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    10,565
    Algae do have differing activities in their photosystem 1 and 2. You can looking into the Calvin cycle for info... is pretty complex.

  6. #176

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    The Great America home of the brave USA
    Posts
    85
    I found this post on an other forum. Interesting.

      Join Date: Jun 2002Location: Durham, NCPosts: 27,774Images: 251ATS's are not really a viable solution for removing organics. they were thought up when reef systems were in their infancy. they were thought up as a way to remove organics before we realized that they were removing organics after the system was already full, and were just making the water yellow instead of actually helping the organics problem. we have no learned that if we remove the organics regularly then devices such as the ATS are not only unnecessary, but are impossible to get growing. if the organics are not in the system then the ATS will not be able to do support any algae at all. which is the entire purpose of the ATS in the first place to keep algae from growing in the display. we have also learned that algae is leaky. like any living creature it has to remove wastes as it goes about living. while it may be absorbing some organics, it will not be absorbing all of them. it will allow some out. there is also the sheer amount of energy needed to power an ATS. you need the pumps and you need the lights. just more energy you are paying for without any benefit. ATS/GFO/Phosphate sponges/refugiums- all of these are only able to remove phosphates from the water column. the problem is these devices will be the last places that would ever see these phosphates. the rest of the system will have first crack at the phosphates. all of the bacteria and algae in the display will be able to uptake these phosphates long before these devices will get a hold of them unless the bacteria and algae already have all that they need. the sand bed in your tank is a much better phosphate binder then these other devices. the phosphate laden detritus, whether it is from the poo from other critters, the bacterial flock from the LR or from left over food, all settles on the sand and will work its way down in between the grains and start to fill up. when the sand is full it will then start leaching phosphates back into the water column. this is the point that people start seeing algae growing. at this point people start thinking they need to get their organics under control, when in fact it is already to late. you start adding any of these devices your only hope is to keep the organic level from increasing even more, which is a tough order. the best way to keep this whole cycle from happening is to remove the detritus once a week by deep cleaning any substrate you may have in the system. remove the organics where they hide. if they are always removed then they are not able to build up. no algae.G~

  7. #177

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    I read through all of that. The bottom line is keep the substrate clean using either cleaning or have critters that do it for you.

    The benefits of a ATS or UAS are very evident. No Nitrate problem, reduced Phosphate.

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,710
    Where is this posted, there are so many flaws in this argument I cannot begin to count. It is all based on prior knowledge and has no relevance when it comes to current methodology. The "yellow water" statement totally gives it away.

  9. #179
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    10,565
    Yep anyone who thinks scrubbers are supposed to remove organics (or even that you are supposed to remove organics) already needs to stop feeding the organics that they feed every day, and stop buying and dosing the organics that they probably buy and dose.

    They probably also think phosphate is an organic.

  10. #180

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Merritt Island, FL, USA
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd R Turbo View Post
    Where is this posted, there are so many flaws in this argument I cannot begin to count. It is all based on prior knowledge and has no relevance when it comes to current methodology. The "yellow water" statement totally gives it away.
    I think it's from here:
    http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6...es-160792.html

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts