+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: cyano scrubber? ...and also, mud

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    940
    Wow.. in the words of Wayne and Garth .. "We're not worthy!". So much great information, thank you so much for posting!

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Uk! England
    Posts
    1,212
    Right, what's the plan for the cyano scrubber ? A screen or sand bed lit by a 350nm light source ?

    http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...ll=1#post24524

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace25
    So much great information, thank you so much for posting!
    If you find the information useful or the Standard Model plausible, please direct the attention of others to it. I don't get out much.


    Quote Originally Posted by Garf
    Right, what's the plan for the cyano scrubber ? A screen or sand bed lit by a 350nm light source ?
    I like the cut of your jib, Garf.

    Cyano wants to grow on old substrates that have absorbed plenty of P, so letting it grow there and seeing if you can cultivate enough to bring down P seems like an obvious starting point.

    Note that cyano can recruit diatoms into a microbial mat. Because diatoms like high N:P rations, my guess is that the cyano is the dominant partner in that symbiosis and keeps the diatoms N-limited most of the time, just like coral keeps its algal symbionts N-limited to force them to pump out sugar that the coral eats. Cyano will have a much easier time recruiting diatoms on a substrate of silica sand than on aragonite or white sand composed of pulverized coral, as the anoxic layer beneath a microbial mat permits dissolved Si to diffuse out of the sand along with P, Fe, and other nutrients with low solubility in oxygenated water. In terms of the overall functioning of a cyano scrubber, I really don't know whether encouraging it to recruit diatoms is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing... It seems like it should be a Good Thing, as more algal biomass = more nutrient export capacity, but the presence of diatoms could screw up a two-stage scrubber by competing against the green algae for N. The experimentalists may want to try it both ways to compare and contrast the results.

    But to make a cyano scrubber practical, it can't involve disturbing the substrate in a tank or sump. People don't generally like doing anything that can affect water clarity, so it'll probably have to end up in its own little space like a regular scrubber. That's why I was thinking of two-stage scrubbers with one high-flow chamber to sustain a green algae scrubber and one low-flow chamber to permit the growth of cyano, or a "tunable" scrubber that can be optimized for either green algae or cyano.

    I like the idea of a two-stage scrubber, with a green algae scrubber overflowing or draining into a cyano scrubber. I suspect the latter is preferable to directing the overflow from a green algae waterfall scrubber into a cyano scrubber because (1) the drainage from an N-limited scrubber releasing sugars from photosynthesis should encourage growth by feeding the cyano DOC that it would normally be getting from captive diatoms, and (2) cyano has a reputation for coming and going on its own if you leave it alone. My thinking is that in an aquarium, a cyano bloom eventually pulls enough P out of the substrate to lose its competitive advantage and dies back, and then P starts accumulating again until conditions are right for another bloom. Something similar might happen in a cyano scrubber, with the cyano coming and going in waves as P is drained from the scrubber substrate and then builds back up as it diffuses out of the tank substrate. If that's how it works, we may want to regularly turn the lights off in the cyano scrubber to encourage P accumulation, and either way, we'll need the green algae scrubber to prevent nutrient spikes when the cyano isn't growing.

    And frankly, what happens if somebody actually manages to get a system close to zeroing out both N and P is a mystery to me, so it makes sense to keep all options open to see which algae ends up dominant when there are no measurable macronutrients present, or if the cyano and green algae can achieve peaceful coexistence.

    Also, it might be worth taking another look at the first generation, pre-SantaMonica scrubber configuration, when it was basically a horizontal trough filled with rocks. The rocks may provide a "good enough" P sink to cultivate cyano on them without any fine particles that could be stirred up and cloud the water when they're removed for cleaning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Garf
    http://algaescrubber.net/forums/show...ll=1#post24524
    Followed your link. I'll let you guys worry about the light spectrum, but I did notice this at the top of the page with the diagram you linked to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Garf in that other thread
    Does this pose answers to any of the current UAS symptoms, where surfactants may be getting concentrated on the screen algae ( causing brown stuff )?
    Can you point me to some pix of UAS algae with "brown stuff" on it? My ATS is an old waterfall design, so I haven't been paying much attention to the new design, but "brown stuff" sounds like it could be something I'm familiar with from what might be called an "upflow java moss scrubber" I have in a FW tank, so it's possible that I've already cobbled together a theory to explain this...

    For the record, my UJMS predates my awareness of the UAS, as suggested by a post in this old thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by 34cygni on August 16, 2011
    I've long suspected that one of the advantages enjoyed by filamentous and brush algae is that they trap drifting detritus in their strands, and by virtue of proximity and the dynamics (or lack thereof) in the boundary layer, the algae gets first crack at the nutrients released from decaying detritus. Java moss seems to follow this design philosophy, as well, even to the extent of providing habitat to recruit small animals that groom the moss and eat the tasty bits, thereby speeding along the process of their decay.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    pennsylvania, usa
    Posts
    406
    Guys alot of useful info that i will never understand.. but i have a quick question.. wouldnt it be so much easier to run a bit of gfo as needed?

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Uk! England
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by RkyRickstr View Post
    Guys alot of useful info that i will never understand.. but i have a quick question.. wouldnt it be so much easier to run a bit of gfo as needed?
    Probably easier, yes.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by RkyRickstr
    wouldnt it be so much easier to run a bit of gfo as needed?
    The name of the game is bioremediation. If you're satisfied controlling P through chemical means, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, but please understand that from my perspective, that method is philosophically unsatisfactory. It's also energy-intensive (I'm speaking more of the manufacturing process than the implementation) which expands the carbon footprint of a hobby that's already pretty resource-intensive, and from a more practical standpoint, it can get pricey over the long haul.

    Plus, as Floyd pointed out, even the manufacturers acknowledge in the fine print that chemical scrubbing is more about controlling P in the water column than mitigating P accumulation in the substrate.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    144
    I recently had a discussion with a micro biologist (funny fact I found later: the inventor of biopellets) , he also more or less brought up this subject.. after some exchange of ideas, he came with this: Build one (small) scrubber next to the algae one which you light 24h..

    Don't know, might be a one to think about..

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Uk! England
    Posts
    1,212
    Oh yes indeed. Cheers Doompie.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    pennsylvania, usa
    Posts
    406
    I gotcha.. is there an article on best conditions for cyano.. ill try it.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Doompie
    I recently had a discussion with a micro biologist (funny fact I found later: the inventor of biopellets) , he also more or less brought up this subject..
    Thanks very much for chiming in, Doompie. Even if it's secondhand and anecdotal, it's good to have confirmation that there's more to this than a crackpot hobbyist coming out of nowhere with a plan to save the world from phosphorous.


    Quote Originally Posted by RkyRickstr
    I gotcha.. is there an article on best conditions for cyano.. ill try it.
    I think we're off the edge of the map, here, but try this.

    Further information I just retrieved from one of my books that will be important to the experimentalists: cyano needs Fe in a big way because the enzymes involved in fixing nitrogen are known to be very iron-rich, and growth using N2 as a nitrogen source can require as much as 10x more Fe than autotrophic growth using NH3 to supply N. Autotrophic growth on nitrate also requires iron-rich enzymes to convert NO3 to NH3, BTW, but less so than cyano.

    Thus, even moreso than with a green algae scrubber, regular iron dosing will be necessary to sustain a cyano scrubber.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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