+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 111

Thread: Scrubbers DO NOT export Phosphorus

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by xerophyte_nyc View Post
    Correct. TOC = Total Organic CARBON...I am more concerned about phosphorus than carbon. The same authors in the study you cited, followed up with a new article where they did an elemental analysis:

    "Phosphorus analysis:
    The 0.46% by weight of P present in the 5.18 gms of dry skimmate solid implies that there is 24 mgs of P present. Assuming all of the P is present as phosphate, PO43- (MW = 95, unknown counterion), then there are ~ 74 mgs (~ 1.4 %) of PO43- present in the 5.18 gm of dry skimmate solid. This amount equals ~ 14300 ppm of phosphate, which again is vastly more than the < 0.02 ppm of phosphate in the tank water.
    "

    Source: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature
    You are comparing the amount of phosphates that have been concentrated in a tiny amount of water (skimmer cup) vs phosphate levels in a large amount of water (overall tank volume), so of course phosphate levels will be much higher when in concentrated form. Those phosphates came out of the tank, that doesn't mean the tank has 14300 PPM of phosphates. By that line of thinking, if I just let the water evaporate in my tank, I am creating new salt out of thin air because my salinity goes up as water volume decreases, but we all know that isn't how it works. It is your math I have the biggest problem with, it doesn't make sense and seems to pull numbers out of thin air and then try and make those numbers correlate with something else as the above example proves.

    An interesting and perhaps unanticipated observation is that only 34% of this solid skimmate material can be assigned to "organic carbon", TOC. Thus, 2/3 of the solid, water-insoluble part of the skimmate is not TOC, but rather inorganic material that may (or may not) have biogenic origins. If a substantial amount of this inorganic material does come from the shells of plankton, then it stands to reason that a large part of the detected organic material (TOC) probably constitutes the "guts" of these organisms.
    The article is saying the stuff comes from food/microfauna, not from the water. We know skimmers remove food particles before they break down into N/P, and then they break down into N/P in a skimmer cup, which is also why you see much higher readings in skimmate vs a tank.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace25 View Post
    You are comparing the amount of phosphates that have been concentrated in a tiny amount of water (skimmer cup) vs phosphate levels in a large amount of water (overall tank volume), so of course phosphate levels will be much higher when in concentrated form. Those phosphates came out of the tank, that doesn't mean the tank has 14300 PPM of phosphates. By that line of thinking, if I just let the water evaporate in my tank, I am creating new salt out of thin air because my salinity goes up as water volume decreases, but we all know that isn't how it works. It is your math I have the biggest problem with, it doesn't make sense and seems to pull numbers out of thin air and then try and make those numbers correlate with something else as the above example proves.

    The authors calculated that during the week of skimmate collection, they added 42 mg of P from their food source. The skimmer pulled 24 mg. That is almost 60% of the input. I think that is very impressive.

    I did not do these experiments, so why do you suggest that I am the one pulling these numbers out of thin air?

    EDIT: I just checked, turns out it is 42 mg added DAILY, not weekly, so the skimmer DID NOT pull out 60%. It pulled closer to a rate of 8% total.

    If the skimmer is constantly pulling out Po at a rate of about 8%, that would be about the same thing as doing an 8% water change daily. Still not too bad.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    112
    Well I'm not smart enough to get all this math thrown out here. But there are many tanks that get by with just running a ATS. So there must be something going on that the math does not see. For example Inland Aquatics has been running with scrubber only tanks for 20 some years.

    " Inland Aquatics pioneered the use of Algal Turf Scrubbers for hobby and mariculuture applications in the early 90s. We took Dr. Walter Adey's prototypes, as used at the Smithsonian's Marine Systems Laboratory, and developed several ATScrubber (tm) and ecoTarium (tm) models. Since then we have used ATScrubbers exclusively on nearly all our marine systems, as well as many of our freshwater systems, for nearly 20 years. Until now, we have not marketed this amazing technology to anyone outside of our immediate area. Let's talk about the best kept secret in nutrient processing... ATS!"

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    940
    I have a real world example in my living room that this thread has yet to explain. If algae doesn't remove phosphates, then why does my 'ats only' tank have a stable phosphate reading for over a year now? It isn't an 'ideal' reading in my book, but it seems to work on that tank. I dump in A TON of food every day, much more than I should (6+ cubes for 6 fish), and still my phosphates remain stable. If algae doesn't remove phosphates, then what else would remove them on my tank because that is the only thing I do on it (clean the screen). No reactors, no skimmer, no water changes, just weekly cleaning of the screen. The tank is doing so well I had my clownfish lay another giant clutch of eggs last night.

    This is where the math doesn't add up to me. I am dumping WAAAY more phosphates into my tank daily and if this thread was correct, I would have a constant steady rise in phosphates, but I don't. Why is that?

  5. #65

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace25 View Post
    I have a real world example in my living room that this thread has yet to explain. If algae doesn't remove phosphates, then why does my 'ats only' tank have a stable phosphate reading for over a year now? It isn't an 'ideal' reading in my book, but it seems to work on that tank. I dump in A TON of food every day, much more than I should (6+ cubes for 6 fish), and still my phosphates remain stable. If algae doesn't remove phosphates, then what else would remove them on my tank because that is the only thing I do on it (clean the screen). No reactors, no skimmer, no water changes, just weekly cleaning of the screen. The tank is doing so well I had my clownfish lay another giant clutch of eggs last night.

    This is where the math doesn't add up to me. I am dumping WAAAY more phosphates into my tank daily and if this thread was correct, I would have a constant steady rise in phosphates, but I don't. Why is that?
    I think that they will say it is because our test kits test for Pi and the ATS only removes Pi, right? But why if our Po is not being "removed?" That ATS only tanks have great long turn coral success? Something else must be consuming it. Bacteria?

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    57
    Cool!

    Quote Originally Posted by sabbath View Post
    Well I'm not smart enough to get all this math thrown out here. But there are many tanks that get by with just running a ATS. So there must be something going on that the math does not see. For example Inland Aquatics has been running with scrubber only tanks for 20 some years.

    " Inland Aquatics pioneered the use of Algal Turf Scrubbers for hobby and mariculuture applications in the early 90s. We took Dr. Walter Adey's prototypes, as used at the Smithsonian's Marine Systems Laboratory, and developed several ATScrubber (tm) and ecoTarium (tm) models. Since then we have used ATScrubbers exclusively on nearly all our marine systems, as well as many of our freshwater systems, for nearly 20 years. Until now, we have not marketed this amazing technology to anyone outside of our immediate area. Let's talk about the best kept secret in nutrient processing... ATS!"

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace25 View Post
    I have a real world example in my living room that this thread has yet to explain. If algae doesn't remove phosphates, then why does my 'ats only' tank have a stable phosphate reading for over a year now? It isn't an 'ideal' reading in my book, but it seems to work on that tank. I dump in A TON of food every day, much more than I should (6+ cubes for 6 fish), and still my phosphates remain stable. If algae doesn't remove phosphates, then what else would remove them on my tank because that is the only thing I do on it (clean the screen). No reactors, no skimmer, no water changes, just weekly cleaning of the screen. The tank is doing so well I had my clownfish lay another giant clutch of eggs last night.


    This is where the math doesn't add up to me. I am dumping WAAAY more phosphates into my tank daily and if this thread was correct, I would have a constant steady rise in phosphates, but I don't. Why is that?
    Your testing kits only measure the Inorganic Pi, not the dissolved organic portion, or Po. Pi can be used so rapidly as soon as it is created that even a reading of 0 can be misguided. Po can only be measured using expensive lab technology, it is not something we as hobbyists have access to. Po by itself is not harmful to the tank inhabitants. Some of it is food for coral, some is food for algae, and some binds to sand and rock. Eventually, and keep in mind this eventuality could be many years there's just no way to know for sure, the sand becomes saturated. This situation leads to excess Po with nowhere for it to go because the sand is full. I guess at that point, more bacteria start to consume the Po and convert it to more and more Pi which can cause algae overgrowth or a bacterial bloom.

    Someplace in your tank there is a very good sink for Po. Maybe it's your rock, maybe your sand, maybe there is detritus building up somewhere in your sump you are unaware of? The ATS itself also does a good job of collecting detritus, which goes in the garbage when algae is harvested. Nobody has discussed that really up until now but it might be something worth noting. Maybe an ATS's real benefit is in its ability to trap detritus?


    One suggestion to remedy the problem of sand saturation is changing out portions of the substrate periodically. It's like replacing a bag of used GFO. Detritus contributes to the excess Po problem, so we need to clean up after our fish poop, so to speak. Water changes and skimmers remove some of the Po in the water column. We as hobbyists should not forget about the basics of aquarium husbandry. An ATS does not change that. That's the point of this thread. Not that an ATS is bad, but that we can't forget about the other stuff.

    Basically, if a healthy tank all of a sudden shows uncontrollable algae growth, it is a sign that trouble is brewing. When you hear about "old tank syndrome" or tank crashes, some people think it is related to a build-up of Po after years of neglect or improper maintenance.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by sabbath View Post
    I think that they will say it is because our test kits test for Pi and the ATS only removes Pi, right? But why if our Po is not being "removed?" That ATS only tanks have great long turn coral success? Something else must be consuming it. Bacteria?
    Just like anything else in this hobby, there will be success stories using every different method of filtration. There will also be failures. What we really need is documentation showing which methods are being used simultaneously, for ex scrubber + skimmer, scrubber +water changes, etc.

    Nothing else is comsuming the Po. It binds to calcium. Matter doesn't disappear. Phosphorus is different from other nutrients. Nitrogen and carbon are gases, they can leave into the atmosphere. Phosphorus has to be physically removed. It sinks in water, so it accumulates as detritus in bacterial floc, and it binds to calcium in sand and rock.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    940
    I also don't understand why you keep stating 'test kits don't test for organic phosphates'. That is another over generalization. Normal cheap test kits don't test for organic phosphates (like API), but the good ones that we use do test for organic phosphates.

    http://www.lamotte.com/component/opt...,60/#phosphate

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace25 View Post
    I also don't understand why you keep stating 'test kits don't test for organic phosphates'. That is another over generalization. Normal cheap test kits don't test for organic phosphates (like API), but the good ones that we use do test for organic phosphates.

    http://www.lamotte.com/component/opt...,60/#phosphate
    I don't think it's an over-generalization to state that most reefers do not test for organic phosphates. That issue can be settled easily with a simple poll. I doubt there are too many people who are doing so, I could be wrong.

+ 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