Phosphate filter?

[spmnarciso]

I just finished reading Steve's thread on phosphates, and figured I'd submit a question of my own on the subject. Can a fluidized bed filter be used in place of a skimmer for nitrate export or does the phosban used accomplish the same thing? I was thinking of adding a skimmer and a phosphate filter to my setup, would that be overkill?

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by spmnarciso
I just finished reading Steve's thread on phosphates, and figured I'd submit a question of my own on the subject. Can a fluidized bed filter be used in place of a skimmer for nitrate export or does the phosban used accomplish the same thing? I was thinking of adding a skimmer and a phosphate filter to my setup, would that be overkill?
My gut feel is no. the fluidized bed filter uses the same principal as UGF and therefore do not process nitrates which need plant life or anaerobic bacteria. As I understand phosphate filters they filter out phosphate but not nitrates. Only plant life does both.

 

[spmnarciso]

For those that use fluidized bed filters or phosphate filters, which ones to do you folks use?

 

[nm reef]

BB_BS...I think you may want to visit the threads posted recently in regard to the use of fluidised bed type filters...they can be combined with medias that from what I understand can be effective as a means of phosphate reduction...and I believe they can be used to control nitrates to a certain extent. don't have much info and even less experience with them. But...I believe your statement is way off the mark...
As I understand phosphate filters they filter out phosphate but not nitrates. Only plant life does both.
I would be a sad day if that quote provided by you were proven false.
As mentioned above there have been a few recent thraeds on this site in regard to methods of using fluidised type filters for reduction of phosphates....I'd suggest checking them out.:yes:

 

[nm reef]

I don't use either...but I have been considering getting a fluidised type filter and using rowaphos in it for phosphate reduction....The rowaphos appears to be a very top quality product and lots of folks are reporting success using it. I may add one to my systme as another means of filtration and over all wter quality control...but I've not investigated the method enough to be able to convince myself to go for it.

 

[beaslbob]

oh boy
before I posted I did check the threads here, manufacture sites and other information sites. my statement still stands.
Fluidized bed filters can use media to filter out phosphates just like phosphate sponges.
they act very similiar to UGF in speeding up the nitrogen cycle.
they do not consume nitrAtes in any way. that requires anaerobic or anoxic bacteria. Which can not thive in the oxygen environment of fluidized bed or UGF or wet/dry type filters.
Steve's threads here indicated that the fluidized bed filters with phosphate media did control phosphates and that he preferred them to refugiums. Because he thought the refugiums took longer.
Again plant life consumes, ammonia, nitrAtes, phosphates, carbon dioxide in an aerobic environment. I know of no filter that does that.
I have faith my quote is accurate and factual. I know it was true. Guess it was just too much for you to even hint that I might have any valid point.

 

[steveweast]

Well... I will agree with your post Bob. I'm in complete agreement with your post. Plant life, both macro and micro, do comsume those pollutants... that ,when allowed to build in our tanks, will present problems. A refugium with harvestable plant life is a viable means of nutrient export. The limitations with refugiums come into play when the display tank's size or biol-load becomes too large for the refugium to maintain the balance of nutrient inputs with exports.....which is a common problem. This is where the aquarist has to augment his nutrient export program. This is why I have employed several methods of nutrient export to keep up with my large bio-load....not just a refugium. If my refugium were several times larger than its current size (125gal), it might be able to keep up...but, I don't have that kind of space. I'm not anti- refugium...I just feel that they have their limitations...especially when they are cultivating macros that frequently go sexual.
And to respond to the topic at hand...I would not replace a skimmer for a fluidized reactor. No fast water reactor can break down nitrate....that takes anerobic conditions like is found in liverock. The skimmer is the first line of defense in the nutrient export game...IMO....but, there is nothing wrong with augmenting the skimmer with other means of nutrient export like reactors, refugiums, or an increased maintenance program. There is no one piece of equipment that will do it all.

 

[spmnarciso]

Don't mean to stir up any arguments, after reading your thread on phosphate removal, I went ahead and did some research. Some Fluidized bed filters state that they are good for nitrate export. So I figured I would ask the experts the dumb newbie question. Thanks alot for clarifing this issue for me. I am thankful for this message board and all the good it's doing for the hobby.

 

[nm reef]

My comment in regard to the quote was intended to point out that there are several means of nitrate reduction that can and do produce positive results other than "plant life"...basic fluidized filters can be effective as a means of nitrate reduction...skimmers are very effective....the use of quality LR and even sand beds can reduce nitrates...the methods of using rowaphos seem to have very effective results reducing phosphates which in turn seem to be yet another effective means of nitrate reduction. Use of controled and harvested macros can also be effective...but are not the only means and are not the sole means.I believe the best approach to nutrient control and specifically nitrate reduction is a use of several methods to maintain acceptable levels. Starting with a quality water source...limiting introduction of excess nutrients...a combination of methods to control excess nutrients/nitrates...there is no one way that in and of itself is "the way"....but there are several methods and systems that can be effective....but I sincerely believe the comment that only plant life can do both is false and very miss leading.There is a lot about these topics and choices of filtration that I don't completely understand and I appreciate the input of information and experience from folks...but I don't think that there is any all inclusive "one way" that is better or more productive than any other....and I believe a wise/careful/controled use of several filtration methods may be far more effective than focusing on any single type of filtration process. In addition I believe it all comes back to control of introduction of excess nutrients...and a careful process of excess nutrient reduction via multiple means.:happyfish

 

[beaslbob]

Steve: first of all an absolutely awesome tank. Second thanks for the kind words. Third sure plant life can create problems.
And I fully understand when you have that awesome and very large system. I would do exactly the same thing if I had to scuba dive to clean glass or remove macros.
nm reef: (and the reef herd here). My only hope is this will cause you to rethink all the bb_bs posts.
All: My concerns is that by applying the methods required to maintain very large systems creates problems for the newbie who just purchased a 10g to see what saltwater is like. Or even 55-300g for that matter. On this board they get the impression that plant life in any from is to be avoided at all costs. So they get LR/LS, use ro/di have an algae bloom, get a cleaner crew, strip the system of all the plant life, and then wonder why the $75-150 worth of fish don't last three weeks.
Meanwhile people like nm reef have 55g with the hidden super secret 29g refugium.
My point is that by first establishing the plant life (refugium or no) then doing the rest, they could avoid those problems.
By first establishing a thriving plant growth, the newbie is assured (even if he is not aware of it) The system is processing the wastes and fit for livestock. All they have to do is look at the system. If the plant life is dieing, then no livestock should be added. If there is cloudy water then make some adjustments. All before that expensive livestock is added.
And with planning they could purchase a 120g instead of the 55g for the same money. And that fact alone will result in a better system.

 

[steveweast]

I've always thought it best to detail the theory behind the equipment rather than just add this or that as if it were a recipe. Refugiums, and the plants that go with them, are just another piece of equipment that have capabilities and limitations. If the aquarist is aware of these capabilities and limitations, he can apply the refugium with expected results and not high hopes that it will cure all his ills....as is the case for all equipment, you got to know how to use it
A very good post NMreef... I'm with you on about 80% of it... I think, though, that a phosphate reactor and other fluidized reactors will not aid in nitrate removal (unless there is a nitrate removing media similar to Rowaphos)...but, the other methods that you mentioned will...refugiums, skimmers, sandbeds, and especially liverock. If there is one thing that has great benefits will few limitations, it is liverock.

 

[beaslbob]

Steve: although I don't like live rock, I agree.

 

[nm reef]

steve...I am in total agreement....each filtration source or method has pros and cons associated with them....and bob I think you may have missed the point...because the point as I see it in this discussion is there are numerous types of filtration that can and will provide desirable results and no one single type is preferable or superior to any other.Plant life as you like to refer to it definitely has severe limitations and can often times create more problems than it solves. Especially if used in the manner in which you often times suggest. Not only that but it may be good husbandry to selectively use an assortment of methods ...not only that but it may just be a good idea to initially try to prevent(weird concept huh) excess nutrients from entering the system.
I use a DSB that has intentionally been nutured with as diverse a micro infauna as possible. I also use approxiamtely 100 lbs of premium grade fiji LR....in my opinion the combination of the two is the foundation of my aquarium. I also run a DSB in my refugium which contains approximately 40-50 lbs of fiji LR and assorted macro algaes(that are routinely harvested and discarded)...and a large ...diverse micro infauna population. ( I must admit the refugium has not been added to the new display yet...but it will be)
I also prefer to limit the introduction of excess nutrients/toxins/metals by using only RO water...later this summer I will probably switch to RO/DI...but I've found RO water allows control to a certain extent of the unwanted items entering my system. Plus I use a skimmer ...in my case a EuroReef CS6-2...to futher assist and compliment the filtration package. I may develop some means of using rowaphos in due time but that project is a few months off. Point is....none of the available filtration methods in and of themselves is that much better than any of the others...but several types of filtration combined can be very effective.
Steve ... in regard to fluidized filters...do they not assist in nitrate reduction if they are iused with a basic arogonite type sand....I was under the impression that even with small amounts of sand suspended in the chamber the de-nitrifing bacteria has more time to process nitrates and can effectively be used to control nitrates much like a DSB would. Maybe I'm mistaken...but I thought that type of filter had some success in nitrate reduction?

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by NM reef
...
Steve ... in regard to fluidized filters...do they not assist in nitrate reduction if they are iused with a basic arogonite type sand....I was under the impression that even with small amounts of sand suspended in the chamber the de-nitrifing bacteria has more time to process nitrates and can effectively be used to control nitrates much like a DSB would. Maybe I'm mistaken...but I thought that type of filter had some success in nitrate reduction?
NM reef You just don't get it. Any media with fast moving water does not have the anaerobic or anoxic bacteria needed to consume nitrAtes. And anaerobic bacteria produces ammonia and very dangerous gasses like sulfer dioxide (rotten egg smell). So I would keep a very close eye on that deep sea bed. Finally the DSB works by the floor area of your tank.
By contrast the plant life works with and aids the aerobic processes necessary to reduce the wastes anyway. Plus plant life fills the voluum of the tank not the projected area. And of course there is more water voluum because less is taken up by the substrait.
Sure have multiple filters. But let's at least elevate plant life to the same status as those other filters. And get it established as the first thing or at least when all the other filtering is started. At least plant life allows the aerobic bacteria to flourish. Unlike filters that work be attempting to remove the food the bacteria needs.
Finally, additives to remove nitrAtes have prooven to be extremely dangerous to our systems. One poster reported that an additive did remove nitrAtes. But then crashed his system. Seems it also removed oxygen as well. The additive was recalled from the market.

 

[steveweast]

NMreef... Nitrate (NO3), as you know, is the end product of the nitrification cycle in our tanks. It can only be broken down back into nitrogen gas (N2) by denitrifing bacteria. Thses bacterias are found in very low O2 environments like inside liverock or deep into the sandbed. These bacterias require O2... so, since there is no O2 in this oxygen depleted environment, it has to steal it off of the nitrate ion ...thus breaking down the nitrate ion to nitrogen gas. If the bacterias run out of nitrate, they will go to the next easiest ion with oxygen to break down... and that would be the sulfate ions (SO4)... which there are alot of. When sulfate gets broken down, you get H2S...hydrogen sulfide... very bad. This is why I don't like DSB's... not that this will happen in all DSB's... but, it is possible..just look for those nasty black areas and hope some goby doesn't want to go digging.
So, to answer your question, denitification can only take place in low oxygen environments... and fluidized reactors are high oxygen environments. Unless there is a media that will bind with the nitrate ion (instead of breaking it down) a fluidized reactor will not remove nitrate.

 

[newbienz]

steveweast: do you have any updates on your tank? I can't get enough of seeing that thing. It's totally awesome.

 

[steveweast]

newbienz...thanks for interest in my system. I posted a couple new photos in the sps thread floating around here somewhere...but, I'm delibrately not posting a lot of pics on any message board until my website comes on line in a couple of months. My camera equipment should be vastly improved over my current set up by then and finally should do justice to the tank.

 

[newbienz]

I will be looking forward to seeing you website when it comes online.

 

[nm reef]

Yup...I stand corrected....and sad thing is I should of known better. Fluidized filters can process ammonia/nitrites to nitrates...but it is correct that they will do nothing to reduce nitrates. Duuuhhhh...what was I thinking...obviously I wasn't thinkin' at all. very interesting stuff....sometimes my thinkin' get ahead of the facts....dang its tough being mortal!!!
Definitely keep us posted on the development of your website...as you know I've got several pics of your display saved and I gotta tell ya once again...it is the best I've ever seen. I have little doubt the pictures will only be better considering you seem to have improved your camera. Can't wait to see them...

 

[golfish]

Originally posted by NM reef
what was I thinking...obviously I wasn't thinkin' at all. very interesting stuff....sometimes my thinkin' get ahead of the facts....dang its tough being mortal!!!

Your problem is your letting Bob get to you.....looks like he's succeeded