Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
SkyReef
New member
SkyReef's ATS After 21 Days in Operation: Algae is Thicker and Starting To Green
SkyReef's ATS After 21 Days in Operation: Algae is Thicker and Starting To Green
Okay, everyone, here are some pictures of my Algae Turf Scrubber ("ATS"), positioned above the sump that lies below my 14-gallon BioCube. The ATS has been in operation for 3 weeks exactly. The algae is growing in a thicker now. The color is starting to turn green in areas. I welcome your comments and advice.
Thank you.
A. ATS Specs:
1. Feeding: 1 cube per day;
2. Dual-Sided ATS Screen: 5" x 3" ATS (roughed-up area);
3. ATS Plumbing: 3/4" PVC Pipe with cut water-slot (table-sawed and hand-filed);
4. Water Flow over ATS Screen: 180 gals. per hour; and
5. Light: two, 13-watt CFL bulbs (2700k), positioned ~ 3" away from screen, shining on each side of the screen for 18 hours per day, on a timer switch (6 p.m. to 12:00 noon). This lighting is considered to be "high intensity," and I am exceeding the recommended, daily, exposure period of 9 hours by running these lights for 18 hours each day, to get the screen "up and running."
B. Water-Quality Specs:
Not available.
C. Pictures of ATS after 21 days in operation:
Note: the algae depicted here is only one week's growth, not three. Please recall that I cleaned off the ATS screen (with my fingers under running water) two weeks ago, after 7 days' growth and one week ago, after 14 days' growth
1. Wide Shots: ATS over Screen with Splash Guards:
2. Wide Shot: Splash Guards Removed:
3. Closeups:
SkyReef's ATS After 21 Days in Operation: Algae is Thicker and Starting To Green
Okay, everyone, here are some pictures of my Algae Turf Scrubber ("ATS"), positioned above the sump that lies below my 14-gallon BioCube. The ATS has been in operation for 3 weeks exactly. The algae is growing in a thicker now. The color is starting to turn green in areas. I welcome your comments and advice.
Thank you.
A. ATS Specs:
1. Feeding: 1 cube per day;
2. Dual-Sided ATS Screen: 5" x 3" ATS (roughed-up area);
3. ATS Plumbing: 3/4" PVC Pipe with cut water-slot (table-sawed and hand-filed);
4. Water Flow over ATS Screen: 180 gals. per hour; and
5. Light: two, 13-watt CFL bulbs (2700k), positioned ~ 3" away from screen, shining on each side of the screen for 18 hours per day, on a timer switch (6 p.m. to 12:00 noon). This lighting is considered to be "high intensity," and I am exceeding the recommended, daily, exposure period of 9 hours by running these lights for 18 hours each day, to get the screen "up and running."
B. Water-Quality Specs:
Not available.
C. Pictures of ATS after 21 days in operation:
Note: the algae depicted here is only one week's growth, not three. Please recall that I cleaned off the ATS screen (with my fingers under running water) two weeks ago, after 7 days' growth and one week ago, after 14 days' growth
1. Wide Shots: ATS over Screen with Splash Guards:
2. Wide Shot: Splash Guards Removed:
3. Closeups:
_shorty_
New member
update: I'm giving up on the UAS. It produced good hair algae, but my levels have risen. I think one of the main problems with my experience was not the design or concept itself, but how quickly film algae grows on the glass, blocking the light. I regularly used a glass cleaning brush to clean (every few days) - but apparently that wasn't doing the trick. Before I realized it, the glass was caked with algae that I ended up scraping off with a razor blade. My levels have risen, and I re-installed the old ATS screen.
I'm pretty disappointed - my ALK usage went WAY down matching that of the Ca usage, space taken was drastically reduced using the UAS, and my design was easy to maintain. I am pretty bumbed... but just can't take the risk of reduced effectiveness because I forget to do a thorough cleaning of the glass every 3 days.
Since I plan to run ATS more long term now, I'll be looking to come up with an optimized design based on my experience for my application and sump set up. I'll post later once I have something to show.
In addition - I did start dosing K, which I believe helps with growth (as long as the algae can get enough light). On a side note - I will say that since dosing the K, I saw more coloration in some SPS pieces... which may or may not be coincidental.
I will also note: DO NOT USE HAGEN TEST KITS. I bought a master kit when first starting this tank up because it was cheep. Most reviews just said they were difficult to read except near 0 readings. I thought that would be fine. NO, NO, NO, NO. I've been testing PO4 under .25 since the tank finished cycling. Previously, almost 0 with the ATS, and I knew it had crept up to around what hagen read at about 0.25ppm while using the UAS. I purchased a hanna PO4 checker, and 0.79!!! I was so upset with Hagen. Fortunately I haven't lost any SPS to these false readings, YET.
I'm pretty disappointed - my ALK usage went WAY down matching that of the Ca usage, space taken was drastically reduced using the UAS, and my design was easy to maintain. I am pretty bumbed... but just can't take the risk of reduced effectiveness because I forget to do a thorough cleaning of the glass every 3 days.
Since I plan to run ATS more long term now, I'll be looking to come up with an optimized design based on my experience for my application and sump set up. I'll post later once I have something to show.
In addition - I did start dosing K, which I believe helps with growth (as long as the algae can get enough light). On a side note - I will say that since dosing the K, I saw more coloration in some SPS pieces... which may or may not be coincidental.
I will also note: DO NOT USE HAGEN TEST KITS. I bought a master kit when first starting this tank up because it was cheep. Most reviews just said they were difficult to read except near 0 readings. I thought that would be fine. NO, NO, NO, NO. I've been testing PO4 under .25 since the tank finished cycling. Previously, almost 0 with the ATS, and I knew it had crept up to around what hagen read at about 0.25ppm while using the UAS. I purchased a hanna PO4 checker, and 0.79!!! I was so upset with Hagen. Fortunately I haven't lost any SPS to these false readings, YET.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
I have been running my 'tester' UAS on my personal 120 for almost a year, and have never been able to achieve N=0 P=0, not even close. I cut feeding in half, had bad algae problems, had to reduce lighting, change food, etc, finally got it under control in the tank, but the light and feeding was so low that corals started to suffer. I took it off and put on another temp tank that needed some quick filtration and put a waterfall scrubber on.
In the first month, the nutrient shot up as there was no filtration, but as the waterfall screen has cured, the nutrients are dropping rapidly. I think the key is flow. The bubbles of an upflow may provide good immediate movement of water across the algal mat, allowing efficient exchange of the nutrients in that pocket of water, but the total turnover rate of the water in that pocket is just not sufficient for large tanks.
A waterfall scrubber that is 6" wide would have 200 GPH over it. On a 100g tank, that's 2 turns/hour. I think this is important, especially on a reef tank. After a screen is mature, I have found that you can double the flow - especially if you're running under LEDs. This further increases the water turnover rate.
It is my opinion that the screen sizing guideline was appropriate for the most part, but the downfall is that the overall tank water turnover rate decreases with a decrease in width, and a decrease in width was initially a benefit because it meant a smaller pump or overall flow rate was now required, meaning it was easier to run off an overflow if you had limited flow available. But now, the decreased width of the screen means that you effectively decreased the tank water turnover rate across the screen, if you kept it at 35 GPH/in of width.
So I feel that a secondary factor needs to be figured back in to screen sizing. Primary is feeding, and secondary is tank volume. Feeding based sizing can stand alone to a certain point (size of tank), and then the turnover rate must be factored in. This can be addressed by planning a standard flow during the curing period, followed by a drastic increase in flow once the scrubber is fully mature.
In my next revision of the Algae Scrubber Basics, I will be addressing this opinion of mine in more detail.
I also plan to set up a benchmark testing system, which will hopefully give everyone great insight into efficiency and effectiveness of various different scrubber types and arrangements.
In the first month, the nutrient shot up as there was no filtration, but as the waterfall screen has cured, the nutrients are dropping rapidly. I think the key is flow. The bubbles of an upflow may provide good immediate movement of water across the algal mat, allowing efficient exchange of the nutrients in that pocket of water, but the total turnover rate of the water in that pocket is just not sufficient for large tanks.
A waterfall scrubber that is 6" wide would have 200 GPH over it. On a 100g tank, that's 2 turns/hour. I think this is important, especially on a reef tank. After a screen is mature, I have found that you can double the flow - especially if you're running under LEDs. This further increases the water turnover rate.
It is my opinion that the screen sizing guideline was appropriate for the most part, but the downfall is that the overall tank water turnover rate decreases with a decrease in width, and a decrease in width was initially a benefit because it meant a smaller pump or overall flow rate was now required, meaning it was easier to run off an overflow if you had limited flow available. But now, the decreased width of the screen means that you effectively decreased the tank water turnover rate across the screen, if you kept it at 35 GPH/in of width.
So I feel that a secondary factor needs to be figured back in to screen sizing. Primary is feeding, and secondary is tank volume. Feeding based sizing can stand alone to a certain point (size of tank), and then the turnover rate must be factored in. This can be addressed by planning a standard flow during the curing period, followed by a drastic increase in flow once the scrubber is fully mature.
In my next revision of the Algae Scrubber Basics, I will be addressing this opinion of mine in more detail.
I also plan to set up a benchmark testing system, which will hopefully give everyone great insight into efficiency and effectiveness of various different scrubber types and arrangements.
moatdaddy
New member
hey floyd thanks for the write ups and lessons learned that you have shared. couple of questions.
I have tried to research (google) about tanks crashing or issues from an effective ATS and didn't find anything. What are the downsides to this method of cleaning out water if ran properly?
Earlier a clownfish breeder said he wondered how much screen he should use. I can only imagine that his system is in desperate need of an excellent water cleaning device such as an ATS. Why would you not want to go large on a system like this?
Finally i understand SM likes the feeding ratio because rational states what ever you import you should export the same. I dont think this ratio comes into play for things like live rock or eggcrate leaching phospates. Do you feel in a reef aquarium going bigger than YOUR forumla of size of tank for turnover plus feeding should be increased to factor in such extra phospate issues?
Thanks for you times and efforts!
I have tried to research (google) about tanks crashing or issues from an effective ATS and didn't find anything. What are the downsides to this method of cleaning out water if ran properly?
Earlier a clownfish breeder said he wondered how much screen he should use. I can only imagine that his system is in desperate need of an excellent water cleaning device such as an ATS. Why would you not want to go large on a system like this?
Finally i understand SM likes the feeding ratio because rational states what ever you import you should export the same. I dont think this ratio comes into play for things like live rock or eggcrate leaching phospates. Do you feel in a reef aquarium going bigger than YOUR forumla of size of tank for turnover plus feeding should be increased to factor in such extra phospate issues?
Thanks for you times and efforts!
Last edited:
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Not many downsides. The waterfall scrubbers do tend to rob bicarbonate (alk) once CO2 is depleted, this is less of an issue with the UAS as shorty mentioned. But if you run a skimmer also and put the scrubber feed pump next to the skimmer outlet, you have a constant air infusing source so that helps.
Algae can exude chemicals to inhibit growth of other algaes, this is known as allelopathy and is very widely studied. This is a form of chemical warfare, you get this in neighboring corals too. From what I have read, algal allelopathy tends to happen when a nutrient is limited. I can't pretend to fully understand this but all you need to know is that this can cause irritation to some things. Most people find that running a skimmer helps, as well as a small amount of carbon, changed frequently (if you even have the issue)
That's just off the top of my head.
As for the clownfish breeder - yeah, no reason not to make it a huge scrubber. Excess nitrate will inhibit growth.
Oversizing a screen for a tank that is initially "dirty" will "clean it up" faster. Then, you can downsize the screen. A lot of scrubbers started this way when based on the original tank volume sizing guideline, then the growth changed over time as the scrubber cleaned up the tank. It's one of the factors that led to the change in sizing.
Hard to say if oversizing the screen will or will not fix a P problem. I had a T5HO scrubber, 22 x 7 on a 144g running for quite a long time and it got yellow rubbery growth, N was always 0 and P was never below 0.09,and usually 0.15ish. I switched to a 6" x 4" screen lit by LEDs and within a few months P dropped to 0.02 or lower and has stayed there for over 6 months and all the growth is green, and I mean all of it.
The bottom line is that every system is different. The guidelines are for everyone to use and get results, but what works perfectly for someone might not work perfectly for another, and the system is dynamic, so adjustments over time might be necessary.
Algae can exude chemicals to inhibit growth of other algaes, this is known as allelopathy and is very widely studied. This is a form of chemical warfare, you get this in neighboring corals too. From what I have read, algal allelopathy tends to happen when a nutrient is limited. I can't pretend to fully understand this but all you need to know is that this can cause irritation to some things. Most people find that running a skimmer helps, as well as a small amount of carbon, changed frequently (if you even have the issue)
That's just off the top of my head.
As for the clownfish breeder - yeah, no reason not to make it a huge scrubber. Excess nitrate will inhibit growth.
Oversizing a screen for a tank that is initially "dirty" will "clean it up" faster. Then, you can downsize the screen. A lot of scrubbers started this way when based on the original tank volume sizing guideline, then the growth changed over time as the scrubber cleaned up the tank. It's one of the factors that led to the change in sizing.
Hard to say if oversizing the screen will or will not fix a P problem. I had a T5HO scrubber, 22 x 7 on a 144g running for quite a long time and it got yellow rubbery growth, N was always 0 and P was never below 0.09,and usually 0.15ish. I switched to a 6" x 4" screen lit by LEDs and within a few months P dropped to 0.02 or lower and has stayed there for over 6 months and all the growth is green, and I mean all of it.
The bottom line is that every system is different. The guidelines are for everyone to use and get results, but what works perfectly for someone might not work perfectly for another, and the system is dynamic, so adjustments over time might be necessary.
_shorty_
New member
Floyd, thanks for your follow-up description. That makes me feel a little better... lol. I've considered that as well, that flow is a large factor. My new design has already taken a wider screen into consideration. Not only more flow/water contact with algae, but also reducing total overall height in limited spaces. 2 fer 1.
This is a totally unfounded 'theory' (if I'd even call it that) as well - but I have also wondered if the longer contact with the water in a submerged algae screen would allow for more 'leaking' of the nutrients back into the water. Many people consider algae as 'leaky' - leaking phosphorus back into the water. It makes me wonder if the the waterfall style design has been more effective than other historical designs partially for this reason. That may be stupid, but it was just something I wondered.
Also - I have read somewhere that someone was able to make bubbles climb a waterfall style (not ATS - but true one sided waterfall) scrubber. I was going to play with that idea and see how plausible this is.
This is a totally unfounded 'theory' (if I'd even call it that) as well - but I have also wondered if the longer contact with the water in a submerged algae screen would allow for more 'leaking' of the nutrients back into the water. Many people consider algae as 'leaky' - leaking phosphorus back into the water. It makes me wonder if the the waterfall style design has been more effective than other historical designs partially for this reason. That may be stupid, but it was just something I wondered.
Also - I have read somewhere that someone was able to make bubbles climb a waterfall style (not ATS - but true one sided waterfall) scrubber. I was going to play with that idea and see how plausible this is.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
The "leaky" thing - not sure where that comes from. I have read that when phosphate is not available (i.e. low P in the water, from whatever mechanism that is) that algae will excrete a chemical that stimulates the release of phosphate that is otherwise bound up in other forms. There are several long discussions about this elsewhere and a lot of it is over my head, but the point is that it is possible that the algae is leaking P back into the water, but rather seeking it's release from other forms so that it can incorporate it. The net effect is a rise in P in the water. It's like saying high blood cholesterol levels are the problem because you find it at hardened arterial sites, when it's just doing it's job.
As for bubbles crawling up a waterfall screen: "You just can't change the laws of physics man!" - Scotty
As for bubbles crawling up a waterfall screen: "You just can't change the laws of physics man!" - Scotty
I would think that the nutrients "leaking" by standard analytical testing is most likely due to die off on the screen due to overshading, or rapid nutrient depletion. From a biochemical standpoint it would be extremely inefficient to release nutrients in times of scarcity.
IIRC, the actual mass % of the chemicals involved in allelopathy would be so small, to not show up on "standard home-grade" tests.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
IIRC, the actual mass % of the chemicals involved in allelopathy would be so small, to not show up on "standard home-grade" tests.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Yes, that is a much better explanation. I was overthinking.
Floyd I have a question for you. I have a 150 gal tank and a sump with a total water vloume of 190 gals. I have a medium/med heavy bio load of fish and I feed about 4-5 cubes day and a sheet of Nori.
Waht size screen would I need? Also I am going to go with the most basic ATS design with its own pump? What size pump do I need. I will sit in my sump so I assume something like 400-500gph?
Waht size screen would I need? Also I am going to go with the most basic ATS design with its own pump? What size pump do I need. I will sit in my sump so I assume something like 400-500gph?
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Go to the basis posts, see my footer/signature. The screens are not based on tank volume alone, start with feeding amount and go from there.
4-5 cubes/day x 12 sq in/cube = 48-60 sq in.
Width of screen will drive the flow requirement. Remember to factor in head loss. Slot pipe counts for roughly 24" of head, then add in actual vertical head and find the point on your loss curve for your pump of choice.
The wider the screen, the higher the turnover rate. per my previous posts today, I would shoot for a minimum of 2x turnover/hour. So that is 190x2=400 GPH. The general guideline says 35 GPH per inch of width, so 400/35= 11 to 12 inches wide. You can go narrower and then you will have a higher flow rate per inch of width, which is fine.
So something along those lines. You get the idea. If you can do a higher flow rate and get a higher turnover rate, then why not. But higher flow means more chance of spray, meaning more need for spray protection in all directions to keep the water in the system!!
4-5 cubes/day x 12 sq in/cube = 48-60 sq in.
Width of screen will drive the flow requirement. Remember to factor in head loss. Slot pipe counts for roughly 24" of head, then add in actual vertical head and find the point on your loss curve for your pump of choice.
The wider the screen, the higher the turnover rate. per my previous posts today, I would shoot for a minimum of 2x turnover/hour. So that is 190x2=400 GPH. The general guideline says 35 GPH per inch of width, so 400/35= 11 to 12 inches wide. You can go narrower and then you will have a higher flow rate per inch of width, which is fine.
So something along those lines. You get the idea. If you can do a higher flow rate and get a higher turnover rate, then why not. But higher flow means more chance of spray, meaning more need for spray protection in all directions to keep the water in the system!!
moatdaddy
New member
Mine is for a 200g total system and I went with a full sheet. Zero issues so far and great growth on the whole sheet. I have a 540 gallon pump that goes from sump to ats and same pump with a ball valve going back to the sump. Ball vale because of the 90 on the PVC and as the algae grow the water flow slows not much but enough to need tweaking. Downside is keeping an eye on it. If I go on vacation I will turn it off. Sump also though for just in case reasons.
Thanks Floyd for the reply.
Moatdaddy why do you have HA on your pumps? Are you just starting your ATS? Whatlind of issues could you run into using a larger sheet? Maybe I missed that portion of the thread.
Aslo your ATS is on sided from what I see. What are your parameters since running your ATS?
Moatdaddy why do you have HA on your pumps? Are you just starting your ATS? Whatlind of issues could you run into using a larger sheet? Maybe I missed that portion of the thread.
Aslo your ATS is on sided from what I see. What are your parameters since running your ATS?
moatdaddy
New member
You can see the red and blue from my new 18$ 18w led in the flood light style. One thing I don't DIY is electrical. I don't have HA on my pumps. As your screen gets thicker the water that enters the ats tub is less. Therefor I have to limit the flow back to the sump slowly. My tank was fallow for 6 weeks due to marine velvet wipe. My nitrates hit 10 right as that happened since then zero. I don't test phosphates. Why bother. It's a huge pain to test for and I'm doing my best to not have them.
Your design is pretty much the way I am going to go with my ATS. It looks like your pump works for you. I will look into that pump as well. I didn't mean your pumps had HA, I meant your powerheads in your tank. I guess that will go away with time. Looking forward to see the results of this ATS on my system.
moatdaddy
New member
Haha that picture is a month old. Only place I have hair algae in my tank now is on the "live sand" I bought from gulfview. I swear that stuff is leaching. All my other sand is beach sand from the gulf. No issues with the white sand at all. Tank is asleep for the night. I had major hair and cyano at the tanks start. Looks much better now.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Sky: What camera do you use:
Shorty: Increasing the LED power even more will photoinhibit the growth on the glass.
Opposite: it allows more time/area for nutrients to be consumed. But the flow (bubbles) has to be strong, or else the metabolite transfer is reduced.
Opposite: Algae consumes phosphate. However, algae does put organic phosphorus into the water, such as Vitamin C, Amino Acids, Carbs, etc.
As for flow I don't think it has anything to do with tank volume. All the screen knows is what growing conditions it has in front of it, and it does not care what occurs elsewhere. If stronger flow helps it's because its delivering more nutrients in relation to illumination and the ability of growth to stay attached.
Shorty: Increasing the LED power even more will photoinhibit the growth on the glass.
Opposite: it allows more time/area for nutrients to be consumed. But the flow (bubbles) has to be strong, or else the metabolite transfer is reduced.
Opposite: Algae consumes phosphate. However, algae does put organic phosphorus into the water, such as Vitamin C, Amino Acids, Carbs, etc.
As for flow I don't think it has anything to do with tank volume. All the screen knows is what growing conditions it has in front of it, and it does not care what occurs elsewhere. If stronger flow helps it's because its delivering more nutrients in relation to illumination and the ability of growth to stay attached.
Similar threads
