Algae Scrubber Basics

I know one guy that has 3 of them on all FW, he has to run them pretty hard to get results compared to SW. Very high lighting, long photoperiod, frequent cleaning, but they do the job.

True, but emersed plants are easier - they have an unlimited amount of CO2/O2 compared to the algae which is submersed. No having to build some fancy contraption, just throw the floating plants in your sump, add lighting and you're done. Once they multiply - sell them or throw them.

Water hyacinth is reported for its efficiency to remove about 60–80 % nitrogen (Fox et al. 2008) and about 69% of potassium from water (Zhou et al. 2007). The roots of water hyacinth were found to remove particulate matter and nitrogen in a natural shallow eutrophicated wetland (Billore et al. 1998). It's used all over the world for sewage treatment.
 
Last edited:
Ditto on the emergent/floating plants for fresh water systems an algae scrubber seems a waste of effort when there are simpler methods. If you are unsure how effective plants can be at cleaning in fresh water check out the estimative index (EI dosing) It will give you an idea of uptake rates for submerged fresh water plants.
 
Yes, but you might be surprised at how well a FW scrubber works compared to plants. It's all about nutrient delivery, and a waterfall algae scrubber with thin laminar flow can deliver a lot of nutrients to the algae, fast. If it was not very efficient compared to plants, then the plants would outcompete the scrubber, but the opposite is true and it happens fast.
 
2f6edd3c923f684be9ef564663d5ba24.jpg
ok I jumped on the train and added one to my system. I'm thinking I'm going to need larger lights for the screen size. I did 12x18 for my 220gal system.
 
Maybe, maybe not. The filtering will be limited by available light instead of determined by screen size. Those CFL/reflectors cover a decent area, what wattage are they?

How much do you feed?
 
Maybe, maybe not. The filtering will be limited by available light instead of determined by screen size. Those CFL/reflectors cover a decent area, what wattage are they?

How much do you feed?
1 cube and a pinch of spectrum or formula 2 a day. Bulbs are 100 watt equivalent cfl. Brightess I had laying around.
 
I have ability to upgrade it this was just a prototype to see how effective it is over the next couple of months. I built out of left over parts and lights laying around. Only thing I bought were two unions today to make ease of cleaning dow the road. Going to put larger pipe over smaller one too to keep flow restrictions to a minimum. My hope is to not run gfo anymore in the long term. :)
 
What you have will probably work. It's way oversized but that's not the worst thing. Feeding-based sizing is 12 sq in lit on both sides per cube of food per day, with 6-12 CFL watts per side (18 hours/day for the lower end, 9 hours/day for the higher end)

Sizing it based on feeding would put you down to a screen that is more like 4x6 or 6x6. But you will get the majority of your growth under the coverage of the dome which looks like a 10" diameter.

Lighting is actual watts, not the equivalent, so those are 23W ones, correct? Going by the CFL guidelines, 23W on each side would be 46 total or roughly 4 cubes/day "capacity" when lit for 18 hours/day. So if you then re-sized the screen to match the lighting, that would be a 48 sq in screen or 7x7 ish.

The only effect you might see with a oversized screen when compared to the lighting available and how much you feed the tank is that the growth might get spread out and night not grow GHA quite as well. If you shrink the screen down to match the feeding and lighting, this encourages the growth to be in a more condensed space and that tends to result in more GHA. But that's not a hard-and-fast rule necessarily so I wouldn't change a whole lot. You might make the screen a few inches narrower and run the same flow, which will mean your flow rate per linear inch is increased which is always better. Then just leave the screen height the same so your drainage into your sump is smoother (i.e. no water falling off the screen and crashing into the sump)

The other thing with the oversize screen is that it might initially grow very well, and then as your tank chemistry slowly changes you might see growth start to diminish. That would be a sign that you might want to downsize or change the lighting photoperiod, etc.

The larger pipe slid over the main slot pipe is a good idea because eventually you will get growth at the slot/screen junction that will cause a streamer. You need to prevent this and protect the lights (as well as keep water IN the sump!). Rigging up a piece of acrylic or something between the screen and the lights will help protect the CFL tubes also but you don't want them in close proximity with acrylic as they can get hot.

Overall, good simple build!

FWIW I just ran a battery of tests on 4 tanks the I run scrubbers on, 3 of them scrubber-only long term and all 4 tanks have nitrate 0 phosphate 0.05-0.06 (one was 0.14, but it's severely neglected and no coral). No water changes for a couple years on all of them...once a scrubber gets trucking along, it really does the job. The one tank (200g) that has other filtration also has lots of big fish (like a 10" Vlamingi and 3 other tangs) and a skimmer (RO 150) a filter sock and GFO/carbon but I don't know how often he changes it.
 
Just found out that he's not running the GFO anymore at all, he fills both canisters of his BRS dual reactor with carbon :) and changes only every 2 months :eek:
 
Thank you for your imput. I may downsize it then tonight when I add the unions. It is not glued yet for final fitment adjustment. Eventually I'll be upping feeding as stock increases including size of ls. So I may go down to a 8x8 or 6x10 if you think that would work long term. I currently have set up for 18 hours on. Smaller size would help with my tite space as well.
 
Last edited:
I would leave it bigger, you can always reduce the photoperiod if you are getting yellow growth - which would be too much light compared to flow & available nutrients. Then as you grow out the tank, you can increase flow and photoperiod to match the needs of the tank. Also it's easier to reduce size later than increase it (because you would have to cure up a new screen, or a new section)
 
43582188ba7713e47c5966a76aae073c.jpg
unions and slip over pipe installed. Lost a couple of inches on sides of screen but since it's so over sized should be ok I believe. Now time to sit back and let it go to work
 
Yes, but you might be surprised at how well a FW scrubber works compared to plants. It's all about nutrient delivery, and a waterfall algae scrubber with thin laminar flow can deliver a lot of nutrients to the algae, fast. If it was not very efficient compared to plants, then the plants would outcompete the scrubber, but the opposite is true and it happens fast.

But to build that device, you're limiting algae to small surface area. But with plants you can have them anywhere in the system. You can have floating plants and submersed plants in the display. Then have floating plants in the sump and have them on a reverse light cycle.

If the plants grow too long or you have too many, you can always sell them.

But with algae, you'll need to throw it away.
 
I think algae scrubber is better suited for SW since I'm not sure how efficient other marine algae [aka SW plants] are at nutrient export. In FW, the choices are limitless especially with emersed/floating species.
 
Algae Scrubber Basics

Or, use it for fertilizer, pet food, salad, skin wraps, baths, or even... beer fermentations :)


With algae grown in the sea or specialised photobioreactors maybe. I wouldn't dare using reef tank algae for anything other than -

f91ee1cb66ceedb0186ee6f20d5a6761_zpsab447836.jpg


With the concentration and defence mechanisms that algae has, who knows what it actually contains? Coupled with the uncertain amounts of toxins in our tanks and algaes ability to concentrate /accumulate it may be a serious health hazard, not only to our fish but us also.
 
Yeah, totally agree. If you want to use algae for those purposes, anything other than fertilizer in your garden, then set up a dedicated system where you know what you are adding. I'd like to see what the FDA might have to say about someone scooping up a bunch of algae from the beach or a pond and putting it in a food product because that's exactly the same as pulling it out of your tank and consuming it. I don't care how much you rinse it, it's just completely preposterous to even suggest it.
 
You want constant current drivers, not constant voltage. Meanwell LPC-35-700 is a good start. You just connect in series and it drives all at 700ma, with a max power dissipation of 35w.

You CAN do constant voltage drivers, but it's more complicated. There are plenty of constant current drivers to choose from

Thank you Floyd for steering me to constant current.

The algae filter I'm building will have 40 3W 660nm LEDs. I need to be able to dim them uniformly.

Would this driver do the trick?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/150W-Dimmab...655?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f29068c5f
This driver is adjustable from 0-4.5A. My LEDs have a forward current of 700mA. Is that current adjustable at the dimmer knob? If so, I could put a stop at 700mA.

This driver has 25-36V. My LEDs have a forward voltage of 2.5-3V. So would strings of 10 LEDs in series be the way to go?

I've been on YouTube and have been looking around and am having a heckuva time getting these basic answers. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Back
Top