ARID E18 reactor (Phosphate Control!!!)
- Thread starter maxxII
- Start date
SantaMonica
Well-known member
What is "ringing" the algae?
Isn't that true with most reef gear? Easy enough to DiY - there's a thread here somewhere on that. I've seen these in person though, and the build quality is very high. Value in the eye of the buyer I suppose.
maxxII
Super Housemonkey!
While it will fit inside the sump, I really dont think it should be. The LED light source has a short, (as in 6 inches on my E18) male connector that plugs into the female cord on the power source side.
I just run mine outside the sump and feed it with a Maxijet 900.
fearyaks
New member
Great, thanks! Will make space for it this weekend then.
I agree with other posters..... The price is the limiting factor. I am not disconnecting my skimmer. So, it replacing my skimmer isn't a valid argument for me. Also, having to dose nitrate to raise it up makes absolutely no sense to me since lowering nitrate and phosphate is the whole point of this thing.
Then u have nitrate and phosphate swings when you start out in your tank that can wipe out your SPS. I don't know, I think I'll just keep my refugium how it is and not chase numbers and trust in my natural system. Why does everything need to be put on steroids in this hobby?
Then u have nitrate and phosphate swings when you start out in your tank that can wipe out your SPS. I don't know, I think I'll just keep my refugium how it is and not chase numbers and trust in my natural system. Why does everything need to be put on steroids in this hobby?
maxxII
Super Housemonkey!
As I stated in the very beginning of this thread, I was unable to get a handle on high PO4 levels, let alone NO3 levels using all other methods,(refugium, gfo, massive regular water changes, bio pellets). Once I started using the ARID, my PO4 levels got lowered with a quickness.
No one who has an ARID is advocating one as being essential to reef keeping. Rather, we're explaining why they're effective in our systems and why they may be useful to others.
If you can maintain ideal NO3 & PO4 levels in your system without it, why would you change what works?
An ARID is NOT a refugium. It is an Algae Remidiation Illuminated Device. It's purpose is nutrient export via optimized chaeto growth. If you can manage the nutrients in your tank without an ARID, I wouldnt suggest changing anything.
IMO/IME, this is just another way of skinning a cat. It costs more to start, but takes up less space than a "normal" refugium or ATS system.
A "normal" refugium and/or ATS is less expensive to start, takes up more space, and will most likely be a pod factory.
Each has it's pro's and cons.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
Some stuff for scrubbers, which some of which applies here::
If you are starting a new tank, then the obvious difference is that a scrubber gives you the option of not having a fuge at all because an upflow scrubber can be placed on top of, in, or behind, the display. There are other uses for a sump/fuge of course, but we'll only cover the filtration concerns here.
A not-so-obvious difference is that a scrubber, if run together with a fuge with macros, will kill the macros even though the macros are much larger. This is because the scrubber thinks the macros are nuisance algae. Some people do run both together without killing the macros, but this is just because their scrubber is not strong enough, and actually the macros might even be slowing down the scrubber because the scrubber thinks it has to remove the macros, along with the nutrients in the water and the nuisance algae in the display. However if this works for them, good.
But assuming you have to decide on either a sump/fuge or a scrubber (not both)...
o Filtration with algae is proportional photosynthesis, which is proportional to Light X Air Water Turbulence Flow X Attachment. Meaning, stronger light grows more algae; stronger air/water interface turbulence grows more algae; and stronger attachment lets more algae grow without it detaching and floating away. A scrubber is thus designed to maximize Light, Flow, and Attachment.
o The main problem with macros in a refugium is the self-shading that the macros do. Any part of the macro which is not directly in front of the light at any moment is not filtering. And any macro inside of a "ball" of macro (like chaeto) is self-shaded all the time. Only the surface macro that is directly in front of the light is doing any real filtering. A scrubber is designed to have all the algae in front of the light at all times. Rotating the macro does not solve the problem, because the time that the macro is rotated away from the light is time that the macro is not filtering. This is why it takes a much larger size of chaeto to do the same filtering as a scrubber.
o Self-flow-blocking is another problem of macros in a refugium, for the same reason as light-blocking. And the thicker the "ball" of macro, the worse the flow-blocking.
o Particle trapping is another result of a ball of macro. These particles need to cycle back around to feed the corals, but instead they get trapped in the macro and they rot, and in doing so they block even more flow and light.
o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the inverse square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the filtering.
o Rapid flow across the algae in a scrubber gives more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge. Filtering is proportion to nutrient flow.
o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae in a scrubber help to remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have waves and bubbles). The interface between the air and water is what provides the most turbulence and boundary layer removal; there is no air/water interface in macros.
o Scrubbers do not let food particles settle like a refugium does; most particles flow right out of the scrubber.
o Scrubbers do not (if cleaned properly) release algal strands into display, like chaeto does.
o Scrubbers do not go sexual, like caulerpa can.
o Scrubbers do grow lots of pods; more than was previously thought, especially if not cleaned with freshwater.
o Scrubbers don't, obviously, provide a place for snails and crabs, etc.
However, if you already have a sump with an empty compartment, and you don't mind using all of it and putting a light over it, then maybe it's easier and cheaper to try macros first.
If you are starting a new tank, then the obvious difference is that a scrubber gives you the option of not having a fuge at all because an upflow scrubber can be placed on top of, in, or behind, the display. There are other uses for a sump/fuge of course, but we'll only cover the filtration concerns here.
A not-so-obvious difference is that a scrubber, if run together with a fuge with macros, will kill the macros even though the macros are much larger. This is because the scrubber thinks the macros are nuisance algae. Some people do run both together without killing the macros, but this is just because their scrubber is not strong enough, and actually the macros might even be slowing down the scrubber because the scrubber thinks it has to remove the macros, along with the nutrients in the water and the nuisance algae in the display. However if this works for them, good.
But assuming you have to decide on either a sump/fuge or a scrubber (not both)...
o Filtration with algae is proportional photosynthesis, which is proportional to Light X Air Water Turbulence Flow X Attachment. Meaning, stronger light grows more algae; stronger air/water interface turbulence grows more algae; and stronger attachment lets more algae grow without it detaching and floating away. A scrubber is thus designed to maximize Light, Flow, and Attachment.
o The main problem with macros in a refugium is the self-shading that the macros do. Any part of the macro which is not directly in front of the light at any moment is not filtering. And any macro inside of a "ball" of macro (like chaeto) is self-shaded all the time. Only the surface macro that is directly in front of the light is doing any real filtering. A scrubber is designed to have all the algae in front of the light at all times. Rotating the macro does not solve the problem, because the time that the macro is rotated away from the light is time that the macro is not filtering. This is why it takes a much larger size of chaeto to do the same filtering as a scrubber.
o Self-flow-blocking is another problem of macros in a refugium, for the same reason as light-blocking. And the thicker the "ball" of macro, the worse the flow-blocking.
o Particle trapping is another result of a ball of macro. These particles need to cycle back around to feed the corals, but instead they get trapped in the macro and they rot, and in doing so they block even more flow and light.
o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the inverse square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the filtering.
o Rapid flow across the algae in a scrubber gives more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge. Filtering is proportion to nutrient flow.
o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae in a scrubber help to remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have waves and bubbles). The interface between the air and water is what provides the most turbulence and boundary layer removal; there is no air/water interface in macros.
o Scrubbers do not let food particles settle like a refugium does; most particles flow right out of the scrubber.
o Scrubbers do not (if cleaned properly) release algal strands into display, like chaeto does.
o Scrubbers do not go sexual, like caulerpa can.
o Scrubbers do grow lots of pods; more than was previously thought, especially if not cleaned with freshwater.
o Scrubbers don't, obviously, provide a place for snails and crabs, etc.
However, if you already have a sump with an empty compartment, and you don't mind using all of it and putting a light over it, then maybe it's easier and cheaper to try macros first.
JB NY
Active member
Price is definitely a consideration when buying into the system. Some people continue to run their skimmers, others disconnect it. ARID doesn't require you to remove the skimmer, but many times you can if you want.
The whole idea of dosing Nitrates is a new one, so many people are not comfortable with doing this. The reef community has always been told to keep N and P as low as possible, but many people, especially those of us keeping SPS have found that you need small amounts of both N and P in your system for the corals to look their best. This is where dosing nitrates is key.
Many people use GFO and carbon dose. Both of these methods are targeted at two areas, carbon dosing to lower Nitrates and GFO to lower Phosphates. If that is all you have ever used you will be a little confused at to how N and P reduction work outside of these methods.
When using methods such as algae to remove N and P from the system, they can only be removed if there is enough of both of them in your water. NO3 and P04 are consumed in a ~16:1 ratio. So when there is not enough N the bacteria can not consume the P.
Having 0 nitrates means that you cannot get phosphates out anymore, you have a nitrate limited system. Conversely, having 0 phosphates means you cannot get nitrates out any more, you are phosphate limited. This is why you see so many reefers with 0 nitrates and rising phosphates that force them to use more and more GFO. There is no longer enough nitrates in the tank to remove the excessive phosphates and you start to see your P go up. Adding the nitrates in this situation allows the bacteria to continue to consume P which will drive the Phosphate levels back down.
Hopefully this makes more sense. FWIW I have been dosing nitrates for well over a year, and this makes for a very stable system.
I coughed up the cash for the nano arid, however it is still sitting on a shelf in my garage. I've run skimmer free for the short life of my 8 month old system. Always registering 0 nitrates and 0.15 PO4. My fuge setup was originally a 1/2" layer of crushed coral with some liverock rubble and algae thrown in. It was getting a lot of detritus build up and I was frustrated with PO4 problems so I set out to make some change. The same time I ordered my ARID, I read this article and cleaned and reorganized my fuge to this duplex setup while waiting a month for my new equipment. This setup addresses many issues with macro algae that SantaMonica brings up. I also started dosing sodium nitrate (.5ppm nitrate daily) based on what I learned in this article. My chaeto started growing like mad. In one week my PO4 dropped to .02 and has consistently registered 0.00-0.02 on my Hanna ulr for the last month. I have no doubt the ARID would grow my chaeto, but it's easier to harvest in my open fuge and I'm scared to mess with what's working.
A few of my acros freaked out from the abrupt change in nutrient levels, but my deep water acros didn't miss a beat. Most of my lps perked up. I decided to double down on this moment of change and swapped my Kessil 700 for t5 since I've already started experiencing shadowing symptoms. I'll update in a few months.
A few of my acros freaked out from the abrupt change in nutrient levels, but my deep water acros didn't miss a beat. Most of my lps perked up. I decided to double down on this moment of change and swapped my Kessil 700 for t5 since I've already started experiencing shadowing symptoms. I'll update in a few months.
Last edited:
How much lt/H is the flow?
In your opinion, is it better to have (in order) chaeto reactor skimmer return pump (than putting the outlet of the chaeto reactor near the inlet of the skimmer) or chaeto reactor lined up to skimmer return pump?
Are there difference if the reactor water is treated by the skimmer or is it better if goes directly in the tank?
Are there difference if the reactor water is treated by the skimmer or is it better if goes directly in the tank?
maxxII
Super Housemonkey!
I dont think it really matters since the ARID pulls PO4 that your skimmer cant touch.
I can see running your Calcium Reactor effluent into your reactor, but other than that, I cant see it making a difference where it's placed in relation to your skimmer or return pump.
I can see running your Calcium Reactor effluent into your reactor, but other than that, I cant see it making a difference where it's placed in relation to your skimmer or return pump.
JB NY
Active member
About six months ago I moved my ARID so it received the run off from my DT first, from there the water goes to my frag tank then the skimmer then to the return pump. I used to have the water go through the DT into my frag tank, then skimmer and ARID before going back to the DT. The reason I made the change was because the frag tank (with no fish) would get algae in it. After the change the frag tank has way less algae than it did. YMMV
petemichelle
New member
arid cleaning
arid cleaning
what kind of test kid are you guys using to test for boron? what is your target for boron and how do you supplement it if low?
how do you guys clean your arid reactor? vinegar? muriatic acid, what percentage and what method, soak, run solution through with pump? how often?
i just set mines up 4 days ago, need advice, don't want to screw this up...
I switched from a sump system with chaeto because I was getting a lot of long hair algae and it was choking the chaeto. I put a emperor aquatic uv sterilizer in front of the arid hoping to kill any water born algae before it gets into the reactor. will post outcome...
arid cleaning
what kind of test kid are you guys using to test for boron? what is your target for boron and how do you supplement it if low?
how do you guys clean your arid reactor? vinegar? muriatic acid, what percentage and what method, soak, run solution through with pump? how often?
i just set mines up 4 days ago, need advice, don't want to screw this up...
I switched from a sump system with chaeto because I was getting a lot of long hair algae and it was choking the chaeto. I put a emperor aquatic uv sterilizer in front of the arid hoping to kill any water born algae before it gets into the reactor. will post outcome...
Similar threads
