BEST ORP for Sulphur NO3 Reactor (De-Nitrator)

It seems that even a slow pump in the RX can cause this issue.

http://www.theaquariumsolution.us/nitrate-reactor-redox-problemrotten-eggs-smell



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

yes, i keep an eye on the recirculating Pump also, low flows areas inside the reactor could cause this. i think black areas inside are a cause for concern, but have never seen this in mine. i have read about long power outages causing the most damage; after power is restored the filter starts flowing again and dumping hydrogen sulfide in the DT.
 
yes, i keep an eye on the recirculating Pump also, low flows areas inside the reactor could cause this. i think black areas inside are a cause for concern, but have never seen this in mine. i have read about long power outages causing the most damage; after power is restored the filter starts flowing again and dumping hydrogen sulfide in the DT.



I have a whole house generator, so hopefully power outage is never my issue, but, just in case I have a Honda 2k inverter I use for my RC helicopters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree that ORP is likely to be a poor guide as to the amount of hydrogen sulfide in the water. What is critical is keeping enough oxygen in the reactor so that anaerobic metabolism is kept low enough that not much sulfate is converted to hydrogen sulfide. If the reactor gets blocked for a while, a lot of hydrogen sulfide can build up. When the flow is restarted, the hydrogen sulfide can be very toxic. That's why taking any kind of reactor (GFO, etc) offline can be dangerous if water is left in the vessel.
 
1jwampler

Any updates?



046cfb2613321348458ed73774e3ebc1.jpg
f110a191fc07db7a4b84288c9bdfe76f.jpg

Tank NO3 holding at 2.5ppm N-ORP still falling over the last week from just more than -300 to -330, needle valve all the way open flowing about 30oz/min with the effluent still at Zero.

You can follow N-ORP live on reeftronics

https://www.reeftronics.net/_/1jwampler/apex-history

T-pH is where the effluent is delivered to the refugium typically 7.75 to 8.05 and B-pH is the inline probe from the main pump typically 7.95 to 8.15.

So the reactor has taken a toll on tank pH but the inhabitants seem ok with it, since the fuge is cleaning it up (removing all the CO2 from the bacteria). The NO3 levels are pretty good and GFO is keeping my phosphates below .25ppm typically around .112 using Hanna phosphorus 736


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Anyone out there have insight into the Salifert and Red Sea test kits at the very low end of the spectrum, or maybe how nitrates leach? I'm very confused, I have this RX running at 30oz/min or 338gpd. I have a 150 with about 200lbs of liver rock, a 60g sump, so I figure actual water volume close to tank, so for grins say 164 gallons. This means the RX turns the tank 2x/day and effluent is ALWAYS 0ppm on any test kit. The tank water is stuck at ~2.5ppm NO3 for almost a month. Yes I know I have a lot of livestock and I over feed, but, is it really possible that my system manufactures 5.0ppm of NO3 per day?

I have heard of rock work leaching nitrates, but, this still seems a bit crazy. I was worried about running the tank too clean, and I feel like I'm going crazy with nitrate testing. If I let the Salifert test sit for 5 min it shows 5.0ppm rather than the 2.5ppm in 3 min, the Red Sea is not so sensitive too extra time. The API kit stopped showing anything but yellow/zero two months ago.

Am I just seeing some erroneous trace? These kits are supposed to show/be accurate to .25ppm, but, I only tend to see a little higher than 2.5ppm, which I think is due to poor timing on my part. I have attached a nitrate test graph.

6a88bf830e42a04d8fc6af18b5cf9ece.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
LOL, hope i didn't poke the hornet's nest....

:p:rollface: Bzzzzzzzz; larger is not necessarily better,IMO and experience. One gallon of media worked fine for a 500 gallon system. Some prefer 1 or even 2% but that seems excessive to me and far exceeds natural levels. IMO, the volume of sulfur in use can be adjusted to the level of nitrate in the system.
 
Last edited:
LOL, hope i didn't poke the hornet's nest....



:p:rollface: Bzzzzzzzz; larger is not necessarily better,IMO and experience. One gallon of media worked fine for a 500 gallon system. Some prefer 1 or even 2% but that seems excessive to me and far exceeds natural levels. IMO, the volume of sulfur in use can be adjusted to the level of nitrate in the system.



Trust me I thought this was too much Sulphur for a 150 too, which is why I started with 1 gallon (Per GEO) for my 150. This said, I realize my tank has too many fish, but, they are not aggressive to each other, probably because my family likes to feed way too often. The RX was not dropping past ~10ppm, until I filled it up, then it went down to 2.5ppm, but, like I said, I find it crazy that I can turn my 150 2x/day and effluent is ALWAYS 0ppm and yet the tank stays at 2.5ppm.

So bigger is NOT better, it's just BIGGER, in this case BIGGER is providing 338 GPD+ of 0 PPM NO3 water to a 150G system and the system is adding the 5.0 PPM/day back.

This doesn't seem possible, that's why I'm posting. So... If you have any explanation of how bigger could be adding, I'm very interested.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I don't think more sulfur adds NO3; it adds more sulfur and sulfate and additional potential NO3 reduction in the reactor in balance with the flow of NO3 into the reactor from the tank. More sulfur and more flow may be hlepful in a very high NO3 producing set up. If the effluent is zero and the tank is 2.5 more flow through the reactor might reduce the tank level further even without additional sulfur.
 
I don't think more sulfur adds NO3; it adds more sulfur and sulfate and additional potential NO3 reduction in the reactor in balance with the flow of NO3 into the reactor from the tank. More sulfur and more flow may be hlepful in a very high NO3 producing set up. If the effluent is zero and the tank is 2.5 more flow through the reactor might reduce the tank level further even without additional sulfur.



Right but, 1 gallon at 12oz/min was zero NO3 in the effluent, 13oz/min had traces of pink in the Salifert and Red Sea kits. So.... I added another gallon, then went to 24oz/min, then the final 1/2gallon for max flow needle all the way open 30oz/min. So... Again bigger/more yes than others, but, measured and calculated for results, effluent at ZERO is pretty darn good proof of that.

The above said, not sure this addresses how a 150 could produce 5.0ppm of NO3/day?

So if your goal in posting was to say you think I have too much sulphur for the size tank, all out there can take your note.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
That was not my intent;have no idea how you got that out of it.

The nitrate "production" in the tank is from ammonia production from foods ,fish waste and respiration and decaying organic material without enough enough anaerobic denitrification in the tank to keep up with the ammonia oxidation/nitrification .
 
Anyone out there have insight into the Salifert and Red Sea test kits at the very low end of the spectrum

with regards to this question....clear on Salifert is not 0.00 or no3 free, i have tested NSW around reefs and open water in S. Florida many times and only on very, very rare occasions is it anything but completely clear. In fact, i use NSW from Haulover Cut in-coming tide and every time i get water i test it and almost every time it is clear on Salifert.

here is NSW being delivered, only once has Salifert tested anything other than clear (iirc) and we know no3 must be present...

[URL=http://s1294.photobucket.com/user/CHSUB/media/photowc_zps1c01819b.jpg.html][/URL]
 
i have tested NSW around reefs and open water in S. Florida many times and only on very, very rare occasions is it anything but completely clear. In fact, i use NSW from Haulover Cut in-coming tide and every time i get water i test it and almost every time it is clear on Salifert.



here is NSW being delivered, only once has Salifert tested anything other than clear (iirc) and we know no3 must be present...



Thanks, I see clear Salifert from the effluent, so I know it's possible. I'm still stumped on the 150 creating 5.0ppm of NO3/ day. Not as efficient as the sulphur reactor, but I have a 4" sand bed, and two marine pure 8x8x4 blocks in the bottom of the refugium, almost no light reaches the top but I have a rio 600 moving enough water to keep detritus off the bottom, so I would think there is some additional NO3 removal by the:
Sand bed
Live rock
Marine pure blocks

In addition to the 5ppm/ day the sulphur reactor removes.

Seems like crazy production, I'm not a chemist but, I would assume getting close to the actual weight of the food added to the tank each day, especially when you consider the crud removed from the sock also changed each day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks, I see clear Salifert from the effluent, so I know it's possible. I'm still stumped on the 150 creating 5.0ppm of NO3/ day. Not as efficient as the sulphur reactor, but I have a 4" sand bed, and two marine pure 8x8x4 blocks in the bottom of the refugium, almost no light reaches the top but I have a rio 600 moving enough water to keep detritus off the bottom, so I would think there is some additional NO3 removal by the:
Sand bed
Live rock
Marine pure blocks

In addition to the 5ppm/ day the sulphur reactor removes.

Seems like crazy production, I'm not a chemist but, I would assume getting close to the actual weight of the food added to the tank each day, especially when you consider the crud removed from the sock also changed each day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

a lot of "stuff" happens in reef tanks that we don't understand imo. you have many big fish, so maybe? the only way you could know for sure is to remove it, LOL.....years ago i ran a methanol denitrator with dt NO3 unreadable and was convinced it was working well. i removed it and no3 remained unreadable....go figure???
 
a lot of "stuff" happens in reef tanks that we don't understand imo. you have many big fish, so maybe? the only way you could know for sure is to remove it, LOL.....years ago i ran a methanol denitrator with dt NO3 unreadable and was convinced it was working well. i removed it and no3 remained unreadable....go figure???



Sad to admit but you're right, that would be both good and bad. I have always hoped when the effluent is the same as the tank it should be removed. And I share your opinion I have too many big fish, but my family loves them. I want corals so I'm trying to get the tank (sparing little expense) parameters in line to support corals.

So NO3 at 2.5 and PO4 at .08 should be good now but I would like to see NO3 at .5 and can't figure out why this crazy overkill is not doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am not a chemist but MD, and I think much like tank ORP, the reactor ORP will also also differ between different reactors. Once the reactor is stable and pouplated, I would run ramp study; check efficacy of NO3 removal (NO3 tank-NO3 effluent/NO3 tank) at different ORPs from 0-300. I am doing mine now.
 
No foul smell at -367, I assume, so I shouldn't worry about how far down ORP is as long as I'm at high flow? Just read a bunch of horror stories of hydrogen sulfide contaminating the tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


H2S is produced during strictly anaerobic conditions, thus more flow more oxygen and less of risk. ORP is going b/c your bacterial colony is expanding.
 
I am not a chemist but MD, and I think much like tank ORP, the reactor ORP will also also differ between different reactors. Once the reactor is stable and pouplated, I would run ramp study; check efficacy of NO3 removal (NO3 tank-NO3 effluent/NO3 tank) at different ORPs from 0-300. I am doing mine now.

or even better NO3 clearance which would NO3 difference between tank and effluent x flow throuh reactor per day
 
Back
Top