Calcium Reactor vs. Two-part System
- Thread starter Rovert
- Start date
- Status
jdieck
New member
On supplementation I would say that at the end it almost becomes a matter of personal preference and convenience. Cost wise there seems to be what looks like a significant gap between using aquarium commercial products and using non aquarium products.
A) Two part supplements:
If you are into saving as much as you can, nothing will beat using non aquarium products like Ms Wages Kalk or DIY two (three) part solution using Magflake, Dow Flake and Baking Soda. Just note that although cost is a pro, there is a con in the form of increased risk and less convenience.
So far these product have proven reliable but not a single manufacturer is or will be willing to assure any quality control in those products and given the manufacturing process there is always a good chance of getting Ammonia in the flake products. Ms Wages has in occasion leaves some unidentified brownish residue.
Also; and this is true for all two parts, there seems to be, judging by the posts in the chemistry forum for a higher difficulty in maintaining stable levels and higher chance of over or under dosing.
Commercial aquarium two part supplements will reduce the risk of contamination but will increase the cost.
Finally two part supplements may affect the ionic balance between sodium, chloride and sulfate if used for a long time without proper water changes.
B) Kalk dripping:
This can be one of the cheapest ways of supplementing if using a simple drip jug using a food Kalk like Ms Wages.
Addition of a reactor, doser pump and top off plus timers will increase the initial investment.
Unfortunately Kalk addition has a limitation. As it replaces the evaporation, the maximum amount of calcium and alkalinity to be added is limited by the amount of daily evaporation in the tank (see chart below). In my experience, although Kalk can cope with the consumption of a lightly loaded or softies tank, I yet have not seen an sps loaded tank that do not require a second form of supplementation.
C) Calcium Reactor:
A properly set up reactor is by far the most convenient of the supplementation methods and the one that might have the highest capacity for addition.
Although on a per unit of alkalinity the reactor media is the cheapest of the supplements, the initial cost of the reactor and peripherals makes the overall system more expensive for small to medium size systems.
In addition to the initial cost, a calcium reactor usually will require more experience to achieve the proper set up and trouble free operation.
Which one to use??
There are basically two factors that affect the decision, convenience and cost.
convenience wise if addition every two or three days is not an issue and the system is relatively small (a nano) a two part commercial or DIY additive will be convenient (if not basically the only alternative), as the tank gets larger and consumption increase, preparing the supplements and having to dose daily can turn into an undesirable chore so automation starts to get into the picture which now starts increasing the cost of two part or kalk addition but increasing the convenience for the aquarist.
Cost wise there are two factors that define the overall operational cost, the size of the system and the daily consumption
Although precise definition of costs is extremely difficult given the different products, sources equipment and peripherals designs and their costs below there is a chart that shows the approximate average annual cost for different supplementation methods for a 55 gallon system. Again the break even points between the methods can swing significantly depending on specific media and equipment sources and the "fanciness" of the set ups.
Note that the least costly option will be to get some Ms Wages Kalk and drip a kalk mix using a basically zero cost plastic jug and an air hose (Green line). At about a consumption of 2 dKh per day the required evaporation (around 1.75% of tank volume) may start limiting the amount of supplementation that can be added. so in that case changing to the next less costly alternative, the manual addition of a DIY supplement, will be required (blue line).
Automating the addition of two part (Orange line) will increase it cost but not as high as what the cost would be by automating the lime addition using a Kalk reactor (Purple line). Note that Kalk could be automated without the use of a reactor (line not shown), the cost of this automation will be very similar if not cheaper than the automation of a two part dosing system so if not using a Kalk reactor, automating Kalk addition will be cheaper than automating two part addition.
In either of the Kalk cases at about 2 dKh of consumption another supplementation method shall be considered, in this case the automation of the two part addition.
Finally in this case cost wise a calcium reactor will be the most expensive alternative and if elected might be for the added convenience and why not a bit for the love of aquarium toys
So for a 55 gal system potentially dripping Kalk, manual addition or automating a DIY are good alternatives
Now if we increase the size of the system to say 120 gallons the comparison may look a bit different.
For a system this size automation is almost granted so no comparison is made with dripping Kalk or manual DIY additions but rather comparing automated Kalk reservoir, automated DIY two part, automated Kalk reactor and automated calcium reactor.
First thing to notice that a Randy style Kalk reservoir with a doser pump and top off will be the lowest cost alternative up to the level were evaporation does not allow for higher addition.
If there is no room for a Kalk reservoir the automating two part solution is the alternative but note that it become more expensive than a Kalk reactor at a consumption of only 0.9 dKh which is an unusually low consumption so in this case a Kalk reactor seems to be the logical alternative.
Finally if this is a heavy loaded system and the consumption exceed 2 dKh per day the alternative will be the calcium reactor.
So for a system this size with light to medium consumption automation of a Kalk reservoir or a Kalk reactor will be the alternative and for a heavy loaded system a properly sized calcium reactor is granted and will not be a luxury.
A) Two part supplements:
If you are into saving as much as you can, nothing will beat using non aquarium products like Ms Wages Kalk or DIY two (three) part solution using Magflake, Dow Flake and Baking Soda. Just note that although cost is a pro, there is a con in the form of increased risk and less convenience.
So far these product have proven reliable but not a single manufacturer is or will be willing to assure any quality control in those products and given the manufacturing process there is always a good chance of getting Ammonia in the flake products. Ms Wages has in occasion leaves some unidentified brownish residue.
Also; and this is true for all two parts, there seems to be, judging by the posts in the chemistry forum for a higher difficulty in maintaining stable levels and higher chance of over or under dosing.
Commercial aquarium two part supplements will reduce the risk of contamination but will increase the cost.
Finally two part supplements may affect the ionic balance between sodium, chloride and sulfate if used for a long time without proper water changes.
B) Kalk dripping:
This can be one of the cheapest ways of supplementing if using a simple drip jug using a food Kalk like Ms Wages.
Addition of a reactor, doser pump and top off plus timers will increase the initial investment.
Unfortunately Kalk addition has a limitation. As it replaces the evaporation, the maximum amount of calcium and alkalinity to be added is limited by the amount of daily evaporation in the tank (see chart below). In my experience, although Kalk can cope with the consumption of a lightly loaded or softies tank, I yet have not seen an sps loaded tank that do not require a second form of supplementation.
C) Calcium Reactor:
A properly set up reactor is by far the most convenient of the supplementation methods and the one that might have the highest capacity for addition.
Although on a per unit of alkalinity the reactor media is the cheapest of the supplements, the initial cost of the reactor and peripherals makes the overall system more expensive for small to medium size systems.
In addition to the initial cost, a calcium reactor usually will require more experience to achieve the proper set up and trouble free operation.
Which one to use??
There are basically two factors that affect the decision, convenience and cost.
convenience wise if addition every two or three days is not an issue and the system is relatively small (a nano) a two part commercial or DIY additive will be convenient (if not basically the only alternative), as the tank gets larger and consumption increase, preparing the supplements and having to dose daily can turn into an undesirable chore so automation starts to get into the picture which now starts increasing the cost of two part or kalk addition but increasing the convenience for the aquarist.
Cost wise there are two factors that define the overall operational cost, the size of the system and the daily consumption
Although precise definition of costs is extremely difficult given the different products, sources equipment and peripherals designs and their costs below there is a chart that shows the approximate average annual cost for different supplementation methods for a 55 gallon system. Again the break even points between the methods can swing significantly depending on specific media and equipment sources and the "fanciness" of the set ups.
Note that the least costly option will be to get some Ms Wages Kalk and drip a kalk mix using a basically zero cost plastic jug and an air hose (Green line). At about a consumption of 2 dKh per day the required evaporation (around 1.75% of tank volume) may start limiting the amount of supplementation that can be added. so in that case changing to the next less costly alternative, the manual addition of a DIY supplement, will be required (blue line).
Automating the addition of two part (Orange line) will increase it cost but not as high as what the cost would be by automating the lime addition using a Kalk reactor (Purple line). Note that Kalk could be automated without the use of a reactor (line not shown), the cost of this automation will be very similar if not cheaper than the automation of a two part dosing system so if not using a Kalk reactor, automating Kalk addition will be cheaper than automating two part addition.
In either of the Kalk cases at about 2 dKh of consumption another supplementation method shall be considered, in this case the automation of the two part addition.
Finally in this case cost wise a calcium reactor will be the most expensive alternative and if elected might be for the added convenience and why not a bit for the love of aquarium toys
So for a 55 gal system potentially dripping Kalk, manual addition or automating a DIY are good alternatives
Now if we increase the size of the system to say 120 gallons the comparison may look a bit different.
For a system this size automation is almost granted so no comparison is made with dripping Kalk or manual DIY additions but rather comparing automated Kalk reservoir, automated DIY two part, automated Kalk reactor and automated calcium reactor.
First thing to notice that a Randy style Kalk reservoir with a doser pump and top off will be the lowest cost alternative up to the level were evaporation does not allow for higher addition.
If there is no room for a Kalk reservoir the automating two part solution is the alternative but note that it become more expensive than a Kalk reactor at a consumption of only 0.9 dKh which is an unusually low consumption so in this case a Kalk reactor seems to be the logical alternative.
Finally if this is a heavy loaded system and the consumption exceed 2 dKh per day the alternative will be the calcium reactor.
So for a system this size with light to medium consumption automation of a Kalk reservoir or a Kalk reactor will be the alternative and for a heavy loaded system a properly sized calcium reactor is granted and will not be a luxury.
Good info as usual jdieck but IMO there are a couple of spots in there where an IMO would be appropriate. Also I have a heavily stocked 120 that does great on 2 part but I also dose kalk via topoff.
I guess that's something else that should be mentioned in this thread....that lots (most?) of people that use a Ca reactor and some that use 2 part also suppliment with kalk.
FWIW, Chris
I guess that's something else that should be mentioned in this thread....that lots (most?) of people that use a Ca reactor and some that use 2 part also suppliment with kalk.
FWIW, Chris
jdieck
New member
Yes, it is common to have more than one form of supplementation, that is most typical in two cases:
When Kalk is being used and alkalinity consumption exceed the allowable evaporation, then a two part, like in your case is used to complement the kalk supplementation.
The other typical case is when using a calcium reactor, specially if it is undersized the impact of the lowering effect in the PH could be significant so Kalk is also added to counteract some of the PH lowering effect of the calcium reactor.
other than that calcium or alkalinity or magnesium only supplements are used with any of the supplementation methods to make individual parameter adjustments
MJAnderson
Premium Member
Thanks JDieck,
Your answers are always well throught out and helpful.
Your answers are always well throught out and helpful.
Rovert
Premium Member
An outstanding overview of the pros and cons of each. Exactly the kind of quality information I was hoping for, and what I've come to expect from the Reef Central community. Thanks so much for your effort here. This post should be made a permanant FAQ. IMO, of course.
Let me share a completely unscientific observation I made the other day that is inclining me to a reactor.
When corals grow, they construct skeleton by metabolizing the necessary chemicals and minerals in precise proportions. Nature has perfected this process over billions of years, and I'm not gonna second-guess it. So I conclude the more accurately we can replenish those chemicals and minerals in their respective proportions, would seem the way to go.
It seems to me that a calcium reactor uses the identical process in reverse that nature used while constructing the coral, by deconstructing coral skeletons (reactor media) and to returning those chemicals and minerals to the tank in the form of a liquid, given the media is a solid form of those chemicals and minerals that nature deposited their requisite precise proportions. Therefore, it seems to me that a reactor will tend to more closely and accurately replicate nature's process.
Where the 2-part solutions are concerned, I wonder about those minerals we don't know about, whether or not the 2-part systems are replenishing them in their proper proportions, and the accuracy of our assumptions of what corals need.
The question of 2-part component purity and concentration has crossed my mind. Different batches of man-made chemicals can vary from one lot to the other, and as noted, there is a fair amount of latitude in terms of the quality control with regard to concentration. In other words, if you were buying chocolate, there are different concentrations of cocoa used depending on the brand, and even different concentrations of cocoa from one production lot to another. While it's more than adequate for human consumption when making pickels, I tend to think that there is a fairly wide margin for error when using it for a reef tank.
Granted, perhaps I'm being overcautious. I know that a great many have been using 2 part systems for many years with no ill effects. I've been using B-Ionic myself for years, though my pH tends to run high. But if I factor the cost of a 2 part system to a small Korallin 1502 setup, the difference is about $350, which buys me a lot of convenience, and a lot of peace of mind.
So, I'm again finding myself inclining to a reactor, not for the gadgetry of it (because IMO, that's a PITA in its own right) but for the benefits of more closely replicating nature's own process, while relieving me of the concerns regarding chemical purity, concentration and the job of mixing solutions.
Just my two cents. Keep those cards and letters comin'!
Last edited:
jdieck
New member
The increase is temporary. Basically when you add one shot of supplement containing Sodium Carbonate (Soda Ash) the Sodium Carbonate will take up dissolved CO2 from the water colum, the reduction in CO2 translates into an increase in PH; once the CO2 is replenished by the water air exchange in about 3 to 12 hours the PH goes back to the initial stage. On the other hand if you continuously add the supplement (say on a drip) the PH will not return to the original condition but will not increase forever either, instead as new CO2 gets replenished a new balance is achieved at a somehow higher PH. That new PH level will depend on how fast your system replenishes the CO2 and how much and how fast you are adding the supplement.
RichConley
New member
Jdieck, I dont know if that write up is yours, or something you pasted, but thanks for posting it (and writing it?). Very informative.
I completely disagree with the "convenience factor" of a calcium reactor. They are significantly less convenient than automated 2-part.
I run an MTC ProCal clone, and frankly, its a pain in the butt.
As to the cost analysis, is the cost of CO2 included in there? Is also the increased cost due to extra elecrical usage? Theres a big difference between running the Iwaki 20 on my reactor, and a peristaltic pump that runs an hour a day.
How is the initial cost calculated on the chart?
Rover, your point is valid (in that Calcium Reactor media is the same elements as corals use.)
What should be considered though, is that a lot of the things we use for 2-part... like Mag Flake are refined from seawater sources, so their "impurities" may contribute in the same was as the "impurities" in Ca Reactor media.
I completely disagree with the "convenience factor" of a calcium reactor. They are significantly less convenient than automated 2-part.
I run an MTC ProCal clone, and frankly, its a pain in the butt.
As to the cost analysis, is the cost of CO2 included in there? Is also the increased cost due to extra elecrical usage? Theres a big difference between running the Iwaki 20 on my reactor, and a peristaltic pump that runs an hour a day.
How is the initial cost calculated on the chart?
Rover, your point is valid (in that Calcium Reactor media is the same elements as corals use.)
What should be considered though, is that a lot of the things we use for 2-part... like Mag Flake are refined from seawater sources, so their "impurities" may contribute in the same was as the "impurities" in Ca Reactor media.
Rovert
Premium Member
Interesting points. Just to 'noodle' this for a minute, here are my initial thoughts.
1) I think we need to be entirely clear that the 2-part solution is really a 3-part system, because you need to dose Mg also. So, to imply that you only need to factor the cost and convenience of two additives is misleading, because it's three, not two.
2) Not all reactors are created equal. Some are more of a PITA to use than others, just as not all peristaltic pumps are easy to use. Also, you need to factor the cost and complexity of the controls to run those pumps at the proper times per day, or the cost of a more sophisticated pump that will dose 'x'mL of solution over time.
Those cost factors bring the math to this...
The 3-part "simple" way:
$180: Three "Dumb" dosing pumps, one for each solution
$30: Three timers (X10 or otherwise) to activate pumps
$45: "Starter Kit" (3 jugs and tubes)
____
$255
The 3-part "advanced" way:
$574 for a LiterMeter III
$45: "Starter Kit" (3 jugs and tubes)
____
$619
The reactor way:
Korallin 1502 reactor with pump, 5 lb CO2 canister, regulator and 8 lbs of media.
____
$599
Remind me again how the advanced 3-part way is significantly cheaper than a reactor? :eek2:
3) Though some of the supplements in the 3 part system may be derived from seawater, as you noted, there are impurities, perhaps in significant amounts depending upon where it was collected and distilled from. We also need to consider what impurities might be introduced in the processing and handling of the material. Does anyone remember the cat food debacle from just a few months ago? I tend to think that those impurities will not be present in coral skeletons, and if they are, they'd be in significantly diminished amounts as they're not needed for calcification by the animal, therefore they won't be incorporated by the coral's metabolic proces. However I confess I'm completely out of my depths on this matter, so I'll defer to an expert to chime in and verify my assumption.
4) If the Mg dosing component of the 3-part system was added to the 2-part system because it was an oversight, it makes me wonder what other elements or factors are not being considered, which are returned to the system by the decomposition of coral skeletons in a reactor-based system.
Just keeping the dialog going. Good points, all. Lots to think about.
Last edited:
RichConley
New member
"Remind me again how the advanced 3-part way is significantly cheaper than a reactor? "
Its not, but comparing a Korralin reactor to a Litermeter is silly. One is the cheapest piece in its sector, the other is the most expensive.
Might was well do the numbers up with something like a Deltec PF501 at $620, with a $130 regulator, a $100 pH controller, ARM at $20, $60 for 5lb Co2 tank, $30 for a solenoid, and $50 for a pump to feed the thing.
Leaving you at,
The simple way
Two Part: 255
Reactor : 599
The advance way
Two Part: 619
Reactor: 1010
I mean, lets be serious here... no one who spends $600 on a dosing pump is going to buy a Korallin reactor and not run a controller, etc. If you're going to compare "advanced," compared advanced.
Also, nobody really pump doses magnesium, they all just dose once a month or so, so you can take $60 off the simple dosing.
Its not, but comparing a Korralin reactor to a Litermeter is silly. One is the cheapest piece in its sector, the other is the most expensive.
Might was well do the numbers up with something like a Deltec PF501 at $620, with a $130 regulator, a $100 pH controller, ARM at $20, $60 for 5lb Co2 tank, $30 for a solenoid, and $50 for a pump to feed the thing.
Leaving you at,
The simple way
Two Part: 255
Reactor : 599
The advance way
Two Part: 619
Reactor: 1010
I mean, lets be serious here... no one who spends $600 on a dosing pump is going to buy a Korallin reactor and not run a controller, etc. If you're going to compare "advanced," compared advanced.
Also, nobody really pump doses magnesium, they all just dose once a month or so, so you can take $60 off the simple dosing.
jman77
New member
FYI:
The 2 part solution is just that ...2 parts... you will rarely have to dose the MG part of it. When you get your mg level up to what you want it, you leave it alone ( for months) . You will not dose it daily, or need a dosing pump for it. ( just read that Rich pointed it out
)
2 part is cheap...
Lets see
50lb bag of dowflake (bucks at Pinch a Penny) 25.00
Baking Soda, .. local supermarket... Cheap
2 x 1 gallons water jugs 2 hold the 2 part Free ( i drink bottled watter)
Total for manual doesing.... under 30 bucks
Lets automate shall we ...
2 x peristaltic pumps 140.00 ( APT sp100 oem pump)
1 x digital timers 11.00 ( Harbor Freight)
so total now is around 180.00 start up for a completely automated setup.
Now to say DIY is not ridiculously cheaper, is well , ridiculous
And as far as what other elements i might not be adding back to the tank since i does 2- part....well i don't care.... that's what the monthly water change is for. :lol:
The 2 part solution is just that ...2 parts... you will rarely have to dose the MG part of it. When you get your mg level up to what you want it, you leave it alone ( for months) . You will not dose it daily, or need a dosing pump for it. ( just read that Rich pointed it out
)2 part is cheap...
Lets see
50lb bag of dowflake (bucks at Pinch a Penny) 25.00
Baking Soda, .. local supermarket... Cheap
2 x 1 gallons water jugs 2 hold the 2 part Free ( i drink bottled watter)
Total for manual doesing.... under 30 bucks
Lets automate shall we ...
2 x peristaltic pumps 140.00 ( APT sp100 oem pump)
1 x digital timers 11.00 ( Harbor Freight)
so total now is around 180.00 start up for a completely automated setup.
Now to say DIY is not ridiculously cheaper, is well , ridiculous
And as far as what other elements i might not be adding back to the tank since i does 2- part....well i don't care.... that's what the monthly water change is for. :lol:
RichConley
New member
jamn, do you use those APT pumps?
I've been looking at the $78 pumps from omega.com... comparable?
I've been looking at the $78 pumps from omega.com... comparable?
jdieck
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10096437#post10096437 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Jdieck, I dont know if that write up is yours, or something you pasted, but thanks for posting it (and writing it?). Very informative.
I would never dare to copy and paste without mentioning the author. I went trough the exercise of finding the range of prices, costs, calculate the yields prepare the spreadsheets and make the charts. All this just for fun so if something is wrong, beers are on me
I completely disagree with the "convenience factor" of a calcium reactor. They are significantly less convenient than automated 2-part.
I run an MTC ProCal clone, and frankly, its a pain in the butt.
Definition of things like, love, hope, convenience, they all have a mere personal meaning. In this case, having tested different designs and setups and having gone trough plenty of issues posted by aquarists, I can attest to the fact that some reactors are really a pain in the butt but I also found that most of the time it has to do with the way the combination of elements is put together.
I also run a clone of the MTC Procal and found it to be much of set up and forget, basically I top off media when 1/4 of it has been consumed and clean it all once a year.
It is true that setting up a calcium reactor is difficult some times but once set up and debugged it can really be a forget kind of thing.
That is why I tried to be clear by mentioning "a properly sized and set up reactor" which given the mostly poor instructions from most manufacturers I have to agree is not the easiest of tasks if done for the first time.
As to the cost analysis, is the cost of CO2 included in there? Is also the increased cost due to extra electrical usage? Theres a big difference between running the Iwaki 20 on my reactor, and a peristaltic pump that runs an hour a day.
As I mentioned there is a large range of variability in the data given the different designs and set ups. The power of the recirculation pump is included, I used an average of $25 US per year as with the smaller pumps the power cost is in the range of $10.00 to up to $50 assuming there are more reactors on the lower side than on the higher. For our specific case (I also run an Iwaki 20RT) the pump consumes 50.6 watts which operating 24/7 will consume 443 kw per year which at a power rate of 90 mils will be an annual cost of power of $39.90
BTW I did not included any power for peristaltics in the case of them used for kalk or two part.
The cost of CO2 is also included and ranged from $1.00 per pound up to $4.00 per pound which given the yields turns out at 2 cents per dKh per 100 gal.
How is the initial cost calculated on the chart?
Were there is no initial investment like in the case of dripping Kalk or manual addition of two part there is no initial cost so the graph starts at zero for zero consumption.
When there is an initial investment I assumed that the equipment will last an average of 5 years so the annual cost of the investment is assumed at 1/5th that of the cost of the setup.
For our example of the calcium reactor, the lowest cost setup I could come up with was $395.00 and the fanciest at $1,180.00 (as I mentioned there is a lot of variability)so I used an average cost for the setup of $787.50 for an annual cost of $157.50 for the setup only.
Rover, your point is valid (in that Calcium Reactor media is the same elements as corals use.)
What should be considered though, is that a lot of the things we use for 2-part... like Mag Flake are refined from seawater sources, so their "impurities" may contribute in the same was as the "impurities" in Ca Reactor media.
Just a word of caution here. Although the brine/lime process is considered non synthetic, the solvay or acid reduction process is considered synthetic, this is why there could be a wide range of purity from different manufacturers.
I use the two-head dosing pump from twopartsolution.com($120), digital timer from Home Depot($17), 10 feet of 1.6mm od hose from two part($10), and two milk jugs(free). I could've put together my own 2 part from scratch, but twopartsolution makes it too easy, so $22 for 6 gallons of that. I have the time turn it on at 3AM when my ph has dropped and it runs for 50 minutes with Alk going into the skimmer area at the beginning of my sump and CA going in by the return pump. It only adds .75ml per minute of each, so no precipitation that I can see. This is a pretty easy setup. I was dosing it by hand at night, but this takes care of that. As my SPS and clams grow, it's easy enough to lengthen the dosing period(I also have an MRC Kalkwasser reactor with my top off) to increase CA and Alk. I check Mg every few weeks and add that by hand when necessary.
RichConley
New member
"I would never dare to copy and paste without mentioning the author. I went trough the exercise of finding the range of prices, costs, calculate the yields prepare the spreadsheets and make the charts. All this just for fun so if something is wrong, beers are on me "
It seemed familiar... which probably means you posted it elsewhere and I read it there.
I'll PM you later about the ProCal... I gotta be doing something wrong with this thing.
It seemed familiar... which probably means you posted it elsewhere and I read it there.
I'll PM you later about the ProCal... I gotta be doing something wrong with this thing.
- Status
Similar threads
