Dosing Nitrate to reduce Phosphate

[herring_fish]

Hmmmm thanks

 

[tmz]

I disagree with the last sentence. Depending on the ration of N to P in the bacteria removed, it is very relevant to the discussion of the thread.

Skimmers remove organics including bacteria. Individual orgniac compounds and organisms have variable N ratios. En masse ,why would the content of skimmate have a different ratio of N and P than the tank? Seems it wouldn't; I don't think GAC would efffect the ratio either, overall. Not exporting organics likely wouldn't effect the ratio either;just the overall volume.

 

[tmz]

Tom said,
You said you would use a wet and dry for areation in lieu of a skimmer. I think that could work if it was large enough. Whatever media you choose to use if it provides adequate surface area in the highly oxic aqueous environment in a wet and dry,ammonia will be reduced.and nitrate produced for better or worse .

It is not the physical size, it is the physics of the dry portion of the filter.


That makes no sense to me as an aeration property.

The water surface area size for aeration/ gas exchange matters when discussing aeration which is what we were discussing. Media isn't necessary for gas exchange. There is nothing thinner than the actual air water interface in a wet and dry filter ,the surface of the tank or the bubbles in a skimmer. Rippled surface water increases water surface volume exponentially ,bubbles even more so.

BTW, I did not ignore your post linked from another forum asserting bioballs denitrify. I read it through. None of those measures were taken in a wet and dry ,IIRC.As such it didn't seem very relevant to the discussion on the wet and dry. I would expect any surface area to support denitrification since the bacteria are facultative and can use up the oxygen in aerobic activity and create hypoxic areas free of oxygen and turn to nitrate even in their own mulm for the oxygen . It's not about the bioballs. Anaerobic activity is more limited in highly oxygenated aqueous environments,however.
Some of the variability with natural substrates vs plastic noted in the linked thread may be related to residual organic decomposition or phosphate leaching from the former and not the later. I don't believe those variables were accounted for.
Anyway I chose not to comment beyond asking for clarification on NO4 since I didn't know if you meant NO3 or were differentiating NH3 and NH4, since it seemed that you took even that question I thought , personally. There is nothing personal in this discussion from my perspective.;it's unfortunate you view disagreemnt as adversarial. It really doesn't bother me that others run tanks differently; I think it enriches the hobby fort folks to try different things. I do however, challenge opinions presented as facts ,pedantic detours and mistatements of my positions.
Whenever ,I put media( bioballs, matrix, rubble etc. in a high flow oxygenated environment ammonia is reduced and nitrate produced. While some limited anaerobic activity by the facultative bacteria may deplete some; such activity is severely limited by the high flow of free oxygen. Of course it may be depleted in the tank itself but flowing it in gives nuisance algae a crack at it.

 

[slavetonet]

Before I started this experiment - I have stopped my maintenance dosing of lanthanum chloride. Hopefully this will not skew the results.
Started dosing potassium nitrate last night.
From a dry 250g KNO3 into 1000 ml RO water.
Dosing 15ml to start the Nitrate.
Day 1 ) Reading of 5ppm Nitrate, Phosphate 0.2ppm - No visual sign of diatoms and algae on rocks looking pale for reference.
Day 2 ) Initial reading 2.5ppm Nitrate - re-dosing 10ml to bring it up to + 5ppm Nitrate, Phosphate 0.1ppm - Diatoms starting to appear all over my sand substrate and algae on rocks looks like greening up.
Day 3 ) Waiting...:wavehand:

 

[glennf]

Before I started this experiment - I have stopped my maintenance dosing of lanthanum chloride. Hopefully this will not skew the results.
Started dosing potassium nitrate last night.
From a dry 250g KNO3 into 1000 ml RO water.
Dosing 15ml to start the Nitrate.
Day 1 ) Reading of 5ppm Nitrate, Phosphate 0.2ppm - No visual sign of diatoms and algae on rocks looking pale for reference.
Day 2 ) Initial reading 2.5ppm Nitrate - re-dosing 10ml to bring it up to + 5ppm Nitrate, Phosphate 0.1ppm - Diatoms starting to appear all over my sand substrate and algae on rocks looks like greening up.
Day 3 ) Waiting...:wavehand:

If you are using lanthanium already i don't think dosing No3 will reduce po4 that effective. So the outcome will be a higher phosphate and green nuisance algea.
When doing carbon dosing you remove a small part PO4 but mainly NO3. Dosing nitrate when deficient can help reduce PO4, but gfo,lanthanum and iron dosing are far more efficient.

The reason you get a lower PO4 is consumption due to algea growth. If you do nothing about this it will overtake your tank. ( the classic algae cycling). Unless this is what you intend to do.

 

[Subsea]

What is in the skimmate?

What is in the skimmate?

I disagree with the last sentence. Depending on the ration of N to P in the bacteria removed, it is very relevant to the discussion of the thread.

Skimmers remove organics including bacteria. Individual orgniac compounds and organisms have variable N ratios. En masse ,why would the content of skimmate have a different ratio of N and P than the tank? Seems it wouldn't; I don't think GAC would efffect the ratio either, overall. Not exporting organics likely wouldn't effect the ratio either;just the overall volume.

Tom,
Seems it wouldn't. That is the point. You can't tell me definitively. Until that is established, it is crowd sourching.
Patrick

 

[Subsea]

Wet &. Dry

Wet &. Dry

Tom said,
You said you would use a wet and dry for areation in lieu of a skimmer. I think that could work if it was large enough. Whatever media you choose to use if it provides adequate surface area in the highly oxic aqueous environment in a wet and dry,ammonia will be reduced.and nitrate produced for better or worse .

It is not the physical size, it is the physics of the dry portion of the filter.


That makes no sense to me as an aeration property.

The water surface area size for aeration/ gas exchange matters when discussing aeration which is what we were discussing. Media isn't necessary for gas exchange. There is nothing thinner than the actual air water interface in a wet and dry filter ,the surface of the tank or the bubbles in a skimmer. Rippled surface water increases water surface volume exponentially ,bubbles even more so.

BTW, I did not ignore your post linked from another forum asserting bioballs denitrify. I read it through. None of those measures were taken in a wet and dry ,IIRC.As such it didn't seem very relevant to the discussion on the wet and dry. I would expect any surface area to support denitrification since the bacteria are facultative and can use up the oxygen in aerobic activity and create hypoxic areas free of oxygen and turn to nitrate even in their own mulm for the oxygen . It's not about the bioballs. Anaerobic activity is more limited in highly oxygenated aqueous environments,however.
Some of the variability with natural substrates vs plastic noted in the linked thread may be related to residual organic decomposition or phosphate leaching from the former and not the later. I don't believe those variables were accounted for.
Anyway I chose not to comment beyond asking for clarification on NO4 since I didn't know if you meant NO3 or were differentiating NH3 and NH4, since it seemed that you took even that question I thought , personally. There is nothing personal in this discussion from my perspective.;it's unfortunate you view disagreemnt as adversarial. It really doesn't bother me that others run tanks differently; I think it enriches the hobby fort folks to try different hey things. I do however, challenge opinions presented as facts ,pedantic detours and mistatements of my positions.
Whenever ,I put media( bioballs, matrix, rubble etc. in a high flow oxygenated environment ammonia is reduced and nitrate produced. While some limited anaerobic activity by the facultative bacteria may deplete some; such activity is severely limited by the high flow of free oxygen. Of course it may be depleted in the tank itself but flowing it in gives nuisance algae a crack at it.

Tom,
The bioballs in my test were 100% submerged. The qualitative numbers were not opinions as you asserted. They were the result of four months of effort on my part. My test results using API test kits were substantiated by an outside third party Labarotory. Your opinion overshadowed the information presented and you discounted it.
Because of the complexity of the processes, no instruments will be able to separate and measure the different processors at play. It should be noted that more than half of the bioballs in my wet/dry trickle filter are below water and submerged. This portion will process nitrate. To what degree? Neither you or I can validate that. It is speculation on both sides.
Patrick

PS. I do not view disagreement as adversarial. I do view leaving out details and dismissing data as less than an exchange of ideas and more as you establishing your superiority on the subject matter.

 

[Subsea]

Rippled water trumps air bubbles

Rippled water trumps air bubbles

Tom said,
You said you would use a wet and dry for areation in lieu of a skimmer. I think that could work if it was large enough. Whatever media you choose to use if it provides adequate surface area in the highly oxic aqueous environment in a wet and dry,ammonia will be reduced.and nitrate produced for better or worse .

It is not the physical size, it is the physics of the dry portion of the filter.


That makes no sense to me as an aeration property.

The water surface area size for aeration/ gas exchange matters when discussing aeration which is what we were discussing. Media isn't necessary for gas exchange. There is nothing thinner than the actual air water interface in a wet and dry filter ,the surface of the tank or the bubbles in a skimmer. Rippled surface water increases water surface volume exponentially ,bubbles even more so.



Tom,
I disagree that bubbles exceed rippled surface water in gas exchange. Sprung and Delbeek lifted up rippled water surface as expodentially effective at gas exchange.
Instead of the physics of the dry portion, I should have said it is the dynamics of the physices as water rippples over the media. Does that make more sense to you?
Let us talk about the air bubbles in the foam fractionator.
Sprung and Delbeek: Reef Aquarium Volume 3 Pg 309

Protein Skimming Theory
"While the mechanics of protein skimming theory are simple to explain, the subject of protein skimming gets a little more complicated when we examine the chemical processes that make it effective. Certain molecules in the aquarium are attracted to the surface of the air bubbles. They are referred to as the surface-active molecules are surfactants. These molecules are polar (charged) and non-polor (uncharged) at the other end. The polor end is attracted to water molecules (hydrophobic). These surface active molecules are attracted to a surface where the hydrophobic end of the molecule can be away from the water and the hydrophilic end can remain in contact with the water. Conveiniently, air bubbles provide an excellant air-water interface for surfactants to adhere."

Now, let us focus on "surfactants to adhere". This would be scum or skimmate. Be assured that this scum does not promote good gas exchange. To add the phrase, "bubbles even more so" is misleading and false. The fact that it was inserted immediately after expodential, to me, shows intent to "exagerate without fact". I do have a problem with that.
Patrick

 

[reefmutt]

Before I started this experiment - I have stopped my maintenance dosing of lanthanum chloride. Hopefully this will not skew the results.
Started dosing potassium nitrate last night.
From a dry 250g KNO3 into 1000 ml RO water.
Dosing 15ml to start the Nitrate.
Day 1 ) Reading of 5ppm Nitrate, Phosphate 0.2ppm - No visual sign of diatoms and algae on rocks looking pale for reference.
Day 2 ) Initial reading 2.5ppm Nitrate - re-dosing 10ml to bring it up to + 5ppm Nitrate, Phosphate 0.1ppm - Diatoms starting to appear all over my sand substrate and algae on rocks looks like greening up.
Day 3 ) Waiting...:wavehand:

Are you carbon dosing already?
You didn't say.. Having a carbon source is key to your experiment and key to this subject..
I would give serious consideration to what Glenn said..
I would think that stopping the lanthanum chloride would give the p a big rebound..
Why not give a few more details about where your levels were and what you're overall nutrient export regimen is, at the moment- or what is was 3 days ago..

 

[Subsea]

Rippled water trumps air bubbles

Rippled water trumps air bubbles

Tom said,
You said you would use a wet and dry for areation in lieu of a skimmer. I think that could work if it was large enough. Whatever media you choose to use if it provides adequate surface area in the highly oxic aqueous environment in a wet and dry,ammonia will be reduced.and nitrate produced for better or worse .

It is not the physical size, it is the physics of the dry portion of the filter.


That makes no sense to me as an aeration property.

The water surface area size for aeration/ gas exchange matters when discussing aeration which is what we were discussing. Media isn't necessary for gas exchange. There is nothing thinner than the actual air water interface in a wet and dry filter ,the surface of the tank or the bubbles in a skimmer. Rippled surface water increases water surface volume exponentially, bubbles even more so.



Tom,
I disagree that bubbles exceed rippled surface water in gas exchange. Sprung and Delbeek lifted up rippled water surface as expodentially effective at gas exchange.
Instead of the physics of the dry portion, I should have said it is the dynamics of the physices as water rippples over the media. Does that make more sense to you?

Let us talk about the air bubbles in the foam fractionator.
Sprung and Delbeek: Reef Aquarium Volume 3 Pg 309

Protein Skimming Theory
"While the mechanics of protein skimming theory are simple to explain, the subject of protein skimming gets a little more complicated when we examine the chemical processes that make it effective. Certain molecules in the aquarium are attracted to the surface of the air bubbles. They are referred to as the surface-active molecules are surfactants. These molecules are polar (charged) and non-polor (uncharged) at the other end. The polor end is attracted to water molecules (hydrophobic). These surface active molecules are are attracted to a surface where the hydrophobic end of the molecule can be away from the water and the hydrophilic end can remain in contact with the water. Conveiniently, air bubbles provide an excellant air-water interface for surfactants to adhere."

Now, let us focus on "surfactants to adhere". This would be scum or skimmate. Be assured that this scum does not promote good gas exchange. To add the phrase, "bubbles even more so" is misleading and false. The fact that it was inserted immediately after expodential, to me, shows intent to "exagerate without fact". I do have a problem with that.
Patrick

 

[Aquarist007]

I disagree with the last sentence. Depending on the ration of N to P in the bacteria removed, it is very relevant to the discussion of the thread.

Skimmers remove organics including bacteria. Individual orgniac compounds and organisms have variable N ratios. En masse ,why would the content of skimmate have a different ratio of N and P than the tank? Seems it wouldn't; I don't think GAC would efffect the ratio either, overall. Not exporting organics likely wouldn't effect the ratio either;just the overall volume.

If the individual organisms and organics have different ratios then the tank and are concentrated in the skimmate then it is it not conceivable that the skimmate could have a different ratio to the tank?

 

[slavetonet]

Are you carbon dosing already?
You didn't say.. Having a carbon source is key to your experiment and key to this subject..
I would give serious consideration to what Glenn said..
I would think that stopping the lanthanum chloride would give the p a big rebound..
Why not give a few more details about where your levels were and what you're overall nutrient export regimen is, at the moment- or what is was 3 days ago..

Sorry - I should have given a base reference to what I have in my sump.
400 liters of water, protein skimmer, GAC and purigen in a reactor - Currently running 500ml All in One bio pellets with the usual reading of undetectable nitrate reading from Red Sea test kit.
My phosphate hovers around 0.1 to 0.2 ppm all the time without dosing Lanthanum chloride. Only when doing Lanthanum chloride, I could bring it down to less than 0.1ppm. Which is done during the weekend.

My theory is I am Nitrogen limited from the bio pellets taking it all. Hence this experiment of introducing Nitrate to feed the bacteria back up.
I have plenty of carbon source from bio pellets and left over phosphate that just don't go down to 0.03ppm which I have no way to test out as test kit stops at 0.1ppm resolution reading, then it becomes undetectable.

 

[Aquarist007]

Clearly I have lost the point of the discussion here. I forget wha poet stated " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing "
It was less confusing when all I knew was that there was aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria and each in its own process removed ammonia and nitrates from the tank.
For seven years I made sure my tanks had a ten per cent water change, had a good skimmer and ran carbon in a reactor. They are still doing great today

Now it is presented that a skimmer is not good, carbon strips the bacteria out of the tank and causes HLLE in tangs, and water changes aren't necessary if you dose a lot of elements
If you don't feed your fish meat they will die from ich.
Uv sterilizer kill phyto in your tank
On my basement floor I have a three hundred dollar uv sterilizer and two reactors. I am running pellets dosing vodka , phytoplankton, Amino acids kent essential elements iron strontium magnesium iodinealk calcium .. But only 2gal a day water changes

And my tank shows no difference from all the other 20 I look after
Wow:blown:

To clear things up the quote " a little knowledge......." Was in reference to myself

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html

 

[Subsea]

If the individual organisms and organics have different ratios then the tank and are concentrated in the skimmate then it is it not conceivable that the skimmate could have a different ratio to the tank?

Scott, is American English your first language?

The introductory statement after if, qualifies/injects that different ratios of organics are in the skimmate, but the then, which is the conclusion says the oppossite in disagreement. The language goes from active to passive between verbs and adjectives. Was this meant to be an oxymoron? It is unclear to me what you mean.
Patrick

 

[glennf]

Sorry - I should have given a base reference to what I have in my sump.
400 liters of water, protein skimmer, GAC and purigen in a reactor - Currently running 500ml All in One bio pellets with the usual reading of undetectable nitrate reading from Red Sea test kit.
My phosphate hovers around 0.1 to 0.2 ppm all the time without dosing Lanthanum chloride. Only when doing Lanthanum chloride, I could bring it down to less than 0.1ppm. Which is done during the weekend.

My theory is I am Nitrogen limited from the bio pellets taking it all. Hence this experiment of introducing Nitrate to feed the bacteria back up.
I have plenty of carbon source from bio pellets and left over phosphate that just don't go down to 0.03ppm which I have no way to test out as test kit stops at 0.1ppm resolution reading, then it becomes undetectable.

My experience is that the redsea po4 test is quite capable of testing below 0,1ppm With the lowest resolution being 0,02ppm.
The Salifert No3 test is in my experience more acurate.

 

[Aquarist007]

Scott, is American English your first language?

The introductory statement after if, qualifies/injects that different ratios of organics are in the skimmate, but the then, which is the conclusion says the oppossite in disagreement. The language goes from active to passive between verbs and adjectives. Was this meant to be an oxymoron? It is unclear to me what you mean.
Patrick

American English not.... Blue collar Canadian eh:dance:

If the skimmate contains a concentration of organisms with a different ratio of nitrate and phosphate, then the skimmate ratio can and will have a different ratio from the tank.
This is contradictory to Tom's post.

 

[Subsea]

To clear things up the quote " a little knowledge......." Was in reference to myself

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html

Who said that skimming is bad?
For certain, I said unnecessary.

Who said that GAC causes HLLE? Who said that GAC strips bacteria out of the tank beside you?
Very misrepresentation of the dialogues that I heard and read.

Water changes are not necessary, if you dose the right chemicals.
I stand by that, but then again I choose to run high nutrient systems with multiple nutrient pathways.

I do not remember your other laments.
Yes, it was having two UV sterilizers at a cost of $500 laying on the a the basement floor.
Join the club, I have $800 worth of sterilizers on my back porch.

I can only say one thing to that. Live and learn.
Patrick

 

[Subsea]

American English not.... Blue collar Canadian eh:dance:

If the skimmate contains a concentration of organisms with a different ratio of nitrate and phosphate, then the skimmate ratio can and will have a different ratio from the tank.
This is contradictory to Tom's post.

Of course it is contradictory, because I did not agree with it. I have not seen any details of what is in the skimmate except what I posted from Sprungs and Delbeek.
Patrick

 

[Aquarist007]

Who said that skimming is bad?
For certain, I said unnecessary.

Who said that GAC causes HLLE? Who said that GAC strips bacteria out of the tank beside you?
Very misrepresentation of the dialogues that I heard and read.

Water changes are not necessary, if you dose the right chemicals.
I stand by that, but then again I choose to run high nutrient systems with multiple nutrient pathways.

Patrick

Patrick, a lot of threads have stated that GAC takes out useful bacteria and " could" be related to HHLE
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23078210&postcount=441 for eg

I really like your above statement on water changes

I apologize for my frustrations in trying to absorb and comprehend all these great ideas you and others are presenting.
Scott

 

[Subsea]

Scott,
To be blunt, I do not get my knowledge from threads and crowd sourching. I will bring you back to that conversation on Question of Balance thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefgeezer View Post
I've seen reference to that study before and read it quite a while back. I'm not qualified to judge the assertions and would stipulate I don't comprehend most of the study. I wonder about the validity of using TOC measurement as a benchmark though. In the case of GAC, aren't the carbon containing organics still in the water column just not available to the test.

I'm not challenging Patrick's method. If I didn't want a lot of fish, I'd do much the same. I just want to probe the assumptions so that I can learn a little.
John,
After your question on activated carbon application, I googled it. Inquiring minds want to know.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...qeUWfq934oQMvw

I found a two part series by Richard Harker on Fish Channel.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lmH9C7619FlCUw

Harker in part 1, specifically narrows down organics removed to be DOC.

There are two parts to the discussion. No mention of bacteria removal comes up in any of the written literature.

There is much folklore and crowd sourcing of information on hobby forums. It is for this reason, I filter information from hobby forum threads. I do not get my technical scientific knowledge from hobby forums. I do get some practical application from hobby forum threds.
Patrick

PS With respect to causes for HLLE, I will quote Paul, " Its hard to find something that does not contribute to HLLE. How about we just say it is a particular syndrome related to captivity."