Dosing Nitrate to reduce Phosphate

[Subsea]

For my ground water make up water both nitrate and nitrite show < 0.1ppm. Essentially zero. Iron is measurable at 0.02 ppm. Ortho and total phosphate < 0.01 ppm, essentially zero.
Does that answer the question?
Patrick

PS: I find it amusing to hear post of how much one should use RO/DI, then later the thread talks about adding major and minor nutrients. But that is just me. My high school books of choice was Dante's Divine Comedy. Not the usual.

 

[Subsea]

Nutrient recycling

Nutrient recycling

With respect to air water interface and gas exchange, the gravity flow to the sump goes across bioballs or whatever to agitate water. I also see it as economy in power consumption, instead of using an additional pump required by the skimmer.
Patrick
Could be a fine alternative if you don't mind the nitrate production and if the surface area provided is large enough to match the surface area of the bubbles. I think it would need to be quite large. I'd also consider how much free oxygen is actually depleted by ammonia oxidizing bacteria that live on those surfaces and bind it to NO2 and NO3 While the nitrate will bump ORP and return the oxygen when it's redcued to N via anerobic activity ,the process may just result in higher nitrate holding some portion of the oxygen. Have you tried it ?

I would like to address "if you don't mind the nitrate production" my thread on nano reef titled "Nitrate Factory" addresses this assumption, I have heard "bioballs are a nitrate factory" for more than 30 years, while I continue to use bioballs in a wet dry configuation in front of my mud/vegetable filer in my refugium. Even if the bioballs produce nitrate, I seek multiple nutrient pathways and complex food webs. Nitrate feeds corals, inverts, bacteria, and macro algae. Why would I want to eliminate it as you suggest I do by mechanically extracting bacteria as skimmate. I consider skimmate lost nutrients. As a manager of a complex eco system, I choose not to use protein skimming.
Patrick

PS The op is all about adding nitrate to balance out the nutrient equation. I say, why remove the nutrient in the protein skimming process. It is all about individual preference. I choose natural systems to manage my eco system. To each his own. Viva la difference.

 

[Subsea]

Anerobic digesters and sulfur

Anerobic digesters and sulfur

H2S is a topic of fear in the reef community. Don't do DSB, they are a nutrient sink, they will regurgitate into your tank.

I do not buy it. I normally stir my DSB and at times have even smelled the faint aroma of rotten eggs. As an old oilfied hand, I am quite familiar with H2S, defined as organic decomposition in the abcense of oxygen. If you smell H2S, no problem as it is discernable at ppb. If you smell it and then no longer can detect it, you are getting ready to die, because it has deadened your sense of smeel. Prepare to meet the Maker. Faculative anerobes are 100 times more efficient at processing nitrate than sulfide bacteria. Sulfur is necessary in building complex food webs. In the chemical analysis of Red Ogo, sulfur is 4.81% by weight, twice as much as nitrogen, four times as much as magnesium and eight times as much as calcium. Sulfur is important. It is only exceeded by potassium as a major nutrient in macro biomass. I can assure you, it is also important in coral biomass.
Patrick

 

[tmz]

you say exudates of algae, it is a bad thing to be removed from the display tank.

That is a misrepresentation , a strawman . It is not my view at all.
We've discussed this on the other thread.
For clarity ,I'll repeat my perspective : algae exudates contribute organic carbon ( they make them via photsynthesis)some of which is an energy source ,so do coral exudates and exudates of other photosynthetic organisms. In nature the organic C levels are managed by the immense water volumes; in closed systems orgnaic carbon can build up to harmful levles .Some is good but high total organic carbon is harmful to corals. Some of the algae exudates discolor the water , some are alellopathic.,some are useful non refractory carbohydrates;some tend to be refractroy .Managing organic carbon levels is possible via GAC, resins like purigen and/or skimming. using algae for inorganic filtration does not lessen organic buildup it contributes to it.
I won't presume to speak for Mr.Sprung or,the "Marine Snow" product his company sells. I ahve used it in the past but personally prefer a mix of other foods . I do think some organic material, zooplankton , coral slime , algal exudates can be beneficial thing but not at levels that are harmful to corals ,clog substrate or interfere with lighting. I ahve run alge refugia for many years. In an earlier post by another poster Mr Sprung is noted as advising GAC when using large amounts of algae in algae in a public aqauirium which was failing. GAC eports orgnaics.

 

[tmz]

Faculative anerobes are 100 times more efficient at processing nitrate than sulfide bacteria.

Sulfate reducing bacteria don't process any nitrate,so I could say facultative heterotrophs that perform dentirification are a billion billion trillion times more effective at processing nitrate. Sulfate reducing bacteria go to work when organics are present in anoxic conditions ,ie, no free oxygen and no nitrate. They produce toxic H2S as a by product.

 

[tmz]

how do I get better readings for 0 Nitrate? It’s not truly zero. What is it?

The Salifert NO3 test kit gives a readable result in the sub 1ppm ranges, if you have sharp eyes and are good a differentiating shades of pink,IME.

The thing is a nitrate reading doesn't really tell you everything about the bioavailabel nitrogen in your tank. There are other sources like ammonium et alia in a fed tank. So, even with a 0 reading for NO3 on a test kit a well fed and well stocked tank may have sufficient dissolved bio available nitrogen. moving around and changing forms and or stored in some organisms. Each tank is different,most that are fed don't get nitrogen defficiencies. Adding some nitrate or another nitorgen source may be of benefit to the algae .

 

[tmz]

I would like to address "if you don't mind the nitrate production" my thread on nano reef titled "Nitrate Factory" addresses this assumption, I have heard "bioballs are a nitrate factory" for more than 30 years, while I continue to use bioballs in a wet dry configuation in front of my mud/vegetable filer in my refugium. Even if the bioballs produce nitrate, I seek multiple nutrient pathways and complex food webs. Nitrate feeds corals, inverts, bacteria, and macro algae. Why would I want to eliminate it as you suggest I do by mechanically extracting bacteria as skimmate. I consider skimmate lost nutrients. As a manager of a complex eco system, I choose not to use protein skimming.
Patrick

PS The op is all about adding nitrate to balance out the nutrient equation. I say, why remove the nutrient in the protein skimming process. It is all about individual preference. I choose natural systems to manage my eco system. To each his own. Viva la difference.

I agree each his own; there are many ways to approach an aqaurium and many things to enjoy and try.
I don't use the term "nitrate factory "as it generally touches nerves and though apt it is doesn't really convey a precise meaning .
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's a difference between skimming and a wet and dry not necessarily a pro or a con in a particular situation depeneding on the tank and the aqaurist's goals.
So, it's not just bacterial export which is different with skimming as you suggested earlier.

The use of a nitrogen source is an effort to balance the N ratio to some unknown optimal balance for a particular aquarium in order
to prevent a nitrogen defficiency and to enhance P removal as organisms can't really use one if the other is limiting. I consider it experimental and did not have good results with it in terms of increased P reduction in my tanks. Skimming or not skimming doesn't effect those raitos since it takes out organics which contain both N and P. So, skimming or not is largely irrelevant to that discussion.

I don't know if bacteria generally split in 20 minutes as you asserted earlier ; most I've read bout vary from a few hours to 2 weeks . If the bacteria you are concerned about do repopulate as quickly as you think than any lost to skimming should have no significant effect. Skimmers are useful in my opinion and experience for aeration and some organic export . I do run tanks for corals with higher heterotrophic needs without them.

 

[Subsea]

Faculative anerobes are 100 times more efficient at processing nitrate than sulfide bacteria.

Sulfate reducing bacteria don't process any nitrate,so I could say facultative heterotrophs that perform dentirification are a billion billion trillion times more effective at processing nitrate. Sulfate reducing bacteria go to work when organics are present in anoxic conditions ,ie, no free oxygen and no nitrate. They produce toxic H2S as a by product.

Tom,
This is a deep subject and both of us have just skimmed the points that we wanted to make.
Pardon my use of the word sulfide bacteria. Let us break the processes down more completely.

"Further research showed that facultative anaerobic heterotrophs live in an area that contain a small amount of oxygen, i.e., approximately 0.5 - 2.0 mg/l (per Sam Gamble and defined in our previous writings as the ‘anoxic’ area). They generate dissimilatory denitrification where nitrate is reduced to its basic elemental form — nitrogen gas. In an area of less oxygen content, more precisely called the anaerobic area, obligate anaerobic heterotrophs existed and the ‘end result’ of their process, technically called assimilatory denitrification, is ammonium. This is generally referred to as the ammonification process. And a continuing reprocessing of this ammonium in the lower ‘anaerobic’ level of the substrate back into nitrite/nitrate in the upper reaches of the substrate is quite feasible, with any of them, i.e., ammonium, nitrite, nitrate, possibly leaching back into the bulk water!"

In other words, assimilatory denitrification bacteria process the nitrate into ammonioum. This would be a less efficient nutrient management process than dissimilatory denitrification in most peoples definition. That is what I meant about splitting hairs. I did not help when I misused the term sulfide bacteria. However your use of trillion, billion, gazillion
displays some level of sarcasim, that does not lift up the discussion, intellectually.
Viva la difference,
Patrick

PS The following links were written by Bob Goemns and Sam Gamble.
Natures Pathways and Plenumn Method

http://www.saltcorner.com/Articles/Showarticle.php?articleID=117

http://www.saltcorner.com/Articles/Showarticle.php?articleID=40

 

[Subsea]

H2S produces sulfur

H2S produces sulfur

Faculative anerobes are 100 times more efficient at processing nitrate than sulfide bacteria.

Sulfate reducing bacteria don't process any nitrate,so I could say facultative heterotrophs that perform dentirification are a billion billion trillion times more effective at processing nitrate. Sulfate reducing bacteria go to work when organics are present in anoxic conditions ,ie, no free oxygen and no nitrate. They produce toxic H2S as a by product.

Tom,
As in everything, one mans poison is another mans food. In aquarium ecosystems, one organisms waste is another organisms food.

In my profession of 35 years as a deepwater (more than 5000') subsea engineer, I was responsible for the underwater blowout preventer system. One of my duties involved interfacing with Oceaneering ROV (remote operated vehicle) inspections of marine riser and ocean floor surveys. On one location, which involved BP as an operator, we were required to monitor deep sea vents spewing tons of hydrogen sulfide into the Gulf of Mexico. The reson for the requirement was an EPA designation of "enviromentally sensitive" life forms near these vents. In deep ocean enviroments the bottom is monotenous with little to no distinguishing surfaces, flat and boring for miles.
Yet in the immediate area of these vents was a diverse mix of life forms that defies my ability to discribe adequately. How can we say that H2S is poison, absolutely. When I discribed H2S production in my sandbed and indicated that I could smell it. You ignored this point, only to say that it is toxic. For certain, in high doses it is toxic. In low doses it is food. As in everything, it is to what degree.
I sense an adverserial componant to our discussions that undermines an exchange of ideas. You ignored a 4 month study that indicated bioballs processed nitrate, by first disclaiming the use of the term "nitrate factory" but said "thou apt it is". If it is apt, then prove it to me with your study.
To each his own.
Patrick

 

[Subsea]

For better or worse

For better or worse

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.
Reef Aquarium Volumn 3 Pg 268.

"The main advantage of a trickle filter is the ability to fully oxygenate water in the biological filter chamber, which makes nitrification proceed very rapidly.
As the water flows thru the trickle filter, a thin film of water covers the media, resulting in a thin barrier across which oxygen can easily flow.
As long as the prefilter is performing its function, a properly designed trickly filter will never have to be be cleaned."

)n Pg 270 some critisism of trikle filters were discussed and refuted saying further studies were required.

"Wilkens and Birkholz (1986) described the disadvantages of wet/dry biological filtration for reef aquariums.(Delbeek and Sprung 1994)
Hovanec (2003) compared water parameters for aquariums using differrent types of biological filtration, including biowheel, trickle filters, a Jaubert Plenum system and a Berlin system. The preliminary data, based on only a 6 months duration suggest that our observations and those of Wilkens and Birkhotz are in error. IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT SUBMERGED SUBSTRATE FOR BIOLOGICAL FILTRATION WITHIN THE AQUARIUM, IT MAY NEGATE ANY NITRATE PRODUCING EFFECT OF A WET DRY FILTER.

Consider that the wet portion of the bioballs are submerged.
Patrick

 

[herring_fish]

In an earlier post by another poster Mr Sprung is noted as advising GAC when using large amounts of algae in algae in a public aqauirium which was failing.

Oh, the aquarium was not failing. As an early adopter, I was privileged with a "œback stage" of the facility shortly after his. Mr. Sprung was purportedly quite impressed. GAC was the only major input he had as a critic. This was during the days of the fire storm over the introduction of a more natural approach to reefing as opposed to a strict adherence to the Berlin systems which was the popular doctrine at the time. He was a major detractor before that tour and afterwards he was more tolerant of the paradigm.

Now many people at lease dabble in the dark side. Algae, refugiums, deep sand and beds of one type or another, including plenums, complex, diverse food webs, have found their way into many systems. I have had a few articles publish in this area but I am not averse to thinking about using anything. Now I am also dabbling with chemical input as well automation.

 

[Subsea]

The use of a nitrogen source is an effort to balance the N ratio to some unknown optimal balance for a particular aquarium in order
to prevent a nitrogen defficiency and to enhance P removal as organisms can't really use one if the other is limiting. I consider it experimental and did not have good results with it in terms of increased P reduction in my tanks. Skimming or not skimming doesn't effect those raitos since it takes out organics which contain both N and P. So, skimming or not is largely irrelevant to that discussion.


Tom,
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.

To further make the point about skimming removing phosphate from the aquarium changing the N to P ration I will link an article by Randy Holmes Farley and under organic phosphate will quote the first paragraph.
Patrick

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/

In seawater, organic phosphorus compounds are far more varied and complex than inorganic phosphates. Many common biochemicals contain phosphorus and every living cell contains a wide variety of them. Molecules such as DNA, ATP, phospholipids (lecithin) and many proteins contain phosphate groups. In these molecules, the basic phosphate structure is covalently attached to the remainder of the organic molecule through one or more phosphate ester bonds to a carbon atom.

These bonds are stable for some period of time in water, but eventually break down to release inorganic orthophosphate from the molecule's organic part, a process that can be sped up through the action of enzymes in a reef aquarium. Many of these organic phosphate compounds will be readily removed from an aquarium by skimming. Export of organic phosphates is likely the major way that skimming can reduce inorganic orthophosphate levels in an aquarium. Orthophosphate ions are not significantly removed via skimming (because they do not adsorb onto an air/water interface), but organic phosphates can be removed before they are converted into inorganic orthophosphate.

PS: In an oximoron, from my point of view, this same article is the best reason to use a skimmer in general. It is the table which list DOC,DOP and DON. If you take the Redfield Ration as gospel, it removes these elements in a fixed ration. Modern day Oceanographers do not agree in total on that point.

Organics in seawater are often measured in terms of their nitrogen content, such as dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and particulate organic nitrogen (PON). The same is true for phosphorus, using the terms dissolved organic phosphorus (DOP) and particulate organic phosphorus (POP). Table 1 shows the relative concentrations of C, N and P in typical dissolved organic material found in seawater.1 In dissolved organic material, nitrogen is about tenfold less prevalent than carbon, and phosphorus is several hundredfold lower in concentration than carbon.

Table 2. Elemental Composition of
Dissolved Organic Material.
Component: Concentration:
DOC 60-90 mM
DON 3.5-7.5 mM
DOP 0.1-0.4 mM
DOCON ratio 9-18
DOCOP ratio 180-570

 

[Aquarist007]

"In other words, assimilatory denitrification bacteria process the nitrate into ammonioum. This would be a less efficient nutrient management process than dissimilatory denitrification in most peoples definition."

I would think its a mute point given that both nitrificaion and denitrification can occur at the same time. It just be a continuos cycling like the nitrogen cycle itself
I believe Tom.. Sorry if I am wrong.. Posted previously that aerobic and anaerobic processes were carried out by the same bacteria. It was not two different strains existing in aerobic or anaerobic conditions

"A faculative anaerobe (or faculative bacteria) is an organism that can grow in either the presence or absence of oxygen. It does not require O2 to grow but it does tolerate its presence. An obligate anaerobe is an organism that cannot grow in the presence of oxygen. It neither requires O2 to grow nor does it tolerate it. Obligates anaerobes do not have the necessary emzymes to rid themselves of the toxic oxygen deriviatives."
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_obligate_anaerobe_and_faculative_anaerobe

 

[Subsea]

Scot,
You are correct, it is mute. I was merely illustrating hair splitting. We can get annal with some of the big words and miss the point.
However, I think that you are wrong about it being the same bacteria.

http://www.saltcorner.com/Articles/Showarticle.php?articleID=40

"Prior to the sandbed itself, living on all wet oxygen-rich surfaces, even on the sides of fish, the aerobic heterotrophs breakdown organic matter such as waste products and/or dead animals. The then inorganic result, ammonia, is utilized by aerobic autotrophs (most upper areas of substrate), which reduce it to less toxic substances such as nitrite, then nitrate. The resulting nitrate is then acted upon in an area below that containing little or no oxygen, generally called the anaerobic area. However, that so-called anaerobic area is subdivided into two zones, each having a class of bacteria that cannot live in the others area. In the upper portion of this so-called anaerobic area, properly called the anoxic zone, where there still is a marginal amount of oxygen, i.e., 0.5 – 2.0 ppm, the facultative anaerobic heterotrophs exist and reduce the incoming nitrate to nitrogen gas (dissimilatory denitrification). Below this zone where less or no oxygen exists, more properly called the anaerobic zone, obligate anaerobic heterotrophs exist and reduce nitrate to ammonium (assimilatory denitrification), no further! Keep in mind ‘ammonium’ is a far greater alga nutrient than nitrate!"

"Furthermore, both aerobic autotrophs and facultative anaerobic heterotrophs produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP) during their respiration process. However, obligate anaerobic heterotrophs are inefficient, as they produce none. Bear in mind ATP production equates to efficient energy production and improved energy cycling. This would mean that those producing ATP are by far more efficient in reducing large amounts of nutrients, and that fluxes in system nutrients can be quickly utilized/better controlled."

"If the efficiency of aerobic autotrophs and facultative anaerobic heterotrophs were not important enough to ‘cultivate’ these bacterium/their zones, then nitrogen fixation — the utilization and production of energy, should be thought of as hinging upon an enzyme called Nitrogenase. That’s important because nitrogenase is extremely oxygen sensitive, as it does best in fully aerobic and anoxic zones. In fact, experiments have shown ammonium additions cause a rapid reduction of its activity. Therefore, it appears that limited anaerobic areas, where ammonium is produced, are in the best interest of the more efficient aerobic and anoxic bacterium, which then can more efficiently carry on with their superior processes.""

 

[tmz]

"In other words, assimilatory denitrification bacteria process the nitrate into ammonioum. This would be a less efficient nutrient management process than dissimilatory denitrification in most peoples definition."

I would think its a mute point given that both nitrificaion and denitrification can occur at the same time. It just be a continuos cycling like the nitrogen cycle itself
I believe Tom.. Sorry if I am wrong.. Posted previously that aerobic and anaerobic processes were carried out by the same bacteria. It was not two different strains existing in aerobic or anaerobic conditions

"A faculative anaerobe (or faculative bacteria) is an organism that can grow in either the presence or absence of oxygen. It does not require O2 to grow but it does tolerate its presence. An obligate anaerobe is an organism that cannot grow in the presence of oxygen. It neither requires O2 to grow nor does it tolerate it. Obligates anaerobes do not have the necessary emzymes to rid themselves of the toxic oxygen deriviatives."
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_obligate_anaerobe_and_faculative_anaerobe

That was never my point. My point was simpler, oxidizing bacteria produce nitrate in wet and dry filters; skimmers do not. The context realted to using a wet and dry to make up for aertation not obtained from a skimmer which could work if it was large enough and if the nitrate produdtion was not an issue.

The Goeman's piece on plenums is not very relevant is not very relaevant , clear or accurate in terms of the descripion of bacterial activity ina reef tank .

 

[herring_fish]

Pursuant to post #520

I does anyone know a good way to get better resolution for nitrates in the lower range with a home test kit or know one that works well as is?

 

[Subsea]

Pursuant to post #520

I does anyone know a good way to get better resolution for nitrates in the lower range with a home test kit or know one that works well as is?

Not for certain, but consider cutting water volume in half, then double readings when you see color chart.
Patrick

 

[herring_fish]

Thanks

 

[Aquarist007]

That was never my point. My point was simpler, oxidizing bacteria produce nitrate in wet and dry filters; skimmers do not. The context realted to using a wet and dry to make up for aertation not obtained from a skimmer which could work if it was large enough and if the nitrate produdtion was not an issue.

The Goeman's piece on plenums is not very relevant is not very relaevant , clear or accurate in terms of the descripion of bacterial activity ina reef tank .

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:

 

[reefmutt]

Herring, I quite like the red sea pro no3 test kit for readings between 0 and 2ppm. You are comparing color changes but when n is really low, I find this kit pretty accurate and easy to read..

Also, when I was referring to acid washing rocks, I meant making a muriatic acid/water solution to bath the rock which essentially dissolves the outer payer of encrusted growth and hopefully removes the bound po4 at the same time..