DSB in a bucket for nitrate control

[Weatherman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6511988#post6511988 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Glimmerman911
But using bioballs and a RDSB, you could have the nitrite be turned into nitrate in the sump by bioballs, then into nitrogen by a RDSB plumbed after the bioballs. This would mean they happen in close proximity to each other, and better yet, away from your display tank.

Close proximity should be thought of as fractions of millimeters rather than centimeters.

The closer you can get the nitrate producing and the nitrate reducing bacteria to each other, the more efficient the entire process will be.

 

[Glimmerman911]

But isn't it closer to have bioballs followed by RDSB, rather than live rock followed by RDSB????

Unless you are assumeing live rock does as good a job as RDSB, in which case why is this thread here, and why do people have trouble keeping nitrates down........

 

[eshook]

I don't believe this will be possible, but could you have a container that poured water over a first layer of bioballs then at the bottom is a RDSB? I assume it would wash most of the sand away from the turbulence but its just a thought.

 

[Glimmerman911]

Sure it is possible, why not?

There are lots of ways to plumb it. You could use an old trickle filter, have the water go through bioballs from a drip plate, then into a resevoir, then a baffle leading to a compartment filled with sand almost to the top, then water flow flow over the sand bed. Then one more baffle and a return section.

It would only cause turbulence if you don't diffuse the flow, or the flow is just to high.

 

[eshook]

That would work. I wonder if anyone out there has tried it...

If someone wanted to try it with buckets you could simply use 2 x 5 gallon buckets, have the first filled with bioballs and it simply pour into the second that is the RDSB. I wonder if this would improve efficiency.

You could also have 2 such systems (of 5 gallon bucket pairs, 4 buckets in all) and you could alternate pulling them for cleaning so you don't disrupt everything.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6512156#post6512156 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Glimmerman911
But isn't it closer to have bioballs followed by RDSB, rather than live rock followed by RDSB????

Unless you are assumeing live rock does as good a job as RDSB, in which case why is this thread here, and why do people have trouble keeping nitrates down........

I believe his response was to when you asked this

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6511836#post6511836 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Glimmerman911
So with a RDSB of adequate size to reduce the nitrate created from bioballs, they might be good in a sump?

And that bioballs shouldn't be used because

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6511894#post6511894 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Weatherman
The surface of bioballs provides an excellent environment for the production of nitrate, but then the nitrate has to pass through the water and diffuse into the rock and sand bed in order to be eliminated. While the nitrate is drifting through the water, algae are quite happy to take advantage of it and grow.

From this thread, it seems like the RDSB has been effective on its own. Why do you want to add bioballs?

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6511894#post6511894 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Weatherman
Generally, bioballs are not a good thing to have if you are using natural filtration methods.

The advantage live rock and DSBs have in converting ammonium all the way to nitrogen gas is that the creation of nitrate and the reduction of nitrate occur in close proximity to each other.

The surface of bioballs provides an excellent environment for the production of nitrate, but then the nitrate has to pass through the water and diffuse into the rock and sand bed in order to be eliminated. While the nitrate is drifting through the water, algae are quite happy to take advantage of it and grow.

Exactly, and to just expound on that in case it wasn't obvious to someone, in the sand bed or rock, light is severely limited as well, and the denitrifying bacteria are not only in "close proximity", but are "exactly right there", to start the process kind of "instantaneousely".

Basicly exactly the same thing that Weatherman just said.

By the way, I noticed that I had given just a partial excerpt, and else wise you would have noticed that is at the Hypoxic-Anoxic "boundary", where my understanding of these processes breaks down fairly rapidly, which I have stated elsewhere, and is why I'm participating in these discussions.

Maybe he can help us out here some more.

> Thanks a bunch. > barryhc

 

[Glimmerman911]

I am not saying a RDSB is not beneficial on its own.

BUT, if it is beneficial to reduce nitrates at their source, instead of letting them roam your display to create algae, then wouldn't it be better to create the nitrates right before a RDSB, rather than in your live rock, where the nitrates will linger in the display until they make it to the RDSB. If the nitrates were reduced right at the live rock, that would be even better, but judging from the fact that people are looking for a way to reduce nitrates, it is obvious to me this is not happening.

 

[Glimmerman911]

Or do you think a RDSB is sufficient for the complete cycle of denitrification?

 

[barryhc]

Isn't there also another big difference here, on the basis that in a DSB or RDSB, the denitrification process is occuring farther down in the substrate, and the results of this have to travel back up thru an extended oxygen gradation to get back to the surface and into the water column.

Can this affect the "compounds or nutrients" that are released, or would it only have the effect of changing the effeciency of the "bed"?

> barryhc

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6512383#post6512383 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Glimmerman911
Or do you think a RDSB is sufficient for the complete cycle of denitrification?

I think light comes into play here too, to some degree, as well as grain size, and whether or not "fauna" exist, or are promoted in the bed.

This was discussed to some degree previously, I think, but I didn't get the feeling there was any concensus on it to any degree.

It is certainly an interesting aspect of the system, to me anyway.

> barryhc

 

[kimoyo]

I'm still confused about this because

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6498457#post6498457 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
In the "low oxygen" environment, NON-OBLIGATE ( faculative ) Anaerobic bacteria are responsible for reducing Nitrite to Nitrate and other compounds, and this occurs in a ( usually ) very thin layer as stated before.

seems to contradict

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6511759#post6511759 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Weatherman
My understanding of the process is that conversion from nitrite to nitrate is part of aerobic respiration. It requires an oxygen rich environment, not oxygen poor, to take place.

The old sand beds with under-gravel filters produced huge amounts of nitrate because the UGF maintained an aerobic environment in the sand.

Bioballs are accurately described as "nitrate factories" because their use, alone, tends to be associated with high nitrate levels. There are no oxygen poor areas on the surface of bioballs.

and like spuds, I don't understand how bioballs would be nitrate factories then.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6498538#post6498538 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Spuds725
Interesting but by this description a wet/dry filter (bioballs or biowheel) shouldn't work to convert nitrites to nitrate-- for both of these there is no "low oxygen"--

Is there something I'm missing? Barryhc, I understand your saying many of us have been misinformed. Can you explain please.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6512452#post6512452 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
I think light comes into play here too, to some degree, as well as grain size, and whether or not "fauna" exist, or are promoted in the bed.

This was discussed to some degree previously, I think, but I didn't get the feeling there was any concensus on it to any degree.

It is certainly an interesting aspect of the system, to me anyway.

> barryhc

This is interesting, from the results and discussions in this thread the RDSBs seem to have been very successful without infauna and over a range of grain size. Also discussed previously, covered/uncovered (lit/unlit) has shown to make little difference. Should we expect these to affect the cycle of denitrification and its efficiency?

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6512455#post6512455 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo

Is there something I'm missing? Barryhc, I understand your saying many of us have been misinformed. Can you explain please.

I'm not sure if you are missing anything, but a lot of aquarists are, as evidenced in this thread in just the last page before my original post.

I will try, let's see how it goes.

Firstly, I was in error when I stated that the beginning of "denitrification" was in the Hypoxic or low oxygen zone.

I don't really know where we might say that "the beginning" of the denitrification process takes place. The process itself, however does take place at some depth, primarily in the anoxic zone of the bed.

The first statement should have been: "this is where the processing of Nitrate into other compounds begins. In effect, that is what I meant to be saying, and it is a good thing that we are getting that straightened out.

As I stated before ( originally ) in the "excerpt", this is where a lot of controversy begins.



EDIT: That is because the conversion of Nitrate to other compounds "begins" in the Hypoxic oxygen zone.

Too many aquarists are simply not familiar with this Low Oxygen zone, and this is why weatherman just explained about the fraction of a mm area where this is taking place.

My only intent with the entire original post, was to "clarify the definitions" of Oxygen Gradation Zones. That I did quite flawlessly, however, I stumbled over my shoelaces with the "beginning of denitrification" terminology. ( as well as the Nitrite to Nitrate part )

The terms "Aerobic and Anaerobic" refer to bacterial types and processes, whereas "Oxic and Anoxic" respectively, refer to the zones where these processes occur. These terms are used "in error" an awful lot, by aquarists and experts alike, causing a tremendous amount of confusion. Hypoxic is a rarely used but highly accurate term that correctly refers to "Low Oxygen", and eliminates a lot of confusion.

I hope we have that cleared up now, and that "WE" have correct terminology now available to use when discussing "Oxygenated Zones".

It's too bad that I contributed to the confusion myself to some degree, and I appreciate both yourself and Weatherman keeping me straightened up.

Thanks for the "heads-up". > barryhc

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6512767#post6512767 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
That's interesting, from the results and discussions in this thread the RDSBs seem to have been very successful without infauna and over a range of grain size. Also discussed previously, covered/uncovered (lit/unlit) has shown to make little difference. Should we expect these to affect the cycle of denitrification and its efficiency?

I am really not sure about that, and is why I bring it up. What you state about them working well without these is really what I would expect, and unfortunately a current discussion with a student of Shimek in another thread, is causing a lot of confusion in this regard.

I tend to agree, that it should not cause much trouble, but still might have an effect on longevity, I just don't know.

My first interest is actually understanding these processes in a DSB in the display tank, and then as well in a RDSB, which in effect, many refugiums actually are.

I don't mean to get off-topic, but the processes are nearly identical, as far as I can tell, but maybe not, if the light grain size, and fauna, have an important effect in the display tank, other than providing food.

That is what I'm trying to learn about.

> Thanks barryhc

 

[barryhc]

I did it again Paul ,look at the edit two posts up, Sorry.

> barryhc

 

[kimoyo]

Barryhc - Thank you for clarifying that. But I am still confused about this, I know its sad.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6512774#post6512774 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
That is because the conversion of Nitrite to Nitrate "begins" in the Hypoxic oxygen zone.

Too many aquarists are simply not familiar with this Low Oxygen zone, and this is why weatherman just explained about the fraction of a mm area where this is taking place.

If nitrite to nitrate conversion happens in the hypoxic oxygen zone (low oxygen) why are biowheels and bioballs (which seem to be in oxygen-rich environments) considered nitrate factories?

 

[tigerarmy40]

its crazy, but paul you were at the same thing a week ago, and the first thread I find you in you are still beating the same dead horse!!! simply amazing......


as to your question^ I beleive they are considered nitrate factories due to the fact that they build up nutreints are are largely not disturbed or cleand so they accumilate masss amounts of detritus and sediment! with that being said the actual sediment would have to be a filter to filter itself! I may not be explaining myself as clearly as I want to be but I think anyone with common sense will understand!

 

[barryhc]

Paul, I think we just "passed replies", did you see the edit, are we "straight" now?

> barryhc

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6512998#post6512998 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tigerarmy40
its crazy, but paul you were at the same thing a week ago, and the first thread I find you in you are still beating the same dead horse!!! simply amazing......

I think Paul is being just fine here, and it is "my mistakes" that he is trying to clear up. I think we might have it now.

> barryhc