Dsb's work, what makes them work best?
- Thread starter barryhc
- Start date
Nope, they had the alarms because one of the first things that went they said was your senses. As a result, you might stay there for too long and die.
However, in this situation, we are talking about a human waste treatment plant and not a sandbed in a 75 gallon tank. The situation is very different. However, I wouldn't want to disturb such a zone if I had livestock in a tank. If you do massive disturbing of a DSB, a separate QT is a must IMO.
Weatherman
New member
Bacteria don't require iron for sulfate reduction, but the sulfide and hydrogen sulfide produced by the bacteria are very corrosive to metal objects.
Randy Holmes-Farley has a good description of the possible fates of hydrogen sulfide in this article:
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/rhf/index.php
Weatherman
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6539470#post6539470 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aubee91
All that jumped out at me in those definitions was that all of them released phosphate.
A lot of that has to do with the assumption that the organic material being decomposed contains the Redfield Ratio of carbon (106), nitrogen (16), and phosphorus (1) atoms.
There are a lot of organic compounds, which contain nothing but carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (simple sugars). Of course, the end result of sugar decomposition is simply carbon dioxide and water.
Come on Weatherman, you're teasing us. 
Seriously, ( not that I wasn't ) What do you see as the "recompositioning" of the nutrients and compounds, based on the chemical processes that you are familiar with, along with whether or not these eventualities are affected by the composition of the substrate, ie. Arganite vs silica?
Thanks again. > Barry
Seriously, ( not that I wasn't ) What do you see as the "recompositioning" of the nutrients and compounds, based on the chemical processes that you are familiar with, along with whether or not these eventualities are affected by the composition of the substrate, ie. Arganite vs silica?
Thanks again. > Barry
Hey Weatherman, I'll be straight-up here, which I already am in the first place, I am developing Plenum Wasting as a "potential" solution to some of the problems encountered in the operation of both current and past DSB's.
I am not really promoting that idea "that much" here, as I do in the Plenums and Wasting thread, but much of my interest, and many of my questions, are sure enough geared towards learning enough to accomplish that goal.
I really do appreciate your help, but honestly, I need a bit of help, in discerning the "pertinent" meaningfulness of some of the expertise that you are offering us here.
And to everyone else here( or anyone else, if you prefer ), this thread is not being converted to "MY" agenda.
All discussion of operating DSB's remains valid and pertinent.
Thanks Weatherman, and "all" ! > Barry
I am not really promoting that idea "that much" here, as I do in the Plenums and Wasting thread, but much of my interest, and many of my questions, are sure enough geared towards learning enough to accomplish that goal.
I really do appreciate your help, but honestly, I need a bit of help, in discerning the "pertinent" meaningfulness of some of the expertise that you are offering us here.
And to everyone else here( or anyone else, if you prefer ), this thread is not being converted to "MY" agenda.
All discussion of operating DSB's remains valid and pertinent.
Thanks Weatherman, and "all" ! > Barry
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6539470#post6539470 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aubee91
All that jumped out at me in those definitions was that all of them released phosphate.
The main thing that jumped out at me, was that I didn't get an explanation, or response, from that inquiry.
> Barry
Weatherman
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6540224#post6540224 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
The main thing that jumped out at me, was that I didn't get an explanation, or response, from that inquiry.
> Barry
What was the question again?
Weatherman
New member
Iââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢m going to have to leave all the details of recomposition to the biologists. Itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s a little beyond my area of expertise.
Youââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢d need to know how the following things are either consumed or exported:
Carbon dioxide
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Sulfide (specifically hydrogen sulfide)
Manganese(II) ions
Iron(II) ions
Youââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢d need to know how the following things are either consumed or exported:
Carbon dioxide
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Sulfide (specifically hydrogen sulfide)
Manganese(II) ions
Iron(II) ions
Weatherman
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6540407#post6540407 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Thanks for the "heads up".
I looked at your gallery, and website, very "cool".
See my age "sneaking out" ?
At least it's better than saying it looks "groovy"?
That's even before my time.
It turns out it was Randy who was the expert, I guess we can rely on him. Here as an excerpt from Randy's "Hydrogen Sulfide" article that Weatherman posted for us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen sulfide has a strong "rotten egg" smell. The odor of H2S can be detected in the air by humans at levels as low as 0.5 to 300 ppb. The large variation in range indicates that some individuals are very much more sensitive to it than others. Interestingly, humans may become insensitive to the odor at concentrations above 100,000 ppb. For this reason, individuals working with the gas need to be aware that they may no longer smell hydrogen sulfide when it is present at life threatening concentrations. When I have used hydrogen sulfide in the laboratory, I have worn sensor badges that indicate exposure to concentrations that may be too high to smell, warning that action needs to be taken immediately (fortunately, I was very careful to work in a chemical fume hood and never smelled, nor was I exposed to any hydrogen sulfide).
When dissolved in water, the smell depends strongly on pH (which determines how much is in the volatile, hence "smellable," H2S form). Humans often can just detect hydrogen sulfide odors when the concentration is above about 0.029 ppb in freshwater. In seawater at pH 8.2, where only 6% of the sulfide present is in H2S, this odor threshold is likely higher, perhaps on the order of 20-fold higher (0.6 ppb). Fortunately, that threshold is below the lethal limit of many aquatic organisms (usually above 5 ppb; sometimes as high as 50,000 ppb), so odor often can be detected by humans before hydrogen sulfide rises to acute, lethal concentrations in reef aquaria.
That whole article is a great read, I've read it several times before, but I think I got more out of it this last time. Kind of like an exceptionally good movie !
Randy also explains that Hydrogen Sulfide processing begins in as little as 1 1/4" of depth, and can extend to 40" depth, while going thru various other chemical processes.
For anyone interested in more info. in this regard, Weatherman's link to Randy's article is really a "must read".
> Barry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen sulfide has a strong "rotten egg" smell. The odor of H2S can be detected in the air by humans at levels as low as 0.5 to 300 ppb. The large variation in range indicates that some individuals are very much more sensitive to it than others. Interestingly, humans may become insensitive to the odor at concentrations above 100,000 ppb. For this reason, individuals working with the gas need to be aware that they may no longer smell hydrogen sulfide when it is present at life threatening concentrations. When I have used hydrogen sulfide in the laboratory, I have worn sensor badges that indicate exposure to concentrations that may be too high to smell, warning that action needs to be taken immediately (fortunately, I was very careful to work in a chemical fume hood and never smelled, nor was I exposed to any hydrogen sulfide).
When dissolved in water, the smell depends strongly on pH (which determines how much is in the volatile, hence "smellable," H2S form). Humans often can just detect hydrogen sulfide odors when the concentration is above about 0.029 ppb in freshwater. In seawater at pH 8.2, where only 6% of the sulfide present is in H2S, this odor threshold is likely higher, perhaps on the order of 20-fold higher (0.6 ppb). Fortunately, that threshold is below the lethal limit of many aquatic organisms (usually above 5 ppb; sometimes as high as 50,000 ppb), so odor often can be detected by humans before hydrogen sulfide rises to acute, lethal concentrations in reef aquaria.
That whole article is a great read, I've read it several times before, but I think I got more out of it this last time. Kind of like an exceptionally good movie !
Randy also explains that Hydrogen Sulfide processing begins in as little as 1 1/4" of depth, and can extend to 40" depth, while going thru various other chemical processes.
For anyone interested in more info. in this regard, Weatherman's link to Randy's article is really a "must read".
> Barry
Interesting. I think they needed the Hydrogen sulphide monitors because they were also smelling ammonia and worse. After all, the show was called Gross Jobs (or something like that).
BTW....I used a shop vac to remove the sand in that corner of the tank. It seemed the wise way to deal with it.
BTW....I used a shop vac to remove the sand in that corner of the tank. It seemed the wise way to deal with it.
Our DSB thread is wearing thin lately, partly because the "debate" is subsiding, which may be boring a lot of people. 
We've also gotten into the "deeper-unknown" areas( anaerobic ), and people have a lot less to say when they "know" they're in "over their head". :hmm2:
Heck, I'm in over my head too, but I don't mind. Scuba diver's seem to particularly like this, for some reason. :bigeyes:
We've covered a lot of territory, or more likely, we have "wandered through it".
I think there is a lot left to learn.
Maybe it has been like a roller coaster ride, "how long is
that line" ? ?
> Barry :beachbum: :thumbsup:
We've also gotten into the "deeper-unknown" areas( anaerobic ), and people have a lot less to say when they "know" they're in "over their head". :hmm2:
Heck, I'm in over my head too, but I don't mind. Scuba diver's seem to particularly like this, for some reason. :bigeyes:
We've covered a lot of territory, or more likely, we have "wandered through it".
I think there is a lot left to learn.
Maybe it has been like a roller coaster ride, "how long is
that line" ? ?
> Barry :beachbum: :thumbsup:
joefish
Premium Member
After the reading and posting here I think Bertoni gets the winner, with the Refugium went sour not the DSB .
This is why setup is so important to make any system work well .
What I would do different ? I would have set the refugium up after the sump and not before . I feel that to much detritus was being processed by the refugium .
On a different note though , I'm glad I found a different route (BB) instead of correcting the reugium problem . I still feel a BB is easier to make nutrient free water(for sps's), and with less projects to support it .
I'm not knocking DSB's at all , they have a place as well as BB tanks do . It's all about the occupants and what the hobbyist is trying to achieve .
