It's going on my 1100 gallon system to replace my sulphur denitrator. Another experiment I supposeThe sulphur denitrator works but is finicky.
I'd like to know what you find out :hammer:
Matrix (and siporax) questions, to keep from derailing Sahin's thread.....
- Thread starter pstank1
- Start date
I'd like to know what you find out :hammer:
Try this. Fill 2/3 of reactor with matrix and after a sponge filter layer, fill the rest with sulfur. Set Orp to -170, -175 mv. This is from some successful installs.
I've got the monster 8x24" sulphur denitrator, not 6x24" like I mentioned in my prior post. It does work, but ramping up has been a pain.
I don't like adding sponge in the reactors because they clog up pretty quickly. I could add some screens between matrix and sulphur.
Anything works to prevent sulfur beads mix into matrix media, Allthough not sure whats wrong with a little of mixing these..
The problem with sulfur beads is, they do not have enough surface area for bacteria, or, a lot less then matrix-siporax. This way, you will be able to keep a high level of population within the reactor.
The problem with sulfur beads is, they do not have enough surface area for bacteria, or, a lot less then matrix-siporax. This way, you will be able to keep a high level of population within the reactor.
I am not sure if a non-circulating will work here.
Assuming you already using an orp sensor on top of reactor, If its too big (heightwise) and water inlet and outlet not placed far away points, I am afraid orp probe may mostly measure the mv value near the lid. This might not be a problem for sulfur-only since amount of bacteria will be limited, but in matrix, there will be a ton of them. And this makes it a bit risky for hydrogen sulfide formation, at the lower parts of the tube where nitrated water access is limited.
On the other hand, it appears smaller size recirculating reactors containing matrix-sulfur combo is able to handle big gallons.
I have ordered sulfur beads and expecting to receive it by February. Then I will be able to say more about this combination.
Assuming you already using an orp sensor on top of reactor, If its too big (heightwise) and water inlet and outlet not placed far away points, I am afraid orp probe may mostly measure the mv value near the lid. This might not be a problem for sulfur-only since amount of bacteria will be limited, but in matrix, there will be a ton of them. And this makes it a bit risky for hydrogen sulfide formation, at the lower parts of the tube where nitrated water access is limited.
On the other hand, it appears smaller size recirculating reactors containing matrix-sulfur combo is able to handle big gallons.
I have ordered sulfur beads and expecting to receive it by February. Then I will be able to say more about this combination.
Αnyone?
Short answer, yes.
If you want to see an ORP value under zero, you have to close lid tightly. This allows bacteria to consume existing oxygen in water, and then, they start working on nitrates, which means you have to feed them with nitrated water. Dosing carbon makes population higher and you (skimmer) have to deal with dead bacteria. If you do not dose carbon, then they will consume whatever exists in water, along with nitrates. Bacteria population will not be excessive in this mode.
DiscusHeckel
Acropora Gardener
Why didn't you post your observations on this forum in the first place? Just asking.
Cause rest of the story is also in there, in the former pages. But of course, I can summarize it here too.
I started using siporaxes in an eggcrate container first but after a couple of months, there were no change in nitrate level. Then I re-stacked them into a small freshwater glass tank, with 10 volume, easily fits into sump. Fed the container with tank water, continuously, with help of a small hose. This resulted with a decrease in pH, which become apparent in approx. 10-15 days. After realising the siporaxes are the cause, (mainly due to fact that nitrification consumes alkalinity and denitrification adds, and in this case continuous feed seem like directed siporaxes more to nitrification) I stopped feeding the container with tank water.
Few days later, I measured the alkalinity of stagnant water in the container, along with tank to make a comparison. Tank come up as 8.3kH while the container registered at 10.2.
Then I setup a pH controller and a small pump, to feed the container with tank water, in a controlled manner. I set the trigger point to pH7.9 and started to observe. Pump starts, flushes the container with tank water, and excess water overflows back into sump, see video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFVG8zYGug
Without any exception, each and everytime, water of siporax container manages to increase the pH level up to 8.2, after flushing with pump which lowers the container's pH back to tank level, which is around 7.8s..
Currently, I moved the set point to 8.1, ph controller kicks the pump twice a day, and this continues for about 15 days, at least. Actually, I am feeling like its slowing down nowadays, since my current nitrates are under 0.5ppm, tested with Salifert. And they were about 20-25ppm (were stable at this range for more then a year), when all this siporax setup first started.
Obviously, siporax need some time to function this way, and I can confirm too, that the time needed for this is around 3 months.
Regards,
Alper
So you basically did what I asked earlier, but instead of ORP controller ,you used pH controller? In how many days did you see a reduction in NO3? Without recirculate the water in the 10lt aquarium, how are you sure that the pH probe , take an accurate measurement?
There are differences.
ORP controller can be useful for our purpose, only when used in an air-tight chamber, which is a reactor. In such an open system, unfortunately, ORP reading dont provide any useful information in short period. May be long term monitoring may say something. I wish I had an apex, with logging
Also, pH measured here directly related to alkalinity change, which is something ORP dont provide a clue.
For accuracy, I tried different prob submersion depths, no difference. At the moment, prob depth is fixed. And, flushing with tank water every 12 hours, for about 3 minutes each, I think helps well to mix the water in container. I am actually expecting to see a difference between top and bottom pHs of the container, but I have no chance to fully submerge the probe down. I may try this in the future, after removing a row from siporaxes.
Can you explain why ORP controller will only be useful in an air tight chamber? In dymico they use it , just in a tank, as I described you. I thing that you should put a very small pump to recirculate water in your siporax tank, not only for better ph measutement.Stagnant water is not good even in this case!There are differences.
ORP controller can be useful for our purpose, only when used in an air-tight chamber, which is a reactor. In such an open system, unfortunately, ORP reading dont provide any useful information in short period. May be long term monitoring may say something. I wish I had an apex, with logging
Also, pH measured here directly related to alkalinity change, which is something ORP dont provide a clue.
For accuracy, I tried different prob submersion depths, no difference. At the moment, prob depth is fixed. And, flushing with tank water every 12 hours, for about 3 minutes each, I think helps well to mix the water in container. I am actually expecting to see a difference between top and bottom pHs of the container, but I have no chance to fully submerge the probe down. I may try this in the future, after removing a row from siporaxes.
Any way great info there, thank you sharing it with the forum. It is a proof that controlling oxygen level inside the media chamber, can enhance the denitrification.
Alper,
Not sure I'm following the intent of your input. Are you suggesting that your approach is particularly beneficial and should be how siporax is used? If so, why would you not want to go back to a slow continuous flow through a small tank/reactor? Are your observations only significant to the "start-up" phase of siporax?
I'm using 2 liters of siporax in a 40B and it took 3 months before I saw significant reduction in nitrate. However, I'm not doing anything particularly creative with the flow through the media. I simply placed the original mesh bags in the return section of the sump. Seems to be working.
Not sure I'm following the intent of your input. Are you suggesting that your approach is particularly beneficial and should be how siporax is used? If so, why would you not want to go back to a slow continuous flow through a small tank/reactor? Are your observations only significant to the "start-up" phase of siporax?
I'm using 2 liters of siporax in a 40B and it took 3 months before I saw significant reduction in nitrate. However, I'm not doing anything particularly creative with the flow through the media. I simply placed the original mesh bags in the return section of the sump. Seems to be working.
My statement is based on my observations. If amount of air above waterline is not limited some way, orp readings continue to read positive and high values (almost always over +200mv). I am not aware about how dymico works.
My opinion is, when we keep top of container open, we are allowing penetration of oxygen into water, and with not mixing it with a small pump, we are limiting the oxygenation to an extent. I am sure that there is still plenty of oxygen in water, but, seems the relevant bacteria still manages to denitrificate in hidden corners, remember the alkalinity (so pH) increases even at the upper parts of the container, without any mixing. What we are missing here is, without continuous mixing, we cant serve all the nitrates in container water, to ready-waiting bacteria.
Stagnant water is not a good idea, I am aware, but as long as lid stay open, I am sure it will stay safe for a few days (tested formerly, dont ask how
).And, thank you for your nice words.
Spkennyva, thanks for the comments, there is no particular intention, these are just some observations and conclusions based on these observations. I definitely not trying to impose "this is the way how siporax should be used".
Every aquarium is different, by means of biotic and abiotic content. Therefore it may be possible to make it running just by putting the stuff into a corner, or may not..
I wish siporaxes could function same way in my aquarium too (a lot easier), but it failed. So I moved one step up and tried to follow some parameters. Observed something and considered them indications of some events; Followed that path and this yielded the results, above.
For reactor application, I already tried this, with a standalone recirculating reactor (no connection with tank), denitrification started (water with high nitrites) but due to lack of bacteria food (carbon), its stopped in the middle, and continued only after adding a small amount of carbon source (methanol). Shortly after, nitrates (and nitrites) disappeared in reactor.
Combining this with experiences with former experiments, slow or fast, I am thinking continuous flow may not be a good idea, when initial nitrates are high (over 25 in my case), because in this case, bacteria start producing high amounts of nitrites (its in the first steps of denitrification), and with continuous flow, this nitrite mixes into tank water, threatens the live stock, already tested this before, with some other media.
I am still monitoring the parameters, if anything goes wrong, I will share that also, with community.
I think my method is more for control-freak type of ppl, like me
I cannot comment for your case, but what I am seeing from various posts is, siporax-in-a-bag applications mostly good for already low nitrate levels, like around 5 ppm or sth. In my case, it was 20-25, initially. Therefore, a more or less controlled application feels a bit relaxing I guess..Regards,
Last edited:
With the current conditions, It seems quite possible to me. But do I want it? Not sure..
Remember denitrification heavily depends on anaerobic conditions and with such a loose setup (mashbags in sump) I will be giving up some capacity, because there will be less denitrifying bacteria then siporaxes can actually host, due to oxygenation status in this setup. Of course, in order to balance this, I can increase the amount of siporaxes and this is what many people did, instead of few liters, they are using a lot more to keep same (or more) number of bacteria. The only drawback is, extra sump space needed, which is something I dont have.
I think by means of denitrification capacity, I can place this system between mashbags and closed reactors, considering same liters of siporax utilized in all three. This arrangement is serving me well at the moment, and I believe it will be able to keep up if I increase feeding. My final goal is remove most of the rocks to create a minimalist look in tank.
Similar threads
