N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[kentrob11]

Question....I recently built the sump below and have 2 active flow canisters built in for use with carbon. 100% of the water goes through them and the flow will be about 500gph. Could I simply put these biopellets in one of the canisters instead of carbon in both? Would the flow through be enough? They are made of 4" diameter acrylic tube and are about 6" tall.

 

[tntneon]

Question....I recently built the sump below and have 2 active flow canisters built in for use with carbon. 100% of the water goes through them and the flow will be about 500gph. Could I simply put these biopellets in one of the canisters instead of carbon in both? Would the flow through be enough? They are made of 4" diameter acrylic tube and are about 6" tall.

If the flow enters from the bottom i would place a mesh on top that the BP won`t flow over the edge of the canister or try with a lower flow and build the flow up untill the pellets are tumbling around w/o leaving the canister.
500 G/h will be enough , it also depends on how much pellets your gonna use.

Sweet sump you have there !!


greetingzz tntneon

 

[kentrob11]

Thanks! Actually there will be screen on the bottom and top of both canisters so that shouldn't be a problem. I just didn't have it installed in the picture. That video above is neat!

 

[danrobberg]

anyone run these in a brs jumbo reactor?

 

[7hogwarts]

Once again I have clearly demonstrated that my fingers don't always do what my brain tells them to do!

As part of the formula for quanity or volume of NP Pellets - why not take the PO4 and Nitrate readings, and based on the volume of water to remove that amount of PO4 and N from....develop a formula which is a more salient approach than just an arbitrary number of "so much per gallon".
*IF* the manufacturer or the distributors are watching - PLEASE consider this approach. It makes your product a better value if we can utilize it without waste, and likewise get all of the benefit from it by "sizing" it properly to the demand of each system according to its needs.
T

I like this idea!!! It would seem there should be a calculator developed for this. It would also aid in when and how much should be added to existing systems using the pellets.

 

[teesquare]

Thanks for the recognition! I only have one good idea about every six months -so please- somebody grab a camera and let's record this!

Seriously - thanks!
T

 

[danrobberg]

can i run the pellets in a sulfur denitrator instead of the sulfur. would they do better in that type of reactor that recirculates the water instead of the water just passing through very rapidly. normaly the water would have a very small amount of time in contact with the pellets. in a sulfur denitrator type reactor the water would have a much longer contact time with the pellets. does this makes sense?

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

I like this idea!!! It would seem there should be a calculator developed for this. It would also aid in when and how much should be added to existing systems using the pellets.

I agree that would be a great idea but I honestly don't think even they have any idea how much N and P X amount of pellets will remove from a given volume of water. You could have 5 systems with the same water volume and same N and P readings but you also have to consider amount of live rock, sand, # of fish, feeding (amount and frequency), skimmer and also water changes. So each system would have a different amount.

 

[teesquare]

Granted - there will be variations in the "active load" ( food consumers - fish,aneomes and corals that must be fed) and the normal "consumption rate" of N and P...
But as those are already inadequate in a given system considering the use of theses pellets - or there is a shortfall on the part of the hobbyist with over-feeding, lack of proper maintenance etc. I guess what I am syaing is regardless of the cause - It would help both the maker of the product and the end user to have a "range" of amount of pellets per "X" parts per million per "x" numer of gallons.

Really, shouldn't we look at products like NP pellets, and GFO in a similar fashion - as far as guaging the right amount needed on each system?
T

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

Granted - there will be variations in the "active load" ( food consumers - fish,aneomes and corals that must be fed) and the normal "consumption rate" of N and P...
But as those are already inadequate in a given system considering the use of theses pellets - or there is a shortfall on the part of the hobbyist with over-feeding, lack of proper maintenance etc. I guess what I am syaing is regardless of the cause - It would help both the maker of the product and the end user to have a "range" of amount of pellets per "X" parts per million per "x" numer of gallons.

Really, shouldn't we look at products like NP pellets, and GFO in a similar fashion - as far as guaging the right amount needed on each system?
T

I am not disagreeing with you simply saying there is no formula. You should just start low, increase, test, adjust....repeat for your specific system. Remember the old watts per gallon rule for lighting; simply too many other factors involved to have a formula that actually works. When I used GFO in the past I didn't use what they said because of $. I started with a small amount then tested and added more until my P came down. Especially something like these pellets are too new.

"But as those are already inadequate in a given system considering the use of theses pellets" -- I agree 100% but still doesn't change the fact that these factors make each system different and affect the amount of pellets you should use. Those factors that are inadequate in my system might be sufficient in yours even though we had the same water volume.

This is a hobby that involves tweeking and guessing. Again, I agree it would be nice, just not possible IMO.

 

[teesquare]

In no way do I want you to think I am trying to be argumentative -
But, when I think about the current use of technolgy that we all have for measuring allof the chemical perameters in our systems, it just makes sense to me ( and I think it will help manufacturers as well) to provide better recommendations based on 2 perameters: How many mg/l and or - ppm. you are needing to remove, bsaed on the volume of water you have.

It really should not be seen as an iron-clad directions for use - but rather - suggestions on a starting point.
I would be hard to convince that the method for determining this is not already known: Remember - these or pellets very much like them are already in use in waste water treatment. And it that industry, it is imperative that the system operators be able to determine "how much" of "what" is to be used in order to remove "how much" of "what" in the water stream. And - the gallonage certinly factors into that!
So - you see - we are not "blazing a trail" with any new technology with the NP pellets. Just a different placement - but the same application.
"The knowledge is out there" - Fox Molder
T

 

[tmz]

A guideline would be helpful but would vary, I suspect from system to system as surface areas, N levels,and other variables vary.It seems starting low , measuring Nitrate and adding small increments of pellets is the safest course. I still think the carbon source in the pellets is likely miscible and will spread throughout the tank making total organic carbon buildup a potentnial worry.

 

[cvye]

It's just too easy - put in 50 - 100% more pellets than you think you need. The bacteria will grow based on what they get for food. In a dynamic system such as ours, the colonies will react to the input.

Same thing as oversizing your skimmer, but here it's even better, as skimmers need dirty water to work - too big and they don't work for a while. No danger of that with this situation, there will be as many bacteria as your system needs at any moment (limited only by growth/multiplication rate). So as long as your spikes are not too radical over time, the bacteria should keep up.

 

[Daniel Reef]

Any progress reports on these NP? I haven't read one in some time.

 

[kaskiles]

I still think the carbon source in the pellets is likely miscible and will spread throughout the tank making total organic carbon buildup a potentnial worry.

First point in one of the earlier posts seems to indicate that the carbon source will not dissolve out into the system water:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15614769&postcount=23

 

[kaskiles]

But, when I think about the current use of technology that we all have for measuring a lot of the chemical parameters in our systems,

I believe that the aerobic bacteria hosted on the pellets will also be consuming (and converting) dissolved organic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous (in addition to the inorganic nitrate and phosphate). Since we cannot measure the dissolved organic N and P easily at home, I believe estimates based solely on the inorganic fraction might lead to not using enough.

Also, if someone cannot measure any nitrate or phosphate in their system, their system may still benefit from the pellets from both dissolved organic N/P reduction/conversion and/or bacterioplankton system feeding.

 

[teesquare]

Kaskiles:
That is a great look at another aspect of the "big picture" ....
But I am still not convinced that it would be too difficult for the manufacturer to provide better usage guidelines for their product.
Again - it would potentially make each user feel that they were recieving better value, by accurizing ( not the best word...becuase I know it is still an "estimation") the amount needed for a given system based on more than ONE perameter....of "X" per gallon.

That is a very oblique look at how the NP pellets work - and really offers no guidelines what so ever - in consideratio of you above statement
T

 

[itachi]

First point in one of the earlier posts seems to indicate that the carbon source will not dissolve out into the system water:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15614769&postcount=23

I'm not so sure about this, given i have been using it for a week now and had the small algae bloom on the sand that's typical with carbon dosing . So far for me the results have been minimal since the system was already fairly low nutrient ... p04 .03 on a hanna . Before i started this i had actually stopped vodka dosing for several months , kinda interesting to see the similar brown algae on the sand. Hopefully i will get similar results to carbon dosing.

 

[kaskiles]

I'm not so sure about this, given i have been using it for a week...

Did you rinse the pellets prior to use in your system? I'm just wondering if it's like GAC and GFO, you have to rinse off fine powder that might get produced from friction during shipping...

I guess if the insolubility of the material being reported by the manufacturer is in question, we could:
1. rinse pellets, dry
2. get a dry weight
3. Add pellets to sea water with no nutrients (organics, nitrate, phosphate, bacteria, etc.)
4. Mix for 1 hour
5. Rinse, dry
6. Weigh again

 

[kaskiles]

can i run the pellets in a sulfur denitrator instead of the sulfur. would they do better in that type of reactor that recirculates the water instead of the water just passing through very rapidly. normaly the water would have a very small amount of time in contact with the pellets. in a sulfur denitrator type reactor the water would have a much longer contact time with the pellets. does this makes sense?

I believe that you should probably not run them in a sulfur denitrator, for the same reason the manufacturer states here:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16004054&postcount=243