N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[TheFishMan65]

I can say with 100% accuracy that the pellets are not helping my tank. Probably because they are still sitting in the box However, I agree with you banker. I don't think anyone knows exactly how they work.

However as I understood it the bacteria grows on the outside, and a thin anerobic area may exist between the pellets and the bacteria.

 

[Scej12]

Not to tell you guys how things do or don't work, but how do we know bacteria are growing inside the pellets? They seem pretty solid to me, of course I'm not looking at a cross section of them through a microscope. Is anyone? If bacteria were indeed growing within the pellets, why would the pellet size matter for surface area? Why not have a big giant block of PHA with a few holes in it?

Not saying that anyone is wrong, but I read a lot of posts that say "my pellets are doing ______," therefore x, y, and z.

According to the original manufacturer's introduction of the product, the initial description of the process indicated an outer layer of aerobic bacteria with an inner layer of anaerobic bacterial enveloping each pellet. I haven't found any reason to disagree with this premise, and it never crossed my mind that bacteria could be growing within the pellet itself. Did you get this idea from somewhere in specific (i might have missed it)?

However as I understood it the bacteria grows on the outside, and a thin anerobic area may exist between the pellets and the bacteria.

As described above, I thought this was the only consensus. The pellets themselves are just a food source that gets consumed as the outer layers of bacteria consume them.

Perhaps I was unclear with my explanation: when referring to 'inner layer' of bacteria, I'm still talking about what is enveloping the pellet trapped under the aerobic layer/film of bacteria. My experiment will involved investigating if/how the anaerobic colonies (inner layer) can become a more prominent factor in the equation which uses both aerobic, and anaerobic strains & processes. I was figuring that a fast flowing pellet reactor is biased toward aerobic processing of N/P. Would like to see if an anoxic/anaerobic biased equation would yield any different results.

Regards,

Sheldon

SJ

SJ

 

[Scej12]

After hearing some of you were having success with open-top BP reactor in the sump, I thought I would give it a try. Also the idea of running one less pump enticed me.

My open-top reactor is a 3.5" diameter 10" tall glass jar and I teed off the drain to the bottom of the jar which was then filled with 500ml of BP. 2 plastic canvas meshes were used to keep the BP from washing out. Here is a video of my set up.



One problem with this set up is the difficulty in adjusting the right flow to the reactor. I don't want to impede the drain to the sump in anyway but since the reactor drain is at the bottom of the sump, I had a hard time getting the pellets to tumble in a desirable fashion. They either not moving or churning vigorously.

Finally I was able to get the pellets in a gentle boil as you see in the video. After a couple day, I noticed the pellets were not moving at all and decided to take the reactor out. I was glad I did as I barely averted a major disaster if I let the reactor in for another day or two.

The pellets in the bottom part of the reactor became a semi-solid block with the pellets sticking to each other. There was a very strong smell of hydrogen sulfide coming from the bottom of the jar. I also noticed fragments of hair algae mixed in among the pellets. I was pulling some of the hair algae out earlier in my DT and the hair algae fragments actually were binding the pellets together and completely blocked the water flow!

Needless to say I gave up the experiment and went back to using a dedicated pump to drive the pellets in my NextReef MR1 reactor. I was just surprised to see how quickly the submerged reactor became anaerobic.

If I read correctly you would have somehow been maintaining a dead zone at the bottom of the reactor as the water flow exiting (through the bottom of) the jar would have been able to channel toward the fastest route out as opposed to traveling up through the media toward an elevated outlet. I suspect that your problems might have been averted if you had an outlet near the top of the reactor.

Thanks for shining a little perspective here because my current setup might have a similar potential to bind at the base. I'm allowing pellets to collect below my bottom plate in a 4" high area, with only moderate flow. Hard to describe without a photo but will work on correcting that when I get back down to this aquarium. I have the majority of water flow happening above my diffuser plate, with only a small amount flowing through the collection of small pellets below. All of the water however must exit through the outlet at the top of the reactor, however now having read your post, I will keep a keener eye on the packing channeling potential condition below the plate in the low flow zone. will try to get some pictures and a video together this coming week.

Regards,

SJ

 

[bertoni]

I don't know whether the manufacturer has actually done the work to see how the pellets are working, but a two-layer microbial film is a possibility.

It's interesting, and a bit worrying, that submerged bio-balls went anoxic that rapidly.

 

[Scej12]

That I'm supposing is the entire point behind the abundant water flow instruction from the onset. If you have bacteria using up a food source as well as oxygen, it won't take long for the environment to go anoxic/anaerobic. perhaps that might be as important a reason for tumbling the pellets i.e. ensuring an adequate supply of oxygen rich water to come in contact with the bacteria... I'll let y'all know how my experimentation goes. As of my most recent change, I already have a 4" lower portion of my reactor that has moderately low flow; the oxygen saturation will become even less once I rig the pump to operate in recirculation mode.... so perhaps I should wait a couple of weeks to see if there is any H2S development with the current setup of a low flow bottom portion. Will keep you posted.

 

[liver]

Anyone try placing the pellets inside their skimmer?

 

[Lucifa68]

hello everyone. a friend of mine is using this and has a porblem with tissue loss from the bottom, what Kh should he have his tank at?????? also he has bee loosing fish like crazy. any ideas??????

thanks in advance

 

[Scej12]

hello everyone. a friend of mine is using this and has a porblem with tissue loss from the bottom, what Kh should he have his tank at?????? also he has bee loosing fish like crazy. any ideas??????

thanks in advance

What aree the parameters. In particular; pH could be too low.

 

[daveonbass]

he may just wanna stop for now if stuff is dying. Get his params fixed as close to NSW (minus N and P maybe) then try the pellets again.

there could be a number of things causing this...

 

[daveonbass]

he may just wanna stop for now if stuff is dying. Get his params fixed as close to NSW (minus N and P maybe) then try the pellets again.

there could be a number of things causing this...

 

[Yogre]

Anyone try placing the pellets inside their skimmer?

I would think displacement of bubble reaction chamber volume would make this less than an optimal solution.

 

[bertoni]

I agree. I'd leave the skimmer empty.

 

[Scej12]

I agree as well - the air in the skimmer would also cause the pellets to be carried out as well I'd imagine.

 

[bdbyace28]

I started using the pellets in a reactor for about 8 months. I read that having the outlet feed straight into the skimmer helped from getting the white slime from proceeding into other areas of the sump/tank. I did notice an increase in slime algae after about 4 months and a brown bacteria slime that would start forming on the obscure corners of the rock bases. I re-measured the amount of media I had in my reactor and it was still showing as the recommended dose for my system. I stopped the reactor pump to see if there were any changes once I discontinued the use of the pellets and found that the slime began to receed. I lowered the dose of pellets to half and noticed that the slime did not come back. From my experience, I would say start low and work your way up in the amount of pellets you use based on your need. I had low nitrates and phosphates to begin with which is probably why I needed to lessen the dose.

 

[Scej12]

BP Tinkering Journal: Background to Experiment...

BP Tinkering Journal: Background to Experiment...

Hi Folks - I'd promised to update you with photos for the purpose of my future (next week's) experiment... so I figured it's worth a little background in order to convey the context of the installation. Here it all is:

Somewhere back in 2008 I'd planned out an upgrade project for one of my existing clients. In the end the project didn't go through due to combined financial factors. However, the key point here is that the project got me thinking about creating a multifaceted filtration system that can be adapted to multiple, if not all potential (freshwater and marine) aquarium [water processing] solutions within a single adaptable facility. Since the original plan in 2008 failed to launch into a real-life project; I continued to develop that initial multi-solution concept into an actual reproduce-able (patent-pending) filtration system.

Although this is not the place (thread) to elaborate on the actual filtration system I figured a little background would be appropriate to explain the pellet setup and weird looking reactors you might be questioning in the following photos...

So the answer to the inevitable query... "what type of reactors are you using...?" ...they are prototypes.

Here are the photos:



The reactors have standard base portions and necks; that can be fitted with interchangeable heads. So far, I've made a 'tall-head' for the reactor on the left that will function as a calcium reactor; a 'skimmer-head' for the reactor in the middle for obvious function (also the middle insert is flipped to allow the foam through); and a 'flat-head' for the reactor on the right that will function as a [fluidized] media reactor.



After a few weeks of operation, and a gradual build up from 1L to 2.5L of pellets, I noticed that the pellets were making their way through the bottom diffuser plate into the base of the reactor. And since the media was being fluidized from just above the diffuser plate, the bottom of the reactor was a stagnant spot for the pellets to be sitting.



My first instinct was to try to prevent this by introducing some window screen (mesh) to sit on the bottom diffuser plate in the hopes that the pellets would be contained above the plate. This ultimately didn't work as the pellets would eventually make their way underneath the mesh, and continue to fill the bottom space after about a week of operation.



Eventually, I decided that the mesh was a band-aid solution and not a desirable one at that. It also occurred to me that if the bottom (4") space could be made useful without the risk of allowing an anaerobic micro-environment to take hold within the reactor, there would be a potential of increasing the overall capacity of the reactor, without having the new problem of media overflowing through the exit at the top. So one of the plugs were modified to allow some of the water pressure in from below the diffuser plate with the hope of eliminating this potential of a dead-zone. All of the water still exits the reactor at the top, which means that fresh water is always fed through the bottom trapped media. This also allowed for an additional 1L of pellets to be added bringing the introduced media to 3.5L, but I would assume that approximately .5L would have already been consumed over the past 3-4 months of operation.

The hope with this last arrangement is that the bottom media will function similar to the setup that some have with the pellets in a media bag, i.e. not tumbling; while the media above the plate will continue to tumble in a conventional manner. It can be also seen from the picture above that the media above the plate is moving quite a lot while the portion below appears to be simply resting.

Below is a pic of the foam being generated by the 'foam reactor' aka protein skimmer:



I'd mentioned in one of my last posts that I wanted to adjust the pump to recirculate a significant portion of the water within the reactor in order to slightly lower the O2 level in the reaction chamber to see if the anaerobic component will increase and positively boost the entire process, but after reading the post about the ease of potential for these pellets to go anoxic, I think it might be wise to wait until that potential is ruled out in the current arrangement of relaxed flow through the bottom. So far after about 3-4 days running there is no sign of H2S at the bottom.

I did another water test today, and it is still hard to tell how much the nitrates are coming down as I'm trying to judge between the dark shades of red indicative of API's range of 40ppm to 160ppm. In the three days that the new arrangement has been in action it looks as though the reading might in fact be budging downward, but I can't say for sure. The colour is taking longer to darken if that is any indication; however, I am optimistic that there should be a clearer indication within a week or two, so I'll keep you posted and hold off on the pump adjustment til then.

Sorry about the essay. Please feel free to let me know if my flow presumptions are completely misplaced. Thanks for reading if you managed to make it through all...! It took me about 3 days to assemble everything and type it:spin2:

Regards,

Sheldon

 

[Scej12]

I started using the pellets in a reactor for about 8 months. I read that having the outlet feed straight into the skimmer helped from getting the white slime from proceeding into other areas of the sump/tank. I did notice an increase in slime algae after about 4 months and a brown bacteria slime that would start forming on the obscure corners of the rock bases. I re-measured the amount of media I had in my reactor and it was still showing as the recommended dose for my system. I stopped the reactor pump to see if there were any changes once I discontinued the use of the pellets and found that the slime began to receed. I lowered the dose of pellets to half and noticed that the slime did not come back. From my experience, I would say start low and work your way up in the amount of pellets you use based on your need. I had low nitrates and phosphates to begin with which is probably why I needed to lessen the dose.

Is anyone finding a relationship between using the pellets and low pH?

I'm finding that any systems in which I'm experiencing algae problems, the pH is usually below 8 usually hovering around 7.9. For about 2 weeks when I had my pellets removed and instead ran carbon in the reactor, I found that my pH rose up to 8.1, now that I have replaced the bp media, I'm getting a pH reading of 7.87, and I'm seeing signs of green turf algae starting to spread a little. However it should be noted that my calcium carbonate reactor has been turned off (CO2) for about 3 months now because I was trying to lower my calcium from 520ppm. It has just dropped down to 480 for the first time, but quickly rises up to 500 as soon as I add magnesium. Since this tank is a rehab scenario, I'm still trying to establish my coralline algae, which is only about 10% there so far.

I'm just wondering if there is any coincidence between reports of LPS/SPS showing obvious signs of stress when bp are initially introduced and pH levels (in addition bio-films and other known effects). I'm going to start dosing Kent Pro-Buffer this week to try to address the pH issue. It could be that adding CO2 to the bulk water could be a side effect of all of that bacterial activity. I'd just be interested to hear the parameters of some of the tanks that are experiencing stress after the introduction of pellets.

SJ

 

[langtudatinh01]

bdbyace08, so did the white slime form a film on the sandbed and some corals? Could the bacteria makes the LPS to recess? i am having issue with my LPS recessing while my sps are growing like crazy and colored up. maybe i dont have enough flow too. check my parameter everyday and everything in perfect range: ph 8.3, cal 440, alk 8 and mag is around 1300. the soft corals in my tank are doing good. i just put back online GFO for now (suspect of higher phosphate level). i do run Rox carbon from BRS too.

 

[Scej12]

bdbyace08, so did the white slime form a film on the sandbed and some corals? Could the bacteria makes the LPS to recess? i am having issue with my LPS recessing while my sps are growing like crazy and colored up. maybe i dont have enough flow too. check my parameter everyday and everything in perfect range: ph 8.3, cal 440, alk 8 and mag is around 1300. the soft corals in my tank are doing good. i just put back online GFO for now (suspect of higher phosphate level). i do run Rox carbon from BRS too.

How often do you refresh your carbon. From what I've been reading a few pages back, carbon seems to be just as important as skimming. I believe it was reported (TMZ I think) that carbon might even take out more organics than your skimmer can. Capnhighliner also forwarded a post from someone talking about some of the reasons for stress to inverts as a result of the manner of pellet function; ...suggested that LPS don't have the same ability that SPS do to slough off slime coatings that might be resulting from bacterial mulm. If you can detect bacterial films on your inanimate furnishings, then it could also be trying to collect on your inverts; from what I've absorbed from this thread, it seems that sps can naturally deal with cleaning themselves, but lps do not cope as well. It might be necessary to increase your carbon change intervals to help the lps out a little.

From what I've been gathering throughout, it seems as though the pellets do work really well for their advertised purpose, but they may also necessitate some modification (to at least the level of priority) of other regular husbandry routines... With all of the new introduction of organics, maybe we just need to throw as many organic export strategies into the plan as practical to ensure some of the more sensitive livestock is not stifled by mulm/films??? Just like everything else in this hobby, it can take a little tinkering to get it down to a science.

SJ

 

[Lucifa68]

thanks for the reply. his ph is above 8 and alk is 8-9. what should alk be kept at???? all other params are fine as well

 

[SimonSKL]

I think new pellet reactors are coming and more well designed to keep the pellets tumbling:

The bottom part propels the pellets up every time:

I wish manufacturers of the more common reactors create inserts so you can change the bottom plate to something like the above.

To test if this design improves the tumbling of BP, I made something similar and use it in my NextReef MR1 reactor.

This is MR1 with no modification. Despite good movement in the front, there is very little movement in the back as water seems to flow in the route with least resistance.

<embed width="600" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" allowNetworking="all" wmode="transparent" src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf" flashvars="file=http%3A%2F%2Fvid667.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv38%2FSimonSKL%2F002-18.mp4">

This is with the DIY concave deflector replacing the original diffuser plate:
<embed width="600" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" allowNetworking="all" wmode="transparent" src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf" flashvars="file=http%3A%2F%2Fvid667.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv38%2FSimonSKL%2F004-12.mp4">

I think there is significant improvement to the movement of the BPs within the whole reactor with the modification.

You can read about my DIY concave deflector in this post:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18045207#post18045207