N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[tmz]

Sheldon,
You note the bacterial activity involves aerobic activity and CO2 respiration implying it is the exclusive or dominant form of activity.. Is there information regarding the mix of bacterial activity in terms of aerobic vs anaerobic when pellets are used?.

 

[thebanker]

Update: After 4 months on Vertex biopellets I had some tests done at the LFS.

PO4: 0.12 ppm (Hanna) this is really disappointing to me. I'm glad I put the GFO back online, I need to bring that number down.
NO3: 0 ppm (Salifert) This is good news, but I suspect that now my bacterial growth is nitrogen-limited.

Has anyone else had similar results?

 

[thebanker]

Is anyone else considering dosing Potassium Nitrate or a similar NO3 source to bring down PO4?

Toying with the idea of dosing Seachem Flourish Nitrogen or Pfertz N.

 

[TheFishMan65]

I believe poolkeeper is adding nitrate. IIRC it was potassium nitrate. I asked and it was one of the pellet threads. Maybe Warner Marine.

 

[Scej12]

Sheldon,
You note the bacterial activity involves aerobic activity and CO2 respiration implying it is the exclusive or dominant form of activity.. Is there information regarding the mix of bacterial activity in terms of aerobic vs anaerobic when pellets are used?.

Hey Tom - I haven't found any formally documented info regarding the mix of bacteria that would be likely to reside within the reactor. My observations are anecdotal; and based on my own empirical observations running a relatively large quantity of pellets in a 6" reactor on a 500g total system.

Other than that based on what has been published by the distributors: i.e. inner anaerobic and outer aerobic bacterial layers, being considered against the fluidized mechanics of the reactor, I would reason that the aerobic/anaerobic composition of bacteria has less to do with the growth of biomass on each individual pellet, and more with the diminishing O2 saturation rising through the reactor... but then again, the pellets don't restrict themselves to upper or lower zones within a fluidized reactor. I'm thinking that because the the bacteria mass is supposed to be continually sloughing off of the individual pellets, that it would be hard to maintain a large contingent of anaerobic real estate within such a dynamic.... perhaps anoxic (oxygen low) might be the dominant environment within a large reactor.

So far I'm just offering theories base on the following first-hand observations:

- I've been having to maintain a precariously high dKH in order to maintain pH levels at a level that does not inhibit scleractinian from using Ca & CaCO3;

- At a dKH of 11-12 degrees, I was just barely able to achieve 8.1 - 8.2 on the pH scale;

- By mere happenstance, I was only able to get a reduced amount of pellets into my reactor system prior to leaving for a week's vacation;

- With all other variables the same, I returned to an elevated pH that was more reflective of the elevated buffering capacity that comes with 12dKH... pH = 8.41;

- Within a day or two of increasing the pellet volume (dKH still remaining the same at 11-12) the pH dropped to 8.25 at roughly the same time of day (end of photoperiod);

- Another couple of days pass by, with a full 3.5L of pellets in the system, and suddenly the pH is sitting at 7.93 by the end of the photoperiod.

When the pH was on it's way down, I actually put the pH probe into the open top of the pellet reactor. The pH in the sump (prior to the pellets) was 8.26, and at the top of the reactor water overflowing (post pellets) pH was 8.20... it could come down to parallax error of some sort, but in a nut shell this is what most lead me to believe that the pellets house a significant enough population of bacteria (under the right nutrient provisions) to draw down pH on a system. My assumption that CO2 would be the most likely of culprits is just based on what little I know about respiration cycles, combined with what I've read about the bacterial driven filtration processes. The idea is that perhaps someone with a little more of a micro-biological background than I can either add to; or clarify some of my observations/assumptions with a little more of a formal scientific context.

But just to be clear, my offerings are based on anecdotal & empirical observations of my own singular experimental system. I do have a friend who is a PhD'er in the nutrition field who has a better ability to understand the microbiology aspects than I do. I keep inviting him to join this here discussion, but he has not had the time as yet.... maybe I need to give him a fish tank to help swing his interest from human nutrition to reef nutrition... hehe.

Regards,

Sheldon

 

[rguyler]

What about flow rate through the pellets? I'm now running just under 1.75L of Vertex pellets (Vertex reactor too) in ~300G water and have noticed varied results based on reducing the rate through the reactor versus increasing it. I don't have test kits worth a darn (API for nitrate, nothing for phosphate) so have no way to actually quantify the differences but anecdotal observations, such as bacterial blooms, GHA activity, etc. lead me to believe that a slower flow through the pellets increases the biological activity.

Soooo...maybe increasing the flow through the pellets as the levels come down would reduce the impact on pH while allowing for the pellets to continue to support the bacterial population albeit more sparsely.

 

[Scej12]

That's a good suggestion... will have to give it a whirl... I'm using API for nitrates; phosphates; calcium; and alk for what it's worth. I use a pinpoint monitor for pH - btw, I just changed the battery and the pH was reading at 7.81.... YIKES!!! Can't wait to get that aragonite contraption built...

Sheldon

 

[Scej12]

Ok - here goes the beginning of a new experiment. I just serviced my pellet reactor again since I was there today adding a few more fish to the tank. So as it is now the pH was at 7.81 tonight about three hours before the end of the photoperiod. I put in about 5/8 the total capacity of pellets, going to leave it for a week to see if the pH rises above 8.2 again. The dKH will remain at 11-12 for the time being. If the same thing happens... i.e. the pH ends up high again while the pellet reactor is half full, then I think we will be able to conclude my suspicion that the more bacteria laden pellets, the bigger the draw-down on pH...

Also - I happened to run into my nutrition buddy again today and popped a quick question about the possibility of bacteria running the way we are running them, drawing down pH due to respiration???? He didn't spend much time but he said it is possible for carbon dioxide to be the draw-down but also bacterial processes can produce many secondary metabolites such as lactic acid, and who know what else... this can also bring down pH.... In any event it was all but a really brief exchange, and he did mention that he has to find his micro[??bacteria??] texts to refresh on some of the many factors that are involved.... Just an fyi for now, I'll let you know how the mini experiment goes, and if I can't duplicate the same result that occurred when I was away from the tank for 8-9 days a couple of weeks ago...

Regards,

Sheldon

 

[daveonbass]

as some of you may remember I had a hard time getting the pellets to work, and finally did after 6+ months of tinkering.

well here I am after many months of ULNS and successful pellet application...and now finally my NO3 has started to come back up...from undetectable to 5ppm now. PO4 is still undetectable, and all other params are similar to NSW. I also just recently REMOVED a HOB refuge from the side of my tank that held a batch os baby banggai cardinal fish...now they are in a dedicated nano.

so anyone got any guesses as to why/how the NO3 has creeped up? My pellets are lower now...so there are less of them. Skimmer is still rocking a full cup twice a week of black nog (ever since pellets started working). And I slowly keep adding new coral (sps).

I'm not flipping out...in fact I'm only going to monitor this and not worry till after 10ppm (and maybe fix that with a simple WC). The tank still looks good and I've seen great colors lately and now wonder if it's due to a little extra NO3 in the tank.

I will also probably look into adding a few more pellets in the future...maybe that's all it needs.

 

[Scej12]

as some of you may remember I had a hard time getting the pellets to work, and finally did after 6+ months of tinkering.

well here I am after many months of ULNS and successful pellet application...and now finally my NO3 has started to come back up...from undetectable to 5ppm now. PO4 is still undetectable, and all other params are similar to NSW. I also just recently REMOVED a HOB refuge from the side of my tank that held a batch os baby banggai cardinal fish...now they are in a dedicated nano.

so anyone got any guesses as to why/how the NO3 has creeped up? My pellets are lower now...so there are less of them. Skimmer is still rocking a full cup twice a week of black nog (ever since pellets started working). And I slowly keep adding new coral (sps).

I'm not flipping out...in fact I'm only going to monitor this and not worry till after 10ppm (and maybe fix that with a simple WC). The tank still looks good and I've seen great colors lately and now wonder if it's due to a little extra NO3 in the tank.

I will also probably look into adding a few more pellets in the future...maybe that's all it needs.

Don't those bangais just love refugiums....!! I had one in one of my systems slip through the external overflow and bulkhead strainer... so must have been a hatchling of only hours - it survived the rapids of the sump intake; was fortunate enough to by-pass at least 3 powerful pressure rated pump intakes; and picked the correct of 3 possible mag 3 pumps.... the only one that lead to a pair of stacked refugiums:dance: he then managed to swim over the overflow of the top chaeto fuge, and finally made it past the baffles of the lower caulerpa /miracle mud /rubble fuge where he has grown from a hatchling to a full adult.... and all he was ever fed was what he found in the refugium - copius amounts of antropods, copepods, and I think I saw mysids in that system as well. His only other competition in there is a large mithrax; a rock boring urchin; and a few apthasia... recently some indo peppermint (kuekenthali) shrimp were added as well... But he has been one extremely happy (and even more lucky) character who absolutely wants for nothing in there... each refugium is about 75 gallons... so he's set for life!

Now to the matter at hand ...

I think it was an accepted factor of this discussion that the whole nutrient production can be limited by one of the utilized nutrients.... It therefore is possible that your undetectable phosphate, could actually be zero phosphates which is in fact limiting the process of the bacteria using nitrates. Are you running GFO by any chance... if so perhaps you can consider pulling it offline for a little while and feed lots of frozen foods .

You could be right however in that the pellets need to be topped up, as the other possibility is that you could have trace levels of phosphate which are still undetectable but your nitrates just happen to be the first parameter to become detectable as the population of bacteria become small enough to loose some of their efficacy.

Thirdly (in terms of possible causes) it could be that you simply need a slightly higher volume of pellets to take up the slack of your newly absent refugium.

Sheldon

 

[daveonbass]

I never had a refugium...i had a HOB (on the side) strictly as a holding tank for the babies. It only had water from the DT, the babies, a fake urchin, and one snail. It was so that I didn't have to keep changing the tank water for the babies and so they could benefit from the stable DT water. So the tank never had a working fuge.

I have never run GFO. I have never had any detectable PO4 so I never needed any export of it.

the pellets may very well just be too few to maintain the reduction of N and P levels. And I am guessing this because after "removing" the baby fish to a dedicated tank I would assume there would be "less" pollution in the tank. And yet now my NO3 level has gone up. Nit a lot...but a little.

also since the babies are gone the feeding level has gone down...so again less pollution...

so that's where I'm at right now. Though I'm tempted to add sugar again to see if my pellets just need a second jump start. Who knows?

 

[Scej12]

pH Experiment...

pH Experiment...

Okay - so I just visited my experimental 500g tank to see how things were going....

After 24hrs of running with more or less half - 5/8 my regular running volume, the pH monitor read 7.93 at the end of the photo-period (KH is still sitting at 11-12 degrees). At the time when the pellet reactor was running at full capacity (yesterday) the pH read 7.82 at the close of the photo-period. So far it seems as though the level has risen 1/10 on the monitor... will see if I can get down there tomorrow evening as Friday will be a little tough.

So far things seem to be going as predicted. Will keep y'all posted.

Regards,

Sheldon

 

[Scej12]

pH Experiment.... Day 2

pH Experiment.... Day 2

Okay so after roughly 48 hrs of operating half the capacity of pellets regularly used. the pH has remained the same as it was after day 1. At the end of the photoperiod, the pH registered in at 7.92.

Unfortunately I will not be able to get to the system until Sunday afternoon. Will report any changes at that time. It will be day 5....

Keeping y'all posted,
Sheldon

 

[DarkXerox]

Ok - here goes the beginning of a new experiment. I just serviced my pellet reactor again since I was there today adding a few more fish to the tank. So as it is now the pH was at 7.81 tonight about three hours before the end of the photoperiod. I put in about 5/8 the total capacity of pellets, going to leave it for a week to see if the pH rises above 8.2 again. The dKH will remain at 11-12 for the time being. If the same thing happens... i.e. the pH ends up high again while the pellet reactor is half full, then I think we will be able to conclude my suspicion that the more bacteria laden pellets, the bigger the draw-down on pH...

Also - I happened to run into my nutrition buddy again today and popped a quick question about the possibility of bacteria running the way we are running them, drawing down pH due to respiration???? He didn't spend much time but he said it is possible for carbon dioxide to be the draw-down but also bacterial processes can produce many secondary metabolites such as lactic acid, and who know what else... this can also bring down pH.... In any event it was all but a really brief exchange, and he did mention that he has to find his micro[??bacteria??] texts to refresh on some of the many factors that are involved.... Just an fyi for now, I'll let you know how the mini experiment goes, and if I can't duplicate the same result that occurred when I was away from the tank for 8-9 days a couple of weeks ago...

Regards,

Sheldon

Sheldon this is why I keep saying over and over again run some chaetomorphia to drop your CO2 levels. In short, photosynthesis converts the CO2 into sugars, releases O2, pH rises due to lower partial pressure of CO2 and pure O2 bubbles strip dissolved CO2 as well. CO2 turns into carbonic acid in solution and will drop pH so you have to counteract it if you are that concerned.

As for secondary metabolites, if glucose was involved, bacteria in excess levels of it will skip going through the TCA cycle in lieu of turning pyruvate from glycolysis anaerobically into acetate (a weak acid) and CO2 via pyruvate oxidase. However since our plastics here are polymers of possibly PHA or PCL and not glucose, we don't know if they are back converting it into pyruvate. PHA is definitely an intermediate but I wouldn't be able to say exactly what happens.

So in short, if you want higher pH, drop your CO2 levels and also calibrate your probe to make sure it is reading correctly.

 

[Scej12]

I do agree... however:

I do agree... however:

Sheldon this is why I keep saying over and over again run some chaetomorphia to drop your CO2 levels. In short, photosynthesis converts the CO2 into sugars, releases O2, pH rises due to lower partial pressure of CO2 and pure O2 bubbles strip dissolved CO2 as well. CO2 turns into carbonic acid in solution and will drop pH so you have to counteract it if you are that concerned.

As for secondary metabolites, if glucose was involved, bacteria in excess levels of it will skip going through the TCA cycle in lieu of turning pyruvate from glycolysis anaerobically into acetate (a weak acid) and CO2 via pyruvate oxidase. However since our plastics here are polymers of possibly PHA or PCL and not glucose, we don't know if they are back converting it into pyruvate. PHA is definitely an intermediate but I wouldn't be able to say exactly what happens.

So in short, if you want higher pH, drop your CO2 levels and also calibrate your probe to make sure it is reading correctly.

Thanks Xerox - Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you regarding the implementation of a macro algae refugium... but keep in mind that I'm also prototyping a filtration system of my own invention with certain objectives in mind...

So firstly, I was trying to confirm that the biopellet process does in fact produce CO2 or some other pH draw-down. I was not aware that this factor was already accepted as a known side-effect - so the major intent of documenting this experiment of mine publicly was to verify that there is indeed a direct relationship between the pellets (and quantity thereof) and pH stability;

Secondly, and because of my prototyping process, I'm trying to isolate the steps enough that the causes/effects are clearly verifiable. I think I did mention to your earliest suggestion that I will likely consider some type of refugium [probably critters], but am a little constrained by space at the time being. Also, inline with the objectives of my prototyping process as a whole, I'm considering a solution that readily mates with the filtration system I am developing, which is to employ a similar approach, for example, as a calcium reactor which appends an ancillary media chamber for gfo or additional aragonite.

I do currently use both chaeto and caulerpa in various other tanks that I currently manage and found that the caulerpa grows much, much faster and fortunately I have not had any go asexual as yet. I have to say that in one particular system that I had sub 8 level pH; neither the caulerpa nor chaeto (two separate fuges) were able to raise it up... perhaps this could be related to the fact that I light these refugiums 24/7; or perhaps the kH was too low on the system (6-7 dKH). In any case the eventual solution was to dose Pro Buffer, and once the dKH got to above 8 the problem sorta corrected itself...

I do appreciate your suggestion and see it as a possible aid/fix, but as mentioned I'm simply trying to isolate causes; and source solutions in line with a very focused prototyping process underway in this particular system... The biopellets are adding a significant dynamic to the resolution of my filter design, i.e. once the pH/dKH issue can be dealt with/polished off, the result will be that a 450-500 gallon reef is being maintained by a 24" x 16" sump filtration system.... I sincerely believe this is largely due to the amazing ability of the pellets to harness bacterial filtration.

With regard to the microbiology comments... WOW! totally over my head, but Thanks for letting me know where I should start educating myself...:spin2: I will look up some of those processes so that I have a better understanding... I just started learning about this whole bacterial driven filtration phenomenon about a couple of years ago, so most of this stuff is relatively new, but intriguing to me.

My background is in architecture not biology, which is why I appreciate the input from you and others who help to broaden my portrait of understanding a little. So Pls understand that I'm not ignoring your suggestion, just rolling it into the whole, while benefiting from the added input.

P.S. - I would provide more information about my invention, but I fear that this is not the right thread for it. I would really like to invite fellow hobbyists along for the ride who may want to offer some tweaking notes in addition to the considerations that I already have - so if it comes down to it I may start a new thread under the filtration forum... but until then, I'm trying to understand and make use of the biopellet phenomenon right here in this N/P thread!!!

Regards,
Sheldon

 

[rguyler]

Sheldon, I'd be interested to see what you've done there. It doesn't take a marine biologist to have a great idea for our aquariums.

Daveonbass, would you be willing to summarize your 6-month experience so maybe the rest of us could benefit? This thread has become so large that it's hard to follow a single experience. I'm running the pellets based on a lot of comments by others and personal anecdotal observations but a short synopsis from what you believe to be the best way to run these would be great IMHO.

 

[Scej12]

Sheldon, I'd be interested to see what you've done there. It doesn't take a marine biologist to have a great idea for our aquariums.

Daveonbass, would you be willing to summarize your 6-month experience so maybe the rest of us could benefit? This thread has become so large that it's hard to follow a single experience. I'm running the pellets based on a lot of comments by others and personal anecdotal observations but a short synopsis from what you believe to be the best way to run these would be great IMHO.

Hey Rik - thanks for the encouragement..:beer: I guess this is as good a place as any to introduce the idea to the reefing community at large.... and besides, it just became publicly searchable on the World Intellectual Property Organization website... I'll save you the search, here's the link:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch....79170&IA=CA2010001154&LANG=ENG&DISPLAY=STATUS

I'll post some pictures of the prototype that's running on my 500g system at the moment when I have a little more time... preparing for a little UFC shindig tonight so I'd better get outside and shovel some snow:eek2:

In a nutshell; here's a quick summary of the invention. It is a system that connects standard reactor to a sump via a plenum and standard pattern of holes. The plenum is used to control all of the circulation needs of any given reactor... including a protein skimmer which I've also described as a type of reactor. From the neck down all of the reactors are standard with the ability to manipulate the internal configuration to accommodate functions of, for example, a calc reactor; protein skimmer; pellet reactor; (this is the current setup); a refugium; media reactor; biotower; cooling system; etc. It's up the user how and which combination of reactors are going to be used. In effect the system puts to control in the hobbyist's hands to switch on the fly between reactor types, by simply switching the head-type and/or pump arrangement. Any pump can be used... i.e. once you have a reactor body, you can create a skimmer by using the skimmer collection cup head; and employing an aspirating pump (venturi or becket or mazzi); a skimmer drain; and manipulating the internal perforated pvc plates to allow for easy passage of the foam. All of the above components connect through the plenum. Alternatively, you can create a calcium reactor, by employing a circulation pump; a 'tall-head' which includes a probe holder, and if you don't have one of those fancy CO2 regulators that have an integral bubble-counter (Milwaukee), you can also opt for a 'bubble-head'; the internal perforated pvc plates will be arranged to contain calcareous media... the list goes on to accommodate all types of filtration required to manage either freshwater aquariums; planted aquariums; marine aquarium; reef aquariums; etc. Said another way... the design is for a sump filtration system that accommodates a wide variety of solutions, by isolating every aspect of any given reactor type; each isolated component is then united through the plenum system... this means that you can use any pump you can fit into the provided area, to make a filtration strategy of your choice.

Basically my system is internationally patent pending; and is a solution to afford hobbyists the greatest flexibility between aquarium types and filtration stategies... in a nutshell. If you want a more detailed description feel free to follow the link above to view the entire patent submission.... it was filed through the Patent Cooperation Treaty which means that the concept is currently Patent Pending in 144 countries around the world.

If you do take the time to browse through please feed free to offer your comments... I may have to find a separate thread for this at that point but so be it... All in all the solution is intended to satisfy all of us hobbyists by the time I'm through with the prototyping process - so all comments are welcome both good and bad.... I have thick skin so don't worry.:smokin:

P.S. I'm not proof reading this time so hopefully there are no errors that make me look like a three-year-old:beachbum: so long... gotta get ready for UFC!

Sheldon

 

[tntneon]

whauw sceij12 looks very impressive ,
although i rather be building my own sump , i do like your idea !

greetingzz tntneon

 

[Scej12]

Thanks tntneon! As it turns out, I was planning an installation/upgrade for a client of mine when I first started thinking of a way to make my filtration strategy interchangeable... I.e. I wanted to be able to easily swap things out or even double things up... i.e. two skimmers if I thought it was necessary. This is when I started concocting a 'plug n play' model. Unfortunately the client decided that the upgrade was too expensive as influenced by a couple of financial factors... not least of which was the recession of 2008. So I decided to continue to develop the idea and came up with what you saw as my patent submission. The funny thing is (perhaps karma) that my prototype is now running on that same client's tank, and the rehabilitation that was too expensive almost three years ago is now in full swing... thanks to the pellets of course - and my modest R&D budget.....!

Regards,

Sheldon

 

[MedRed]

I'm wondering when someone will build a skimmer with a built in reactor. That seems like it'd be super easy to implement.