N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't think the biopellet/lanthanum issue is any different than the lanthanum/GFO issue, and IMO, such binders may be needed to get phosphate adequately low for some folks preferences.

Lanthanum has some additional issues that relate to the lanthanum itself, but that is not peculiar to a system with biopellets.

 

[Aquarist007]

I don't think the biopellet/lanthanum issue is any different than the lanthanum/GFO issue, and IMO, such binders may be needed to get phosphate adequately low for some folks preferences.

Lanthanum has some additional issues that relate to the lanthanum itself, but that is not peculiar to a system with biopellets.

In a situation where the biopellets have reduced the nitrates but not the phosphates causing an ugly bryopsis break out I have run a phosban reactor with phosban. This eventually clears up the situation but can take a long time to do so.
Can one use the liquid phosphate remover instead of the reactor to get faster results?

 

[thebanker]

There are a few threads out there on people using liquid lanthanum chloride, seems like most use it before a mechanical filter (like a sock or skimmer) to export the inert precipitate.

 

[pecan2phat]

Thanks Randy.
Would you happen to have any dosage info on the commercial liquid lanthanum chloride? I know with the trade branded products, it was x-amount of ml for x-amount of water volume to decrease levels by 100 ppm when I used it a couple of years ago.
I did recall a buddy that used the Sea Kleer product that he had the white haze on his glass panes from either using the product incorrectly or using too much, or too long or all of the above.
Is it better to apply with a medical doser or just x-amount ml per actual water volume?

 

[pecan2phat]

Just found this from a 2009 thread, sounds like Joe's tank too:

Here is the formula which one of the large public aquarium uses:

"I have been dosing LaCl2 to the reef tank here, but at half the recommended dose rate, and also dilute it in 5 gallons of RO water, and slow drip into the sump.
Right now my dose rate has been 300ml/ 20,000 gallons, and that on average will drop my PO4's 0.10ppm/ dose. I'm using the SeaKlear Phosphate remover"

You can take the above formula and that will equate 3ml per 200 gallons of water.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

bear in mind that the large aquariums usually collect the solids, like in a sand filter, rather than releasing them into the tank.

It might be faster than GFO, but GFO can be as fast as you'd want, assuming you use enough and change it often enough.

 

[shifty51008]

well to document mine I just started useing ATB BP's in a MR5 reactor. I haven't read the whole thread yet, only on page 110 but was wondering if there was ever a conclusion on if you need both PO4 and NO3 for these to work? I have NO3 but never really had a problem with PO4 using the hanna but NO3 always seems to hover around 20ppm or so using the elos kit. to start off I am only using 250ml of BP's and will add another 250ml in a week or so.

 

[rinconmike]

I have been running the BRS pellets on a BR-140 reactor for almost 6 weeks now. When I started the pellets, I stopped the GFO. My nitrates have dropped from around 50ppm to under 25ppm using a salifert kit.

Since I started, I have checked my phosphates a couple of times and they have been rising. This weekend the phosphates were up. A quick summary of hte increase in phosphates are:

5/6/11 started pellets and stopped GFO
5/22/11 phosphates were .15
5/29/11 phosphates were .36
6/11/11 phosphates were .48

So this weekend I decided to add the GFO back in (using BRS Jumbo Reactor).



Mike

 

[APBonds]

In a situation where the biopellets have reduced the nitrates but not the phosphates causing an ugly bryopsis break out I have run a phosban reactor with phosban. This eventually clears up the situation but can take a long time to do so.
Can one use the liquid phosphate remover instead of the reactor to get faster results?

IME if you use both liquid and GFO it will knock out the PO4 faster. When the phosphates are gone change your GFO out and you will be good for a while.
Also you might not have enuff flow in your reactor, make sure the GFO on the bottom of the reactor is moveing around to. This is a mistake I made when I first started useing a reactor, I was told to have a light flow in the reactor so I just had the top of the GFO moving. I didn't see good results until I had the bottom of the GFO moving around to.

 

[sneaton]

ive been using biopellets for 5-6 weeks (i took gfo off line when i started) and in the first week nitrate went from 20 to 0 and phos have stayed at undetectable....no water changes since (except for what the skimmer pulls out and being replaced with salt).....ive been feeding alot more since there needs to be nitrate and phos to remove eachother

 

[shifty51008]

ok here is prob. a dumb suggestion. for those of us that have a hard time getting PO4 into our tanks or atleast enough of it to get the pellets to work. I have been reading alot lately about macro rocks haveing alot of PO4. would it be safe to say that if we were to add a couple of those rocks to our tank to raise the PO4 that it would be enough to get the pellets working and stay working after the rocks have been depleted? or has anyone come up with a safe way to add PO4 to the tank?

BTW I am not gonna try that yet as I just set up the BP's in place of my GFO so maybe I will have some PO4 later on.

 

[tmz]

pecan2phat
Registered Member



Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wallingford, CT
Posts: 3,845


Just found this from a 2009 thread, sounds like Joe's tank too:

Here is the formula which one of the large public aquarium uses:

"I have been dosing LaCl2 to the reef tank here, but at half the recommended dose rate, and also dilute it in 5 gallons of RO water, and slow drip into the sump.
Right now my dose rate has been 300ml/ 20,000 gallons, and that on average will drop my PO4's 0.10ppm/ dose. I'm using the SeaKlear Phosphate remover"

You can take the above formula and that will equate 3ml per 200 gallons of water.


Here is another link on lanthanum chloride it:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1474839&highlight=lanthanum+cloride

The Seakelar works fine . They package teh same procduct for pools and aquauriums . The MDS shows no impurities. I've use it a number of times.

Slow dosing via dripping upstream from a fine filtering medium to allow it to precipitate before the filter and to remove particulates is very important. It does remove PO4 quickly but can cloud a tank and kill fish and fine filter feeds as it seems to clog up there repiratory apparatuses . It dissociates to La and Cl in water . Then the La binds with PO4 and some binds with CO3 ,so it reduces alkalinity a bit.

 

[tmz]

Lanthaum is fast and gratifies instantly but with a significant degree of risk. I prefer gfo all things considered for most applications and with regenerated gfo relative cost becomes much less of an issue.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The MDS shows no impurities.

FWIW, I know it is just a copy annd paste, but that statement is meaningless. An MSDS wouldn't show 1% copper impurity in it if it contained it.

 

[tmz]

I get that. Thanks.

I did look up Cu msds too and it shows a slight hazard. Since the Seaklear is listed 64% lanthanum salts and 36% non hazardous, I thought copper would be listed if it was there but I'm not familiar with the rigor and thresholds or lack of it in msds .

In any case it is used widely without any indications of copper poisoning that I've read and I don't know it would be any less pure than more costly hobby lanthanum mixtures since they don't tell you what's in them.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I wasn't claiming I thought it had copper, just noting the laws on MSDS and the unsuitablility of using MSDS as a way to judge purity.

"MSDSs must be developed for hazardous chemicals used in the workplace, and must list the hazardous chemicals that are found in a product in quantities of 1% or greater, or 0.1% or greater if the chemical is a carcinogen. "

http://www.ehso.com/msds_regulations.php

I'm not sure if copper is considered hazardous in this context (probably), but 0.99% wouldn't need to be listed.

 

[thebanker]

I've looked at this bottle about 100 times at my LFS. Still haven't taken the plunge. From what I understand, you need to dose it carefully so it can react with water, then run that water through a mechanical filter like a skimmer or a sock.

The only thing I have that is close is my canister filter, in which I keep activated carbon, but no actual mechanical filter. My skimmer, I worry, is underpowered, and all of the LaCl would end up in the fuge. (in its precipitate forms of course)

 

[tmz]

Ok ,thanks Randy didn't know the .99% standard. Cu msds lists it as hazardous at a level 1, slightly hazardous ,so I guess it would be less than 1% if there. I understand msds not going to list every impurity and that even very low levels of certain things like copper as an example can be harmful. I'll be sure to include an appropriate caveat whenever I read or cite an msds.

 

[tmz]

I'd do more than pass it through a skimmer. Some precipitant will pass through a canister My understanding is it is about .5 micron from an earlier post by Boomer. Most filter socks in use are 100 micron.

The precipitant is nasty if the tank gets cloudy. I've seen ia yellow tang go down in a friend's tank where it was dosed right into the tank at 2ml of the brightwell's stuff for a 75 gallon. The healthy fish went down to the bottom within a few hours with labored breathing ; did not recover; lost it's equilibrium and died the next day. Folks have also reported problems with clams.

 

[pecan2phat]

In the past, I have dosed the above Brightwell product at 70mm (all at once) into a sump (on several occassions) that is attached to a 300g system without any fish casualties. Water clouded up for about 36 hours.