Phosphate Help

[JohnV8r]

That is why I swapped out the BRS GFO today and put 3 cups of my other GFO in my GFO reactor today.

The only thing that has me scratching my head over the BRS High Capacity GFO at this point is that I have never been able to get output from my GFO reactor with the BRS High Capacity GFO that was lower than .12. Even when my phosphates in my display tank were .13 on my Hanna Checker and the BRS GFO was fresh.

To put my old generic non-high capacity GFO (that costs about half the BRS HC GFO) in my reactor and have the phosphate in the reactor output immediately drop to .02 has me wondering out loud how good the BRS HC GFO really is. I emailed BRS and asked for their feedback this morning. I have not received a response to date.

 

[novazul1]

Try put some bacteria additive....I got same problem before and it will speed up the process

 

[bertoni]

If the phosphate is leaching from the sand or the live rock, this problem might take a while to resolve. Could you post a picture or two of your sandbed?

 

[JohnV8r]

I'll be happy to take some pictures. However, my phosphates in my display tank are 0.04 this morning. GFO reactor output is 0.02. It's been less than 24 hours since I changed the BRS High Capacity GFO out of my system and put in 3 cups of my LFS' generic non-high capacity GFO.

Since BRS has not responded to my email asking for feedback and direction on why I was not able to get my phosphates below .11-.13 with their "premium" GFO product, I will be calling them for feedback today. I still have plenty of the BRS High Capacity GFO to see how it performs now that I have the phosphates back to the level they were previously.

 

[Bluecorals]

Are you still dosing vodka or vinegar in your system to help maintain phos level low?

 

[Tuton]

If you want to get your phosphates down to undetectable levels you should run phosphate sponge by Kent marine. I put it in a high flow area of my sump on friday and take it out on sunday. I never have any phosphates and I don't run GFO.

 

[tankmates]

I also find that HIgh capacity GFO from BRS does no good...as soon as i went back to regular GFO from them..phosphates were lower in the past..

 

[JohnV8r]

Yes, I am dosing 3.3 ml of vodka per day (.825 ml every 6 hours) through a BRS doser.

 

[JohnV8r]

@Tuton: I have used Kent Phosphate Sponge in the past to pull down spikes. However, per the instructions that product is designed to be used for no more than 24 hours. If it remains in your system for more than 24 hours, it releases the phosphate back into your system.

 

[JohnV8r]

Here's an update:

I had a very nice conversation with Brandon at BRS. Brandon read through this thread prior to our conversation. We had an additional conversation to fill in any gaps in the details about what is going on. After reviewing everything from the thread, what has happened, the measurement differences between the GFO reactor output levels between the two GFO sources, food amounts, and all details, Brandon agreed that this is a unique situation and I am not crazy. LOL!

He explained three things to me that were of value: First, BRS' High Capacity GFO is rated to take twice as much phosphate based on the fact that it has more surface area for phosphate ions to bind to than regular GFO that has smaller granules. It is not necessarily a chemically stronger GFO than the non-High Capacity.

Second, GFO is produced in the United States to remove arsenic from water sources. Because of the critical safety purpose GFO is used for, its production is fairly well regulated. That said, BRS receives shipments in 4000 lb lots and it is possible (possible, not probable) that there could be a slight variation in the consistency of the GFO when distributed from a 4000 lb lot to a 1.75 lb container. A 4000 lb lot that is set up to perform at a particular level can have variances in its individual parts that don't affect the sum performance.

Third, leaching of phosphate from coral (calcium carbonate) rock at aquarium hobby PH levels is not very likely. Any phosphate in coral rock would be trapped at saltwater aquarium hobby PH levels (leaching of phosphates from trapped detritus in sand is another story).

The next step is that when the current non-BRS GFO is spent I will replace it with the remaining BRS High Capacity GFO that I have to see what happens with its performance.

I do want to say that I was very pleased with the response from BRS and the time Brandon took to understand the issue and my concerns.

 

[bertoni]

I disagree about the phosphate leaching from live rock, although it's possible that what we see might be the effects of detritus. People ran tanks with no sand at all, and still see the full range of phosphate problems.

 

[JohnV8r]

I'm just the messenger on this one.

I hope to god I don't have phosphate suddenly leaching out of my rock stack after having had this rock with no phosphate problem since 2007 and no issue until the powerhead blew my sand all over.

 

[ampemployee1]

I have EXACT same problem, same GFO, almost same food source and same diamond goby .....few days back I got excellent advise from betroni...cut my food ...but started changing GFO every 2 days..within last 5 days...my phosphates are .06 from .18......I think you should also change GFO every couple of days till you get it to level where it is under control and then leave it for longer period....Just what is working for me..I did GFO change couple days back...then my phosphate was .12, now I am doing one more on saturday.

I think the approach makes sense if you are checking the output of your reactor, and its no longer lower than the input phosphate levels. Personally, I run my GFO in a filter sock in the sump. Periodically, I take the sock out with some tank water let it sit in a container for 30 minutes and test to compare against the readings I'm getting from the main system. If the phosphate levels are the same its time to change the media. It takes the guess work out of whether its time to change this very expensive media.

Good luck with getting your levels down. I'm fighting a similar battle as well.

Cheers, Ed

 

[swcc]

brs is correct the rocks are not leaching(unless ph is low enough to dissolve calcium carbonate)... the bacterial processes and phosphate bound to the rock can cause a problem though. phosphate prblems from rocks is from bacterial processes and flux. if the rock has plenty of phosphate when bacteria die the live bacteria do not need their phosphate as it is in abundance so do not recycle it and the dead bacteria get discarded thus producing the shedding. so if one has rock loaded with nutrients it will shed more than one very limited in nutrients. considering when you touched the sandbed you developed the phosphate issue your particular dilemma is your substrate.

 

[bertoni]

brs is correct the rocks are not leaching(unless ph is low enough to dissolve calcium carbonate)...

Do you have any data to show that's true? Randy has said the opposite many times, and he's a chemist and has studied a lot of issues in reef chemistry.

 

[swcc]

Do you have any data to show that's true? Randy has said the opposite many times, and he's a chemist and has studied a lot of issues in reef chemistry.

when did he say this?... it is important to understand his chemistry takes on many aspects were corrected/completed by marine biology/microbiology on the matter... unfortunately most of these discussions are gone. Basically, a chemist is not a biologist and chemists tend to ignore biological happenings and thus not paint the complete picture. You have been around long, so, you may perhaps remember discussions on the matter back in the day. I am recollecting.
Either way you want to look at it, the results are that nutrient rich rock will in fact increase phosphate into an aquarium. Be it chemically or biological. If I am wrong, no biggie. But I believe biology first, chemistry second.
Only way Randy could prove it is purely chemical is to have completely sterile rock, submersed in completely sterile salt water and then observe this phosphate leaching. Unless you have data showing he did this, it is biological that he is explaining from a chemistry standpoint.

 

[bertoni]

You can search and find probably a hundred or more threads where we discuss the release of phosphate from rock. It seems quite well established to me, and I don't see what biology has to do with it. The issue is that phosphate fits reasonably well into the calcium carbonate matrix. I don't see how biological processes could result in all the phosphate problems we see.

 

[JohnV8r]

I'm happy to report that my phosphates this morning are officially 0.00 in my display tank. The output water from my GFO reactor is also 0.00. Given that the Hanna Checker has an accuracy of +/- 0.04, I'll simply take that as an indication that I am back to where I want to be. The polyp extension on my milliporas, montis, and acros is back to being what it should be. Qualitatively, everything looks great.

My next step will be to give the remaining BRS High Capacity GFO another try when the current generic LFS non-high capacity GFO expires or I reach the four week point of having it in my GFO reactor. I'll report those findings/readings when I have them.

I do want to be fair and reiterate that Brandon at BRS could not have been any nicer or more pleasant to deal with. He seemed genuinely concerned about my experience with the BRS GFO product and I will report my second experience with their High Capacity GFO product back to them once I have the information.

Finally, I did some math to try to better understand the value of using the BRS High Capacity GFO, assuming it works as well as advertised. The difference in the cost of using BRS High Capacity GFO vs BRS regular capacity GFO was somewhat surprising.

If I purchase HC GFO by the gallon (16 cups) and use 1.5 cups at a time in my reactor per BRS's calculator, each 1.5 cups costs me $16.98. If I purchase non HC GFO from BRS by the gallon and use 3 cups at a time in my reactor per BRS's calculator, each 3 cups costs me $11.63.

That means using BRS HC GFO to achieve the same results as their non-HC GFO costs 31.5% more when purchasing in 1 gallon quantities. That more than anything may dictate which product I use moving forward.

I'll let everyone know what the BRS HC GFO results are once I have swapped out my current GFO for the BRS HC GFO.

 

[tankmates]

I do blow the sand/detritus off the rocks regularly. However, the problem with sugar fine sand is it ends up suspended in the water column when my diamond goby and maroon clown kick it up due to its size and the flow in my tank. That leads to some of the sand and detritus settling on the rocks...and yes, that one area that gets the most settled sand/detritus is where the hair algae is the toughest to eradicate.



You're correct about that. I removed all of my equipment from my sump during a semi annual sump cleaning and got every spec of everything out of the sump, skimmer, etc. shortly after the powerhead incident. The sump is still clean at this point.



That is an excellent point as well. The funny thing about this hobby is that when you reach a certain level of expertise you begin to think you have achieved control. You're right. I need to make adjustments and evaluate rather than shotgunning a bunch of different solutions. I think the fact that my nitrates can be eradicated in a matter of a couple of days makes me less patient about phosphates. Great point.



This is another point that has resonates with me. Removing the sugar fine sand (to the extend possible) and replacing it with medium sized coral sand is on my list of projects. However, that is going to upset the balance in my tank because I will end up stirring up detritus and removing some of the nitrifying bacteria. There will inevitably be a period of adjustment that will take place from the new coral sand being put in the tank. Therefore, I would like to have my parameters back to a stable point so I don't hand grenade the chemistry while it's already less stable than usual. You're right though; I need to remove the source of the problem.



As always Jonathan, a well-made point. I'm going to cut the food in half for the next couple of weeks and see if that doesn't help me get out in front of the phosphates. If nothing else, it will accelerate the eradication of the leftover hair algae.

Thanks for your input everyone. I appreciate it.

Just a note here as I did almost same, replaced sugar fine sand with coarse grade coral...make sure you remove the sugar sand well...because my diamond goby still churns out that sugar sand particles into the water, even though those are very less..I am going barebottom with my new tank..

 

[swcc]

You can search and find probably a hundred or more threads where we discuss the release of phosphate from rock. It seems quite well established to me, and I don't see what biology has to do with it. The issue is that phosphate fits reasonably well into the calcium carbonate matrix. I don't see how biological processes could result in all the phosphate problems we see.

because it is the bacteria utilizing the phosphate bound to the calcium carbonate(then die-off and subsequent shedding)... you can find plenty of discussions on this matter. Saying the 'rocks are leaching phosphate' is just a simplified way of describing what is actually happening and it is happening due to bacteria and their processes on the rock.
for instance... notice what is going on when one 'cooks' their rock, bacterial processes utilize the bound phosphate and thus clean the rock of said phosphate. Drop some dry rock in a bucket of clean salt water and it won't just rid itself of bound up phosphate and leach into the water.
Perhaps your misunderstanding this... all I am saying is technically BRS is right the rocks are not just releasing phosphate into the water...but that does not mean the bound phosphate in the rock is not actually an issue. It very well can be.