Plenums and the wasting "option"
- Thread starter barryhc
- Start date
Paul I already mentioned your tank in that thread and linked to one of your photo threads. If you want to chime in here it is at Filter Thread.
It is stuck under the plenum of you filter, Paul. 
Now we need Barry to explain plenum wasting and why Paul will have big problems when that copper leaches into his tank.
Now we need Barry to explain plenum wasting and why Paul will have big problems when that copper leaches into his tank.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6652660#post6652660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WaterKeeper
It is stuck under the plenum of you filter, Paul.
Now we need Barry to explain plenum wasting and why Paul will have big problems when that copper leaches into his tank.
Put a bottle over it with a hole in the side, and you have a "local" outpatient facility !
So is it best to have a seperate DSB in a refugium, that would have half of it changed out every year or so? I am setting up a 210 gallon aquarium with a 125 sump refugium connected. So I could change out half of the DSB in the fuge every year or two.
Your opinions? Or should I go with a plenum?
Your opinions? Or should I go with a plenum?
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Even Calfo is now recommending remote DSBs these days. I went with a DSB, but we'll see how much of a fool I am in 5 years or so.
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Okay, a page or so back I promised you all a summary of some information from the new Delbeek and Sprung book. The information comes from pages 348-354. Apparently, Delbeek maintained a 500 gal. aquarium with a Jaubert-style plenum system at Waikiki. In response to some of the criticisms of maintaining systems with substrates, he took samples of water from above and below the substrates at intervals and sent the samples to the Univ. of Hawai'i for analysis.
The samples were taken at: 0, 96, 165, 230, 348, 434, 490, 591, 690, and 864 days.
The book produces really nice tables to summarize the info. I won't try to reproduce them here (it's easy to go look, plus I'm not fond of copyright violation). I'll try and give short summaries here.
Ammonia: The ammonia levels bounced around quite a bit. Ocassionally, the plenum sample contained much higher concentrations. Otherwise, the levels were close to the same above and below the substrate, somtimes a little higher above, sometimes below.
Nitrite/Nitrate: Once the system stabilized, the nitrite and nitrate levels were consistently many times higher in the plenum than above the substrate. But, even so the plenum water never exceeded 0.01mg/L.
DON: After stabilization, the dissolved organic nitrogen levels above and below the substrate stayed fairly close together.
Inorganic phosphate: After stabilization, the inorganic phos above the substrate trended generally down. The phos in the plenum samples, on the other hand, were always many times (3-5x) greater than the samples of the water above the substrate and trended mostly upwards over time. Still, the plenum water never reached much higher than 0.02mg/L in the 2 1/2 years of the study.
DOP: The dissolved organic phosphate in the plenum water, on the other hand, stayed very close to the levels found in the water above the substrate. And, the levels in the plenum water were usually _lower_ than that found in the water above the substrate. The DOP levels hovered in the 0.01mg/L range.
Silicate: The silicate levels in the plenum were much higher than in the water above. They were still pretty inconsequential over the length of the study, only once getting above 0.5mg/L in the plenum water.
There you have it. This is only one test and I would love to see more like it (and over longer periods of time).
The samples were taken at: 0, 96, 165, 230, 348, 434, 490, 591, 690, and 864 days.
The book produces really nice tables to summarize the info. I won't try to reproduce them here (it's easy to go look, plus I'm not fond of copyright violation). I'll try and give short summaries here.
Ammonia: The ammonia levels bounced around quite a bit. Ocassionally, the plenum sample contained much higher concentrations. Otherwise, the levels were close to the same above and below the substrate, somtimes a little higher above, sometimes below.
Nitrite/Nitrate: Once the system stabilized, the nitrite and nitrate levels were consistently many times higher in the plenum than above the substrate. But, even so the plenum water never exceeded 0.01mg/L.
DON: After stabilization, the dissolved organic nitrogen levels above and below the substrate stayed fairly close together.
Inorganic phosphate: After stabilization, the inorganic phos above the substrate trended generally down. The phos in the plenum samples, on the other hand, were always many times (3-5x) greater than the samples of the water above the substrate and trended mostly upwards over time. Still, the plenum water never reached much higher than 0.02mg/L in the 2 1/2 years of the study.
DOP: The dissolved organic phosphate in the plenum water, on the other hand, stayed very close to the levels found in the water above the substrate. And, the levels in the plenum water were usually _lower_ than that found in the water above the substrate. The DOP levels hovered in the 0.01mg/L range.
Silicate: The silicate levels in the plenum were much higher than in the water above. They were still pretty inconsequential over the length of the study, only once getting above 0.5mg/L in the plenum water.
There you have it. This is only one test and I would love to see more like it (and over longer periods of time).
Nice job Fish, my take on this summary is that 2 1/2 years is a substantial test period, and that there are plenty of substances "down there" worthy of wasting. ( not too shabby without wasting as well ) We don't know the bio-load for this system.
Check out the glass bead info on the "DSB's work" thread.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=6732007#post6732007
> Barry
Check out the glass bead info on the "DSB's work" thread.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=6732007#post6732007
> Barry
You've got a point there Joe. I dislike anything like screen at the holes however. The holes could point down, and then use 6mm stuff right on the bottom, and up to about the top of the feeder tubes. this would leave about a 1/2" wide channel along the bottom of each feeder tube with nothing near the holes.
Add a half inch layer of 1.5 mm over that, and your safe for down to .3 mm substrate. After that, the grain size mystery remains. The information touted by Mr. Shimek, really hasn't really held up to scrutiny, but I haven't found much else for a source either. I'm sure the information is out there, and I'll find it eventually.
I'm still finding the RUGF very intriguing and I expect to try that method on a predator tank I'm setting up soon. It needs the "channeling on purpose" idea described previously, to function properly within a short period of time after setup IMO. I'll have to do some extra planning though, if I,m going to try to include any kind of "Jaw fish garden", or the like.
I'm sure some other solutions to the round bead-round hole problem will pop up as well, but "fine straining" there is something I've been avoiding forever, and probably will continue to do so.
Thanks Joe, > Barry
Add a half inch layer of 1.5 mm over that, and your safe for down to .3 mm substrate. After that, the grain size mystery remains. The information touted by Mr. Shimek, really hasn't really held up to scrutiny, but I haven't found much else for a source either. I'm sure the information is out there, and I'll find it eventually.
I'm still finding the RUGF very intriguing and I expect to try that method on a predator tank I'm setting up soon. It needs the "channeling on purpose" idea described previously, to function properly within a short period of time after setup IMO. I'll have to do some extra planning though, if I,m going to try to include any kind of "Jaw fish garden", or the like.
I'm sure some other solutions to the round bead-round hole problem will pop up as well, but "fine straining" there is something I've been avoiding forever, and probably will continue to do so.
Thanks Joe, > Barry
salty joe
Active member
I thought this was encouraging. If the link does not work, find the DSB heresy thread in the advanced forum, near the end by DougSupreme.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=289910&goto=newpost
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=289910&goto=newpost
I don't know about that Joe. That thread was mainly to get people to buy a treatment system. If you notice the originator was banned from RC for his commercial antics. You can't believe the number of people that visit RC and hope to introduce a new, improved, method mainly geared to fattening their wallets. They sound authentic but really lack any real research to back their work. Barry's thread is a great thread as he is encouraging trials to show if Plenum wasting is a viable method without soliciting money.
However, for those of you that trust me, please send your generous contributions c/o WaterKeeper. I will then endeavor to prove your new, improved, technique is great; no matter how many fish I lose in the process.
However, for those of you that trust me, please send your generous contributions c/o WaterKeeper. I will then endeavor to prove your new, improved, technique is great; no matter how many fish I lose in the process.
Yes folks, Paul is also an experienced, experimental reefer, devoid of funds and needing your support.
But he has I boat and I don't!
But he has I boat and I don't!
DougSupreme
New member
If that thread was about selling me something, I completely missed it I thought for the amount of effort involved and the initial start up cost (About $15 in CPVC pipe), it couldn't hurt to try. If it didn't pan out, I could simply pull out the riser pipe and abandon the plenum piping in the substrate.
I will reiterate in this thread that I didn't make any scientific determinations. Anecdotally, I did not notice a ferocious bad smell when I tore down my tank after 1.5 yrs of overfeeding and generally poor husbandry.
Success? Who knows. Will I try it again? Probably. Is that an informed decision? I hardly ever make those anyway.
There are pics of my piping system in my gallery if you are interested.
I thought for the amount of effort involved and the initial start up cost (About $15 in CPVC pipe), it couldn't hurt to try. If it didn't pan out, I could simply pull out the riser pipe and abandon the plenum piping in the substrate.I will reiterate in this thread that I didn't make any scientific determinations. Anecdotally, I did not notice a ferocious bad smell when I tore down my tank after 1.5 yrs of overfeeding and generally poor husbandry.
Success? Who knows. Will I try it again? Probably. Is that an informed decision? I hardly ever make those anyway.
There are pics of my piping system in my gallery if you are interested.
salty joe
Active member
Doug,
Will you give as many details as possible? Such as size of tank, tank parameters, frequency and volume of drain, did you ever test the effluent for anything, did the effluent have a color or a smell, any evidence of worms or other macro creatures, depth and grain size of sandbed, was the length of time to draw a certain volume consistant, anything else you can think of would be appreciated.
Joe
Will you give as many details as possible? Such as size of tank, tank parameters, frequency and volume of drain, did you ever test the effluent for anything, did the effluent have a color or a smell, any evidence of worms or other macro creatures, depth and grain size of sandbed, was the length of time to draw a certain volume consistant, anything else you can think of would be appreciated.
Joe
