Zeolites

[kaskiles]

I think the point we're getting to is that, when dosing liquid organic carbon; any type of media (filter floss, sponge, gravel, silica sand, aragonite sand, GAC, GFO, zeolite, bio-balls) in a filter is going to build up bacterial films.

The questions here just may be; which media is easier and safer (less contaminating) to clean. In this thread, I think we have approached the fluidized sand filter only from the standpoint of cleaning the media. Just like the traditional zeolite filter, you would only pump the reactor a couple times per day; so you would only fluidize the sand filter a couple times a day...

During the fluidizing of the media for cleaning, it could be easy to actually grind the media into a powder that is carried off into the system. If you tried to fluidize a GAC filter to clean off the film, you would risk contaminating the tank with GAC powder. Same might be true of silica gravel or sand. With aragonite gravel or sand, you would just be contaminating the tank with your home-made purple-up...

I think there are some other differences with the Zeolites vs. gravel or rubble. I believe there are supposed to be some pores within Zeolite (and GAC), that could potentially host anearobic, denitrifying bacteria. Even though the media is in a high flow, aerobic reactor, the pores are within the large pieces of Zeolite and are shielded from oxygen. Seems like someone was speculating that the pores in Zeolites were larger than other potential media, and could possibly be better at denitrification.

 

[reefgeezer]

Now I understand. Thank you. I had not considered fluidizing the bed intermittently. Duh, I really may be a moron! I will definitely investigate that option. I agree that certain zeolites may be more than a very efficient substrate, but I just can't make myself accept any of the explainations from the manufacturers. To me they seem purposely vauge.

I'd like to add that I am not slamming the Zeovit or other like systems. However , they workthey do appear to work. I have to give the companies kudos for developing effective methods that hobbyists can follow in a step by step manner.

I'm just trying to perform a critical thinking exercise and possibly deconstruct their methods to determine which components are valuable to the hobbyist (me) and which are are just profitable to the manufacturer. In other words, I'm cheap and want the benifits without the cost!

Again, I appreciate everyone's help and input. Don't stop now. I'll try to make regular updates as the project progresses.

 

[philbo32]

I'm just trying to perform a critical thinking exercise and possibly deconstruct their methods to determine which components are valuable to the hobbyist (me) and which are are just profitable to the manufacturer. In other words, I'm cheap and want the benifits without the cost!

How will you going about this? What part of the method are you thinking of deconstructing first?

 

[philbo32]

Why don't you just try recharging it?

How does that work?

When I've finished my experiments on this I will let you know. But start thinking sodium...

 

[reefgeezer]

How will you going about this? What part of the method are you thinking of deconstructing first?

I'm not trying to isolate (deconstruct) the components of any particular Zeovit additive. I'm trying to determine if they can be replaced by simple compounds. My experiments are purely non-scientific and are based solely on changing a variable and observing the results.

The current experiment is in process. The question is: Do Zeovit stones require Zeobac and Zeofood to work? I'm using MB7 and some additional carbon dosing. I'm at day 7.

If the answer to the above question is "yes", I will change the Zeovoit stones for some sort of non-zeolite substrate. This will attempt to answer the question: Are zeolites required to yield the results attributed to them?

The third part of the experiment once the N&P are gone will be to try to attain the color yielded by the Zeovit system using some select trace element additions, amino acids, and the maintenance tasks specified by the Zeovit system.

I'm sure I'm not the first to try this but I like to control the inputs and observe the results myself rather than relying on somebody else's project.

 

[MavG]

The current experiment is in process. The question is: Do Zeovit stones require Zeobac and Zeofood to work? I'm using MB7 and some additional carbon dosing. I'm at day 7.

As i understand this system, the Zeovit (or any media for that matter) does not "need" the Zeobac (probiotic bacteria) or ZeoFood (organic carbon) but it works better when one or both are used.

The ZeoBac, or any probiotic bacteria mix, will introduce bacterial strains to the water and increase the number of bacteria substantially. Because heterotrophic bacteria in general have a very short lifespan and degrade nutrients quickly, the population density fluctuates (or so it is thought through reasearch on hetertrophic bacteria) and so constant addition of these bacteria keeps a more constant density of bacteria in the water for enhanced waste removal.

It could be argued as well that the bacteria in the mix are chosen because they are effecient at their given purpose (weatehr it be solid waste/mulm digestion, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate reduction etc) and so you are adding these strains to ensure "effective" nutrient removal, rather than just relying on fueling the bacterial growth that is already in the tank by using Vodka or a similar carbon source only.

Probiotic's have been widely used in many industries, namely wastewater, to great effect, they are very commonly used in the Aquaculture industry as well, for waste control in Production ponds, both mainre and freeshwater Aquaculture.

The ZeoFood being the fuel will help "enhance" the nutrient removal, organic carbon is supplied to some extent from the breakdown of organic waste resulting from food etc, but it is usually not enough to remove ALL of the nutrient, and so supplementing the system with organic is nessecary.

Having said this, ZeoFood is nessecarily needed to supply the carbon source, you can use vodka, vinegar etc if you wanted to.

The ZeoVit stones dont nessecarily need these two things, but enhanced Nutrient removal does.

The ZeoVit could really be replaced by any media as you have discussed above, but i think the zeolite is chosen both because it is very porous, AND because of the Ion exchange abilities.

The third part of the experiment once the N&P are gone will be to try to attain the color yielded by the Zeovit system using some select trace element additions, amino acids, and the maintenance tasks specified by the Zeovit system.

I think that you would be able to achieve simialr results as it is not only the Zeolite that makes it an effective system to use, but also the Amino acids to increase feeding response and growth, coupled with the ULNS that is the result of the nutrient export (and of course the bacterioplankton the corals are constantly feeding on).

The only i can see that would change the overall results is the impact (if any at all) of the Ion exchange properties of the Zeolite itself. Does this result in even better conditions and this is what is achieve better growth and color? Or is it the food, ULNS, amino acids and water quality alone?

Perhaps trying a system without the zeolite media, but also comparing the use of this system with and without the use of a Probiotic bacteria would also yeild some interesting results.

Organic Carbon would of course be essential for enhanced nutrient export IMO.

 

[reefgeezer]

Excellent information. Let me digest it a while and maybe alter the plan a little.

 

[solos2]

I don't quite understand the goal of using the fluidized bed. Guess I'm a little more of a moron than usual this morning. Is the fluidized bed used for ammonia and nitrite control only and is the GAC reactor then used for cultivation of carbon based bio-mass?

At this point we're discussing the possibilities of using a fluidized bed for cultivation of carbon based bacteria / biomass.

I think the point we're getting to is that, when dosing liquid organic carbon; any type of media (filter floss, sponge, gravel, silica sand, aragonite sand, GAC, GFO, zeolite, bio-balls) in a filter is going to build up bacterial films.

That's exactly my point

The questions here just may be; which media is easier and safer (less contaminating) to clean. In this thread, I think we have approached the fluidized sand filter only from the standpoint of cleaning the media. Just like the traditional zeolite filter, you would only pump the reactor a couple times per day; so you would only fluidize the sand filter a couple times a day...

I've thought about that as well, that's why I suggested the use of fluidized sand filter - to eliminate the need to clean the filter since the grinding action between the sand will already do the job.

However, when you build a fluidized sand filter, you will need to keep a steady water flow through the filter to maintain a steady supply of oxygen to the bacteria, so I think the idea of fluidize the sand only a couple times a day may not work.

I propose the idea of starting with minimal flow through the sand, a typical fluidized sand filter pumps a rather strong current through the media such that it's like a little storm inside the filter.

My idea is to reduce that flow to a minimal such that you'll see sand movement inside the filter, providing oxygen to the bacteria and the mild grinding action between the sand will behave as a self-cleaning mechanism, and the bacteria / biofilm will be carried out of the filter by the flow continuously.

During the fluidizing of the media for cleaning, it could be easy to actually grind the media into a powder that is carried off into the system. If you tried to fluidize a GAC filter to clean off the film, you would risk contaminating the tank with GAC powder. Same might be true of silica gravel or sand. With aragonite gravel or sand, you would just be contaminating the tank with your home-made purple-up...

That's also why I suggested to use sugar grain sized aragonite sand, not only the grinding action will send out fine powder of aragonite to the main tank, it's quite likely that bacteria activity will create local pockets of CO2 and lower the pH on the surface of the aragonite sand and dissolve part of it.

If this theory works, then eventually the aragonite sand will slowly dissolve overtime - it may take a few years, and I wouldn't count on it to provide sufficient calcium to the main tank like a calcium reactor, but since the main purpose of this fluidized sand filter is to cultivate carbon based bacteria, any dissolved calcium content from it is merely an added bonus.

 

[solos2]

I'm not trying to isolate (deconstruct) the components of any particular Zeovit additive. I'm trying to determine if they can be replaced by simple compounds. My experiments are purely non-scientific and are based solely on changing a variable and observing the results.

The ZeoVit could really be replaced by any media as you have discussed above, but i think the zeolite is chosen both because it is very porous, AND because of the Ion exchange abilities.

I've been doing something similar as well, I've noticed that the entire line of ZEOvit organic products are simply:

a) Zeolite - it was chosen by KZ like MavG said, because it is very porous and because of the ion exchange abilities.

However like Randy suggested earlier in this thread, the ion exchange theory may be flawed, so I'll tend to put the ion exchange out of the equation right now.

If that's the case, then the choice to use zeolite is solely because of it's porous structure and makes a perfect media for cultivating carbon source bacteria.

However the daily pumping/cleaning mechanism that's tied to zeolite is one of the disadvantage of using zeolite, hopefully with the fluidized sand filter and its self-cleaning mechanism is proven to work equally well, then it can replace zeolite as the media.

b) bacteria strains (ZEObak)

The question is, do you really need to add bacteria to a system? I've been using NPBP without adding any bacteria to my system, and I'm sure most people who dose vodka / carbon source don't either.

Bacteria comes from surrounding environment, there're simply so many of them all around us, and I've read articles indicating that systems with and without dosing bacteria (in that case, nitrifying bacteria) complete their n-cycle in a similar time frame.

c) bacteria food (ZEOfood7)

Dosing vodka would do the same.

So I'd tend to think that you don't need to add either item (bacteria and food) to get your system started, but if you think it'll help, you may as well add them in the startup phase of your system.

 

[reefgeezer]

I agree. ULNS is possible via several methods. A reactor of any kind is not even absolutely necessary. However, I think that is the easy part when trying to duplicate the reported color enhansement of the Zeovit system. The real test is figuring out what supplements need to be added. I have read amino acids are in the mix to replace nitrates needed by the corals, but I don't think that's all.

Some claim the the zeolites remove certain trace elements. It is interesting to me that the trace elements reportedly removed, and therefore requiring supplementation, are the same ones others have associated with color enhansement.

 

[recife111]

One thing i noticed is that when dosing bacterial products like fauna marin your pottasium tend to drop, could be that the zeolite is removing it.

The question is, do you really need to add bacteria to a system?

Lots of bacteria is in your tank already, however adding bacteria populates the correct strain so they can be dominate.

The question that i always wondered was do many of these bacterial products actually contain any large number of bacteria. or are we just adding water from the bottle., How do we know they are alive?

 

[reefgeezer]

I'm just cheap I guess.

Personally, I can't quite get past paying for a strain of bacteria that I then have to pay for to maintain, particularly when nature provides others that work just fine for free. I'm currently adding MB7 with the intent of adding a little diversity to the Biomass. However once the bottle is gone, I had not planned on replacing it.

As for zeolites, it seems that the ion exchange capacity is limited at best and constant replacement is expensive. Their true value may be purely surface area, but that advantage dissipates as the pores clog. Additionally. I think everyone has agreed that the mulm that grows in the reactor would grow just as well on GAC.

Considering the above, I believe I will alter my experiments unless something amazing happens in the next couple of days.

1. Stop adding MB7 and increase carbon source dosing.
2. Remove Zeovit stones and modify the reactor for use as an active GAC reactor.

I'll continue this until I get back to ULNS and then start to play with amino's and trace element additives to see if I can enhance coral color. I thought this was the key to the method in the first place, but just couldn't ignore the Zeovit buzz.

Remember, I'm not saying the Zeovit system doesn't work, so don't sic the probiotic police on me.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

One thing i noticed is that when dosing bacterial products like fauna marin your pottasium tend to drop, could be that the zeolite is removing It.

Clinoptilolite (a common zeoite) will certainly bind and export potassium. We've discussed this many times, including with the Fauna Marine folks, and bacterial uptake may also be part of it, but IMO, some methods of potassium testing appear flawed and always read low. I’ve got a fauna K+ kit on order to test its accuracy.

 

[solos2]

I'm just cheap I guess.

Personally, I can't quite get past paying for a strain of bacteria that I then have to pay for to maintain, particularly when nature provides others that work just fine for free. I'm currently adding MB7 with the intent of adding a little diversity to the Biomass. However once the bottle is gone, I had not planned on replacing it.

Exactly my thought also, once you've the strain of bacteria dominated the system, unless there's a crash, otherwise they'll stay that way.

There's no need to continue adding more bacteria once it's settled.

As for zeolites, it seems that the ion exchange capacity is limited at best and constant replacement is expensive. Their true value may be purely surface area, but that advantage dissipates as the pores clog. Additionally. I think everyone has agreed that the mulm that grows in the reactor would grow just as well on GAC.

I think we're on the same page on most of the topics :lol:

However using GAC in a reactor means you could risk running fine charcoal powder into your DT, and I would advise against.

What I do think is better, is using another media such as aragonite sand - since fine calcium carbonate powder to your DT is a plus, as well as possible dissolved calcium from the mild acidity from bacteria growth.

On top of that you could use GAC in a mesh bag for NH3/TOC absorption purposes.

Considering the above, I believe I will alter my experiments unless something amazing happens in the next couple of days.

1. Stop adding MB7 and increase carbon source dosing.
2. Remove Zeovit stones and modify the reactor for use as an active GAC reactor.

I'll continue this until I get back to ULNS and then start to play with amino's and trace element additives to see if I can enhance coral color. I thought this was the key to the method in the first place, but just couldn't ignore the Zeovit buzz.

Remember, I'm not saying the Zeovit system doesn't work, so don't sic the probiotic police on me.

I'll be tagging along, let us know how your system works, and I'll be posting results from my system (i.e. NPBP reactor with aragonite sand added).

Cheers.

 

[reefgeezer]

My reactor is simply a DIY 4" tube that allows water to flow from bottom to top through the media. It doesn't agitate the media. When using Zeolites, I simply shook it to free the mulm. All I have to do to convert it to a carbon reactor is change the media.

More later as results merit. Thanks everybody for the suggestions and information.

 

[MavG]

In regards to purging the media, could you maybe put a decent size air pump on a timer and have it blast whatever media is in the reactor.

, you may have to have a bigger outlet size to let the air out of the reactor, or have an open top reactor so it would'nt matter.

You could even go a step further and put a pnematic valve and a charge chamber into the reactor so it would be automatic and backwash at a set interval.

a little OTT for a reef tank reactor but it could be done, and could result in a more regular export of bacteria from the media. Resulting in higher nutrient removal on a whole, more frequent bacterioplankton addition to the water column for filter feeders, and more export of nutrients via skimming and filtration.

MavG

 

[troyman]

zeolite

zeolite

zeolite only grows bacteria on surface area in salt water it does not remove anything in fresh water it does zeovit is just another gimmick out there for people to waste money on i use brightwell nitrobacter 7 and bio fuel drip kaulk and do weekly water changes my tank does very well people go on to say there phosphates and nitrates are low but if ph is not correct the phosphates may be low but they are a usuable nutrient if ph is correct they are not

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

zeovit is just another gimmick

You believe that with a different set of products you can achieve the same results, how does that make it a gimmick?

it does not remove anything in fresh water

Clinoptilolite certainly binds certain ions from fresh and seawater. Do you disagree with that?

 

[reefgeezer]

zeovit is just another gimmick out there for people to waste money on

There is certainally anecdotal evidence that the Zeovit system is effective. What remains to be established is the relative value of all the different products employed as compared to the husbandry tasks required.

IMO, this also applies to competing products from Brightwell and others.

 

[philbo32]

zeolite only grows bacteria on surface area in salt water it does not remove anything in fresh water it does zeovit is just another gimmick out there for people to waste money on i use brightwell nitrobacter 7 and bio fuel drip kaulk and do weekly water changes my tank does very well people go on to say there phosphates and nitrates are low but if ph is not correct the phosphates may be low but they are a usuable nutrient if ph is correct they are not

Zeolites work in freshwater and saltwater. They work differently in salt water and how they work in seawater isn't fully understood or researched. There has been plenty of scientific literature to prove this, just look back through this thread...