Mega Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover - DIY!

[sherman]

As can be seen I make use of the first compartment of my sump.

I remove the wool and slant the egg crate so that the main overflow now flow down the net on the slant egg crate.

After trying 2 weeks of T5 with no great result I decide to build a grow lite using 5 red and 4 blue LEDs

And after 2 weeks the result is better then the earlier T5

This is the first harvest.Next week will check again

[SantaMonica]

I see now. That T5 was way too far away. I hope your LED's work better. However I think the best result would be two clip-on 23W CFL floodlights, pointed straight down at the screen.

[sherman]

Might increase the scrubber area by adding another unit

[SantaMonica]

Update: Displays with lots of Hair Algae

It's happened several times now: Someone wants to add a scrubber to their system because they have a display with very thick hair algae on the rocks. They already measure zero nitrate and phosphate, and when they add their scrubber, the scrubber has a very slow start and does not seem to grow much.

Of course what is happening is that the hair algae in the display is ALREADY a scrubber, attached to the rocks! It has had plenty of time (months? years?) to establish itself, and most important, it has a gigantic area to attach itself to. So how do you beat it with your newly-built DIY scrubber? You do it with the power of light.

All algae operate on the of photosynthesis of light. The stronger the light, the more the algae will pull nitrate and phosphate out of the water, and it will pull it away from any other algae that has less light. This is important to understand: If two areas of a tank are identical, except one has stronger light than the other, the area with the stronger light will grow more algae, and, the area with less light will grow less (or none at all). This is why the top of your rocks grow more algae (it has more light) than the sides do (has less light).

So if you already have lots of hair algae in your display, you have to build your scrubber with even more powerful lighting than you normally would, so that the photosynthesis in your scrubber will overpower the photosynthesis of the algae in your display (then, after all the algae is gone in your display, you can reduce the wattage if you want). The bulb wattage to do this is about one CFL watt for every square inch (6.25 square cm) of screen area. Example:

Say your screen size is 10" X 10" = 100 square inches; if you did NOT already have a lot of algae in your display, a 23W CFL floodlight on each side of this size screen would be sufficient to keep all nuisance algae away. This would be 2 X 23W = 46 total CFL watts, for 100 square inches of screen. This is about a half watt per square inch. But to beat a large amount of established hair algae in the display, go for maximum power: 1 watt per square inch. This is about twice as much. So, using two of these same bulbs on each side (4 total bulbs) would give you about 92 total watts for 100 square inches, or, almost 1 watt per square inch. This would do it!

Note about wattage: We are talking here about real CFL watts, not "equivalent" watts. If the bulb says "23W = 120W", or "23W equivalent to 120W", we are talking about the 23. And if you are using T5HO, such as a 24 inch 24W bulb, you just use the wattage it says.

Another trick: Add a lawnmower blenny to the display. He will eat the "scrubber" in the display, so that the scrubber you build gets off to a faster start.

[sherman]

Good info.

Look like I can temporaily don,t increase the area but increase the LED light intensity.

If this is the case I will add more LED.

Also I can run longer light on for the LED.

Santa,

What about the red slime? Also consider as algae?

Thanks

[SantaMonica]

Yes red slime goes away just like regular algae.

[wideawake]

Some of my rocks are becoming white and glowing under my T5 light. It is not the same as the white from dried out rocks.

Is this the phosphate coming out of the rocks? I'll try to get a pic here tonight.

[SantaMonica]

No, it's probably the algae that dissolved, leaving pure white rock behind.

[SantaMonica]

Update: Yellow rubber algae

Many people, including me, get large parts of the screen that turn into a thick yellow growth that feels rubbery. This is caused by flow that was cut off, by algae growing up into the slot. As the slot gets cut off and the flow reduces, the algae that was growing on the screen in that flow now has no flow. And the yellow rubbery algae is what results. It does not appear to hurt anything, but it surely is not effective at filtering, since there is no water flowing over it for it to filter. One solution is to make cross-cuts in the slot. Another is to put a light-shield over the slot. Another is to point the bulbs further down the screen to they don't shine as much on the slot.

[fishiee]

Just a quick question; lets say you leave algae to grow (and establish) itself on ine side (of the four sides) of the tank wall, is it true that algae growth will be significantly reduced on the other 3 sides of the wall? My hypothesis is that the established algae on the one side of the tank wall will outcompete algae trying to grow on the other 3 sides for nutrients such as phostphate and nitrate; reducing their growth rate (established algae can absorb nutrients faster as they are established?). This works on the similar principle as the mega powerful phosphate and nitrate remover; just as it is not 'mega' efficient and effective; but can be used in smaller tanks without a slump (like mine). I have tried to use this method and algae growth on the 3 non-covered sides HAS been reduced to a significant extent, but that again can also be due to improved water quality.

[SantaMonica]

Not really. The problem is you are not exporting the algae from the one wall. If you could somehow take that one wall out and clean it once a week, then yes. But since it stays in the system, it undergoes the same problem as a scrubber that is not cleaned weekly: New algae grows over the old algae, shading it, and causing it to die and go back into the water.

Now, some displays which are "full" of hair algae will test zero for nitrate and phosphate. But this is because the algae in the display always has "new" area to grow onto. So the new area is fresh growth, which takes up nitrate and phosphate. The algae can continue to spread in your display, and continue to keep N and P zero, until every square inch of rock, sand and glass are covered. Only when it gets this far (which you would not let it), would nutrients start rising in the water.

[snaper]

Day 20

Some update on my nano scrubber, before and after cleaning...

can see brown stuff on the screen and also notice few patches

on the screen...seems like the pods have eaten the algae....

Need confirmation on the small patches on the screen.....

maybe S.M can give some details on the small pathces.

But the most important is that, the result on

the algae scrubber was stunning and am happy with

it...will check the water parameter later.....some pic to share

....nothing special though....

[SantaMonica]

Almost certainly pods. How long did it go between cleanings?

[snaper]

Almost certainly pods. How long did it go between cleanings?

It have been running for only 20 days and didnt expect it to grow

that fast. Hopes everything is fine.

Rgds

[SantaMonica]

If it's been 20 days, then it's pods. So clean every 7 days now.

[snaper]

Yap...will clean it every Wk then. Thanks S.M

So any updates on your tank.

[SantaMonica]

Mine is good. Been experimenting on very heavy continuous feeding. Will have a full update soon.

[VelvetAirwaves]

anybody tried anything for a nanocube 12 gallon?

[SantaMonica]

Yep. And I built one for a 10g. Will be posting those in the next few months.

[snaper]

Some update on my water parameter...

Using skimmer and wkly water change: 16/03/09

NH4 - 0

N02 - 0

N03 - 2

P04 - 0.03

Cal - 450

Start using Scrubber: 25/03/09

NH4 - 0

N02 - 0

N03 - <2

P04 - <0.03

Cal - 450

After 1st washing: 12/04/09

NH4 - 0

N02 - 0

N03 - undetactable

P04 - <0.03 ( almost undetactable )

Cal - 400

[SantaMonica]

Fantastic. And with 7-day cleanings, it will get even better.

[snaper]

yap...very impressive...and produce lots of pod

in my tank...and can see them crawling on the tank glass.

Cant wait to see updates on ur tank and ur 10g nano scrubber.

[VelvetAirwaves]

Yep. And I built one for a 10g. Will be posting those in the next few months.

nice , do show us the updates

[SantaMonica]

Excerpt from "Feeding The Reef Aquarium", by Ron Shimek

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-02/rs/feature/index.php

"It will become apparent that many of the problems we have with reef aquaria, such as excess nutrients, excessive growth of undesirable algae, and the inability to keep some animals alive and healthy is simply due to the feeding of inappropriate foods, compounded by feeding in the wrong manner.

"Bacteria, in fact, are an important food for most benthic or bottom-dwelling marine animals. This is because bacteria have higher nitrogen to carbon ratios in their cells than do either typical animals, plants or algae. As a consequence, many marine animals are specialized to eat bacteria, either directly out of the water column or indirectly as a frosting on sediment or detritus particles.

"One quite good study discussing zooplankton availability and concurrent feeding by planktivorous reef fishes has been published (Hamner, et al., 1988) [...] These researchers examined a reef [and found that] during a 12 hour period [in a section of reef only 3 feet wide, there were] 1,098,000 potential food items, about 70 percent of which are copepods and larvacean tunicates.

"A large amount of the zooplankton food that would have impinged upon the reef does make it to the reef, albeit modified into the form of fish feces. This [waste] is rapidly ingested by corals and other benthic animals.

"Also, what is apparent is that the fish eat ALL the plankton approaching the reef. NONE of it will reach the reef during the day when the fish are feeding.

"All of these fishes [listed in this article] eat large amounts of crustacean prey, particularly copepods.

"From this study, it is apparent that these fish are feeding continuously throughout the daylight hours. They are eating small items, but on the average they eat an item of food every three minutes, all day, during a twelve hour day. During that period they eat an average of two grams of food per day. [...] On the average, if you wish your fish to have the same mass of food that they are likely to eat in nature, presuming the data of Hamner et al., 1988, is applicable to other fishes, you should feed each fish in your aquarium that is the average size of a damsel fish, the equivalent of about 70% of a cube of this food per day. Large fishes would get proportionally more.

"During the day on a natural reef, it appears that virtually no moderately large zooplankter would reach the coral on the reef's face [because they are eaten by the fish]. Nonetheless, this area would be bathed in a diffuse rain of particulate organic material derived from fish feces [waste], dissolved material and microzooplankton.

"All aquarists may significantly control the amount of particulate food in their aquarium. This food will mimic either the zooplankton or the particulate organic material components of coral reef feeding dynamics. For the animals in a system to be healthy, those animals must be fed foods that more-or-less duplicate the qualities of their natural foods, and they must be fed in a more-or-less normal matter. Reef aquarium foods and feeding regimes tend to fail rather spectacularly on both accounts.

"The standard reef aquarium is probably fed once about once a day (Shimek, 2002), and the average daily feeding ration weighs 15.39 ± 15.90 grams, or roughly a half of an ounce, wet weight, of food. On a natural reef, this would be enough to provide roughly eight damsel fish with their normal daily allotment of food. Unfortunately, this amount of food all occurs effectively at once (or over a very short period) in an aquarium, whereas on a natural reef it would occur over a 12 hour period. Additionally, aquarium food is a relatively high-protein material. When most reef fish\es encounter planktonic patches of food, they eat voraciously, and material gets passed through their guts in a rapid manner resulting in incomplete digestion. This is precisely what happens to many fish in an aquarium when it is fed. If you watch some of your plankton feeding fishes, such as clown fish or damsels, you will see that shortly after the initiation of feeding they start defecating food at an increased rate. In effect, they are pumping food through their guts. The faster the passage of the food through the gut, the less the fish get from it. Perhaps in nature this doesn't matter, as the food is always coming at them. In the aquarium, this effect could be quite deleterious.

"In aquaria, fish that naturally feed consistently on small particulate material throughout the day are being forced to exist on bulk feedings once a day or with less frequency. Under such conditions, the animal is going through continuous cycles of near starvation followed by satiation followed by near starvation. This cyclic feeding simply must have a deleterious effect on the fish. Under such situations one could expect lower than normal growth rates, higher stress, increased susceptibility to disease and possibly problems with nitrogen metabolism.

"The amount of food impacting on the [natural] reef over the course of a day is substantial. Over a section of a natural reef about three feet on side, flows a continuous flood of water carrying with it about 2,000,000 food items with an aggregate weight of about two pounds in a 24 hour period. These tiny food items would be like a rain of diffuse nutrition on the reef and reef animals, particularly the fish.

"It is apparent that coral reef planktivorous fishes, and this is most of those kept in aquaria, would benefit from changes to the normal aquarium feeding regimen. They should be fed by some sort of continuous feeding apparatus. The food dispensed by such an apparatus should be particulate in nature, and very small. The largest sizes should probably be on the size of a brine shrimp or smaller. Such food need not be specifically formulated to be highly nutritious: Rather it should be of low to moderate nutritional value. If aquarium fish are able to eat more continuously and slowly, they will get much more nutrition out of each food item than they do now. Feeding a low quality food should result in significantly less nutrient accumulation than is now commonly seen in tanks.

"In effect, we need to turn our feeding regime on its head. Rather than feeding a small amount of highly nutritious food once a day, we should be feeding a large amount of low nutrient value food frequently. Such a feeding regime as this should reduce significantly the amount of pollution effects in reef aquaria. Additionally, there would not be a daily pulse of nutrients to temporarily overwhelm the biological filter. In turn, there would less potential growth of problem algae and the development of a more balanced and easily controlled assemblage of animals within the tank.

[skimmers remove plankton, particulates, and copepods]

[scrubbers add copepods, and don't remove plankton or particulates]

[Reefme]

Hi all,

My own little algae scrubber project inspired by Santa Monica's pioneering work. Specs as follows:

- lit by 4 waterproof led strips (3xred, 1xblue) each consuming approximately 4 watts.

- mesh dimensions: 620mm x 500mm (WxH).

- easily detachable for maintenance.

- secondary outlet for water redirection during washing or maintenance.

- constructed entirely with off-the-shelf parts, e.g. pvc pipes, joints and valves, wire mesh, cable ties, s-hooks, flexible wire conduits, led strips(bought online). Most of these parts with the exception of the leds can be purchased at your nearest neighbourhood hardware store. The leds can be purchased from Sim Lim Tower if you don't mind paying a little more for them. Total cost less than S$100 with bulk attributed to led strips.

- entire overflow(~3000 l/hr) from display tank(3'x2'x2') passes gravitationally through this scrubber.

- leds are on 16 hours a day.

Not much algae as yet since this is only day 1. Not sure how well it will work but it sure looks pretty! Haha

Possible issues to be considered:

- clogging at the slit by detritus and algae. But since regular maintenance (such as scraping the algae buildup and flushing the conduit) will be done, shouldn't be much of an issue.

- leds are not intense enough or are of ineffective spectrums.

All comments are welcome.