My Sulfur DeNITRIFIER Thread

[don-n-sa]

Well...I think that I am going to break down and buy one of these...they are getting great reviews on RC

http://www.midwestaquatic.com/sulfur_denitrifier.htm


And they even have a support forum!

http://www.midwestaquatic.com/board/index.php

My nitrates are still of the charts

Any thoughts?

[Bill S]

Donny,

Interesting read - and an interesting alternative. If it works in your tank, it'll work just about anywhere! That being said, I'm thinking that your "solution" may be to find a home for one or two of your "swimming nitrogen factories"

[don-n-sa]

nah...too late for that

they have names so not an option... :D

[don-n-sa]

Well, I received my Sulfur DeNITRIFIER today while I was at work.

Ater I got home, I read the manual , put it together all in about 30 min. This product seems to be well built, comes with all the media, pump and plumbing!

I will be setting it up tomorrow night after my weekly water change.

I will also document the process of eliminating/reducing the nitrates in my tank.

What separates this unit from other denitrifiers is this one uses sulfer and calcium, so it actually reduces nitrates and adds calcium at the same time!!

Note: I doubt that this unit could keep up the calcium demand in an SPS reef but in a tank like mine, it just might be enough to stop having to dose/ drip

Here is a quote " The Sulfur DeNITRIFIER is our newest denitrator. This revolutionary product is based on the latest breakthroughs in nutrient control. The addition of sulfur in a denitrator creates a unit that is virtually maintenance free! The Sulfur DeNITRIFIER uses a mixture of high purity sulfur and crushed coral media to create a nitrate filter that never needs feeding, and actually buffers your aquarium water and adds calcium"

[don-n-sa]

Here are a few pics of the unit, notice in the chamber, 1/2 sulfer , 1/2 calcium

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64246720-M.jpg

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64246721-L.jpg

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64246719-M.jpg

[don-n-sa]

Also, if anyone decides that they want to buy one of these, let me kow, I can get a discount for you!.

[GaryP]

There was a link to this article by Delbeck.

http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=17592&cid=3793&search=

I thought it was very interesting. I did some further research on it and found a lot of technical articles about the process in technical journals. It seems to be a hot topic in industrial waste water treatment. Most of what we do in aquariums has some root in industrial systems. Everything from skimmers to phosphate absorbers to carbon filtration started in industrial wastewater and then found its way into the hobby. This seems to be another example of that.

Donnie, please gather a lot of data and let us know your results. You seem to be on the cutting edge when it comes to nitrate control because of the unique nature of your system. You may have me convinced to set up an aggressive reef if you keep making this sort of progress.

[don-n-sa]

Great article Gary, I am guessing this where the idea of this product came from.

Yes I will gather data and post it here.

[TexasTodd]

Looks like really good quality...........I love that they used an Ehiem pump........MUCH better than all the other pumps used on CA reactors and Skimmers!

Todd

[thedude]

It looks exactly like a Korallin Calcium reactor... I wonder if the companies are working together?

John

[SBreef]

http://www.korallin.com/frmst2.htm

[Richard]

Love that it uses PH Rock...well looks alot like. Same principle I suppose.

[GaryP]

Sort of like a self fueled calcium reactor.

Richard, did you ever get any calcium test data on the inlet and outlet of your torpedo? I would love to see you prove me wrong and demonstrate that there is some significant dissolution taking place in the pH rocks.

[don-n-sa]

Update.

unit is installed and leak tested, this was very easy to do. Official install date 04/14/06 @ 2:00 am :zzz

Here are some pics.

Note: The first two pics are from the PO3 test I did last night before installing the unit. :blink :blink :blink :blink :blink


NO3 test pic 1
http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64439035-L.jpg


NO3 test pic2

Looks maxed out to me, I don't even want to know what the number would be if I had a " high range " test kit

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64439028-L.jpg


unit installed instand outside of sump ( can be placed in sump)

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64439030-M.jpg

and here it is drainining back to sump, during the first 24 hours it is wide open bleeding any air trapped in side the unit. Soon it will be a slow drip.

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64439033-L.jpg

[Richard]

Hey Don, It's hard to tell from the pics but it doesn't look to me like your nitrates are as high as you think. Can you get a pic from looking down from the top. Looking through the side is for low range on the salifert test so you have to divide by 10.

[GaryP]

Data, data, data! I want lots of data.

I really like this idea and would love to see what you come up with. Also, could you see if it has any efffect on the growth rates of the macro in your fuges? I'm just curious if lower nitrates may slow down macro growth. If that occurs, I'm wondering if that could have a possible negative impact of creating higher phosphates. I'm just thinking out loud here and don't want to scare anyone.

A basic concept of ecology is that in any biological system there is usually a limiting nutrient that determines the maximum rate of plant growth. Usually, in our systems, that is phosphates. By reducing the nitrates to the point that plant growth is limited because nitrogen is now the limiting nutrient, I'm wondering if phosphate levels will climb. See what I am getting at? I kinda doubt that would happen because we are constantly adding nitrogen in the form of food. However, if this system is very efficient it could reduce levels to the point that it could impact algae growth. I'm thinking along the lines of what some people experienced with running phosphate reactors where they saw some negative impacts resulting from getting phosphates to low.

[mathias]

how much is the unit

[GaryP]

how much is the unit
Check the link in the original post. $300 & $400.

[Bill S]

Richard,

Don had me test on my Aquarium Pham kit. Um... Let's just say it was...uh.... really high.

[TexasTodd]

MORE DATA, MORE DATA, MORE DATA!

****, I'm going to have to sell more frags now!

Gary....that's what phosphate binders are for! LOL

TT

[GaryP]

Gary....that's what phosphate binders are for! LOL

That was pretty much my point. But also, and perhaps more importantly, with lower nitrates a refugium may no longer be effective. Just as you have seen that low phosphates can have a negative effect, zoanthellae require nitrogen too. I doubt you would ever get to a level low enough to cause problems because algae can use ammonia and nitrite just as easily as it can nitrate. It has to go through those stages before you get to the nitrate stage. Also, nitrogen is being introduced into the system at much higher levels, in the form of food, then phosphate is.

As I recall Donnie has 2 fuges on his system and I would expect that he would see the results of nitrogen depletion first.

[don-n-sa]

Update

The unit is still in the break-in period. As per the instructions I slowed the drip rate to 1 drop per second, that was done Saturday afternoon. It will stay at one drop per second for three days ( Tuesday ).

After the break-in the drip rate will increase to 3 drops per second. I will be testing the water coming from the unit and my display every Thursday night. I will be testing for Nitrates, Calcium and PH, since it has calcium media in the chamber.

[don-n-sa]

Ok week one completed!

Not much to update exept for the fact that I was reading the Sailefert Nitrate test wrong ( thanks Richard! ) I was reading it from the side ( low range) and I should have been reading it from the top ( mid range )

So I have been about 50 nitrates this whole time, still very high, just not as bad as I thought.

No reduction in nitrates after one week which is expected.

This pic is my Nitrate reading from display ( 50 )

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/65669034-M.jpg


This pic is the nitrate reading from the sulfur denitrifier ( 50 ) maybe a tad darker?
http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/65669036-M.jpg


I also noticed a sulfer smell coming from the unit so I increased the drip rate as per the instructions

[TexasTodd]

Keep those updates coming you two.

So GreenMako, did you dial the drip rate up some if you noticed the sulfur smell?

TT

[GaryP]

I have a quick question for you guys. According to what you are saying, the recommended feed rate for this unit is 1 drop/sec., right? Doing a little quick math I come up with a value of 1.1 gal./day being treated. I don't see how any significant impact can occur at such a low treatment rate unless there is some other process taking place outside of the unit as a result of some product being carried into the bulk water.

Again doing some quick math I show that treating 1 gal. of water (with 100% removal of nitrate) in a 100 gal. system with a nitrate concentration of 50 ppm only results in a reduction of nitrate by 0.5 ppm. This assumes that there is no further increase in nitrates, which is impossible, unless you stop feeding and your fish stop pooping. Someone please check my math.

1 drop = .05 ml
1 drop/sec. = 3 ml./min
3 ml./min. = 180 ml./hr. = .18 L/hr. = 4.3 L/day = 1.1 gal./day

50 ppm/100 gal. = X/99 gal. (untreated water)
.5 = X/99
X = .5 x 99
X = 49.5 ppm

What am I missing here? Steve and Brian, your math skills are better then mine. Help me out here. I'm sure I am missing something. Again, this is all based on 100% efficiency of the denitrator unit and the assumption that all bacterial denitration processes takes place inside the unit.

[GaryP]

There is another possibility I can think of. Nitrate and nitrite are mild oxidizers. It should readily react with a sulfur based reducing agent such as sulfide, sulfite, or bisulfite (the sulfur smell). If the unit is actually producing these I could see how it could be producing the product I mentioned in my previous post that was treating the bulk water.

They actually use nitrate scrubbers to remove sulfide from natural gas in oilfield applications to convert "sour gas" into "sweet gas."

[GaryP]

Maybe you confused the output of the reactor with the feed. The directions say you need to set the drip rate of the output to 1 drip/sec for the first 3 days then after that you increase the ouptut drip rate to 3drips/sec and monitor it for the sulfur smell.

I guess I'm still confused. Doesn't feed (input) = output?

[GaryP]

This is a good one for you Gary its has lots of chemistry in it
http://www.aquaculturemag.com/siteenglish/interneted/products/pdfs/PARAGO1.PDF
Very good article.

[TexasTodd]

HAH! It was early! LOL

TT

[GaryP]

Also the article says that the sulfur is converted to sulfate. 3 S + 4 NO3 ---> 3 SO4 + 2 N2. Sulfate is a odorless compound. I am assuming that when a sulfur odor is present, the bacteria are being starved for nitrate and a partial reaction is taking place which would result in the formation of sulfite, a gas. 2 S + 2 NO3 ---> 2 SO3 + N2. That's why they suggest increasing the flow in order to provide more nitrate that will drive the reaction to completion as sulfate.

Sulfite would not be a good thing in an aquarium. Its an oxygen scavenger and will reduce the amount of oxygen in the water. The good news is that your nose can detect very low levels of sulfite so there may not be enough present to have a significant impact.

[don-n-sa]

Doesn't feed (input) = output?

Of course it Does Gary!

Thats why there is a pinch valve on the output right where is drains into my sump.

The input is not controlled at all, its at the pinch valve on the output. During the firs 24 hours it was wide open to bleed out any air in the system. Then the drip rate was increased to one drop per sec for three days, then 3 drops per sec after that. The drip rate can be increased past the 3 drops per second after about 3-4 weeks.

After 3-4 weeks it should be completely "broke in" and balanced. It you notice a "sulfur smell" on the output then you are to increase the drip rate, if you notice "rotten egg smell" then you are to slow the drip rate.

After the unit and your system is balanced, there should not be any nitrate or smell coming out of the water exiting the unit.

Here is a pic of the output and pinchvalve, note this pic was taken during the the bleed out 24 hour period, much more than 1 drop per sec, more like a thousand.

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/64439033-L.jpg

[TexasTodd]

Ah, Um, don't rotten eggs smell like sulfur?

:)

T

[GaryP]

OK, so 3 drops/sec. = 3.3 gal./day. So staying with the same math that causes a reduction of 1.5 ppm. Still not a big reduction. I wouldn't consider a recirculating pump into the equation. The net flow stills stays the same unless I am totally misunderstanding the plumbing set up.

The rotten egg smell is generally associated with Hydrogen Sulfide. However, Sulfite has a very similar smell. Sulfate is 100% water soluble and has no smell. Try sniffing an epsom salt solution. It sorta smells like water. :) In order for you to smell something it has to vaporize into a gas. Sulfide and Sulfite will do that. Sulfate won't.

I thought you said to increase the flow if you smell sulfur. I guess I got that wrong. So, if you are cutting back on flow I assume they want it to have greater retention time to complete the reaction.

[GaryP]

Actually that is the equation for dilution, or rather a rough approximation of it. I was just being lazy and not using the full equation. It's just a weighted average. The actual equation is:

((Conc. A)(Volume) + (Conc. B)(Volume))/Total Volume

So in my previous example of 3 drops/sec. in a 100 gal. system that would be:

((0 ppm X 3.3 gal.) + (50 ppm x 96.7 gal.))/100 gal. = (0 + 4835)/100 = 48.35 ppm NO3

Volume units cancel out so it can either be in gallons or in percent of volume. You can also use the same equation to estimate the impact of dilution with a water change. For example the effect of a 25% water change on a 100 gal system with 50 ppm nitrate would be:

((0 ppm x 25%) + (75% X 50 ppm))/100% = (0 + 3750)/100 = 37.5 ppm

This is why I was somewhat confused by the large reduction you saw on your small system by the "big" water change. How big was it? Water changes are actually a fairly inefficient way to reduce nutrient loads.

That's also the same formula that dosing calculators are based on to determine how much of a product to add to increase the concentration of something like calcium or alkalinity. For example, Kent Turbo Calcium contains 36.036% calcium or 360,400 ppm. The rest is chloride. That's assuming its totally dry, which it never is. You get the idea.

[GaryP]

OK, here's the other thing. In that same 100 gal. system with 50 ppm nitrate. If the system has reached an equilibrium at 50 ppm, meaning that the production of nitrate and its ability to process it has equalized with a residual of 50 ppm. Then the introduction of the nitrate reactor is introduced and if it is capable of reducing the concentration by 1.65 ppm per day, then the system should reach equilibrium again at something near 0 ppm in about 30 days.

These numbers are just theoretical of course, because based on what you have been saying, the 3 ppm flow rate is still in the filter seasoning period. If you can increase that flow, with the same efficiency to 30 drops per sec. (1.5 ml.) then the reduction would be around 16.5 ppm per day. If we drop the efficiency to 75%, which is what the article you posted claims, then we are looking at a reduction of 12.4 ppm/day. That's the equivalent of doing a 25% water change EVERY DAY!

I knew those Chemical Engineering Courses would come in handy one of these days. This is a problem straight out of an introductory Chem Eng text book. This is also why I have a problem with some of the hocus pocus (proprietary) technologies out there. If I can't understand it on a logical, scientific basis, I'm not going to get really excited about it. This is something I can understand. That said, a DSB is sure a lot easier. :)

[don-n-sa]

That said, a DSB is sure a lot easier. :)

Ha! Easier compared to what Gary? :lol

This unit works better than a DSB and is more efficient by far, its not even close. In order to get the same results that one of these units can do you would need multiple DSB's. I would never have a DSB in a display, just too risky IMO, and I do not like the fact that you cannot disturb it. IMO a establised DSB looks nasty. :sick , and if you ever have to move / switch tanks, you better buy some gas masks and tell your neighbors to go on a vacation. Trust me , I moved a tank with a DSB before, it was disgusting. :sick :sick :sick

The unit I have can handle up to a 250g system, the XL can handle up to a 500g system, all in a unit the size of a kalk reactor. It was very easy to set up and should be fully functional in 4-6 weeks. IF you have doubts about this unit working then thats understandable, because it is a fairly new technonlogy ( in home use anyway ) , but that is why Brian and I are doing this. IMO you can't get much easier than this.

Check this support forum out GARY, shoot ask questions, this guy stands behind his product like I have never seen.

http://www.midwestaquatic.com/board/index.php

[don-n-sa]

Also, imagine the possibilities if this thing works as advertised:

Bare bottom SPS tanks would be able to have more fish with one of these added to their system.
FOWLR tank people could possbly start adding corals since nitrates would not be an issue anymore.
DSB tank people could remove half the sand and add sand sifters to help clean the sandbed

Thats just to start.

[LoneStar]

The design of it sure looks like a Korallin calcium reactor. I know Korallin makes a similar product. Is this a cheaper alternative?

[GaryP]

This unit works better than a DSB and is more efficient by far, its not even close. In order to get the same results that one of these units can do you would need multiple DSB's.
Wanna compare your nitrate levels to mine? :) I feed almost as heavily, or as heavily, as you do. I don't think a DSB in a refugium can be compared to a DSB in a display tank. That's all that I meant.

Let's see, I put exactly 0 hrs. of maintenance and $0 of equipment upgrades into my DSB. That's another "easier" factor.

[don-n-sa]

Yeah but you do not have a 30" moray, or a 10" puffer, trigger , etc....

[GaryP]

I really don't think its the size of the fish in the tank as much as it is the amount of food going into the tank. The fish don't produce nutrients. Without food there is no nutrients. I guarantee that a starving eel won't exrete as much waste as a fat one. Just my theory anyway.

[don-n-sa]

I understand your theory Gary, but I assure you I do not starve the puffer, eel , trigger. ;)

I have so many fish in my tank, I think that you might have forgotten since it has been a while that you been at my place. You might feed as much cube food, but there is no way you feed enough to equal what goes in....and out , the puffer and eel. :P

To make sure the main community gets enough food I feed about two cubes a day, about 2oz of mysis, 2oz of brine. The cubes are rotated between formula one, two , angel formula, trigger formula.

Ok thats the community feeding, the puffer and eel go through one large flat pack of krill, silversides, and squid in a month. A puffer is one of the most inefficient creatures in the ocean. It eats a ton, and poops TWO TONS! :lol

Maybe you should come by and watch the puffer for a while, when this guy poops it literally fouls the whole tank for a few min....its gross.

Oh and I also feed seaweed to the tangs once a day. ;)

[GaryP]

I feed about the equivalent in terms of frozen food, plus I feed a mussel once or twice a day, some flake, Nori occasionally, a mixture of zooplankton, and phyto. You may have a point on the efficiency of their digestive tract, but how do you measure that? :)

One thing to keep in mind is that most foods contain at least 1-3% nitrogen on a dry weight basis. Much of that is excreted back into the water in the form of poop or through their gills. We (mammals) excrete excess nitrogen in the form of organic nitrogen (urea). Fish do it as ammonia.

Just to give you some idea of how much nitrogen that is, let's assume you have a 100 gal. system that is fed 2 oz. of food per day.

2 oz = 56 gm = 56000 mg x 30% (moisture content) = 16800 mg dry food

16800 mg x 3% nitrogen = 504 mg nitrogen

504 mg/100 gal. x 3.8 L/gal. = 19.15 mg/L = 19.15 ppm

1 ppm N = 4.43 ppm NO3

19.15 x 4.43 = 84.81 ppm as nitrate.

That's how much is going into your tank on a daily basis. In order to maintain a residual near zero ppm of nitrate, your system must be capable of processing that much on a daily basis. That doesn't even take into account occasional die-off of fish, snails, and other things such as algae.

I apologize for my newfound fondness for mathematical reefkeeping.

[TexasTodd]

LORD! Let's just wait and see what it does! LOL

TT

[GaryP]

readin & wrtin & rithmatic.

With a little chemistry, biology, and nutrition thrown in for good measure.

[TexasTodd]

:)

TT

[don-n-sa]

Yeah!

Chew on that for a while Gary... :)

[z28pwr]

Sulphur denitrators have been in use for many years with large systems and have proven to be a success, now they do have their downfalls but they advantages clearly outweigh the disadavatages.

Here is some good reading for you Gary that has formulas and all the fun stuff you love ;) .

http://mars.reefkeepers.net/USHomePage/USArticles/SulphurDenitrator.htm

[Richard]

I for one am glad to see you guys trying this and posting results. I hope you keep the thread going.

Gary - DSB's are easy????? Then why are so many people having problems with them. Why do they work for some and not for others. Results are too variable IMO and there are a number of pitfalls with a dsb. Heck, even Toonens studies showed they gave inconsistent results. Toonen's conclusion....
"We show that even among identical tanks set up in a laboratory without any live animals, there can be dramatic differences in performance from one aquarium to the next "

[Richard]

Did I kill the thread??? LOL. Any updates?

[LoneStar]

:innocent



:zzz

[don-n-sa]

Did I kill the thread??? LOL. Any updates?

No this thread is still alive. :)

I was out of town from Friday until now, I was in South Padre for the weekend. NO LFS on South Padre???? I could not find one, and when I asked around I got the weirdest looks. :blink :blink :blink

Anyway I will do the tests tonight and update!

[matt]

Am I missing something? Why couldn't you just put the sulphur media in a calcium reactor? In any event, it looks like this is something that would be very easy to make.

[don-n-sa]

nope, I don't think you are missing anything MATT, thats basically what it is. ;)

[LoneStar]

It could easily be converted into a calcium reactor and vise versa.

[matt]

So, if you have an existing calcium reactor, you could simply remove half the media, replace it with the sulphur media, and then use it? Why isn't everyone doing that rather than buying a new $400 device? One disadvantage that I could see is that if you lose half your media, your reactor will not have the same capacity. This is easily overcome by building a bigger reactor.

What ph do you run this thing at? Is there a C02 set up like a normal calcium reactor or does the sulphur lower the ph. BTW, in the photo it sure looks like you're going through the calerous media first then the sulphur. These things are up flow, correct?

[GaryP]

Matt,

Upflow - yes
CO2 is generated by the bacteria, the calcium media is there to neutralize it before it returns to the bulk water. The main difference between this and a calcium reactor that I have seen is that it has a recirculation pump. The actual flow through the unit is fairly slow, but the total flow, counting that of the recirculation pump, is fairly high. I may be wrong on this, but that is what I have collected from following the thread. The sulfur does not lower the pH itself, but rather the acids being produced by the bacteria growing on the sulfur (Thiobacillus). This is somewhat similar to the Acid Rocks that are used downstream of the carbon bed reactors being used by Richard and Ram Puppy. One of the by-products of bacterial metabolism of organics is low molecular weight organic acids such as acetic acid (vinegar) and carbon dioxide (carbonic acid). The calcium bed acts as an acid scrubber for the acids being produced by the bio-reactors.

[don-n-sa]

Why isn't everyone doing that rather than buying a new $400 device?

I am not sure who you are talking about but the model that Brian, myself, and one other person purchased is $299 , and we did not even pay that much because I got a good discount for us.

Remember, this unit is completely plug and play, all the media, pump, and plumbing is included.

[matt]

Gary, all calcium reactors have circulation pumps. If this has one as well, then the ph of the water whether it's going through the sulphur or araganite would be the same, as the circulation is basically there to make sure the ph is uniform throughout the chamber by keeping water moving. If that pump is not for internal circulation, but the flow through the chamber is bottom up, then it looks to me like the water goes through the araganite first (brown stuff) before going through the sulphur (white stuff) I must be not understanding something about the way this works. Is the brown stuff the araganite or the sulphur? Do you inject CO2 into this thing like a calcium reactor?

Don, all I was saying is that if you have a calcium reactor already, and this thing works the way I imagine, why would anyone buy this rather than just load up their own calcium reactor with sulphur media? As far as the price goes, I was just using the listed price for the larger unit. I'm not criticizing you for buying it!!

Let's say that the whole point to this devicce is to circulate water with dissolved C02 through sulphur media at a specific ph which allows the bacteria to do their thing, then use araganite to neutralize the acids, which raises the ph of the effluent and also dissolves some calcium carbonate, just like a typical calcium reactor. If thatt's what it does, then it looks like it would be far better to just circulate the water through the sulphur, then exit the tube into another tube with no circulation that's filled with araganite (or some calcium reactor media). This second tube is the same as the typical 2nd chamber in a calcium reactor.

Again, there's got to be something I'm missing. Maybe I can head over to Don's place sometime and check it out...school's almost finished so I'm gonna have some time to get back into reefkeeping. My corner tank finally has tap water in it (plumbing test) and should be up and running with live rock in a couple of weeks!

[matt]

Is this a better guess about how it works? There is no CO2 injection, but the sulphur produces enough to lower the ph to the point where the bacteria would not survive unless the ph is kept higher in the chamber by the inclusion of araganite? That would explain a few things about the way it looks. It also would mean that you'd have a hard time getting any significant calcium and carbonate supplementation out of this, as you need a lower ph in a calcium reactor.

[don-n-sa]

then it looks to me like the water goes through the araganite first (brown stuff) before going through the sulphur (white stuff) I must be not understanding something about the way this works. Is the brown stuff the araganite or the sulphur? Do you inject CO2 into this thing like a calcium reactor?

The Stuff on the bottom is actually a orangish color, thats the sulfur.
The white stuff on the top is the calcium media.

[don-n-sa]

Is this a better guess about how it works? There is no CO2 injection, but the sulphur produces enough to lower the ph to the point where the bacteria would not survive unless the ph is kept higher in the chamber by the inclusion of araganite? That would explain a few things about the way it looks. It also would mean that you'd have a hard time getting any significant calcium and carbonate supplementation out of this, as you need a lower ph in a calcium reactor.

These are great questions MATT, from what I understand the PH is lowered considerably by the Co2 produced by this unit. That is why the seller started using the calcium media. He also strongly recommends for the effluent to be drained into an area where good air exchange occurs which in turn raises the PH back. If set up correctly it will lower nitrates and add calcium.


Hey, why dont you log on to Midwest and start asking him directly? Gary is making educated guesses and I am making un-educated guesses . :D

You definitley know more about this than I do, maybe you can help with this thread once you have a better understanding. :)

Here is the link

http://www.midwestaquatic.com/board/index.php

[don-n-sa]

Here is a thread on the midwest aquatic forum about a guy who is using this unit for nitrate redution and calcium. HE claims that it is maintaning 450 ppm calicium with no additives.

http://www.midwestaquatic.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=30

[fishypets]

What about this stuff for removing nitrates?

http://www.marinedepot.com/aquarium_additives_azno3.asp?CartId=

[matt]

So, no CO2 tank right?

As far as keeping calcium at 450, most calcium reactors don't do that without raising dkh really high or pushing ph down, so I'm a little skeptical, but maybe the guy has a small calcium load or is using oceanic salt. Calcum reactors tend to keep calcium and dkh balanced with Ca in the low 400s and dkh in the 10 range; at least that's with ARM. Maybe there's other media that dissolves differently.

[Richard]

Maybe there's other media that dissolves differently.


Bingo! The media this unit is using appears to be the ph rock that we are using in the hiatt setup or something very similar.

I can't really speak to this system but in the Hiatt system the PH Rock is not aragonite (does not contain strontium). Hiatt won't say exactly what it is but I'm guessing some form of calcite. There are several hundred forms of calcite and some intermediate forms as well, from what I've read. Some of these forms the caco3 is not bound as well so they can be dissolved much easier. Hiatt mentioned stuff about metamorphisis forms when I asked him about PH Rock. I'm not even close to being a geologist so most of what he told me went right over my head.

I asked Hiatt about using aragonite in his setup and he said it will not work because the acids produced by the bacteria are not strong enough to break down aragonite. Makes sense because if they could then all you would need to maintain Ca, alk etc. would be a sandbed and the livestock and normal bacteria population would do the rest.

This system is a little different I guess since the low flow allows the ph to be lowered also as opposed to the Hiatt approach of much higher flow but a much larger volume of calcium media required following his carbon/bacteria. So maybe aragonite could work in this system but maybe not give as much calcium/carbonates.

I believe the claim about Ca 450 because I know Mark's tank is running steady around 450 - 460 on the Hiatt setup without any dosing, ca reactors, etc. So I don't see why this system couldn't achieve similar results if they are using the PH Rock also.

[matt]

Got it; maybe this ph rock would be great calcium reactor media, needing less CO2 and able to run at a higher ph.

[TexasTodd]

Got it; maybe this ph rock would be great calcium reactor media, needing less CO2 and able to run at a higher ph."

Richard thought this too and was supposed to test it. :ph34r

I guess a stable full of sick horses can slow you down!

Richard....what is Mark's alk at?

TT

[Richard]

Richard thought this too and was supposed to test it.

I guess a stable full of sick horses can slow you down!

Richard....what is Mark's alk at?


Actually I am using it in my reactor now but I have been ignoring that tank lately so I have not tested anything since I put it in there. Everything is still alive I think :unsure

A stable full of sick horses, a 92 corner to setup, a 210 to setup, a 62 to setup, a 75 to setup, and a 58 to setup has slowed me down a bit. :wacko What the ___ am I doing to myself LOL. Should be fun to have my own private fishroom when I finally get it all done though. All will be Hiatt filtration systems.

I think he said 9 or 10 dkh.

[TexasTodd]

Thanks for the update Richard.

Would like to see the specs on the ca reactor with ph rock in another thread. Bubbles PM, effluent rate, effluent ph......

Todd

[don-n-sa]

OK update finally!

I was out of town for the weekend so I did not get a chance to run tests.

WEEK 2

Nitrates in display: Very slight change maybe down 5ppm

Nitrates from the unit: WOW!!! This is getting exciting, about 5 ppm!!! 8)

I am guessing that the unit now broken in and its has to process/turn over the display a few times to start lowering my nitrates. I will run calcium tests this week to see what the level is at.

Here is the pic of the nitrate test of the water exiting the sulfur dinitrifier
If you listen closely you can hear TOM PETTY singing "Free Fallin" :lol
http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/67440820-L.jpg

[don-n-sa]

Bingo! The media this unit is using appears to be the ph rock that we are using in the hiatt setup or something very similar.

On the Midwest site they are calling it Super Calc

Here is the description off the site

SUPER CALC!
Absolutely the best calcium media to use in a DeNITRIFIER!

RAISES PH to 8.2-8.4 after aeration!
RAISES ALKALINITY!
BOOSTS CALCIUM to SEA LEVELS!
OVER 25 TRACE ELEMENTS + MAGNESIUM!
CORALS LOVE IT!

SUPER CALC is available in 10 pound bags.

[LoneStar]

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

They must love ! ;)

[gjuarez]

NIce thread you guys goin on here guys, maast definately needed something like this lately. I am tagging along, hope you guys dont mind. RIchard, great info.

[Richard]

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

They must love ! ;)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or they just talk really LOUD!

[TexasTodd]

So, Donny, how much can YOU get the 10lb bags in for?

Todd

[don-n-sa]

So, Donny, how much can YOU get the 10lb bags in for?

Todd

Hmm...not sure,

I will let you know

[don-n-sa]

Week 3

Nitrates in display no change

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/68332261-L.jpg



Nitrates from unit is now at ZERO!!!

http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/68332269-M.jpg

[don-n-sa]

Brian, any updates from yours???

[Richard]

Sooooooo?????

[LoneStar]

:innocent

[don-n-sa]

OK update:

I did not test for a few weeks on purpose due to me being very busy and it seemed everything was going great/on track. Well I was very wrong sorry to say.

I Tested the water from the display today and no real change in nitrates. It got me concerned so I tested the water coming out of the unit. WOW now I really no what maxed out on the high range salifert looks like!

I must have done something wrong because this product is working for so many reefers.

Another reason that I say that I have done something wrong is due to ther air gap that forms on the top about every 3-5 days. I have just been bleeding the air out via the "bleed valve" as per the instructions and also increased the drip rate. The drip rate has been very fast , I must be honest I do not really know how many drops per second.

Here are two pics:

pic 1 from display

pic 2 from unit!!

1
http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/71597677-M.jpg

2
http://don-n-sa.smugmug.com/photos/71597583-L.jpg

[GaryP]

Anybody want to buy some sand? Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

Seriously though, am I not looking at this right or is it coming out of the unit higher than what it is going in?

[don-n-sa]

yes it is for me right now Gary....I kept getting an air gap in the unit so I kept increasing the drip rate , which in turn is what I feel is the reason of the high(er) nitrates. Air and to much flow is the problem IMO. We all know that air is not good for denitrifcation.

I just posted this same message on the support forum so I am expecting to hear from the guy soon.

[gjuarez]

Brian, any ill effects on the growth and coloration of your corals? Thats the only thing that I am afraid of with my bb tank, nitrates climbing up. You have a huge skimmer, I am really surprised to hear this. Are you siphoning regularly? What do you think is causing it? Sorry to hi-jack, just a little baffled by that.

[Richard]

Thanks for the update.

Sounds like it is aerobic instead of anaerobic since nitrate is higher coming out than going in.

[gjuarez]

Too much oxygen maybe.

[don-n-sa]

Well last night I slowed the dip rate way down to where it was supposed to be ( 3 drops per sec ) and would you believe the nitrates are already under 10 coming out of the unit. I just have ben rushing this, which I know better, especially in this hobby.

I was told that the air gap forms while the unit is breaking in and it is normal...when I bleed it, it smells like rotten eggs which tells me that it has no O2 in it anyway.

[Bill S]

Don, at what point does it go above the 3 drops per minute? What is the maximum output? As Gary said earlier, 3 drops/min is about 3.5 gallons per day. If it's coming out at 10ppm, isn't that like changing a bucket of water a day mixed with SA tap water?

[don-n-sa]

its 3 drops per SECOND ;)

Also I was just pointing out that it went from over 100ppm to under 10ppm in about 12 hrs. It was At zero a couple of weeks ago, I just messed with it too much... :)

[Bill S]

Ah, my mistake - but I did the math right. 3 drops per SECOND is abut 3.5 gallons per day... In any case, what's the maximum output?

[don-n-sa]

In the unit I bought ,which is up to 250g, it is 3-4 drops pers sec, the XL version goes up to 6 drops per sec and is rated up to a 400g. I got the smaller unit on purpose because I will be tying in a clam tank into my system...gotta save some nitrates for them. 8)

[TexasTodd]

Cool!

TT

[thedude]

Any updates on these things?

[GaryP]

what do you think about these results Gary :skeezy

man I'm the only one posting on this thread where are all the critics :lol
Sorry, I missed your post earlier. What I think is that the proof is in the pudding. I am assuming that there are no other major changes taking place in your tank and you install equipment that is advertised as reducing nitrates and nitrates go down. I'd say the logical conclusion is that it works.

Keep this up and you might even make me start to re-think my DSB. Shhhhhh!!!! Don't tell anyone. It's just between us kids.

[Richard]

So now that your nitrates are at zero have you noticed any difference in the health of your critters (corals & fish).

Has this unit reduced the amount of maintenance you are doing to keep your tank (not your test kits) "happy"?

Has the calcium media changed your reading on ca and alk?

Any thoughts on "how" it is working on your bigger tank? I ask because Gary's drip rate calculation thingy seems to make perfect sense but obviously it has worked for you.

[NOTSOSHARPE]

Your last entries apper to be from July. Today, Dec 01, how are your units performing?

[NOTSOSHARPE]

Wow. All the apparent advantages of a maintenence-free complete system nitrate remover that works too good!? If you do need a little nitrate back in your system, maybe you could find a way to put just a little back in with a bucket of old tank water every now and then. Got to be easier than algae refugiums and mangrove trays and more lights and all. I mean, with all the investment of time and money in this unit (around $400, right?) it seems premature to just put it in the closet. What do you know about the coil denitrators? They seem to use the same basic theory of anaerobic reduction and take the same six weeks to "cycle". I think I've also read that coil denitrators may not drop nitrate levels to zero, but only reduce the nitrate level to around 2-3 ppm. Sounds like that may be just what you (most of us) are looking to do. Then your clams won't die and your corals and fish will be happier.
Thanks for your help.