Algae Turf Scrubber -vs- Algae Reactor
- Thread starter fishbox
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I decided to use an algae reactor. No room for a scrubber and even if I had the space I like the ease of a reactor if it's under the stand. I tried a scrubber once but it didn't do very well so I got turned off them.
I'm running reactors on 2 tanks, results are excellent. Easy to maintain. I only ran a diy santa monica hog knockoff scrubber on a bc29; I didn't like the footprint or the maintenance. My fav lfs just got some scrubbers in and they are very nice, a little pricier than a the cost of a reactor. He runs them in the store and they are very efficient. My nitrates and phosphates are minimal and harvesting the chaeto once a month is all I have to do, very simple, easy, and quick. I don't think you can wrong with either one.
My ats was awesome! O no3 and 0 po4 consistantly. However im experimenting with vodka only now to see if it can keep levels at 0s so i dont have to scrape the screen weekly. Also you gotta scrape it weekly or the bottom layer dies and causes problems. As far as an algae reactor goes i never tried it but im sure it would work fine. But on a space basis algae turf is more effective at nutrient removal. Look up walter adey who pioneered ats.
OP
OP
fishbox
Well-Known Member
Yeah I've been following the big ATS thread on that other forum for some time now. but it seems the reactor is becoming the new rave. I'm not one to follow the Jonses. So it's time to learn the differences. Neither option seems outrageously hard to DIY nor expensive to set up inititally. So I guess I'm more concerned with the amount of maintenance needed, any costs associated with running / maintenance, and of coarse it's effectiveness.
Been running maybe a month now. Working just fine. It is only part of my tank export as I use gfo and vinegar dosing too. Most methods are can starve out the tank if you wanted it too so it just boils down to what you like and what works best for the systems. I dose vinegar for feeding the inverts more than nutrient reduction. Reactors are nice because of the mounting and space flexibility. There might be ways to make then even more efficient like adding air to intake, but who cares, if it's properly sized and can take nutrients down to where you want them it's working just fine.
I didn't say definitely it would increase effectiveness, but I suspect it could by providing more oxygen and gas exchange for the chaeto which could boost efficiency by allowing greater growth rate. Secondary benifits could also be removal of detritus from the chaeto and perhaps more uniform flow through the mass of algae.
Of course for the oxygen idea it would depend on the oxygen concentration in the sump and how fast the reactor depletes that oxygen, if at all, which would be in part based off the flow through the reactor.
My understanding is that in theory because an ATS is growing simpler algae (hair algae) vs cheato in a reactor. An ATS that is properly setup should be more efficient than an algae reactor.
However, there are very few places to buy an ATS, they often take up more space and for most people, it is a full DIY project. A member of my local club has run an ATS for years on his 180g with fantastic results keeping nutrients near undetectable. His ATS does such a good job that he no longer performs any water changes beyond top off and the little bit of water removed when siphoning gravel every couple of weeks.
I've been interested in ATS for a long time. But due to the need to be designed and built and that it can take up a decent amount of space I never got around to actually trying it out.
For this reason I setup an algae reactor yesterday. Between the lights and reactor body, it cost me around $100, I re-used existing pump and plumbing parts. I can't give much opinion on something that hasn't even completed its first on/off lighting schedule. But the simplicity and cost can't be argued with. It may take an extra large and/or multiple reactors to match up with an ATS on pure ability to grow algae and remove it from the system but with how simple it was to setup that is not a problem at all
However, there are very few places to buy an ATS, they often take up more space and for most people, it is a full DIY project. A member of my local club has run an ATS for years on his 180g with fantastic results keeping nutrients near undetectable. His ATS does such a good job that he no longer performs any water changes beyond top off and the little bit of water removed when siphoning gravel every couple of weeks.
I've been interested in ATS for a long time. But due to the need to be designed and built and that it can take up a decent amount of space I never got around to actually trying it out.
For this reason I setup an algae reactor yesterday. Between the lights and reactor body, it cost me around $100, I re-used existing pump and plumbing parts. I can't give much opinion on something that hasn't even completed its first on/off lighting schedule. But the simplicity and cost can't be argued with. It may take an extra large and/or multiple reactors to match up with an ATS on pure ability to grow algae and remove it from the system but with how simple it was to setup that is not a problem at all
I am in the market for an algae scrubber or reactor. I understand the benefits and cins and pros of each but there is one thing that I want to know that others arent talking about and that is copepods. I know a reactor will house pods but what about a scrubber?
Eddie7144
Well-Known Member
I see up a reactor , used blue/ red less , but my cheato didn't grow, I ran it for almost 2 months. I gave up and used it as a GFO reactor. I was hoping the algae would grow as it's natural and cheaper ( big tank ) did i do sometbi g wrong ? Phos was at .9 no was at 10 ?
What else were you using? Skimmer, UV etc.
I have an Atlantis 2 algae turf scrubber. I chose it for the following reasons.
It takes up next to no space in my sump as it sits on it not in it.
It is more efficient than an algae reactor at removing nutrients than a cheato reactor.
It not only grows GHA but at least 2 other algaes inc Ulva intestinalis.
Build quality.
Ease of maintenance. Turn off pump, pull off feed pipe lift out screen, clean screen, replace screen ,push feed pipe back on, turn pump back on, it;s that easy. No screws to undo etc.
When I started with it my NO3 was at 20ppm and my PO4 at 0.04 now my NO3 is between 0.5 and 1. with PO4 at 0.018
It takes up next to no space in my sump as it sits on it not in it.
It is more efficient than an algae reactor at removing nutrients than a cheato reactor.
It not only grows GHA but at least 2 other algaes inc Ulva intestinalis.
Build quality.
Ease of maintenance. Turn off pump, pull off feed pipe lift out screen, clean screen, replace screen ,push feed pipe back on, turn pump back on, it;s that easy. No screws to undo etc.
When I started with it my NO3 was at 20ppm and my PO4 at 0.04 now my NO3 is between 0.5 and 1. with PO4 at 0.018
Forsaken77
Valuable Member
You'd also have to consider the buildup of air in the reactor. It may cause to much pressure buildup and cause leaks. Having a foam pad at the top and bottom would prevent detritus and escaping pieces of chaeto.
Forsaken77
Valuable Member
I just don't get how, if an ats grows gha, none of the spores end up in the display, unless you're running uv also. It seems like it's lacking containment of the algae. Because micro can travel and grow wherever.
You had low nitrates and phosphates to begin with in general. So I get that the ats is taking that up. But for someone with higher nitrates, the display would easily be able to start growing any released spores of the gha.
A turf scrubber lets water pass right through, right? There's no foam or fine mesh screen in place to block anything released? Because anything short of a foam pad will let spores through, unless it's harvested before it can spore? I don't know, which is why I'm curious. How does it keep the micro algae from spreading?
