MOST EFECTIVE FILTRATION METHOD

[Wrasse-cal]

Refugiums, algae scrubbers and cheato scrubbers can be supercharged with increased water flow. If you already have these, consider simply increasing your flow. I run a 700gph pump through an ARID reactor nowadays. Used to run a 200gph pump. As soon as I upgraded the pump, PO4 reduction dropped to 0 and I had to turn it off for several days just to start getting a reading again. The same rule of flow applies to your refugium and algae scrubber.

Considering what you already own, I would not spend any money on an SM scrubber.

Also get yourself a bottle of iron/magnesium. I use kents. Algae and cheato soak it up fast!

Not to highjack the thread, but isn’t that flow through your ARID A LOT higher than what is suggested by Pax Bellum? Do you see any consequences to the higher flow other than increased nutrient uptake?

 

[Dogtown]

Not to highjack the thread, but isn’t that flow through your ARID A LOT higher than what is suggested by Pax Bellum? Do you see any consequences to the higher flow other than increased nutrient uptake?

I don't think the OP will mind.
To answer your question, I really should have been more specific about the net flow I get out of it when I said that. The pump is rate at 700gph but my ARID has 1/2" quick change connectors and the flow that the pump can push through them is reduced quite a nit. The ARID flow with the 700gph pump nets out at only around 250gph. That is in line with the recommended flow.

To confirm net flow, Tristan at Pax Bellum had me count how many seconds it takes to fill up a 5 gallon water bucket using the water exiting out of the ARID. With the original pump I started with, flow was lower than the minimum recommended amount. With the bigger pump, flow is in spec. I should have been more detailed.

 

[Wrasse-cal]

I don't think the OP will mind.
To answer your question, I really should have been more specific about the net flow I get out of it when I said that. The pump is rate at 700gph but my ARID has 1/2" quick change connectors and the flow that the pump can push through them is reduced quite a nit. The ARID flow with the 700gph pump nets out at only around 250gph. That is in line with the recommended flow.

To confirm net flow, Tristan at Pax Bellum had me count how many seconds it takes to fill up a 5 gallon water bucket using the water exiting out of the ARID. With the original pump I started with, flow was lower than the minimum recommended amount. With the bigger pump, flow is in spec. I should have been more detailed.

Thanks. I have an N18 on order. I'm trying to decide how to plumb it--either off a return manifold or via a dedicated pump. After your post, It sounds like there is a lot of head pressure with the ARID making it less likely that I want to add that to my return and instead use a dedicated pump.

How much tubing do you have between the pump and ARID?

 

[[Cameron]]

I would like to know your background on algae scrubbers. I find them to be far superior to refugiums or reactors. I run a fish breeding system and all I use is an algae scrubber.

I ran a fairly large homemade one for just over a year on my 200g system with the scrubber being an adjunct to my skimmer section. I grew tired of doing monthly maintenance on it and converted to a 20g dedicated fuge using a bi-filter setup. 1/3 the return went to a skimmer sump with the rest rolling through a fuge full of chaeto and crabs. I was much happier with the results of the fuge. This was a decade ago before Triton and the like made refugiums great again. I have never run a chaeto reactor and on that count I am speaking from gathered knowledge.

I posted a longer explanation above for my belief that a fuge is generally better than a scrubber. If you have specific reasons beyond space for a scrubber over a fuge, I am all ears.

 

[[Cameron]]

I will agree that algae scrubbers are very effective for the small amount of space that they use. I'm not limited for space so other factors are a higher priority. Not wanting to down algae scrubbers. I was using them before most even knew what they are. I know how compact and yet powerful they are under the right conditions.

I am going to plus one this as well. Generally speaking scrubbers clearly work and they are the best bang for buck space wise. They can also help with tanks that have poor air exchange as noted earlier which often happens in modern houses.

For reasons mentioned earlier I personally have found fuges to be a better option when I have space for one. I personally would go with a chaeto reactor if space were an issue but budget wasn't. If I wanted a compact setup and was on a budget, I would absolutely go with a scrubber (and I have before).

 

[Captmcfly]

I haven't tried the no sock approach long term. Probably because I don't keep my refugium chocked full of cheato like the triton method calls for. Do you find that your triton style refugium reduces the amount of debris floating around? Sort of acting like a debris filter? I only ask because I would like to eliminate sock cleaning but I don't like seeing particulates in the water column. Might give it a try for a few months depending on feedback.

Yes I do. I have two sections in my current sump do to it being a used trickle filter that I modified for my purpose. I have the first section full of live rock then it goes through a baffle then into my fuge section. After it passes through the chato it rounds a corner where my return pump is. The chato and return are separated by a plate of glass not glued in place nor does it completely run end to end. My dt stays clear of anything floating around unless I disturb the chato . I currently use a hob skimmer because that’s what I have and don’t see a reason to buy a new one at this time .

 

[Josh@ClearWaterScrubbers]

I ran a fairly large homemade one for just over a year on my 200g system with the scrubber being an adjunct to my skimmer section. I grew tired of doing monthly maintenance on it and converted to a 20g dedicated fuge using a bi-filter setup. 1/3 the return went to a skimmer sump with the rest rolling through a fuge full of chaeto and crabs. I was much happier with the results of the fuge. This was a decade ago before Triton and the like made refugiums great again. I have never run a chaeto reactor and on that count I am speaking from gathered knowledge.

I posted a longer explanation above for my belief that a fuge is generally better than a scrubber. If you have specific reasons beyond space for a scrubber over a fuge, I am all ears.

I’ve actually talked with the people at Triton. They only recommend a fuge for the die off of chaeto to release some organics back into the water. They have not tested a scrubber yet because most people grow away the growth when it needs to be harvested, thus not allowing any die off to release anything back into the water. If we or someone else can design a way for the screens to be removed and the growth be used as a good source, they would be open to testing one in the future.

As far a nutrient removal, GHA is far more efficient that chaeto. That’s why there is more maintenance with a scrubber than a fuge.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Hello, like the title says. What’s the number 1 most effective form of filtration?

Personally, I think the question is too vague to answer.

The best "filtration" system will depend entirely on what you want it to accomplish. Accomplishing anything too well likely also leads to problems.

Since there may be many different things you want to accomplish, the answer may involve lots of different "methods".

For example, "filtration" methods do all of these things, and you may not want all of them:

1. reduce organics (skimming, GAC, purigen, denitrification media, a few more)
2. reduce nitrate (organic carbon dosing, bacteria dosing, denitrification media, macroalgae, ATS, carbon and sulfur denitrators)
3. Reduce phosphate (various media like GFO and aluminum oxide, soluble metal dosing, organic carbon dosing, macroalgae, ATS)
4. reduce O2 (organic carbon dosing)
5. Add O2 (skimming, macroalgae, ATS)
6. Increase organics (macroalgae, ATS, obviously: organic carbon dosing)
7. Export certain metals (skimming, GAC, specialized polymers like metasorb, detox, polyfilter, cuprisorb, etc.)
8. Add metals (GFO adds iron, some media add aluminum)
9. Reduce alkalinity (sufur denitrator)
10. Oxidize hydrogen sulfide (if present, GFO does this)
The list can go on and on.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I’ve actually talked with the people at Triton. They only recommend a fuge for the die off of chaeto to release some organics back into the water. They have not tested a scrubber yet because most people grow away the growth when it needs to be harvested, thus not allowing any die off to release anything back into the water. If we or someone else can design a way for the screens to be removed and the growth be used as a good source, they would be open to testing one in the future.

As far a nutrient removal, GHA is far more efficient that chaeto. That’s why there is more maintenance with a scrubber than a fuge.

I'm curious, have they ever tested organic release from dead macroalgae to see if it actually beneficial and not just a theory?

I think it would be a difficult thing to test, but many people simply accept it as true.

 

[Fumanchu]

I'm curious, have they ever tested organic release from dead macroalgae to see if it actually beneficial and not just a theory?

I think it would be a difficult thing to test, but many people simply accept it as true.

To actually think about it, that's a very good question

 

[Captmcfly]

Idk about the methods of testing those theories what I do know is that the overall heath of my system is at its best under my current methods

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Idk about the methods of testing those theories what I do know is that the overall heath of my system is at its best under my current methods

Chaetomorpha does lots of things to the water. Changes pH by consuming CO2 when lit, adds O2 when lit, consumes trace elements, consumes sources of N and P, and, like most photosynthetic organisms, generally is a net source of organic molecules, even when still alive.

But it seems a stretch to claim the released organics are a proven benefit to corals (as perhaps Triton suggests), unless one has some evidence, either with controlled experiments where every other feature of Chaeto is mimiced somehow, except the organics, or one determines what the organics are, and you see an effect when specifically adding them.

Both of those experiments seem very challenging to me.

 

[lbacha]

To add a new wrinkle to this, I'm running a mixed cheato/Xenia fuge. Since I added the Xenia I have seen 0ppm no3 and po4. As a test this morning I added potassium nitrate and mono potassium Phosphate to my tank and got my nitrates to 12 ppm and phosphates to .31 ppm (way more of a change than I was planning as it's a small system but it worked for my experiment).

So I got the above readings with a Hanna low range Phosphate kit and a nyos nitrate kit at 8am this morning. I ran the lights on my fuge all day and tested again this evening 6:30pm so 10.5hrs later. The results amazed me as phosphates were .004 ppm and nitrates were between 1-3 ppm. Not sure if cheato alone would do as well but my mixed cheato/Xenia system is great.

My system is a nano so about 12g total and my fuge is 2.5g.

 

[Captmcfly]

This is my home made setup. Transformed an old trickle filter into a sump added rock and chato

 

[Captmcfly]

This is my home made setup. Transformed an old trickle filter into a sump added rock and chato

Roughly 15 to 20 gallons in the sump overall.

 

[saltwater newby]

Personally, I think the question is too vague to answer.

The best "filtration" system will depend entirely on what you want it to accomplish. Accomplishing anything too well likely also leads to problems.

Since there may be many different things you want to accomplish, the answer may involve lots of different "methods".

For example, "filtration" methods do all of these things, and you may not want all of them:

1. reduce organics (skimming, GAC, purigen, denitrification media, a few more)
2. reduce nitrate (organic carbon dosing, bacteria dosing, denitrification media, macroalgae, ATS, carbon and sulfur denitrators)
3. Reduce phosphate (various media like GFO and aluminum oxide, soluble metal dosing, organic carbon dosing, macroalgae, ATS)
4. reduce O2 (organic carbon dosing)
5. Add O2 (skimming, macroalgae, ATS)
6. Increase organics (macroalgae, ATS, obviously: organic carbon dosing)
7. Export certain metals (skimming, GAC, specialized polymers like metasorb, detox, polyfilter, cuprisorb, etc.)
8. Add metals (GFO adds iron, some media add aluminum)
9. Reduce alkalinity (sufur denitrator)
10. Oxidize hydrogen sulfide (if present, GFO does this)
The list can go on and on.

Well, considering that I am currently dealing with hair algae and I believe it has to do with a heavy bio load of 15 fish in an approx. 80 gallon system plus I feed a little on the heavy side. So I want to make sure that I make good use of the extra water volume and extra sump space my new system is going to give me so that I can keep all the waste produced from my 15 fish and the some what heavy feedings I do from causing me issues down the line again . My goal is to limit gha again once I get my current outbreak under control.

 

[[Cameron]]

I’ve actually talked with the people at Triton. They only recommend a fuge for the die off of chaeto to release some organics back into the water. They have not tested a scrubber yet because most people grow away the growth when it needs to be harvested, thus not allowing any die off to release anything back into the water. If we or someone else can design a way for the screens to be removed and the growth be used as a good source, they would be open to testing one in the future.

As far a nutrient removal, GHA is far more efficient that chaeto. That’s why there is more maintenance with a scrubber than a fuge.

Chaeto die off is part of a natural cycle but I remain unconvinced it is a cornerstone to a healthy tank. My primary consideration is the ability of a fuge to have high turn over, flexibility in what is in it, ph stability and I believe chaeto is a simpler algae to deal with long term. I am sure if someone builds an algae scrubber able to house 10x tank turnover and does the necessary maintenance, it will work just fine with Triton without the need for "Other Methods".

No doubt in my mind that scrubbers are more efficient but that is why I say an algae scrubber is best used when space and budget are a premium. The key to a fuge is scaling it up so that it has the same nutrient export capability of the more compact scrubber hence why I say space is needed. Chaeto doesn't turn sexual, is an optimal hotel for all sorts of beneficial critters, requires little to no maintenance, sucks CO2 out of the water column efficiently and when sized properly maintains low levels of phosphates, nitrates and such even during heavy nutrient spikes. It is very nearly the perfect natural filter for a reef tank assuming a person has the space for a fuge or the budget for a reactor.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

To add a new wrinkle to this, I'm running a mixed cheato/Xenia fuge. Since I added the Xenia I have seen 0ppm no3 and po4. As a test this morning I added potassium nitrate and mono potassium Phosphate to my tank and got my nitrates to 12 ppm and phosphates to .31 ppm (way more of a change than I was planning as it's a small system but it worked for my experiment).

So I got the above readings with a Hanna low range Phosphate kit and a nyos nitrate kit at 8am this morning. I ran the lights on my fuge all day and tested again this evening 6:30pm so 10.5hrs later. The results amazed me as phosphates were .004 ppm and nitrates were between 1-3 ppm. Not sure if cheato alone would do as well but my mixed cheato/Xenia system is great.

My system is a nano so about 12g total and my fuge is 2.5g.

It doesn't surprise me since foods are adding large amounts of N and P every day. All we see is the little bit that ends up as nitrate and phosphate, but the turnover is far larger, even when the values are low.

 

[pelphrey]

I’ve been running the RAIN2 for well over a year. Really happy with it and it has a small foot print (reefer 250). Very simple to clean and 100% water proof.

 

[75pxatr]

I just added an ATS to my system(210 main display w/350 total gallons water). My understanding is that hair algae can out compete chaeto keeping nutrients down and hair algae out of the main display. I guess we shall see.

But the question of what is best for you might just be a matter of some trial and error. There are many successful tanks with a myriad of different filtration methods. A fuge with chaeto is a good place to start because it is relatively simple and low cost.