Nitrogen management by using elemental sulfur. The application of BADES.

[Lasse]

It is nothing more than a sulphur based Donovan's nitrate destroyer. And like that system effluent in relation to size determines nitrate levels. Still causes pH to drop like the old sulphur denitrators so you need calciumcarbonate media at the effluent (increasing space needed to run this system), still run the risk of sulfate getting dumped in the aquarium, still requires a lot of maintenance to prevent either the sulphurbeads or calciumcarbonate media from clogging up and becoming anoxic. So just as uncontrolled and dangerous as any other unmonitored system of nutrient export.

Knowing so much about it - I assume you have tested it - please give me a link if you have write anything about this test.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Belgian Anthias]

One of the big advantage of using BADES applications is the fact that nothing must be added once in function, nothing must be dosed . If using a reactor an MBR is used. As BADES reactors function at a high flow the risk of clogging is nihil. Aplications of BADES do not only remove TAN ( Total Ammonia Nitrogen), nitrogen is exported from the system

BADES applications do not need more attention as a normal biofilter.

We do + 20 years of research about nitrogen removal. Never heard about Donovan's nitrate destroyer. BADES reactors are based on the MAAO system. As far I know Donovan was a songwriter.

We do not advise the use of SD in a life support system, not because of possible side effects, because of the high risk for human error.

Not all BADES applications have the same side effects. Everything about using BADES was the object of a lot of research for decades, all side effects are known and controlled easily by nature. This can not be said by a lot of commercial products ending up in a reef tank.

Since the 90ties BADES is used without complications. This because it was never advised to use BADES in full anoxic kept denitrators. BADES reactors in MAAO operated 2 decennia with +- 300kg sulphur and 300 kg maerl. And they were not MBR.

There are many applications of BADES not needing a reactor. BADES rolls can be used in the sump or the tank itself.
If used in a refuge or filter the nitrogen removal rate can easily be managed in the function of the needs, in the function of the daily nitrogen overproduction considered not needed and to be exported.

One must be aware that a nitrifying biofilm growing on calcium carbonate does not consume alkalinity from the system water. Autotrophic denitrification taking place in a nitrifying biofilm growing on a substrate of calcium carbonate mixed with elemental sulfur does not consume alkalinity from the surrounding water. ref: https://www.baharini.eu/baharini/do...hemie:biofilm#kalk_als_drager_voor_de_biofilm

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Some inside in BADES. Please do not try to explain how BADES works before reading. Something to add, please do.

For those who want to know more.

The side effects of using BADES are well known and covered.

Something to read about BADES.

About the nitrogen cycle and the BADES process.

 

[Lasse]

Now your back directing to your own website - you may have a very interesting approach and I want to read about it here at R2R. Because you started a thread about the BADES concept here - I did hope that you would explain it here and not only give some links to a dutch homepage. I did put some question to you - IMO it is rude to answer the way you did - if you want to know more about it - please go here.....

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Thanl you @Belgian Anthias for at last coming up with a description of BADES rolls in a separate thread.
I have a few questions.

You are talking about both nitrification and denitrification. The nitrification needs a lot of oxygen - and in your construction - as I can see - it is only the first µm of the filter cloth that will promote nitrification - if they are placed in a oxygen rich area. In your opinion - is it better to do a lot of small "rolls" if you place them in a reactor and should it be a high flow reactor or a low flow reactor? If you use them as "passive" - should they be placed in a high flow area (lot of oxygen), a refugium (high in oxygen) or....?

Rolls may not be too thick for propper water exchange. max 4-5cm. They are used in normal aquarium conditions,
In high nutrient systems, BOD may become very high needing very good gas exchange, aeration.

Using BADES In a reactor, the flow is managed in the function of the export rate and the daily nitrogen overproduction to export daily.

In your opinion - if you use the "rolls" in a passive mode (no reactor) - is it good to use an old style nitrification filter - often named "nitrate factories" by people not understanding that they are just optimized for that purpose - in order to manage the nitrification

We always have promoted the use of bio-filter. Using bio-filters makes active nitrogen management possible. Using a simple open biofilter ( refuge) with a mix of shell gritt and sulphur as substrate will remove most nitrogen processed by the filter.

You are talking about managing the nitrate removing (either of us want it to be zero what I understand). How you do that - with the amount of rolls? Taking out or putting in rolls?

If passive nitrogen removal is used, one may start with one roll, then adding as needed, following your experience.

We advise the use in a refuge, this way active nitrogen management is possible by managing the flow. A stick and some fish wire to hang the rolls in the water. one may use as many as needed. less risk for overdoing.

For having full control over the nitrate export rate and over the nitrate level BADES is used a reactor


When should you introduce these rolls - from the start or after a month or two.

Can be used from the start, they will be conditioned together with the tank. One may use pre-conditioned rolls.

Is it possible to mix elementary sulphur in an old fashion undergravel filter (or DSB with normal or reversal flow) and still get these effects (not easy to pick out however)

Yes, of course, it was successfully used in Jaubert systems. I do not advise the use in DSB . it can be used in the sump, just a thin layer on the surface ( max 2 cm) and covered by 0.5 1cm filter cloth. Water flows over the layer not true the layer

@Randy Holmes-Farley I think this is partly a new concept based on old knowledge. It is not - IMO - total comparable with the old sulphur based denitrifiers even if it use the same microbiology.

As it is based on natural processes it is very old. In fact it was part of prehistoric photosynthesis, the production of elemental sulphur, long before photosynthesis started to divide water in cyano. BADES is used in public marine aquaria since the 90ties. it is one of many known BADES applications.

Sincerely Lasse


BADES rolls are based on the sulfur columns used and tested in a research project. The filter cloth replaces the ciliates and is to improve the water exchange rate and aerobic remineralisation . If water flows around an object a border layer may be created which limits interaction. The filter cloth prevents a border layer on the substrate surface and also important, it holds the sulfur mix.

An SD does not make propper use of BADES microbiolagy as BADES bacteria do not need an anoxic environment to follow an anaerobic pathway.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Now your back directing to your own website - you may have a very interesting approach and I want to read about it here at R2R. Because you started a thread about the BADES concept here - I did hope that you would explain it here and not only give some links to a dutch homepage. I did put some question to you - IMO it is rude to answer the way you did - if you want to know more about it - please go here.....

Sincerely Lasse

Do you want me to do all the work over again? It is not my work, I only use the info. All info is available and those who did all the work and research may be credited for. And I try to follow the publishing rights of the provided info.

 

[Lasse]

Do you want me to do all the work over again? It is not my work, I only use the info. All info is available and those who did all the work and research may be credited for. And I try to follow the publishing rights of the provided info.

Yes - we are many here that do the same argue every day and try to explain whats happen in a reef aquarium - that´s the soul of a forum. You can write down the info and have with the references in an article published here at R2R and link to that article when its actual. But all the times link to your website just upset people - me included. You start a thread here and I think everyone here want you to explain the process and discuss it with you - here at R2R - not to be linked to another website

Sincerely Lasse

 

[schuby]

I don't understand most of what was presented about BADES (and it was excessive). It was mentioned that BADES is not recommended for life-support systems. Our reef tanks are life-support systems. Why is it seemingly OK to use it for fish but not for humans?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I don't understand most of what was presented about BADES (and it was excessive). It was mentioned that BADES is not recommended for life-support systems. Our reef tanks are life-support systems. Why is it seemingly OK to use it for fish but not for humans?

In fact it is simple, one just has to provide elemental sulfur as a substrate for a growing nitrifying biofilm by which the total passive denitrification capacity of such biofilm will increase.

Elemental sulfur is inert and not toxic and can be used everywhere.


We do not recommend the use of an SD in aquaria or any other life support system, an application of BADES, used as a denitrator, by which elemental sulfur is used in an anoxic kept reactor. Not because BADES is dangerous, because if such a reactor is not managed correctly BADES is replaced by anaerobic remineralization and sulfate reduction, processes needing anoxic conditions. As the reactor is kept anoxic and nitrate is used up, produced ammonia and HS is not removed.

For use of BADES for denitrification in a reactor, such a reactor must not be kept in an anoxic condition. BADES works fine when a DO of 2ppm is measured in the effluent of a BADES reactor. We also do NOT target 0 nitrates in the effluent.

Other BADES applications work fine in normal aquarium conditions.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Anoxic or anaerobic?

The difference between anoxic conditions and anaerobic conditions.

Anoxic condition is a standardized situation, as we are in US, it was determined to be the condition where is less as 0.5ppm DO present.

Anaerobic conditions are the conditions where anaerobic activities can take place and which is different for each organism.

A lot of bacteria can profit from both worlds and can switch between both, using its aerobic or anaerobic pathway. Such bacteria do not need anoxic conditions to use an anaerobic pathway, they may switch if locally, in their microscopic world where the oxygen demand can double in an instant, the oxygen supply can not follow the demand. Bacteria responsible for BADES, Thiobacillus denitrificans, is such bacterium.
Some bacteria, heterotrophic denitrifiers, have only an anaerobic pathway and need anoxic conditions to be able to deploy their way of life and use an anaerobic pathway.


The biofilter

A nitrifying biofilm does export nitrogen. That is why the claim biofilters produce more nitrate is falls. Using a biofilter the nitrogen content in the system can be managed as desired by the user and will not produce more nitrate as decided by the manager of the system. The purpose of a biofilter is to remove toxic ammonia and to export safely stored nitrogen considered not needed.
If a certain amount of ammonia is entered in the system, using a biofilter gives me the choice between slow growth or fast growth, between toxic ammonia and safely stored nitrate. Algae using ammonia-nitrogen may grow +-5x faster as when using nitrate-nitrogen as a nitrogen source.

As nitrate is not toxic unless present at very high levels, what should be a good reason for not using a bio-filter?

The nitrifying biofilm

Nitrate is the final stage of aerobic remineralization.

The surface layers of such biofilm are mainly heterotrophs remineralizing and renewing and which need a lot of oxygen, producing a lot of CO2, ammonia, and phosphate. The endstage of aerobic remineralization is nitrates, produced toxic ammonia is nitrified to safe nitrate by nitrifiers, nitrifiers which do not like high light intensity and may be found just below the first layer. They also need a lot of oxygen and create a high BOD. Safely stored nitrogen than can leak out and be used by slow growers consuming produced phosphate. Part of the produced nitrate will not leak out and will be used to maintain the sulfur cycle in the biofilm, producing N2
Due to the high BOD ( biological oxygen demand) on the surface and in the first layers of the film, oxygen minimum zones ( OMZ) are created in the film and on the substrate, also small anoxic zones will be created. This explains why +- 40% of bacteria in a normal nitrifying biofilm follow an anaerobic pathway and some denitrification takes place, able to export +- 15% of the nitrogen processed by the biofilm as N2. Anaerobic remineralization in anoxic zones makes use of nitrate for the oxygen source if available, in marine aquaria often sulfate is used. Sulfate reduction due to anaerobic remineralization produces ammonia and HS. This is normal and takes place everywhere in the aquarium where a biofilm may grow. The produced HS will penetrate the OMZ zones in the film where nitrate is still available and sulfur bacteria will use it and produce elemental sulfur or and sulfate, closing the marine sulfur cycle and gaining energy. Some sulfur bacteria are able to use nitrate as an oxygen source while making good use of HS or and S, closing the sulfur cycle in a marine environment, from sulfate back to sulfate. This is the BADES process, nitrate-nitrogen is exported as N2.

In a normal nitrifying biofilm some nitrate is exported by BADES, but very limited. Bij providing elemental sulfur as a substrate for growing T.denitrificans the entire OMZ zone present on the substrate can be used for BADES, increasing the autotrophic denitrification rate of the biofilm. As less nitrate will be available for heterotrophic denitrification, more sulfate will be reduced in anoxic zones which is no problem as produced ammonia will be nitrified when trying to leak out.

Of course, this only is a vague description of what may be going on and does not describe the complexity of a real microbial community which is a nitrifying biofilm.

SD

In an anoxic kept SD only very little aerobic remineralization takes place and due to the limited flow, limited by the DO content, nitrate availability is decreasing when the level decreases. Such reactors are managed to target 0 nitrates in the effluent, so one does not know when the nitrate content in the reactor reaches a critical point. Often when nitrite is measured in the effluent the wrong decision is made. Increasing or lowering the flow? Maybe experienced SD users, which I am not, can answer what to do and why? I would turn the thing into a BADES reactor!

As most remineralization for renewing the biofilm is anaerobic mostly sulfate will be used for the oxygen source and a lot of ammonia and HS may be produced. As nitrate is insufficient available and not produced in the film BADES will become very limited and produced HS will be used mainly by green sulfur bacteria instead of BADES bacteria. As such reactor is anoxic HS is not oxidized when leaking out of the biofilm and produced ammonia is not nitrified before leaving the reactor.

Of course, this is also just a vague description of what may happen but it shows the difference.

Why an SD is kept anoxic? What would be the advantage for using BADES ?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Yes - we are many here that do the same argue every day and try to explain whats happen in a reef aquarium - that´s the soul of a forum. You can write down the info and have with the references in an article published here at R2R and link to that article when its actual. But all the times link to your website just upset people - me included. You start a thread here and I think everyone here want you to explain the process and discuss it with you - here at R2R - not to be linked to another website

Sincerely Lasse

Most discussions on fora do not link to the source of where the information is made available by which a lot of info available on fora lives its own life backed up only by info available on fora. If providing correct info upsets you, nobody forces you to read the references.

We do not try to promote commercial products and expensive placebo. I do not need to reach as many people as possible. I already spent too much energy writing on this forum, ask my wife.

I provide information and link to where it is made available. The articles in Makazi Baharini wiki contain information one will not find anywhere else. Information present in the MAKAZI Baharini wiki is for personal use only, the info may be used only with respect for the publication rights of all info present. The information available in Makazi Baharini may be published using a link to the original article, the same way research papers can be consulted on the website of the publisher of the paper in question. Makazi Baharini articles are not different exempt the publisher is the owner of Makazi Baharini in most cases also the author and who did most research to collect the info.. References used in the articles are consultable and are mainly based on articles released by the authors for free reading. This is not always the same as free use. Most research papers and publications, also those opened up by the authors, can be used respecting the publication rights of the publisher. In this case, I use articles published in Makazi Baharini which contain all info needed.

 

[Jase4224]

It is nothing more than a sulphur based Donovan's nitrate destroyer. And like that system effluent in relation to size determines nitrate levels. Still causes pH to drop like the old sulphur denitrators so you need calciumcarbonate media at the effluent (increasing space needed to run this system), still run the risk of sulfate getting dumped in the aquarium, still requires a lot of maintenance to prevent either the sulphurbeads or calciumcarbonate media from clogging up and becoming anoxic. So just as uncontrolled and dangerous as any other unmonitored system of nutrient export.

I was wandering whether or not the PH and/or Alk was still affected by the BADES system. Thanks for clearing that up.

I used a traditional sulphur denitrator successfully for around a year whilst my tank was fish only. I added it due to nitrates getting too high before I was able to purchase algae for my fuge.

My thoughts are that I would NOT use sulphur on a system containing corals due the the fact that the Alk drops faster whilst calcium rises. This is a pain to constantly try to correct. Now that my fuge is full of macro I have removed the SD and still getting 0 for nitrates and just above 0 for phosphate. So sulphur can be useful in an immature system with high bio load but once established there should be no need for sulphur.

The SD was very easy to use and set and forget. However macro algae is so much simpler, more effective and also removes phosphate.

 

[Lasse]

If providing correct info upsets you, nobody forces you to read the references.

I´m not upset of this - but when you redirect to a personal webpage that you need to register to - if you want access - its not the normal way of doing in an open forum.

You make a lot of claim in this forum - that´s ok but IMO it is not ok that you try to have people redirected to your personal homepage instead of answering them in threads that you have create by yourself or in threads you have jumped into.. If you have problem with links that will eventually violate copyright - just do as people always have done - publish title, names and year and let people find the information by themself. There is also that way that most of us have no possibility to reach article behind "paywalls" - therefore we need a summary of them and explanation of people knowing their stuff

You name it a "wiki". May I remember you about the meaning of a "wiki" According to this

Definition of wiki

: a website that allows visitors to make changes, contributions, or corrections

Your website is - as I understand it - far away from a wiki - I do not think that I will have the rights (if I join) to change or edit your homepage the way that user do with a real Wiki - that´s Hawaiian for fast. If I did that fast - I´m sure that I would have a furious webpage owner chasing my but.

If you are tired of explain your thoughts and want to answer with help of a link to your own website - just do not answer or make threads with claims. Personally - I would never do it that way. I have one article at R2R and have done some threads here at R2R - in this case it easy and fair to link to these posts

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I´m not upset of this - but when you redirect to a personal webpage that you need to register to - if you want access - its not the normal way of doing in an open forum.

You make a lot of claim in this forum - that´s ok but IMO it is not ok that you try to have people redirected to your personal homepage instead of answering them in threads that you have create by yourself or in threads you have jumped into.. If you have problem with links that will eventually violate copyright - just do as people always have done - publish title, names and year and let people find the information by themself. There is also that way that most of us have no possibility to reach article behind "paywalls" - therefore we need a summary of them and explanation of people knowing their stuff

You name it a "wiki". May I remember you about the meaning of a "wiki" According to this


Your website is - as I understand it - far away from a wiki - I do not think that I will have the rights (if I join) to change or edit your homepage the way that user do with a real Wiki - that´s Hawaiian for fast. If I did that fast - I´m sure that I would have a furious webpage owner chasing my but.

If you are tired of explain your thoughts and want to answer with help of a link to your own website - just do not answer or make threads with claims. Personally - I would never do it that way. I have one article at R2R and have done some threads here at R2R - in this case it easy and fair to link to these posts

Sincerely Lasse

For example, claiming dosing vodka to a reef aquarium based on the nitrate level may be dangerous. . To prove it is true, the information will not be available on this forum.. As I know where all info needed can be found I link to the info available. This info is not available anywhere else as it was the work of Makazi Baharini members to collect the info to prove it. May those who did all the work not be credited for?

As a lot of info present in Makazi Bahraini can not be found anywhere else as nobody else did the effort to bring it together, and the info is made available for personal use only, some is made available for registered readers.

For example, info about BADES. Everything has been covered with proper references and collected by Makazi Baharini members. Why do it over again as all info can be made available with a link.? As the info is not available anywhere else and it is not allowed to use the info on fora without linking to the source I only respect the publication rights.


There are a lot different uses for a wiki. Open or closed. A lot of wiki's are used to work together on a project. Makazi Baharini is such a project. Makazi Baharini wiki was originally made to be used by members only as a research wiki about using and setting up marine aquaria, a few persons with the same interests working together to collect the information and references needed. The wiki contains + 2000 references and research papers. Hundreds of articles. A lot of work. Our reef library contains +100 books, from the 60ies till 2010. Not all wiki pages are accessible for registered users and are used by members only. Some members have their own section wich only other members can see and access. Members also have private pages. The active members decide what pages are approved and made available for registered readers. Most of the work done after 2007 is by CMF De Haes who is responsible for a lot of articles, written based on the by members collected info.

The wiki does not contain any commercial content, does not contain banners or advertising.
In for publication approved articles, we only cover methods and procedures, never compare commercial products, one commercial product being better as another, although we try to find out what is in the bottle of commercialized products. Such info is for members only, who have contributed to the expenses made. The same for articles with protected references, for which Makazi Baharini has paid to have access.

On each page, there is the possibility to add comments and propositions, open a discussion concerning the content of the page. The page info may be corrected in the function of the comments made.
Everybody may become a member and make full use of the wiki. One just has to be accepted by the other members. In most cases, a new member is introduced by another member. But anyone may ask to become a member. We work together on articles, articles accessible for registered users are approved by for publishing by the publisher(s). Members also finance the wiki. We do have the same problem as the most wiki, Wikipedia, etc,. When info is provided for free, the user of the info does seldom show the intention to contribute to the maintenance of what one has the benefits. Therefore it is possible the members will decide to make the wiki members-only again, as it was before.

Till now, if a claim was made by me it was founded on propper research and the info needed to back it up was provided. In most cases, this is with a link to Makazi Baharini as only there all info is available on which the claim was made. Most fora do not contain the info needed and info available is often commercially influenced. That is why Makazi Bahraini has a reason to exist.

If a claim is made by me, the info to back it up is already available in Makazi Baharini wiki, mostly only in Makazi Baharini wiki.

Info about BADES is collected since 2007 and updated till now.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The SD was very easy to use and set and forget. However macro algae is so much simpler, more effective and also removes phosphate.

For managing LNS I also prefer the use of a refuge for managing the nutrient content. Not only nitrate and or phosphate can be exported, but any nutrient, this by using for the target nutrient modified F2 media.

For high nutrient systems, and using a skimmer, the unbalance between nitrogen and phosphate content may become too high, needing another solution and to export nitrogen only. For this BADES can be used.

A refuge based on macroalgae is a slow filter and will not provide the tools to manage the carrying capacity, the ammonium removal rate is too low. If modified F2 media is not used for managing the refuge, the nutrient unbalances between nitrogen and phosphate can not be corrected as everything will be removed in natural proportions.

 

[Lasse]

To prove it is true, the information will not be available on this forum.. As I know where all info needed can be found I link to the info available. This info is not available anywhere else as it was the work of Makazi Baharini members to collect the info to prove it. May those who did all the work not be credited for?

I´m very sorry - I did not realize that the holy book of reefing was in dutch and if you claim anything in a public fora like r2r - you only have to do a link to this dutch wiki and game over. My bad.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I´m very sorry - I did not realize that the holy book of reefing was in dutch and if you claim anything in a public fora like r2r - you only have to do a link to this dutch wiki and game over. My bad.

Sincerely Lasse

if all information needed is available in the provided references, yes, game over. The provided source is for personal use only.
One may ask direct questions and get answers if available.
We do not loose time translating anymore. We also have German, French , Spanish, .... readers and members.. Most papers used as a reference in the Dutch articles are in English , bilingual, some in French. In EU only a small minority has English as Official Language. There are double as many people having Dutch as the official language.
If the source of the info is in Dutch or any other language, then permission must be asked to translate the source and its content, this if the content is NOT used for personal use only, if the translated content of the source is used for publication or used on a public forum. For personal use, Google translate may help you out.

 

[Lasse]

In an english speaking forum giving references into another language and refuse to argue in this fora (saying what you want is written at another site) is insane - IMO. The reference to EU is also insane - IMO - yes around 6.7 % of the inhabitants in EU (without the UK) have dutch as first or second language. Outside this - very few speak or write dutch. And without the UK - EU population with english as first or second language is only around 1.2 % - but outside this - it is around 35 % of the EU population that understand, speak and write english. In the scandinavian countries - more than 80 % can speak, understand and write English.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MabuyaQ]

For managing LNS I also prefer the use of a refuge for managing the nutrient content. Not only nitrate and or phosphate can be exported, but any nutrient, this by using for the target nutrient modified F2 media.

For high nutrient systems, and using a skimmer, the unbalance between nitrogen and phosphate content may become too high, needing another solution and to export nitrogen only. For this BADES can be used.

A refuge based on macroalgae is a slow filter and will not provide the tools to manage the carrying capacity, the ammonium removal rate is too low. If modified F2 media is not used for managing the refuge, the nutrient unbalances between nitrogen and phosphate can not be corrected as everything will be removed in natural proportions.

100% wrong a macro algae refugium is perfectly fine for removing ammonium if sized appropriately to ammonium production. And how does bades solve this, will sulfer bacteria miraculously consume more phosphate in an unbalanced situation?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

100% wrong a macro algae refugium is perfectly fine for removing ammonium if sized appropriately to ammonium production. And how does bades solve this, will sulfer bacteria miraculously consume more phosphate in an unbalanced situation?

The ammonia removal rate is limited to the max growth rate.
As said, an algae filter is a slow filter. If it was not, algae and photoautotrophs would outcompete everything and dominate the tank as they have an unlimited energy source for free.
One can not manage the carrying capacity, or the ammonium removal rate, by only using an algae filter. One may remove some ammonia! If in a closed system ammonium is used by algae, it is what is leftover ore and released by the algae using nitrate-nitrogen. Algae may release a lot of ammonia when using nitrate-nitrogen, till 40% of all nitrogen taken up. Leaked ammonia is used in the microbial community to manage growth rates according to nutrient availability and demand. Algae grow +- 4 -5X faster- when using ammonia-nitrogen.
If algae would become responsible for reducing the ammonia produced by other organisms, we would have a big problem to maintain the carrying capacity needed.
In a reef tank with a skimmer, the available nutrient reserve will build up as inorganic nutrients are left behind. Phosphate may be removed due to precipitation. To restore the balance between nitrogen and phosphate availability in most cases only nitrogen must be removed. In that case, BADES can be used. BADES will not consume more phosphate, but it will produce less to export the same amount of nitrogen.

Removing is not the same as exporting!?

We try to keep the nitrogen reserve in balance to prevent the nutrient reserve may become responsible for phosphorus starvation.

For nitrogen export and nitrogen management, we prefer BADES.

For the management of the nutrient reserve, we prefer the use of a refuge, a biofilter used to promote growth. This makes it possible to manage the nutrient reserve as desired, by using modified F2 media.

To manage and support the carrying capacity we use a nitrifying biofilter.