The construction of the optimal nitrification filter

[Lasse]

You should 'stack' them side by side. A honeycomb with internal substructure is also frequently used, or just rows of triangles.

Yes if the diameter is small (around 2-3 cm - just stack then in a larger tube) My point is that a media can show a huge theoretical area but in real life only a small part will be active because of lack of oxygen in the fine structure.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Larry L]

Are you saying that you flow water through a tube with 6 chambers for maximum surface area, minimizing flow restriction to achieve nitrification process?

Apologize if I am stepping on @Lasse 's toes by responding... The 6 chambers he was referring to are the shape of the K5 media. They are relatively small and are like bio-balls except the shape is different and allows them to stay cleaner as water flows through. So the main filter is just a cylinder, but packed with that small media.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

This is what you really need Lassie

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Apologize if I am stepping on @Lasse 's toes by responding... The 6 chambers he was referring to are the shape of the K5 media. They are relatively small and are like bio-balls except the shape is different and allows them to stay cleaner as water flows through. So the main filter is just a cylinder, but packed with that small media.

Ok, I see my confusion, and hope to have it further clarified. From what I gather is that the picture Lasse shared of the Different media like the K5, is in fact what they look like, I was under the impression that they were sliced samples to show surface area.

Lasse, is this media stacked neatly or is it sort of tossed into a container allowing them to settle in any orientation?

And here's where my confusion stems. Setting aside that the shape and construction of the media is superior and yields better nitrification over bioballs, I was under the impression that bioball popularity fell out of favor because of the build up of detritus and eventually became nitrate factories. I fail to see how this media prevents the collection of detritus.

What am I missing?

 

[Lasse]

build up of detritus and eventually became nitrate factories

All effective nitrification filters is very efficient "nitrate factories" - that´s the reasons why we have them. The nitrate does not come from upp build detritus - instead - an build-up of organic detritus slows down the production of nitrate because it reduces the rate of nitrification. The flow in this filter should be very large because it should polish the surface of the media - only leaving a thin nitrification biofilm. The filter is constructed in a way that it should optimize the nitrification rate and it means that they will produce a lot of nitrate from the ingoing ammonia. The reason why I prefer this type of media is because it is possible to flush away all organic detritus (including old nitrification biofilm) It is true that biobolls can build up more organic detritus, hence not make these filters as effective as they should.

The word "nitrate factories" is an misunderstanding of the process. It does not matter where the nitrification takes place the amount of nitrate produced will be the same and is total depended on how much nitrogen you put into the aquarium through your feeding regime. However - the produced nitrate must be handled - but that is a total another question - the goal with this filter is show optimized "nitrate factory", hence speed up the rate of nitrification leaving as low residues of ammonia as possible in every given time.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dennis Cartier]

Hmm, one of these filters should be very efficient at off gassing the water flowing through it, right? So if you had lower PH water from say a CalRx and you flowed it through, the CO2 should be stripped (assuming the CO2 level in the room is lower)?

I have been thinking of integrating aeration towers into my sump design, basically a protein skimmer with no cup, but one of these filters might be even more effective. The water feeding it would already have had the nitrification and de-nitrification process completed, but would have a low ORP and would have an elevated carbonic acid as my CalRx will be feeding upstream.

Dennis

 

[jda]

"Nitrate factory" is one of the most misused and misunderstood term of all time in this hobby. People somehow think that these things create nitrate out of thin air and do not seem to know that the nitrate was going to be produced one way or another in one place or another once the ammonia was made. SOMETHING has to make the nitrate.

...a bad example of people just parroting a term that they heard or read without knowing what they are regurgitating. I posted on the first page of a recent bio ball thread and not only did people not read it, but a handful of others posted about "nitrate factories" in the wrong way still.

This is right up there with:

• Sand beds are time bombs - would take me pages to explain why this is so stupid
• Photons are Photons - like anybody on this board understands quantum mechanics and infinity enough to know what they are talking about.... and those that do understand would never say this
• X inches of fish per gallon - ugh
• X watts of light per gallon - again, ugh
• Softies like Dirty Water or SPS like clean water - really?
• Corals in our tanks come from the ocean where only blue light penetrates - Really, 150-200 meters is where we got our coral from?

/rant

 

[jda]

Hmm, one of these filters should be very efficient at off gassing the water flowing through it, right?

Yes, but tank pH is still going to be dependent on the co2 concentration of the surrounding air. However, the exchange should be as efficient as anything else. It won't do magic and raise pH in a closed up home/shop where airborne co2 is high. PM me (or read the attached paper in my signature) if you are having low pH problems because of a CaRx - a well-tuned CaRx without any wasted co2 should barely mover your tank pH at all.

 

[Miller535]

@Lasse , I always love your ideas and write ups. You always are "out of the box" of what seems most others are doing here. I like this idea and am going to think about it. The only down side I can see (and it's minor in my opinion) is that I think it would causer faster evaporation of water and require more top off.

 

[Lasse]

@Lasse , I always love your ideas and write ups. You always are "out of the box" of what seems most others are doing here. I like this idea and am going to think about it. The only down side I can see (and it's minor in my opinion) is that I think it would causer faster evaporation of water and require more top off.

You are right - this is a disadvantage - I will edit my first post and take with that.

There is another process that can be important too - the tower will act as an heat exchanger too - it can be both a advantage/disadvantage depended of temperature difference between the aquarium and the air used in the tower

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

"Nitrate factory" is one of the most misused and misunderstood term of all time in this hobby. People somehow think that these things create nitrate out of thin air and do not seem to know that the nitrate was going to be produced one way or another in one place or another once the ammonia was made. SOMETHING has to make the nitrate.

...a bad example of people just parroting a term that they heard or read without knowing what they are regurgitating. I posted on the first page of a recent bio ball thread and not only did people not read it, but a handful of others posted about "nitrate factories" in the wrong way still.

This is right up there with:

• Sand beds are time bombs - would take me pages to explain why this is so stupid
• Photons are Photons - like anybody on this board understands quantum mechanics and infinity enough to know what they are talking about.... and those that do understand would never say this
• X inches of fish per gallon - ugh
• X watts of light per gallon - again, ugh
• Softies like Dirty Water or SPS like clean water - really?
• Corals in our tanks come from the ocean where only blue light penetrates - Really, 150-200 meters is where we got our coral from?

/rant

Please don't get hung up on semantics, whether or not nitrate factory was used correctly, it still begs the question, how do you prevent the build up of organic waste, that if not removed properly becomes a big source of N and P?

It has nothing to do with parroting and regurgitating information, it is asking a logical question and instead of dissecting the correct use of terms or adding your personal pet peeves in an attempt to create side bar conversation, we can ignore semantics and the opportunity to discuss molecular and quantum physics and keep to the script.

This is a very interesting subject that I admit I don't know much about, but would like to wrap my mind around it in an environment where individuals can control the need to stand on their soap box and preach.

In my mind, the question was still valid, and Lasse did a good job helping me better understand the process. To me the biggest issue is getting the high flow required to maintain that thin film on the filter media surface.

 

[jda]

Good. Now you know the correct way to help people moving forward without using terms that are unhelpful and represent things the wrong way to people who also do not know. I think that we can all agree that not perpetuating a falsehood is a good thing.

Don't you think that it also is a good thing that the term "nitrate factory" is not inaccurately applied to this device should somebody decide to pursue it?

BTW - semantics matter a lot. The details are where most of the important things happen in reef tanks. If you have ever used anything like this before, the impeller in the high pressure pump also plays a big role in the lack of buildup - it is like a food processor turning larger particles into smaller ones. Again, semantics, but the impeller and pump is also a reason for lack of buildup, not just the washing of the surface areas.

Also, BTW - as long as we are into semantics, Dr. Holmes-Farley has opined many times that most P is excreted in fish urine with feces having only a trace amount. ...so build up of some organic waste is not a contributor to P levels in a tank. Does this matter? ...maybe and maybe not, but it could to somebody and the difference is worth noting for those who are doing something with it.

Lastly, if organic waste has made it this far, it does not matter if it rots in the media, gets chopped up into smaller pieces or just completely devoured by bacteria and microfauna whole, it is going to enter the N cycle in any instance.

 

[Cory]

All i can add here is i find it interesting that bioball trickle filter are efficient at ammonia reduction, and ats filters on a screen grow algae better than in a tank.

 

[Lasse]

The detritus that we talk about consist of two different types of matter. Organic matter and inorganic matter (minerals)

The organic detritus are partly poop, dead animals, plants and algae - but most of all - heterotrophic bacteria film. This bacteria break down the organic detritus into inorganic detritus (minerals), carbon dioxide, inorganic nutrients like NH3/NH4 and PO4. The inorganic detritus (minerals) is of no biological concern - its not any load into the system. However if you stir sand containing much mineral detritus - it look like very dirty sand.

NH3/NH4 and PO4 will be consumed by photosynthetic organisms - including the zooxanthellae in many corals. NH3/NH4 will also be converted into NO3 by the nitrification process but this can also be used by algae (macro, micro and zooxanthellae) However many micro algae lack the type of enzymes that´s necessary in order to use NO3 as nitrogen source. They need to use NH3/NH4 instead and a high nitrification rate and use of Macroalgae can probably hinder a breakout of microalgae. This is well known among freshwater aquarist that run planted tanks.

My present tank have been run for more than 4 years now and have a high biological turnover. During these four years - it has not been cleaned in any way, no mechanical filters, no filter socks but a lot of sand including a reverse flow remote deep sand bed and many different organisms that eat detritus like sea cucumbers. The last three years have been without any water changes. I have 40 + fish and lot of other organisms in the tank.

Here is a video of my tank


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Epic Aquaculture]

Good. Now you know the correct way to help people moving forward without using terms that are unhelpful and represent things the wrong way to people who also do not know. I think that we can all agree that not perpetuating a falsehood is a good thing.

Don't you think that it also is a good thing that the term "nitrate factory" is not inaccurately applied to this device should somebody decide to pursue it?

BTW - semantics matter a lot. The details are where most of the important things happen in reef tanks. If you have ever used anything like this before, the impeller in the high pressure pump also plays a big role in the lack of buildup - it is like a food processor turning larger particles into smaller ones. Again, semantics, but the impeller and pump is also a reason for lack of buildup, not just the washing of the surface areas.

Also, BTW - as long as we are into semantics, Dr. Holmes-Farley has opined many times that most P is excreted in fish urine with feces having only a trace amount. ...so build up of some organic waste is not a contributor to P levels in a tank. Does this matter? ...maybe and maybe not, but it could to somebody and the difference is worth noting for those who are doing something with it.

Lastly, if organic waste has made it this far, it does not matter if it rots in the media, gets chopped up into smaller pieces or just completely devoured by bacteria and microfauna whole, it is going to enter the N cycle in any instance.

Wow, you clearly don't know Jimmy (Sisterlimonpot). While he may have used a common term that is a misnomer, your rude reply is not helpful to the conversation at all. Semantics are not details. Details matter, semantics, not so much.

Semantics:
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

• the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
  plural noun: semantics
  "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

Details:
an individual feature, fact, or item.
"we shall consider every detail of the Bill"

• a minor or less significant item or feature.
  "he didn't want them to get sidetracked on a detail of policy"
  

@Lasse I apologize for sidetracking but JDA's response was inappropriate at best...

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Good. Now you know the correct way to help people moving forward without using terms that are unhelpful and represent things the wrong way to people who also do not know. I think that we can all agree that not perpetuating a falsehood is a good thing.

I appreciate the lesson, I will catalog it for future reference. I'm glad you mention how correct terms matter. One term that always seemed sit wrong with me is "trick light corals". You seem like a well read person, and should grasp the concept of hypocrisy. There seems to be ample evidence to the contrary that antiquated MH are superior to LEDs. In fact it's widely accepted that LED's promote better coloration over MH. Despite the efforts of a handful of people that keep trying to promote "the old ways" and holding onto the past. Technology spurred by innovative minds is always going to keep pressing forward and coming up with better concepts and ideas. The term "trick light corals" suggest that there's some sort of sorcery going on to achieve unachievable color. When in fact LED's prove to be a better way to color up corals.

For anecdotal evidence here is JF homewrecker grown under radion LED's and picture taken under incandescent kitchen lights.... No light trickery going on here...

I suggest you tone down the high and mighty attitude and fight real hard to bite your tongue when you feel the need to correct someone.

 

[Epic Aquaculture]

I appreciate the lesson, I will catalog it for future reference. I'm glad you mention how correct terms matter. One term that always seemed sit wrong with me is "trick light corals". You seem like a well read person, and should grasp the concept of hypocrisy. There seems to be ample evidence to the contrary that antiquated MH are superior to LEDs. In fact it's widely accepted that LED's promote better coloration over MH. Despite the efforts of a handful of people that keep trying to promote "the old ways" and holding onto the past. Technology spurred by innovative minds is always going to keep pressing forward and coming up with better concepts and ideas. The term "trick light corals" suggest that there's some sort of sorcery going on to achieve unachievable color. When in fact LED's prove to be a better way to color up corals.

For anecdotal evidence here is JF homewrecker grown under radion LED's and picture taken under incandescent kitchen lights.... No light trickery going on here...

I suggest you tone down the high and mighty attitude and fight real hard to bite your tongue when you feel the need to correct someone.

 

[jda]

Forgive me. I always thought that the means of words mattered, or else why would we use them? Perhaps I am behind the times.

Lasse did point out another really good thing that most will miss... that most microalgae/dinos cannot use no3 very well and need/prefer to get their nitrogen from Ammonia and Ammonium. This might not seem like it has anything to do with a nitrification filter on the surface, it does if you indeed convert that nh3/nh4 too efficiently with a huge version of this filter and your corals do not get as much nitrogen that they otherwise might want. This could be good or bad, especially if you are fighting a micro algae bloom of some sort elsewhere in your tank. This also leads to another semantic detailed misnomer that people are "feeding" their corals by dosing no3, which truly has nothing to do with an aerobic filter in this thread.

 

[Lasse]

@Lasse I apologize for sidetracking but JDA's response was inappropriate at best...

You are forgiven

There is two ways of having a discussion - attacks and explanations - I prefer the second type Not that I can´t attack if iy is necessary - ask my wife and children if you doubt that - but as a roule - I prefer to try to explain and give the basic knowledge, experiences or whatever behind my position. I can have wrong but in that case its open up for a discussion where new or for me unknown knowledge can make me change position. I want to be rid of the ammonium spikes (small but they are there for sure) that my type of feeding cause as fast as possible - however I dose ammonia for the moment in order to even out the process. I´m with @jda that the term "nitrate factories" is misused for biofilters - the nitrification process is a "nitrate factory" wherever its happens - what´s we do with a good nitrification filter is only to give it an own special designed room in the big factory. This means not that I like the way he express that - it was a little bit rude IMO.

Let us skip semantic and other disasters and concentrate on the issue.

that if not removed properly becomes a big source of N and P?

It is true that the bacterial breakdown of organic waste (or rather dead organic detritus (matter)) release inorganic N and P (as NH3/NH4 and PO4) But the total input during time is decided of the amount of food (and in some degree input of living organisms that die in the aquarium) that will be added into the aquarium during a certain timespan. The organic waste consists of uneaten food, animal poop, ded organism and bacteria.

IMO - there is two major pathways among reefers to handle this fact.

1) Clean, clean,clean, bare bottom, clean,clean, filter socks, clean, clean, "micro" bubbling (float flocking), take out all sand and stones periodically and rinse with peroxide (popular among pico tanks owners), clean, clean.

2) create micro production and food loops at as many levels as possible. This was the major thoughts in the Berlin method with use of "living" rocks imported thousands off organisms in different topic levels. The aim with this is to create a total use and total conversion of imputed nutrients with external food input into biomass of different forms. Letr the leftover nutrients grow different types of algae, let algae eating creatures graze on these algae (including fishes). As an example - if you have a lot of tangs - cut down on the externa feeding and they will turn to grazing on algae that have grown because of your unused nutrients from the external foodsource. A aquarium which have a dense population of photosynthetic corals will alsu use leftover inorganic nutrients in the water. A refugium is also a good idea in such a system with possibility of harvest of macroalgae. Algae scrubbers too. The organic detritus and the bacterial mineralization of it will be a continuous resource for the "sub" life of organisms that´s not are fish. In my system - the 5 clams have a critical role as filtrators and there is lot of fungus in the aquarium too.

I probably not need to mention which pathway I prefer

Sincerely Lasse

 

[eleslie3]

The detritus that we talk about consist of two different types of matter. Organic matter and inorganic matter (minerals)

The organic detritus are partly poop, dead animals, plants and algae - but most of all - heterotrophic bacteria film. This bacteria break down the organic detritus into inorganic detritus (minerals), carbon dioxide, inorganic nutrients like NH3/NH4 and PO4. The inorganic detritus (minerals) is of no biological concern - its not any load into the system. However if you stir sand containing much mineral detritus - it look like very dirty sand.

NH3/NH4 and PO4 will be consumed by photosynthetic organisms - including the zooxanthellae in many corals. NH3/NH4 will also be converted into NO3 by the nitrification process but this can also be used by algae (macro, micro and zooxanthellae) However many micro algae lack the type of enzymes that´s necessary in order to use NO3 as nitrogen source. They need to use NH3/NH4 instead and a high nitrification rate and use of Macroalgae can probably hinder a breakout of microalgae. This is well known among freshwater aquarist that run planted tanks.

My present tank have been run for more than 4 years now and have a high biological turnover. During these four years - it has not been cleaned in any way, no mechanical filters, no filter socks but a lot of sand including a reverse flow remote deep sand bed and many different organisms that eat detritus like sea cucumbers. The last three years have been without any water changes. I have 40 + fish and lot of other organisms in the tank.

Here is a video of my tank


Sincerely Lasse

Lasse - that is a beautiful tank!