Best method for removing nitrates and phosphates?

[Bruce Burnett]

Skimmer will remove suspended particles and dissolved organic proteins. It exports foods, detritus and bacteria. So it can remove food and waste before being converted and bacteria will also get exported so more can grow and keep consuming your nitrates and phosphates.

 

[atoll]

How do you guage "best"?
Personally, I have tried most and then to convert them and all have worked. However IMO why rely on chemicals and medias to remove nitrate and phosphates when you can grow the very thing that feed on them can be grown not in your DT but separately? I convert mine to GHA in my ATS, what could be better than a natural way to reduce nitrate and phosphate? If you have an answer let me know.

 

[FishM8]

I use a protein skimmer, sulfur denitrator and GFO reactor.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I convert mine to GHA in my ATS, what could be better than a natural way to reduce nitrate and phosphate? If you have an answer let me know.

I'm always a bit surprised when ATS proponents tout how natural their system is relative to other systems.

Focusing on just the natural aspects, rather than how they function in a reef tank, organic carbon dosing is simply driving a totally natural process that is hugely important in the ocean.

here's a quote from a scientific paper:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00166816

"It is now well known that heterotrophic bacteria account for a large portion of total uptake of both phosphate (60% median) and ammonium (30% median) in freshwaters and marine environments. "

and

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-0387-0_14

"Recently developed methods for measuring production rates of heterotrophic bacteria have shown that the bacterioplankton is a major route for the flux of material and energy in marine ecosystems (Hagström et al., 1979; Fuhrman and Azam, 1980, 1982; Williams, 1981). Even conservative estimates (Fuhrman and Azam, 1980, 1982) show that the measured bacterial productivity corresponds to 10–50% of the primary productivity."

So whether one adds light to grow algae, or adds a natural carbon source to grow bacteria, both processes are natural and important in the ocean.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I recommend & use an Algae Turf Scrubber. I use to use a sulfur reactor to remove my NO3 but I still had high PO3 so I purchased a ATS from Turbo's Aquatics which it removes both NO3 & PO3 and its believed to feed your corals as well. Here is my thread on my ATS.

I thought a skimmer doesn't pull out NO3 or PO3. I personally don't run a skimmer but I like to run ozone so I may have to put a skimmer back on my tank until I get a O3 Reactor.

You are correct that a skimmer does not remove phospathe or nitrate directly, but as mentioned above by others, it removes organics before beign broken down into those.

But on the ozone vs skimmer issue, the two need not be related. A skimmer is just one way to use ozone. An ozone reactor is another. I ran ozone for years in an ozone reactor that was not part of a skimmer. I've used both DIY and commercial ones.

 

[Wiz]

Gfo reactors work well for phos. But I love natural methods. I use a dsb/macro fuge that's 3/4 the size of my display. Disconnected the reactors months ago. Nitrate and phos are undetectable and I'm way overstocked and I feed often. If I did not have my refugium I think a turf scrubber would be next. Same natural method but uglier. Space saving is great though.

 

[Bruce Burnett]

I do not feel there is a best way only many good ways. The saying every tank is different even the same tank moved to a new location or home is no longer the same. Lighting and room temperature can vary even celing height can change light reflection and evaporation.
@ Randy Holmes-Farley ozone is so different as it is oxidative does not absorb like GFO or gac, can be deadly to everything in tank if overdosed. I have used before and there are many proponents for it. I have thought about using ozone again and discontinuing using gac full time. I am always looking for ways to lower on going expenses on my 300 gallon system.
Good carbon, gfo and pellets, 2 part calcium/alkalinity are costly. Kalk and vinegar are cheap but that becomes a daily duty. Good skimmer, calcium reactor, ozone, even pellet reactor once you get past the cost of purchase they require minimal work and on going cost.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@ Randy Holmes-Farley ozone is so different as it is oxidative does not absorb like GFO or gac, can be deadly to everything in tank if overdosed. I have used before and there are many proponents for it. I have thought about using ozone again and discontinuing using gac full time. I am always looking for ways to lower on going expenses on my 300 gallon system.
.

FWIW, I do not believe that ozone does anything particularly useful in terms of nutrients.

It is good for reducing the yellowing of the water, and possibly reducing organic particulates in the water, but that's about all I'd recommend it for.

 

[Hans24hrs]

I use a natureef system. It is basically a carbon/phosphate dosing system that has beneficial bacteria growing in it, every 8 hours it flushes old water out and brings in new water. The reactor is about 15 gallons, so it does essentially a 15 gallon water change every 8 hours.
I like this system but feel it is best for maintaining and bit to try and correct a problem. I use this in conjunction with a refugium with multiple types of macro.

 

[Bruce Burnett]

@ Randy Holmes-Farley, if ozone helps with removing particulate organics would it not help then to control DOC? I know it helps with yellowing and light transmission. I know that carbon will reduce the yellowing and absorb doc while at the same time allowing bacteria to grow on the carbon granules. I have to ask if you are using a pellet reactor do you need the carbon for anything other than yellowing?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@ Randy Holmes-Farley, if ozone helps with removing particulate organics would it not help then to control DOC? I know it helps with yellowing and light transmission. I know that carbon will reduce the yellowing and absorb doc while at the same time allowing bacteria to grow on the carbon granules. I have to ask if you are using a pellet reactor do you need the carbon for anything other than yellowing?

I don't think it "removes" particulates. I think it may help dissolve them and make them into DOC's and/or reduce the chance the DOC's become particulate organics by making them more water soluble.

Studies show ozone does not remove DOC's. It modifies them. I discuss ozone in detail here:

Ozone and the Reef Aquarium, Part 1: Chemistry and Biochemistry by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php

Ozone and the Reef Aquarium, Part 2: Equipment and Safety by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/rhf/index.php

Ozone and the Reef Aquarium, Part 3: Changes in a Reef Aquarium upon Initiating Ozone by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/rhf/index.php

In addition to reducing yellowing, GAC will bind organics, and some of those may be toxins. Ozone may also break them apart to some extent. I do not think pellets necessarily increase the need for GAC, but it is normally useful. It may help export whole bacteria also..

 

[Bruce Burnett]

Thanks Randy for sending the links, I had read them before but it was still a good read again, if I decide to use ozone I will continue the use of my carbon reactor. Actually the coil of tubing is also done with spas to give the longer contact time.

 

[Hans24hrs]

Great info on here. I feel like I am back in science class some times lol

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Great info on here. I feel like I am back in science class some times lol

Perfect. That's the goal of the Reef Chemistry Forum!

 

[revhtree]

If you need to know then here you go!