Lasses Dream Build

[Lasse]

I see the pump side piping on the outlet side am I correct?

Correct - flow from up and down

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Now I have run my experiment for 1 day without adding any etanol to my filter, My PO4 - still at 0.22 mg/L but the growth of bacteria is lesser

​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Todays update PO4 = 0,23 mg/L

​

Filter - 2 days

Sincerely Lasse

​

 

[Lasse]

A comparison with 1 ml vodka a day and no vodka. Maybe its not as large visual differences between this two runs but what is different is that the flow in the first run had decreased a lot after 4 days but not as large decrease in the control run- Its still a decent flow in the control run after 6 days but I had to quit the 1 ml run after 4 days because of nearly no flow- The las picture in the control run is from the evening of 28/5 - all the others - in the morning each day

I´ll comeback with the PO4 concentration after this days test later on

Sincerely Lasse

 

[That Crusso Kid]

A comparison with 1 ml vodka a day and no vodka. Maybe its not as large visual differences between this two runs but what is different is that the flow in the first run had decreased a lot after 4 days but not as large decrease in the control run- Its still a decent flow in the control run after 6 days but I had to quit the 1 ml run after 4 days because of nearly no flow- The las picture in the control run is from the evening of 28/5 - all the others - in the morning each day

I´ll comeback with the PO4 concentration after this days test later on

Sincerely Lasse

I'm curious. Are you weighing the filter floss before adding it to the reactor?

 

[Lasse]

Phosphate rather stable during this time . Between green arrows - no vodka

Flow rate after 6 days

​

No - I can´t figure that out - how to do it and get only the weight of the bacteria. Maybe to take the dry weight of the floss and when I change it - dry the floss in the oven for 24 hours and take new weight but I must be sure - not to get the weight of the water in the calculations. I have a sensitive scale - 0.01 gr. in this case - I maybe can get the dry weight of the bacteria. However - the risk for a miscalculation is huge- for now - no independed method to qualify the method.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Another experiment I have run during this spring is to figure out how my total system works according pH and indirectly - how CO2 increase and decrease in my aquarium.

I configure my skimmer to go down to 10% when the pH goes above 8.50 (don't focus on the number - that's where my pH meter says I am - no idea if that's true or not, but the important thing in this experiment is to see how the pH changes due to the presence of CO2 in my aquarium). I also use a CO2 trap and outside air. The reason why I want it to stop at pH 8.5 is because IMO - its better that the photosynthesis has some CO2 to work with compared to if the skimmer work 100 % and compete with the corals about the CO2. Of cause you could use 8.4 as switch point, hence more CO2 to the corals (read zooxanthellae)

Things I found

The skimmer is important for me in order to transport out CO2 during non light period. Its about 0.1-0.2 pH units - if the CO2 scrubber works as it should. If it is exhausted - pH dropp fast during night - see the arrows

When the skimmer go down to 10 % around 8.50 - CO2 in the room and internal CO2 production is enough to have it stable around 8.5 if the CO2 scrubber works 100 % Light red square - CO2 media is not working Red arrows - change of CO2 media

the black staples shows time the skimmer is at 100 % - no black marking - skimmer 10%. GHL has a type of PID regulator you can use around a nominal value. When the read value approach the nominal value - the switch is on for shorter and shorter time. The switch is the one I use in the intelligent pump program - every time its on - the pump run 100 % - standard 10 %. I love I can do things like this without coding

I have run this for 2 - 3 months now and will go down to 8.40 as wanted pH from today. I have been steady in Ca and alk consumption during this time.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Today PO4 - 0.21 mg/L

I WAN´T it to be a thicker bacteria film and lesser flow - but honestly - I do not really know if it is thicker or not

​

Sincerely Lasse

​

 

[Lasse]

Late report from yesterday. PO4 has stabilized around 0.21.

Yesterday - I took 2 readings - early morning and late evening after the last feed.

It still a good flow and the bacteria is growing - this time I will not change any of the wadding before the flow gets very low.

​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Today measurements - PO4 - 0.23 mg/L

Filter flow

​

Bacteria growth

​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Today 10:00 O´clock - PO4 0 0.23 mg/L

Filter and flow

​

This filter has run for 10 days now and with no addition of Vodka day 1-5 and with 1 ml/day the rest of the time. The phosphate has been 0.22 ±0.01 mg/L most of the days since may 21. One exception - may 27. The methods accuracy is ± 0.02 mg/L

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Today - 0.18 mg/L

Filter

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

And todays measurements - 0.25 mg/L

​

Roller coaster but still decent flow

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Up in the plains - 0.24 mg/L today

​

Sincerely Lasse

​

 

[Lasse]

Todays measurements 0.21 mg/L - Yesterday 0.27 mg/L Yellow arrow = stop vodka, pink = start 2ml/day, green 1 ml/day again and red start 2 ml/day

​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

This Tuesday - I sent a ICP-MS analyse to Oceamo. Every time I do that - I also take my own measurements. Of some reason I had a rise in both PO4 and NO3 on Tuesday. The flow through the filter was low too. I took both a NH3/NH4 and NO2 test and they was very low - zero and 0.026 mg/L. It will be interesting to see the result from Oceamo.

PO4 was "normal" today but NO3 had rise a little from yesterday result but the reason is probably that my vodka dosing below the DSB had stopped (my own fault) - its working now

​

This time I have got filamentous bacteria in the filter - red arrowes

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

New PO4 today 0.21 mg/L and I clean the reactor, change the GFO and fluss

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Not updated for a while. I have stopped to dose ethanol into the intake of the reactor - still measure every day I´m home

PO4 as it is now

Still have problem with my Hanna reader.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

As you have seen, I have been doing a lot of PO4 measurements lately and have become more and more irritated by the jumping values day by day - here are the last few weeks

I decided to see if there was a solution to this problem - whether it was me, poor quality of the reagents - the meter or whatever. The last two years my measurements from OCEAMO and Hanna have also shown a big difference. The OCEAMO ICP-MS kit includes a preservation solution for the phosphorus sample which makes their measurements using the photo-spectrometer very reliable and can therefore be used as standard.

​

This means - I have two problems precision and trueness - above you see with how many percent my measurements deviates from OCEAMOS the last 7 measurements in my aquarium. I leave the trueness for the moment because there can be something that interferes with the methods that hobby equipment uses - I just need to find a way of having better precision in my measurements for the moment. I have tested my measurement methods but this spread just continues - it could be that my values vary by up to 0.1 mg/L on a daily basis - but I don't think so - I have taken samples at the same times - different times - and the results still look like they came from a shotgun

Today I did 6 test on the same water (in a 3 dl can) from my aquaria and Hanna give me these results
0.17, 0.14, 0.21,0.2, 0.17 and 0.18. I use Google AI to do the statistical analyses and they come out like this

A mean of 17.8, a standard deviation of 0.02483, and a coefficient of variation (CV) of 13.92%

It is 95% certain that the true mean is between 0.15 and 0.20 mg/L -

I then took 9 readings with Salifert's reagent - shake gently for 60 sec and wait for 3 minutes and got the following series 0.5 0.47 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.47 0.51. Mean 0.47 standard deviation 0. 02863 and CV 6.12%. The variation was half!

The 95% Confidence Interval say that the true mean lies around 0.45 to 0.49


If we use factor 3, my average value will be about 0.157 and with 95% certainty the true value between 0.15 and 0.163 mg/L - significantly better. But if we now - for my equipment - say that Hanna's average value is the benchmark (0.178 mg/L), then my personal coefficient will not be 3 but 2.64. Then Salifert would correspond to an average value of 0.178 but within the interval 10.171 to 0.185 - a significantly smaller range compared to Hanna's original reagent and below their accuracy.

Will come back when I get my hands on a Tropic Marine PO4 pro set

SciReef on Instagram: "A lot of you had questions about the PO₄ test setup from our last video, so here's a more detailed explanation. 👇 Instead of the Hanna powder reagents, we use the Tropic Marin PO₄ Pro test together with the Hanna vials and pho

359 likes, 90 comments - scireef on June 26, 2026: "A lot of you had questions about the PO₄ test setup from our last video, so here's a more detailed explanation. 👇 Instead of the Hanna powder reagents, we use the Tropic Marin PO₄ Pro test together with the Hanna vials and photometer. Our...

www.instagram.com

Not - I´m not a statistician - I use Google AI in order to calculate SD, CV and 95% confidence Interval - it could be wrong

It seems like the Salifert reagent act more like a riffle - not a shotgun like the Hanna reagent does

MVH Lasse

 

[areefer01]

As you have seen, I have been doing a lot of PO4 measurements lately and have become more and more irritated by the jumping values day by day - here are the last few weeks

I decided to see if there was a solution to this problem - whether it was me, poor quality of the reagents - the meter or whatever. The last two years my measurements from OCEAMO and Hanna have also shown a big difference. The OCEAMO ICP-MS kit includes a preservation solution for the phosphorus sample which makes their measurements using the photo-spectrometer very reliable and can therefore be used as standard.

​

This means - I have two problems precision and trueness - above you see with how many percent my measurements deviates from OCEAMOS the last 7 measurements in my aquarium. I leave the trueness for the moment because there can be something that interferes with the methods that hobby equipment uses - I just need to find a way of having better precision in my measurements for the moment. I have tested my measurement methods but this spread just continues - it could be that my values vary by up to 0.1 mg/L on a daily basis - but I don't think so - I have taken samples at the same times - different times - and the results still look like they came from a shotgun

Today I did 6 test on the same water (in a 3 dl can) from my aquaria and Hanna give me these results
0.17, 0.14, 0.21,0.2, 0.17 and 0.18. I use Google AI to do the statistical analyses and they come out like this

A mean of 17.8, a standard deviation of 0.02483, and a coefficient of variation (CV) of 13.92%

It is 95% certain that the true mean is between 0.15 and 0.20 mg/L - a smuch larger deviation than what Hanna states ±0.02 mg/L

I then took 9 readings with Salifert's reagent - shake gently for 60 sec and wait for 3 minutes and got the following series 0.5 0.47 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.47 0.51. Mean 0.47 standard deviation 0. 02863 and CV 6.12%. The variation was half!

The 95% Confidence Interval say that the true mean lies around 0.45 to 0.49 - within Hanna's margin of error ±0.02 mg/L


If we use factor 3, my average value will be about 0.157 and with 95% certainty the true value between 0.15 and 0.163 mg/L - significantly better. But if we now - for my equipment - say that Hanna's average value is the benchmark (0.178 mg/L), then my personal coefficient will not be 3 but 2.64. Then Salifert would correspond to an average value of 0.178 but within the interval 10.171 to 0.185 - a significantly smaller range compared to Hanna's original reagent and below their accuracy.Will come back when I get my hands on a Tropic Marine set

Not - I´m not a statistician - I use Google AI in order to calculate SC, CV and 95% confidence Interval - it could be wrong

It seems like the Salifert reagent act more like a riffle - not a shotgun like the Hanna reagent does

MVH Lasse

I am using Hanna's 713 phosphate checker and compared to their Nitrate I get more consistent results. Granted I am only doing a series of 4 tests.

Are you using the same test cuvette and cap? I ran into a issue with their Nitrate kit with test results all over the place. Once I used the same test cuvette and cap the numbers became consistent.

	Phosphate (Hanna HI713)
test 1	0.32
test 2	0.33
test 3	0.32
test 4	0.32
avg	0.32