I have a 30 gallon reef tank that is pretty heavily stocked with 2 clowns, royal gramma, cardinal, flame angel, and a goby. Until I installed my sump/refugium and skimmer my nitrates used to stay around 10-20ppm. Now that I have a sump refugium and skimmer ( rated for 100 gallons), its been a month since my last wc and my nitrates are coming up at 0 ( according to the api test kit). Refugium is stocked full of various macro algaes. Am I now going to be able to go long periods of time without a waterchange?
Nitrate Question
- Thread starter dhmx220
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 53
in terms of nutrient export yes youll be able to go awhile without doing a wc because the macro will consume nitrates and phosphates but there is also the matter of small particles of detritus that constantly will build up if you dont clean your tank and then do a wc. and also if you dont do any water changes you wont be replacing things like calcium, alk, magnesium, strontium and other things essential to coral growth and health
I would agree with Pico. I believe the tank will stay more stable with water changes. Not only will replace the things he mentioned it will also replace other trace elements that are not included in the dosing agents. In addition, I would imagine that the amount of salt and water required would cost less than the dosing agents. But that is just my opinion.
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with above, but I would get my water tested at lfs. Api test kits can be faulty at times.
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 2
I agree API kits are not the most reputable testers around. .02
Ammonium (ionized ammonia) that is excreted by fish is much more readily absorbed/metabolized by macro algae than nitrate.
If you have macro algae present in sufficient quantity, the level of both ammonium and nitrate should be held low and the algae will grow quickly.
Other means of nutrient export, such as carbon dosing, will directly compete with macro algae for the available nutrients. Due to their higher metabolism, the bacteria usually win, at the algae's expense.
I also would not trust results from API test kits, as many have found them to be unreliable and/or inaccurate.
If you have macro algae present in sufficient quantity, the level of both ammonium and nitrate should be held low and the algae will grow quickly.
Other means of nutrient export, such as carbon dosing, will directly compete with macro algae for the available nutrients. Due to their higher metabolism, the bacteria usually win, at the algae's expense.
I also would not trust results from API test kits, as many have found them to be unreliable and/or inaccurate.
- Messages
- 2,920
- Reaction score
- 0
Organic acid will accumulate over time, with out the export of dissolved solids. A skimmer can get some out(on a chemical level) but there ain't nothin like manual labor. 
Based on skimmer test results done at Penn State (albeit with a single unit of a given model of skimmer), skimmers appear to be rate limited at about 30-40% for reducing DOM (dissolved organic matter).
This may be (likely, imo) due to the chemical kinetics of any reactions occurring during the skimming process.
My theory is that once the concentration falls below a certain level, the amount of DOM available to coat the bubbles in a skimmer is too low to help sustain the micell structure.
A micell is a technical term referring to a complex interaction between a liquid and chemical that supports 'foaming'. It's the basis of detergent chemistry, among other things.
One thing is for sure, stay tuned, as I'm sure we are going to hear more about the 'science' of protein skimming
This may be (likely, imo) due to the chemical kinetics of any reactions occurring during the skimming process.
My theory is that once the concentration falls below a certain level, the amount of DOM available to coat the bubbles in a skimmer is too low to help sustain the micell structure.
A micell is a technical term referring to a complex interaction between a liquid and chemical that supports 'foaming'. It's the basis of detergent chemistry, among other things.
One thing is for sure, stay tuned, as I'm sure we are going to hear more about the 'science' of protein skimming
- Messages
- 2,920
- Reaction score
- 0
I can't wait to see what more studies will reveal about skimmers...
Wait.... What happened to the Aqua Ionizer?
Wait.... What happened to the Aqua Ionizer?
I used ionizers to help drive reactions in polymer extrusion processes for enhanced chemical and physical properties (increased crystallinity and improved formation/consistency).
I have ideas related to reef processes too. I'll have to look into that ionizer (was that the ion based denitrifying 'filter' device?)
I have ideas related to reef processes too. I'll have to look into that ionizer (was that the ion based denitrifying 'filter' device?)
- Messages
- 2,920
- Reaction score
- 0
What ideas do you have? I'd love to hear about it.
ichthyoid;829317 wrote: Based on skimmer test results done at Penn State (albeit with a single unit of a given model of skimmer), skimmers appear to be rate limited at about 30-40% for reducing DOM (dissolved organic matter).
This may be (likely, imo) due to the chemical kinetics of any reactions occurring during the skimming process.
My theory is that once the concentration falls below a certain level, the amount of DOM available to coat the bubbles in a skimmer is too low to help sustain the micell structure.
A micell is a technical term referring to a complex interaction between a liquid and chemical that supports 'foaming'. It's the basis of detergent chemistry, among other things.
One thing is for sure, stay tuned, as I'm sure we are going to hear more about the 'science' of protein skimming
While I don't have the scientific background that you do Bill, I have witnessed this on a grand scale in practical experience in my youth. While working in an underground Uranium Mine I was occasionally assigned to the Mill operation. In order to remove the unrefined form of uranium referred to as Yellow Cake, the ore was pulverized and desolated in diluted sulfuric acid. It then was agitated to create the foam which was in turn skimmed off. As the amount of soluble uranium in the solution declined the useable foam would be reduced exponentially to a point that it could no longer sustain the foaming effect. There solution? Add more ore. In our case that solution would be counter productive.
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 53
as with rich i have no scientific background so im just shooting in the dark here but i wonder if, after a skimmer had pulled out that 30-40%, adding a flocking agent such as clarity would help the skimmer pull more out of the water. since flocking causes particles to stick together (not sure if it works on dissolved matter but id think it would) it might create enough density for the skimmer to effectively pull out more DOM than it would without it.ichthyoid;829317 wrote: Based on skimmer test results done at Penn State (albeit with a single unit of a given model of skimmer), skimmers appear to be rate limited at about 30-40% for reducing DOM (dissolved organic matter).
This may be (likely, imo) due to the chemical kinetics of any reactions occurring during the skimming process.
My theory is that once the concentration falls below a certain level, the amount of DOM available to coat the bubbles in a skimmer is too low to help sustain the micell structure.
A micell is a technical term referring to a complex interaction between a liquid and chemical that supports 'foaming'. It's the basis of detergent chemistry, among other things.
One thing is for sure, stay tuned, as I'm sure we are going to hear more about the 'science' of protein skimming
- Messages
- 2,920
- Reaction score
- 0
ichthyoid;829343 wrote: I'm an old research monkey and veteran...no loose lips
Time for the water board.... GIVE ME ANSWERS! Lol. Or I'll just wait to buy the product that you create. Hurry up already.
