Donovan's Nitrate Destroyer

[djbon]

Thanks for the input subsea. I'm trying dosing another element into the reactor that a friend of mine knew should increase PO4 uptake by certain bacteria. Dissolved oxigen test will be done later.

[djbon]

Originally Posted by djbon

Thanks for the input subsea. I'm trying dosing another element into the reactor that a friend of mine knew should increase PO4 uptake by certain bacteria. Dissolved oxigen test will be done later.

I tested adding another element in my normal vodka solution and I'm seeing improvement on PO4 uptake after 2 weeks. The algae on my rocks is turning light green and no longer looks puffy. PO4 test at effluent output is undetectable. Will continue monitoring the situation. Cheers

[dartier]

Originally Posted by djbon

I tested adding another element in my normal vodka solution and I'm seeing improvement on PO4 uptake after 2 weeks. The algae on my rocks is turning light green and no longer looks puffy. PO4 test at effluent output is undetectable. Will continue monitoring the situation. Cheers

Now I am curious what the element that you added to your solution is ... perhaps Iron Citrate?

Also phosphorus accumulating bacteria tend to lag behind the growth of denitrifying bacteria, so you may want to take this into consideration before concluding the observed effect on PO4 is as a result of the change to your carbon source.

Dennis

[djbon]

Thanks Dennis. I will try the element you have suggested at my LFS. I just setup the same denitrator design at slightly bigger scale at his shop. Thanks again.

[Dactylopterus]

What is that element you added to help with the po4 reduction?

[djbon]

Originally Posted by Dactylopterus

What is that element you added to help with the po4 reduction?

Sorry, can't reveal the ingredient as Subsea had mentioned, i could be a millionaire if the design works as phosphate reactor as well . But in serious note, it too premature to claim anything at this moment. Cheers

[Subsea]

Originally Posted by dartier

Now I am curious what the element that you added to your solution is ... perhaps Iron Citrate?

Also phosphorus accumulating bacteria tend to lag behind the growth of denitrifying bacteria, so you may want to take this into consideration before concluding the observed effect on PO4 is as a result of the change to your carbon source.

Dennis

It has been twenty years since I was involved in industrial waste water treatment. To enhance phosphate uptake by bacteria, these aerobic bacteria were stressed with low oxygen. When oxygen levels were brought back up, bacteria maintained higher phosphate levels.

[dartier]

Originally Posted by Subsea

It has been twenty years since I was involved in industrial waste water treatment. To enhance phosphate uptake by bacteria, these aerobic bacteria were stressed with low oxygen. When oxygen levels were brought back up, bacteria maintained higher phosphate levels.

Hmm, this comment is interesting. Are you saying that stressing aerobic bacteria causes them to exhibit Phosphorous accumulation behaviour and become higher in phosphate composition than they would under typical conditions?

Lately I have been thinking about a statement by the DyMiCo folks about their filters being able to sequester PO4, but not actual export it, and that typical PO4 reduction methods (GFO) would still be required at some point. That the bacteria themselves would be the PO4 sink makes a lot of sense.

Dennis

[Subsea]

Originally Posted by dartier

Hmm, this comment is interesting. Are you saying that stressing aerobic bacteria causes them to exhibit Phosphorous accumulation behaviour and become higher in phosphate composition than they would under typical conditions?

Lately I have been thinking about a statement by the DyMiCo folks about their filters being able to sequester PO4, but not actual export it, and that typical PO4 reduction methods (GFO) would still be required at some point. That the bacteria themselves would be the PO4 sink makes a lot of sense.

Dennis

Yes, the bacteria are the phosphate sink. Schreiber patented the process to stress these aerobic bacteria to uptake more phosphate and become the phosphate sink. Then these bacteria are drained from cone settleling basins and sent to drying beds, after which this dry sludge is spread onto pasture land for beneficial reuse on agriculture crops.

[djbon]

I have seen several case studies saying that without oxygen available, certain anaerobic bacteria strain will use phosphate instead of nitrogen together with carbon as energy source. Some even suggested that a proper combination of ethanol, acetic acid and sugar are far more superior in combating nitrate and phosphate rather than dosing single type of carbon. Is this true?.

[dartier]

Originally Posted by Subsea

Yes, the bacteria are the phosphate sink. Schreiber patented the process to stress these aerobic bacteria to uptake more phosphate and become the phosphate sink. Then these bacteria are drained from cone settleling basins and sent to drying beds, after which this dry sludge is spread onto pasture land for beneficial reuse on agriculture crops.

Interesting concept. Sorry Donovan, I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I hope you will agree that this could have applications in your application as well. Especially if there was some way for you to control the ORP level in your tower (like an ORP probe) to be able to cycle the from a baseline oxygen level to a low oxygen state and then remove a replaceable substrate to "export" the phosphate laden bacteria.

Dennis

[djbon]

Dennis, no problem at all. I think my reactor does reached anaerobic condition as nitrate is totally absent at the effluent output. Previously dosing carbon is purely vodka, but the last few weeks I tried combination of pure ethanol, acetic acid and that currently secret element (all lab grade) diluted in distilled water. Percentage was suggested by a biologist, a good friend of mine. Phosphate is no longer detectable and algae is receding, greenish algae covering my sand is getting less as well.

[dartier]

If you are running anaerobic, than you could use Strontium Nitrate to bind the PO4, but that brings other complications related to long term use.

Dennis

[Subsea]

Interesting thread. Keep it coming.

[dartier]

I like the idea of being able to have the bacteria accumulate more PO4 than they typically would. That would improve their nutrition to the corals and at the same time being able to keep the water column more nutrient poor, at least as far as unbound nutrients that often drive nuisance pets like GHA and Cyano.

Donovan your system would most likely be a source of bacteria plankton much like the DyMiCo filters are said to do. Although with them, they recommend you not use a protein skimmer to preserve the plankton in the water column for the corals.

I often wondered how they are able to operate that way (with no export for anything other than NO3), but perhaps if they are able to keep more of the PO4 sequestered in the plankton, than the corals could be the export ... or at least a desirable (hopefully) long term nutrient sink.

Dennis

[Subsea]

Originally Posted by dartier

I like the idea of being able to have the bacteria accumulate more PO4 than they typically would. That would improve their nutrition to the corals and at the same time being able to keep the water column more nutrient poor, at least as far as unbound nutrients that often drive nuisance pets like GHA and Cyano.

Donovan your system would most likely be a source of bacteria plankton much like the DyMiCo filters are said to do. Although with them, they recommend you not use a protein skimmer to preserve the plankton in the water column for the corals.

I often wondered how they are able to operate that way (with no export for anything other than NO3), but perhaps if they are able to keep more of the PO4 sequestered in the plankton, than the corals could be the export ... or at least a desirable (hopefully) long term nutrient sink.

Dennis

Dennis,
You have described nutrient recycling perfectly. Let your nutrient sink be something desirable. When you export it, you make money.

[gregkn73]

Hi,

I run a skimerless reef, and have install a diy reactor 7lt capacity,filled with seachem denitrator =pumice small :-) , since January. The flow at the beginning was 450l/h and now reduced gradually to 150l/h, but I still can read no3 values at the reactor outlet,smaller than the DT, which is currently 5-8ppm. I wonder if the secret to your success , is the addition of carbon source in your denitrator or the use of bioballs and bio rings? Can I ask, since you would like to achieve no3 reduction through denitrification, why you use bio balls and bio rings? Also in the second chamber,why didn't you use just pumice but also crushed corals? Can you elaborately, why did you use the specific material layering?

Thanks in advance, Greg.

[djbon]

Hi Greg,

Glad to know somebody is using almost identical setup as mine. I used bio ring and bio balls in the first chamber to create aerobic zone. Rings and balls will ensure proper flow as my feed pump is small. Bacteria in very dense capacity will restrict flow as they slime quite a bit. Second chamber lowest layer of crushed corals is more to flow management as well, and the porosity will ensure more bacteria will call it home and consume more oxygen so that those living in the pumice stones will have less or maybe no oxygen for denitrifying to occur. The addition of vodka is simply to feed those bacteria, without carbon dosing the process is too slow. Longer path (hence the twin tower design) will strip oxygen along the way.

[gregkn73]

Hi Donovan, interesting your idea of layering. I thought that since denitrifying bacteria are facultative , will consume at the first layers of pumice, in my reactor, the oxygen and at the rest layers of pumice will "consume" just no3. My reactor is rectangular, 12.5*50 cm the flow is from bottom to top. In order to take the most out of it, as far as denitrification, do you thing I should do similar layering to you, or just inject some vodka, in it? Because I'm running skimmerless, I am afraid for a bacterial bloom, if any vodka, get to the DT.

[gregkn73]

Originally Posted by djbon

Hi Greg,

Glad to know somebody is using almost identical setup as mine.

I hope the discussion with you, will help me to have , similar results to you :-)

[djbon]

The problem (in my opinion) with high flow thru pumice stones as recommended by manufacturer is contact time. As you can see on my drawing, the input and output tube are on different level, about 2" to be exact. The water is not being force, instead it flow freely by gravity. The bacteria have enough time to do their job. No pressure build up in the chamber, if it clogged it will overflow at the dosing tube. Your flow rate is much higher than mine, maybe you can reduce the flow to see some improvement. Carbon dosing is essential in my design. I'm not worry about cyno outbreak as the vodka is consume internally, proper amount will ensure none come out from the outlet tube. Another important aspect for proper denitrification should be the absent of light. I can't explain the science behind it but I think it is crucial that the chamber to be totally light proof.

[gregkn73]

Originally Posted by djbon

The problem (in my opinion) with high flow thru pumice stones as recommended by manufacturer is contact time. As you can see on my drawing, the input and output tube are on different level, about 2" to be exact. The water is not being force, instead it flow freely by gravity. The bacteria have enough time to do their job. No pressure build up in the chamber, if it clogged it will overflow at the dosing tube. Your flow rate is much higher than mine, maybe you can reduce the flow to see some improvement. Carbon dosing is essential in my design. I'm not worry about cyno outbreak as the vodka is consume internally, proper amount will ensure none come out from the outlet tube. Another important aspect for proper denitrification should be the absent of light. I can't explain the science behind it but I think it is crucial that the chamber to be totally light proof.

My flow rate now is 150ml/h. I think you mention, yours is 1ml/sec=3600ml/h or my math are too bad? :-)

As far light, since I use small pumice 6-12mm, I thing that even if the outer layers get some light, most of the volume inside, will be at total darkness. Do you think that it will better to find a black Acrylic, and totally cover all the 4 sides of my reactor?

[jml1149]

Instead of using straight Vodka, why not try something like Red Sea's NoPox?

[djbon]

Greg, post #42 your flow is 150 liter per hour . Currently my effluent output is 2 ml/second or 7.2liter per hour. Such low flow will give the bacteria enough time to consume nutrients from the water. About lights, I do feel total darkness is another key contribution to my success. Let somebody with the knowledge to chime in

[djbon]

Originally Posted by jml1149

Instead of using straight Vodka, why not try something like Red Sea's NoPox?

Any carbon source or commercial bacteria food will do the job. With cost in mind, vodka will do the job without punching a hole on my wallet.