Is Marine Pure effective at reducing nitrates? We learn some valuable lessons. | BRStv Investigates

[Monkeynaut]

I add it to raise my nitrate levels. At zero I have nothing but problems so I now keep it >5ppm

Ok, I want to do this... how do you at Nitrates. Or maybe I should remove the MP.

 

[40B Knasty]

You know beach glass gets smoothed out

Gosh - I'm not claiming certainty about anything! What I said was that it "seems" more an issue of particulates. And I am certainly not disagreeing with you about the ability of glass to dissolve or the ability of alumina to dissolve at a more neutral pH or anything like that.

The point I *am* trying to make which you are choosing not to address is how do you explain the fact that a ceramic plate made of the exact same material, with the same edges and the same general shape, with less surface area, and with one quarter of the volume releases 3.5 times as much aluminum as a ceramic block? That to me "seems" an issue of particulates and not a consequence of dissolved aluminum.

Good point. The only thing I can think of which will get over looked by many. Look at Sea glass. You know how it gets smoothed out over time. Maybe the saltwater running through a smaller block being sandpapered from the salt is allowing it pass through a thinner block. Where the block being 3 or 4x as thick is actually collecting it in the core not releasing it into the tank. So the first contacts point of water is being polished heavier. The middle to end the water running through it is slowed way down and not releasing A1. Has anyone ever done a test if MP releases A1 into the water column just placed in water, not worrying about nitrates with NO flow? So we can figure out if it is a leeching or a breakdown of the MP being so brittle and the fines of it are being released into the water column.
Just throwing it at the wall and seeing if it sticks.

 

[Aquaman024]

So in regards to the spikes..... did you consider rinsing the blocks every 4-6 weeks? I had long term success when I did this with these block

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The point I *am* trying to make which you are choosing not to address is how do you explain the fact that a ceramic plate made of the exact same material, with the same edges and the same general shape, with less surface area, and with one quarter of the volume releases 3.5 times as much aluminum as a ceramic block? That to me "seems" an issue of particulates and not a consequence of dissolved aluminum.

Could be particulates, or other factors we just don't know about, or even how BRS used them. I have no idea how these materials were manufactured (and how the different shapes may differ), what their actual microscopic surface area is, how well the internal volumes access the surface external water, etc.

 

[Scott Campbell]

You know beach glass gets smoothed out

Good point. The only thing I can think of which will get over looked by many. Look at Sea glass. You know how it gets smoothed out over time. Maybe the saltwater running through a smaller block being sandpapered from the salt is allowing it pass through a thinner block. Where the block being 3 or 4x as thick is actually collecting it in the core not releasing it into the tank. So the first contacts point of water is being polished heavier. The middle to end the water running through it is slowed way down and not releasing A1. Has anyone ever done a test if MP releases A1 into the water column just placed in water, not worrying about nitrates with NO flow? So we can figure out if it is a leeching or a breakdown of the MP being so brittle and the fines of it are being released into the water column.
Just throwing it at the wall and seeing if it sticks.

Possibly. But it seems visually apparent the spheres are the least fragile and least dusty shape and the plate is the most fragile and most dusty shape. Obviously a subjective observation but many, many people have made this observation. Given that the material is exactly the same for all three shapes it seems hard to explain how the plate could leach 14 times the aluminum per volume as the block just because of the thickness. The spheres are about the same thickness as the plate and they release the least amount of aluminum. 14 times more dissolved aluminum per volume is difficult to explain. 14 times more dust seems possible.

 

[bif24701]

Ok, I want to do this... how do you at Nitrates. Or maybe I should remove the MP.

Don't remove the MP, find Spectracide Stump Remover and buy it. There is a good thread going on this and you should find it using the search feature. But you add it to water and mix them add it to your system. There is a calculator that will allow you to find the amount for you to mix in order to raise your NO3.

 

[Ryanbrs]

@Ryanbrs When you removed the Marinepure from the BRS160 what steps were followed? Was bacteria dosed? a water change? How did you make up for the loss in bacteria heavy media.

Are you worried about the Reef Rock 2.0 not having the ability to harbor denitrifying bacteria? Or do you plan on the Zeo system picking up the slack.

I don't remember the exact timeline but it was pretty early on and we just took it out. Looking at it now, between the sand, zeovit, rock 2.0 and cheato/fuge I just don't think ammonia is going to be a real issue. If there was a spike then it would have shown up on the seneye.

 

[Roggio]

Don't remove the MP, find Spectracide Stump Remover and buy it. There is a good thread going on this and you should find it using the search feature. But you add it to water and mix them add it to your system. There is a calculator that will allow you to find the amount for you to mix in order to raise your NO3.

And I thought I was an outlier. How do people come up with this stuff?

 

[GoVols]

This is my experience with made made bio- media.
I control my nitrates and phos. with a reasonable fish bio-load.
GFO - reactor
Purigen - reactor that works with my skimmer to capture organics before they hit the nitrogen cycle.
Purigen does nothing for nitrates that are already in the water column.
And 18% weekly water changes.
Also, I loath carbon dosing.

So, I wanted to test Seacheam's matrix and double check that the Purigen reactor was playing a factor.
So I filled the 22" tall Purigen reactor to the hilt with Seachem Matrix. Ran it at 20 gallons per hour for 8 weeks.
It could not produce the bacteria that gases off nitrates so it was spewing nitrates back in the water column.
Just like Randy's point #5.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/8/chemistry

So, I yanked the man made bio-media. Put back in the Purigen and let the live rock take care of the rest and it showed that the Purigen reactor was playing a good roll as one piece to my reefs puzzle.

We had a very long and good thread on Randy's forum at the first of the year. The only one poster that was gassing off nitrates with the Marine Pure blocks was also dosing bacteria too.

I just do not feel that anything is better than letting live rock do it's job.

Regards, GoVols

 

[CenlaReefer]

All that said I still think they provide a lot more surface area to someone who has limited space. If I had to do it again I'd store them in a container with used water change water and cure them. Swap the water out weekly. I'm thinking 6 months to cure to safe levels.

I am very interested if testing could be done to prove if this works.

 

[Scott.h]

I am very interested if testing could be done to prove if this works.

Levels are coming down, but I'll know for sure soon which way it goes. Hopefully it levels out now. Last week was my last water change. I'm on board full triton now, so if levels continue to rise I'll have to pull them. I really hope I don't have to, as now my tank is very stable and probably dependent on them to a point. 41 high end frags, I really don't want to risk it. I'll know more next month with my next test. Speaking of which.. @Ryanbrs you guys get that stuff unboxed yet?? Get that T stuff listed will ya!

 

[40B Knasty]

Possibly. But it seems visually apparent the spheres are the least fragile and least dusty shape and the plate is the most fragile and most dusty shape. Obviously a subjective observation but many, many people have made this observation. Given that the material is exactly the same for all three shapes it seems hard to explain how the plate could leach 14 times the aluminum per volume as the block just because of the thickness. The spheres are about the same thickness as the plate and they release the least amount of aluminum. 14 times more dissolved aluminum per volume is difficult to explain. 14 times more dust seems possible.

This would kind of conclude my theory, because there is more space between the spheres to pass water around the spheres due to shape/ aerodynamics vs the plate & block. Where water has only but one choice and that is to pass through the plate or block. Making what passes by less abrasive to what is initially passing through the Spheres. Water when given the chance will find its best way around the spheres especially if the amount of water mass is built up in a slower movement inside the spheres as it passes by making spheres maybe less effective, but probably not by much.

 

[Scott Campbell]

This would kind of conclude my theory, because there is more space between the spheres to pass water around the spheres due to shape/ aerodynamics vs the plate & block. Where water has only but one choice and that is to pass through the plate or block. Making what passes by less abrasive to what is initially passing through the Spheres. Water when given the chance will find its best way around the spheres especially if the amount of water mass is built up in a slower movement inside the spheres as it passes by making spheres maybe less effective, but probably not by much.

I can accept your theory that the shape of a plate allows slightly more alumina to dissolve than a block or a group of spheres. But 14 times more by volume? It is the same material.

Added aluminum in the form of alumina-silicate dust seems the most plausible explanation to me for the huge difference between the plate and block results in the BRS test. You can see the dust when you open the plate box. Again, not saying there isn't toxic aluminum being released into the water by all these shapes. The media is very soft and clearly fired at a low temperature well below vitrification - which would make it much easier for alumina to dissolve. But alumina in a plate is simply not going to dissolve at 14 times the rate of alumina in a block. Something else is driving that plate result. And if particulates are the difference between the plate and the block, then it is plausible some of the block and sphere aluminum showing up on the Triton test is particulate alumina as well.

 

[dangros]

Lets just assume the blocks jack up the aluminum to detrimental amounts. Are there any filters or treatments which allow us to remove the Al from the water?

 

[40B Knasty]

Lets just assume the blocks jack up the aluminum to detrimental amounts. Are there any filters or treatments which allow us to remove the Al from the water?

I don't know, but it screams to the market for another reactor to add to the collection ;Smuggrin
Who is up for making a name for it and building it? Al is what we can call the reactor and ADR (aluminum dissolving resin). IT HAS TO BE REEF SAFE!

 

[A sea K]

Why are you attempting to raise NO3?

How and why do you dose potassium nitrate. I am seeing issues with coral bleaching and tissue loss. I also have NO3 readings of zero

Have been finding much information on the benefits of dosing nitrate to enhance coal health in aquariums that are deficient in nitrate. My corals had gotten quite pale and have fairly slow growth so I thought I would give it a shot. The improvement is almost immediate, at least for color and it is a bit too early to tell on the growth. Although my nitrate is still undetectable it has absolutely made a difference.

Don't remove the MP, find Spectracide Stump Remover and buy it. There is a good thread going on this and you should find it using the search feature. But you add it to water and mix them add it to your system. There is a calculator that will allow you to find the amount for you to mix in order to raise your NO3.

Here is another source of potassium nitrate and other fertilizers. http://www.aquariumfertilizer.com/index.asp?Option1=cats&Edit=5&EditU=1&Regit=5
And a calculator to help you work up a dose amount tailored to your needs. http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/calculator.htm

 

[jason2459]

Gosh - I'm not claiming certainty about anything! What I said was that it "seems" more an issue of particulates. And I am certainly not disagreeing with you about the ability of glass to dissolve or the ability of alumina to dissolve at a more neutral pH or anything like that.

The point I *am* trying to make which you are choosing not to address is how do you explain the fact that a ceramic plate made of the exact same material, with the same edges and the same general shape, with less surface area, and with one quarter of the volume releases 3.5 times as much aluminum as a ceramic block? That to me "seems" an issue of particulates and not a consequence of dissolved aluminum.

A very simple explanation to the variations in levels between the shapes of the media is just testing accuracy is not that high but good enough to show a rise.

I am still waiting for one more result to get back to me to be able to release many numbers. But can say variation in numbers from the same sample will happen. ICP-OES is not a good test for trace elements of you want high accuracy and resolution.

 

[Ted_C]

Gosh - I'm not claiming certainty about anything! What I said was that it "seems" more an issue of particulates. And I am certainly not disagreeing with you about the ability of glass to dissolve or the ability of alumina to dissolve at a more neutral pH or anything like that.

The point I *am* trying to make which you are choosing not to address is how do you explain the fact that a ceramic plate made of the exact same material, with the same edges and the same general shape, with less surface area, and with one quarter of the volume releases 3.5 times as much aluminum as a ceramic block? That to me "seems" an issue of particulates and not a consequence of dissolved aluminum.

I think the values are a result of the thickness of the material coupled with very fine aluminosilicate particulate. The thicker the material - the more particulate is stuck within the matrix of the material and not available in solution. The ICP technique to measure this is going to digest that particulate which is why we can't determine what the form of aluminum is (we could take a SWAG if we also saw the Si results from BRS - if the SI results were in proportion to the Alumina results - we could theorize that the material was aluminosilicate and not aluminum oxide - but that's not really what ICP tests are meant to be used for - its not going to be quantifiable).

the ball media being lower concentration than the 4" block throws that theory out of the water unless that ball media was rinsed in a different way than the other media. Maybe the manufacturing process does not allow the formation of the same number of fine particulate like the other two media. Maybe BRS did not use the same amount (by weight) of the three types of media.

Physical placement within the testing tanks and available flow could also play a role in the different concentrations. different configurations of flow and physical placement could release more or less particulate. Plate is exposed to maximum flow, block is on it's 4" edge so only 1/2 is exposed to flow, etc.

 

[Ted_C]

I can accept your theory that the shape of a plate allows slightly more alumina to dissolve than a block or a group of spheres. But 14 times more by volume? It is the same material.

Added aluminum in the form of alumina-silicate dust seems the most plausible explanation to me for the huge difference between the plate and block results in the BRS test. You can see the dust when you open the plate box. Again, not saying there isn't toxic aluminum being released into the water by all these shapes. The media is very soft and clearly fired at a low temperature well below vitrification - which would make it much easier for alumina to dissolve. But alumina in a plate is simply not going to dissolve at 14 times the rate of alumina in a block. Something else is driving that plate result. And if particulates are the difference between the plate and the block, then it is plausible some of the block and sphere aluminum showing up on the Triton test is particulate alumina as well.

My opinion is it's not "aluminum" that's toxic to softies: its ALL fine particulate within a certain micron size that cannot be dissolved into solution or consumed (i.e. inorganics) that's going to cause softies to be irritated. We all took Randy's study of Phosban to be absolute - but maybe it's the same issue for some other material like titanium dioxide. Why would GFO fall outside of this and not cause harm? By the time it's reached the point where the micron size is small enough to irritate the softies - it's become soluble in water.

This could also explain why some have success with marinepure and softies and others do not. Those successful tanks have thoroughly rinsed the media or started their tank with this media - establishing a biofilm that will not allow the release of the fine particulate.

 

[Scott Campbell]

I think the values are a result of the thickness of the material coupled with very fine aluminosilicate particulate. The thicker the material - the more particulate is stuck within the matrix of the material and not available in solution. The ICP technique to measure this is going to digest that particulate which is why we can't determine what the form of aluminum is (we could take a SWAG if we also saw the Si results from BRS - if the SI results were in proportion to the Alumina results - we could theorize that the material was aluminosilicate and not aluminum oxide - but that's not really what ICP tests are meant to be used for - its not going to be quantifiable).

the ball media being lower concentration than the 4" block throws that theory out of the water unless that ball media was rinsed in a different way than the other media. Maybe the manufacturing process does not allow the formation of the same number of fine particulate like the other two media. Maybe BRS did not use the same amount (by weight) of the three types of media.

Physical placement within the testing tanks and available flow could also play a role in the different concentrations. different configurations of flow and physical placement could release more or less particulate. Plate is exposed to maximum flow, block is on it's 4" edge so only 1/2 is exposed to flow, etc.

Absolutely agree. Regarding the spheres, my guess is the spheres are created in some type of mold as distinct shapes while the block is probably an extrusion which is then cut into shape. I would guess, given the soft and porous qualities, that the cutting process may somewhat damage the internal integrity of the square shapes. The plate probably taking the most damage. A compromised structure would release more particulates.