OK so what is stopping you installing an Algae Turf Scrubber on your system?
- Thread starter atoll
- Start date
- Tagged users None
jlanger
Well-Known Member
My excuse for a long time was I didn't have the room.
I like to have a clean looking system in which all of the filtration and ATO are contained in my stand. With a 40BR sump and a 7+gal ATO reservoir, I didn't have the space to fit an ATS that could be easily maintained. Until... DIY.
I designed my ATS to fit inside my stand, sit on my sump and be maintained without having to remove the entire filter. After months of design work and a couple of preliminary mock-ups, I finally finished my ATS earlier this winter and have been running it since November. I have been getting very good algae growth on the screen, but I have yet to see the nutrient levels drop in my system. I have high hopes for the ATS and I'm continuing to tweak the variables until it's running at peak efficiency.
I like to have a clean looking system in which all of the filtration and ATO are contained in my stand. With a 40BR sump and a 7+gal ATO reservoir, I didn't have the space to fit an ATS that could be easily maintained. Until... DIY.
I designed my ATS to fit inside my stand, sit on my sump and be maintained without having to remove the entire filter. After months of design work and a couple of preliminary mock-ups, I finally finished my ATS earlier this winter and have been running it since November. I have been getting very good algae growth on the screen, but I have yet to see the nutrient levels drop in my system. I have high hopes for the ATS and I'm continuing to tweak the variables until it's running at peak efficiency.
Space I only have a 18X18 in sump in my small stand
Rob Lion
Active Member
TbyZ
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Hyde2406
Well-Known Member
This is now. Then I couldn't keep coral for long it would just slowly die, even mushrooms and zoas and the rocks never got coralline. My rocks don't have a bunch of coralline now but I don't dose anything was thinking about starting to dose iron, calcium, and mag
tgp4274
Well-Known Member
well I know been said but I'm in same prob with it.........
price being one but can always build one and have thought of such
bigger prob would be space.... if I rebuild stand to make taller then much better chance..
price being one but can always build one and have thought of such
bigger prob would be space.... if I rebuild stand to make taller then much better chance..
jlanger
Well-Known Member
I have a couple of pics that I can share.
This shows the ATS with the top removed.
This is a pic showing one of my harvests after a four day cycle.
I have since changed to a seven day cycle between harvests with a more dense and stringy algae growth.
My first seven day cycle yielded a harvest of over one cup of algae with a dry weight of 3.95 ounces.
I would post before and after pics, but my tank never really had an algae issue inside the tank. I have struggled with high nutrient levels for a long time and it's the water test results that I'm keeping an eye on.
TbyZ
Well-Known Member
I have a couple of pics that I can share.
This shows the ATS with the top removed.
This is a pic showing one of my harvests after a four day cycle.
I have since changed to a seven day cycle between harvests with a more dense and stringy algae growth.
My first seven day cycle yielded a harvest of over one cup of algae with a dry weight of 3.95 ounces.
I would post before and after pics, but my tank never really had an algae issue inside the tank. I have struggled with high nutrient levels for a long time and it's the water test results that I'm keeping an eye on.
looks good. how large is the screen?
jlanger
Well-Known Member
Screen is 12"W by 8.5"H.
I only have the one LED fixture due to space limitations in my stand.
If I had the room (or replumbed my return lines), I would've definitely went with a double sided ATS.
alten78
Active Member
I know it doesn't grow in the DT, my sump has very little room as it is. My point on my foxface and tang is that I don't have a need for one, them being just one reason. I don't run gfo, chemicals, or have a fuge, just the opposite as I struggle to keep nutrients up despite feeding heavier. I focus on allowing corals take up nutrients, not trying to grow algae as I mentioned
Bruce Burnett
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Messages
- 1,297
- Reaction score
- 984
I have thought about putting one on my 300 gallon system but it would have to be remote unless I move everything under the stand into the garage. Running lines through the wall is not hard and could make everything easier to service. If I did that then I would have to install my chiller and it would increase my monthly expense. It would have to be large enough to go 2 weeks without cleaning, that is my requirement for everything I do as I don't want to depend on others to do my tank maintenance if we go out of town. It is my understanding pods grow very well in an ATS. with a large enough ATS you can adjust lighting to maintain nutrient levels where you want but as long as the algae is growing you are not stripping the water of nutrients. I thought about building one but when I researched the cost and my time, and if I screw up and had to remake it might as well buy one. I know Turbo builds them and 302aquatics, santa monica, who else? I currently have a DIY Chaeto reactor running one week. If it works well then I just may go with a larger reactor. It has definitely helped with daily ph swing. Is it true that turf algae is better than Chaeto as an export medium?
DBR_Reef
Active Member
There are very few long term, successful reef tanks that employ a ATS. There may be several reasons for this, but the main reason for this seems to be that by providing ideal conditions for turf algae to grow, we are giving it a strong foothold in our systems. At first we see a reduction in nutrients (if that was a problem), and a general die off of algae in the main display, as those populations are out-competed, but we are increasing the biological load of the system during this time. The entire time you are growing algae in the ATS, it is releasing thousands of spores and fragments into the tank, way more than the tank would be exposed to without the ATS. Those fragments and spores may not find suitable habitat immediately, especially if they are in competition with the ATS algae, but they are in the meantime getting lodged in the live rock, and with their rotting bodies, increasing nutrients within the tank. And algae does not only grow in the best location possible, it grows in all locations possible. So as soon as conditions are viable, it will populate an area. So it will be back, and it will be back worse than before. It is like trying to deal with a rat problem in your house by making them a home and dumping a whole bunch of food in your back yard. They are going to leave temporarily, but they will be back with a vengeance.
Secondly, I would say that the 5-15 minutes it takes to clean every week is unpleasant and fairly demanding upkeep. And lastly, there are more effective (remove nutrients faster and before they break down) and easier ways of dealing with nutrient issues.
Secondly, I would say that the 5-15 minutes it takes to clean every week is unpleasant and fairly demanding upkeep. And lastly, there are more effective (remove nutrients faster and before they break down) and easier ways of dealing with nutrient issues.
TbyZ
Well-Known Member
Feature Article: The Development of a Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Protein Skimmer Performance
By Ken S. Feldman, Kelly M. Maers, Lauren F. Vernese, Elizabeth A. Huber, Matthew R. Test
Department of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University
Feature Article: The Development of a Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Protein Skimmer Performance
Extract from Conclusions
Quote - All four skimmers were quite similar in the second performance figure-of-merit, the total amount of organics removed. The skimmers typically removed greater than 80% of the BSA. In contrast, perhaps one of the more interesting observations to emerge from these studies is the fact that all four skimmers tested removed only 20 - 30% of the total organics present in authentic reef tank water.
Feature Article: Further Studies on Protein Skimmer Performance
By Ken S. Feldman, Kelly M. Maers
Department of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University,
Feature Article: Further Studies on Protein Skimmer Performance
Extract from the Conclusions
Quote - A perhaps more interesting observation to emerge from these skimmerstudies involves not the rate of TOC removal, but rather the amount of TOC removed. None of the skimmers tested removed more than 35% of the extant TOC, leading to the conclusion that bubbles are really not a very effective medium for organic nutrient removal.
Feature Article: Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated CarbonFiltration
By Ken S. Feldman, Allison A. Place, Sanjay Joshi, Gary White
Feature Article: Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated Carbon Filtration
Our earlier research on the topic of carbon nutrient levels in marine aquaria (Feldman, 2008; Feldman, 2009; Feldman, 2010) has provided experimental documentation for four conclusions that impact on TOC management in our reef tanks:
. Protein skimming (i.e., bubbles) is not very effective at removing TOC from aquarium water, depleting typical reef tank water of only ~ 20 - 35% of the post-feeding TOC present.
3. Granulated Activated Ccarbon filtration is quite effective at stripping reef tank water of its TOC load, removing 60 - 85% of the TOC present.
4. And, quite intriguingly, the natural biological filtration, which starts with bacteria and other microbes, is remarkable in its capacity to remediate reef tank water of TOC, easily removing 50% or more of the post-feeding TOC increase in tank water.
Further -
Overall, the major conclusions from these carbon dosing experiments are - Addition of a carbon source to an active reef tank via a recommended schedule does not lead to any measurable increase in water column bacteria load.
Interestingly, even though the bacteria population starting points in the KSF tank water skimming experiments (Figs. 19, 20, and 21) and the SJ 55 skimming experiment were very different, in all cases, only about 28-39% of the original bacteria were removed before the data "flatlined".
It is likely a significant observation that there is a floor in aquarium water bacteria populations that skimming will not breach.
Further –
there appears to be two functionally distinct populations of bacteria; one that is susceptible to bubble-based removal, and one that is not. What is this functional difference, as far as the skimmer is concerned? An earlier publication describes the limitations of bubble-based mechanisms in scrubbing TOC from aquarium water (Feldman, 2009). The argument forwarded in that case may very well apply here as well, Fig. 23. It is plausible that the requirement for hydrophobic patches on particles (i.e., bacteria, TOC molecules or clusters; refer to Bacterial Surface Charge and Protein Skimming, Section 1.2 above) that must be met for successful bubble-based extraction may only apply to some but not all of the aquarium water column bacteria (approximately 28-39%, by our studies).
Thus, there may be some discrimination by the skimmer based upon bacteria surface properties. In addition, some but not all bacteria form multicellular clumps (flocs) that may be susceptible to foam-based extraction based upon simple buoyancy and not bubble-surface chemistry; once again, this physical process constitutes a basis for selecting between different bacteria types.
So, the bottom line appears to be that some but not all bacteria can be removed by protein skimming.
Further –
Is "old tank syndrome" related to possible nutritional deficiencies stemming from this bacteria "gap"? Alternatively, could "old tank syndrome" be symptomatic of a gradual decrease of bacterial diversity as a consequence of selective skimmer-based removal of only bubble-susceptible bacteria?
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
By Ken S. Feldman
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
Conclusions
The chemical/elemental composition of skimmate generated by an H&S 200-1260 skimmer on a 175-gallon reef tank over the course of several days or a week had some surprises. Only a minor amount of the skimmate (solid + liquid) could be attributed to organic carbon (TOC); about 29%, and most of that material was not water soluble, i.e., was not dissolved organic carbon. The majority of the recovered skimmate solid, apart from the commons ions of seawater, was CaCO3, MgCO3, and SiO2 - inorganic compounds! The origin of these species is not known with certainity, but a good case can be made that the SiO2 stems from the shells of diatoms. The CaCO3 might be derived from other planktonic microbes bearing calcium carbonate shells, or might come from calcium reactor effluent. To the extent that the solid skimmate consists of microflora, then some proportion of the insoluble organic material removed by skimming would then simply be the organic components (the "guts") of these microflora. These microflora do concentrate P, N, and C nutrients from the water column, and so their removal via skimming does constitute a means of nutrient export.
By Ken S. Feldman, Kelly M. Maers, Lauren F. Vernese, Elizabeth A. Huber, Matthew R. Test
Department of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University
Feature Article: The Development of a Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Protein Skimmer Performance
Extract from Conclusions
Quote - All four skimmers were quite similar in the second performance figure-of-merit, the total amount of organics removed. The skimmers typically removed greater than 80% of the BSA. In contrast, perhaps one of the more interesting observations to emerge from these studies is the fact that all four skimmers tested removed only 20 - 30% of the total organics present in authentic reef tank water.
Feature Article: Further Studies on Protein Skimmer Performance
By Ken S. Feldman, Kelly M. Maers
Department of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University,
Feature Article: Further Studies on Protein Skimmer Performance
Extract from the Conclusions
Quote - A perhaps more interesting observation to emerge from these skimmerstudies involves not the rate of TOC removal, but rather the amount of TOC removed. None of the skimmers tested removed more than 35% of the extant TOC, leading to the conclusion that bubbles are really not a very effective medium for organic nutrient removal.
Feature Article: Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated CarbonFiltration
By Ken S. Feldman, Allison A. Place, Sanjay Joshi, Gary White
Feature Article: Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated Carbon Filtration
Our earlier research on the topic of carbon nutrient levels in marine aquaria (Feldman, 2008; Feldman, 2009; Feldman, 2010) has provided experimental documentation for four conclusions that impact on TOC management in our reef tanks:
. Protein skimming (i.e., bubbles) is not very effective at removing TOC from aquarium water, depleting typical reef tank water of only ~ 20 - 35% of the post-feeding TOC present.
3. Granulated Activated Ccarbon filtration is quite effective at stripping reef tank water of its TOC load, removing 60 - 85% of the TOC present.
4. And, quite intriguingly, the natural biological filtration, which starts with bacteria and other microbes, is remarkable in its capacity to remediate reef tank water of TOC, easily removing 50% or more of the post-feeding TOC increase in tank water.
Further -
Overall, the major conclusions from these carbon dosing experiments are - Addition of a carbon source to an active reef tank via a recommended schedule does not lead to any measurable increase in water column bacteria load.
Interestingly, even though the bacteria population starting points in the KSF tank water skimming experiments (Figs. 19, 20, and 21) and the SJ 55 skimming experiment were very different, in all cases, only about 28-39% of the original bacteria were removed before the data "flatlined".
It is likely a significant observation that there is a floor in aquarium water bacteria populations that skimming will not breach.
Further –
there appears to be two functionally distinct populations of bacteria; one that is susceptible to bubble-based removal, and one that is not. What is this functional difference, as far as the skimmer is concerned? An earlier publication describes the limitations of bubble-based mechanisms in scrubbing TOC from aquarium water (Feldman, 2009). The argument forwarded in that case may very well apply here as well, Fig. 23. It is plausible that the requirement for hydrophobic patches on particles (i.e., bacteria, TOC molecules or clusters; refer to Bacterial Surface Charge and Protein Skimming, Section 1.2 above) that must be met for successful bubble-based extraction may only apply to some but not all of the aquarium water column bacteria (approximately 28-39%, by our studies).
Thus, there may be some discrimination by the skimmer based upon bacteria surface properties. In addition, some but not all bacteria form multicellular clumps (flocs) that may be susceptible to foam-based extraction based upon simple buoyancy and not bubble-surface chemistry; once again, this physical process constitutes a basis for selecting between different bacteria types.
So, the bottom line appears to be that some but not all bacteria can be removed by protein skimming.
Further –
Is "old tank syndrome" related to possible nutritional deficiencies stemming from this bacteria "gap"? Alternatively, could "old tank syndrome" be symptomatic of a gradual decrease of bacterial diversity as a consequence of selective skimmer-based removal of only bubble-susceptible bacteria?
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
By Ken S. Feldman
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
Conclusions
The chemical/elemental composition of skimmate generated by an H&S 200-1260 skimmer on a 175-gallon reef tank over the course of several days or a week had some surprises. Only a minor amount of the skimmate (solid + liquid) could be attributed to organic carbon (TOC); about 29%, and most of that material was not water soluble, i.e., was not dissolved organic carbon. The majority of the recovered skimmate solid, apart from the commons ions of seawater, was CaCO3, MgCO3, and SiO2 - inorganic compounds! The origin of these species is not known with certainity, but a good case can be made that the SiO2 stems from the shells of diatoms. The CaCO3 might be derived from other planktonic microbes bearing calcium carbonate shells, or might come from calcium reactor effluent. To the extent that the solid skimmate consists of microflora, then some proportion of the insoluble organic material removed by skimming would then simply be the organic components (the "guts") of these microflora. These microflora do concentrate P, N, and C nutrients from the water column, and so their removal via skimming does constitute a means of nutrient export.
