N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[teesquare]

In no way do I want you to think I am trying to be argumentative -
But, when I think about the current use of technolgy that we all have for measuring allof the chemical perameters in our systems, it just makes sense to me ( and I think it will help manufacturers as well) to provide better recommendations based on 2 perameters: How many mg/l and or - ppm. you are needing to remove, bsaed on the volume of water you have.

It really should not be seen as an iron-clad directions for use - but rather - suggestions on a starting point.
I would be hard to convince that the method for determining this is not already known: Remember - these or pellets very much like them are already in use in waste water treatment. And it that industry, it is imperative that the system operators be able to determine "how much" of "what" is to be used in order to remove "how much" of "what" in the water stream. And - the gallonage certinly factors into that!
So - you see - we are not "blazing a trail" with any new technology with the NP pellets. Just a different placement - but the same application.
"The knowledge is out there" - Fox Molder
T

[tmz]

A guideline would be helpful but would vary, I suspect from system to system as surface areas, N levels,and other variables vary.It seems starting low , measuring Nitrate and adding small increments of pellets is the safest course. I still think the carbon source in the pellets is likely miscible and will spread throughout the tank making total organic carbon buildup a potentnial worry.

[cvye]

It's just too easy - put in 50 - 100% more pellets than you think you need. The bacteria will grow based on what they get for food. In a dynamic system such as ours, the colonies will react to the input.

Same thing as oversizing your skimmer, but here it's even better, as skimmers need dirty water to work - too big and they don't work for a while. No danger of that with this situation, there will be as many bacteria as your system needs at any moment (limited only by growth/multiplication rate). So as long as your spikes are not too radical over time, the bacteria should keep up.

[Daniel Reef]

Any progress reports on these NP? I haven't read one in some time.

[kaskiles]

Originally Posted by tmz

I still think the carbon source in the pellets is likely miscible and will spread throughout the tank making total organic carbon buildup a potentnial worry.

First point in one of the earlier posts seems to indicate that the carbon source will not dissolve out into the system water:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=23

[kaskiles]

Originally Posted by teesquare

But, when I think about the current use of technology that we all have for measuring a lot of the chemical parameters in our systems,

I believe that the aerobic bacteria hosted on the pellets will also be consuming (and converting) dissolved organic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous (in addition to the inorganic nitrate and phosphate). Since we cannot measure the dissolved organic N and P easily at home, I believe estimates based solely on the inorganic fraction might lead to not using enough.

Also, if someone cannot measure any nitrate or phosphate in their system, their system may still benefit from the pellets from both dissolved organic N/P reduction/conversion and/or bacterioplankton system feeding.

[teesquare]

Kaskiles:
That is a great look at another aspect of the "big picture" ....
But I am still not convinced that it would be too difficult for the manufacturer to provide better usage guidelines for their product.
Again - it would potentially make each user feel that they were recieving better value, by accurizing ( not the best word...becuase I know it is still an "estimation") the amount needed for a given system based on more than ONE perameter....of "X" per gallon.

That is a very oblique look at how the NP pellets work - and really offers no guidelines what so ever - in consideratio of you above statement
T

[itachi]

Originally Posted by kaskiles

First point in one of the earlier posts seems to indicate that the carbon source will not dissolve out into the system water:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=23

I'm not so sure about this, given i have been using it for a week now and had the small algae bloom on the sand that's typical with carbon dosing . So far for me the results have been minimal since the system was already fairly low nutrient ... p04 .03 on a hanna . Before i started this i had actually stopped vodka dosing for several months , kinda interesting to see the similar brown algae on the sand. Hopefully i will get similar results to carbon dosing.

[kaskiles]

Originally Posted by itachi

I'm not so sure about this, given i have been using it for a week...

Did you rinse the pellets prior to use in your system? I'm just wondering if it's like GAC and GFO, you have to rinse off fine powder that might get produced from friction during shipping...

I guess if the insolubility of the material being reported by the manufacturer is in question, we could:
1. rinse pellets, dry
2. get a dry weight
3. Add pellets to sea water with no nutrients (organics, nitrate, phosphate, bacteria, etc.)
4. Mix for 1 hour
5. Rinse, dry
6. Weigh again

[kaskiles]

Originally Posted by danrobberg

can i run the pellets in a sulfur denitrator instead of the sulfur. would they do better in that type of reactor that recirculates the water instead of the water just passing through very rapidly. normaly the water would have a very small amount of time in contact with the pellets. in a sulfur denitrator type reactor the water would have a much longer contact time with the pellets. does this makes sense?

I believe that you should probably not run them in a sulfur denitrator, for the same reason the manufacturer states here:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...&postcount=243

[tntneon]

Here a link of the producer of the BP ,
got it from ower local forum where JP confirmed that these guys are his buissiness partners.

http://www.mirelplastics.com/imagesu...dard_Nov09.pdf

a company in the states , found alot of info here , composition , density ,...

here another link explaining the principles of polymers and nitrifing bacteria , very intresting

http://www.prairieswine.ca/database/pdf/3000.pdf


greetingzz tntneon

[luther1200]

Originally Posted by cvye

It's just too easy - put in 50 - 100% more pellets than you think you need. The bacteria will grow based on what they get for food. In a dynamic system such as ours, the colonies will react to the input.

Same thing as oversizing your skimmer, but here it's even better, as skimmers need dirty water to work - too big and they don't work for a while. No danger of that with this situation, there will be as many bacteria as your system needs at any moment (limited only by growth/multiplication rate). So as long as your spikes are not too radical over time, the bacteria should keep up.

I don't think thats quite right. Its like saying you can just dump in as much vodka as you want and only so much will get used because of the limited bacteria population. But ask anybody who has overdosed vodka and they will tell you that you get a major bacteria bloom. I think the same would happen with to many pellets. Don't you think?

[NaClH2Opgh]

Originally Posted by luther1200

i don't think thats quite right. Its like saying you can just dump in as much vodka as you want and only so much will get used because of the limited bacteria population. But ask anybody who has overdosed vodka and they will tell you that you get a major bacteria bloom. I think the same would happen with to many pellets. Don't you think?

+1

[Luckylouse]

Originally Posted by Bzar

Is there a retailer list for this product?
Curious to see if there's any Canadian retailers yet. (cross border shipping is spendy)

Oakville Reef Gallery has it.

[bertoni]

A lot depends on how soluble the pellets are in water. At some point, the tank might have enough leaching to be an issue, but that amount of pellets might be huge.

[tmz]

Tatu, Thanks for the links. I get a" bad encrpt dictionary" read on my computer for the first one. Probably my computer. The second is interesting but as you know limited to nitrification.

[DeepReefExotics]

Originally Posted by luther1200

I don't think thats quite right. Its like saying you can just dump in as much vodka as you want and only so much will get used because of the limited bacteria population. But ask anybody who has overdosed vodka and they will tell you that you get a major bacteria bloom. I think the same would happen with to many pellets. Don't you think?

Im confused about this since the entire point of these pellets is that they dont leech anything into the water column and any bacterial growth is limited to the surface of the pellets. Meaning i can put 2L of it in my tank and the bacteria will only consume what they can and any extra pellets will just basically sit there.

If they leech out anything then u might aswell go back to vodka and save yourself all the $$. Also the manufacture has stated that the polymer only releases the carbon as the bacteria break it down so if they do in fact leech out carbon then this is just an expensive slow release vodka pellet.

[goldenclove77]

Originally Posted by DeepReefExotics

then this is just an expensive slow release vodka pellet.

Exactly! This is how it was originally presented on RB's

[teesquare]

At what price - convenience!
For some - this may be a God-send in that, it is convenient. I mean - if you travel much - this is just one more step toward automation.
For others, it is expensive vodka.
Unles there are additional benefits we have not been made aware of......
T

[DeepReefExotics]

Well they state that there is absolutely no carbon released unless the surface bateria break it down which why I ordered these last night and that u cant overdose as nothing is released into the water. Or atleast that is my understanding of what these are.

But if it is just a slow release vodka pellet then you might aswell buy a dosing pump for the money and come out paying much less in the long run.

[DeepReefExotics]

It would be very helpful if someone from NP could chime in to clear up the confusion that this is causing. I was planning on adding 2 Litters to my 250g total volume tank since you cant "overdose" like you can with vodka but now im a little confused and worried about doing this.

[aninjaatemyshoe]

From my understanding, there are multiple advantages that this system proposes.

1. On demand carbon availability: As opposed to vodka dosing, where you need to tailor the amount you dose to the level of N and P in your tank, the bacteria will simply subsist on the pellets and be limited by the surface area and the available N and P. Theoretically, the benefit is that you don't need to be as careful about the amount you put in a tank. Also, you don't need to be there everyday dosing carbon and worry about missing a dosage.

2. Carbon release localized to surface of pellets: Instead of releasing carbon in the water column, where it could be taken up by anything that might use it, the carbon stays with the bacteria that colonizes on the surface of the pellets. The advantage of this is that you potentially avoid those slimy cyano films that many people, including myself, have observed with dosing vodka or other carbon.

3. Bacterial mass and biofilm buildup localized on pellets - Yet another advantage to a localized carbon source. For those who have dosed a lot of carbon in their systems, I'm sure you're familiar with how much bacterial biofilm can build up on your rocks and walls of your tank. The benefit of a localized carbon source is that you can potentially keep the slimy stuff with the pellets and not all over the tank.

4. Optimizing removal of excess bacteria via skimmer: By having the bacterial growth on the pellets in a reactor that is placed right next to a skimmer, you can potentially make the removal of excess bacteria more efficient. As the bacteria sloughs off the pellets in the reactor, it can be immediately sucked into the skimmer and removed. This is opposed the typical scenario with regular carbon dosing, in which the bacteria grows on all surfaces and may not be efficiently removed, especially from areas of low flow.

[luther1200]

Originally Posted by aninjaatemyshoe

2. Carbon release localized to surface of pellets: Instead of releasing carbon in the water column, where it could be taken up by anything that might use it, the carbon stays with the bacteria that colonizes on the surface of the pellets. The advantage of this is that you potentially avoid those slimy cyano films that many people, including myself, have observed with dosing vodka or other carbon.

.

If this is true then what is the point? I thought the whole point of carbon dosing was to feed bacteria which take up N/P as they grow then get skimmed out. If they never leave the pellet surface how do they get skimmed out? Or do I have it confused somehow?

[liver]

They leave the pellet surface but don't settle in the tank because their main source of food is the pellets.

[Frogmanx82]

Originally Posted by luther1200

If this is true then what is the point? I thought the whole point of carbon dosing was to feed bacteria which take up N/P as they grow then get skimmed out. If they never leave the pellet surface how do they get skimmed out? Or do I have it confused somehow?

If you don't skim the bacteria out, you don't remove the nitrate and phosphate from the tank. That's the way I understand it too. If some other mechanism is at work I'd like to know because my freshwater cichlid tank could use some nitrate help.