Mega-Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium, part 1-4

I'm mostly curious about doing something like this on a freshwater system, specifically a planted tank. There seem to be a couple hurdles though, especially for a planted tank.

1. Would the algae spread to the main tank if you weren't using UV?
2. Would it deplete nutrients that ornamental plants would need to grow?

I have a hunch that the answer to #2 is "yes" but that still leaves it as a good candidate for fish only freshwater tanks.

I don't think it would work in a planted tank.
firstly turf algae is a marine algae.
It would also gas off a lot of co2, which you don't want in a planted tank.

1.I would think so, considering the tank would be depleted of co2 and have high light.
2.yes it would.

It would work for fish only, but I think that emergent and floating plants are a far better choice than algae for plant filters in freshwater.
 
actually.. i alrady heard much about algae filter... one of them in my aunty pool.... they make a chamber of algae in a month (chamber algae and the pool use the sunlight)
so they cut off the sun light in a month before use the pool... and make a great number of algae in the filter... as the result the pool really didn't grow any algae in 1 year...
after 1 year... they has problem with agale.. well they didn't cleaning the algae in 1 year.....and the chamber become full.....
 
That wouldn't make sense in a planted system at all. Besides potentially gassing CO2, the algae would compete for nutrients with the plants and vice versa. One would simply fail to do well to begin with. FWIW, turf algae are ubiquitous--they occur in marine and limnic environments.
 
by the time I had clicked 'post' I knew the planted tank thing wouldn't work/make sense but for some tanks that are seldom planted (african cichlid tanks come to mind) it seems like it would be a possibility.

Anyway, I'm going back to "watch mode" before I derail things. I'm looking forward to seeing some more results and experiences.
 
It's Time For The Santa Monica 120 Acrylic!

Ok it's time to move my screen from the ugly bucket by the sink (with hoses, wires, timers, etc) to under the tank where it can sit on the sump. The idea for this design came from all the readers who tried to install their screens over their sumps. Low profile is important for me, as it is to anyone without a fish room, so I picked 6" as the max height. That would give me room to lift out the screen and pull it out of the stand, with room to spare. And at 6" height, the pvc pipe will take up 1", leaving 5" for the screen. So the screen will be 5 X 24 = 120 sq in. This is good for a decently-stocked 90 like mine, or a lightly stocked 200 with no real nutrient problems. Here is the initial layout that I gave to the acrylic shop:

Acrylic.jpg



Wide screens like this are more efficient and powerful (with the same light) than tall narrow screens, but require more flow. My screen will need 24" X 35(gph/in) = 840 gph. However the same 120 sq in screen placed vertically would only need 5" X 35(gph/in) = 175 gph. The vertical placement has a disadvantage in that the water at the top gets filtered by the top of the screen, but then has to travel over the lower parts of the screen. Since it's already been filtered at the top, not much happens on the bottom part of the screen. This problem is eliminated with a horizontal screen since all the water that passes over the 5 inches of screen needs filtering.

Another good use for a low-profile screen like this would be for on-top of tank, when you want the pods to drain directly down into the display. Or, if you don't have a sump, the on-top placement would work great if you put the pump in the display.

The acrylic box came back from the acrylic shop, finished beautifully. They still have the plans, so if anyone wants the same box, call Hastings Plastics at 310-829-3449 and say you want the "aquarium algae filter screen box". The only change would be the "U" cutouts for the pipe: Tell them to make them a little larger round, and a little deeper, since the pipe was hard to push into them (and it stuck out a bit which made the lid not close all the way. ). I did a little grinding, and now it's perfect. The cost was about $100, without shipping. Here's how is arrived:

AcrylicFromStore.jpg



Unwrapped. Notice the bottom and ends are mirrored acrylic, with the mirror facing inwards:

AcrylicUnwrapped.jpg


AcrylicEnd.jpg


AcrylicDrain.jpg


AcrylicLid.jpg



The lid fits mirror-side down:

AcrylicLidOn.jpg



The pipe fits snug so that little light will escape. I had to grind the "U" cutouts a little bigger and deeper so the pipe would not block the lid:

AcrylicPipe.jpg



The lid fit perfectly after the pipe cutouts were enlarged:

AcrylicPipeLid.jpg



Here are the lights. They come with a combo of 10K and actinic:

www.petstore.com/ps_viewItem-idProduct-CU01124-tab-4.html


I removed the bulbs, and got 6500K and 3000K from here:

www.plantlightinghydroponics.com/ge-t5-ho-fluorescent-lamps-c-73_623.html


I'm going to set it up with 6500K on one side and 3000K on the other. Nobody recommednds 10K for macros, except for one person: The guy at Inland Aquatics that has been growing turf screens for 10 years. So, I'll try 10K soon, but not to start. Maybe you can start with 10K on yours and let us know how it works :)

Then I placed the lights on the acrylic and marked off where the the bulbs will be shining through:

AcrylicMarkLightPlacement.jpg



Some method has to be used to mount the lights to the sides. I'm using acrylic blocks and acrylic glue:

AcrylicMounts.jpg



The light-mounting is a bit tricky, because the lights need to be removeable, yet be pressed up against the acrylic to minimize light leakage (which would be important for an above-the-tank placement in plain view). The lights are then placed in the mounts:

AcrylicLights.jpg



The overall size ended up being 6.5" high X 6" deep X 24" long:

AcrylicDepth.jpg

AcrylicHeight.jpg

AcrylicLength.jpg



Here's a size comparison; the inside of the stand was once filled with filtration devices, and now it's just water:

AcrylicSize.jpg



Taped and ready for spray painting:

AcrylicTaped.jpg



First coat was a metallic silver, so that the inside would reflect more:

AcrylicMetalic.jpg



After painting with black primer, and putting lights on:

AcrylicReady.jpg



End view:

AcrylicBlackEnd.jpg



Side view:

AcrylicSide.jpg



Lid off, ready to use:

AcrylicReadyLidOpen.jpg



The long, low-profile pipe and screen:

AcrylicPipeScreen.jpg



Lights on:

AcrylicReadyLightsOn.jpg



Setting on sump:

AcrylicOnSump.jpg



Running, with front light removed to see flow:

AcrylicSideOpenView.jpg



So, I rubbed algae from my original bucket into the new screen, then installed the screen and turned it on. I'm starting with the flow and lights on 24 hours, in order to speed up the growth. I'll decide later if I'm going to pulse the flow, and I'll wait for the algae to grow a bit before putting the lights on a timer. Also, there is no fan, because I wanted to make it as simple as possible for folks who wanted to try it themselves. I may try a fan later, but for now let's see how it does without one. Also also, I'm leaving my original bucket running, for safety, but of course this will slow down growth on the new screen.
 
Man, that's pretty sharp and professional looking!
 
wow... give us the report please... :)
 
After having run my screen(s) for a while, I'm noticing an interesting situation with the nitrate that might be of interest. This really on applies to other folks once they's already reduce N and P to near zero, but it might good to know for others too.

After getting N and P to zero (Salifert hobby test kits), and keeping everything the same for a few days, I notice that the N start showing again, very very slightly, starting with a barely visible tint (maybe a .1 on the Salifert color scale), then more visible pink (about a .2), and if I leave things alone for a week, it might go all the way to 3. This is happening while P remain zero (absolutely clear on the Salifert phosphate color scale).

Now, I sometimes do over-feeding tests, using massive amounts of stuff that would be considered "pollution" by some folks, and sure enough when I do this I get a small increase in N, but also in P. Then when I go back to normal feeding, the levels go back to zero. But the situation I'm talking about here is not during an over-feeding test. It's just feeding and doing everything else at normally. After about a week the N start a very slight increase, but there is NO increase in P.

So after thinking about what I learned about the relationships between N and P, I remembered that you can sometimes have one of them limiting. I reasoned that P might be limited, and without P the screen can't grow to absorb the N. I wanted to just add P but did not know how, so instead I just fed a bit more. Presto! Zero N again. And again, and again. Every time my normal feeding habbit saw a small rise in N (but not P), it was corrected every time by feeding more! Now that is a nice problem to have. It since has been explained to me why my particular tank might be limiting in P, something to do with my dripping kalk and not using a CO2 reactor. But the solution that was offered was the same: Feed more.

Now of course in order for anyone to get to the point of (possibly) experiencing this situation, you first would have to get your screen to a functioning status, and get your N and P to zero. But it's just one of the smaller points to keep in mind as you fine-tune your setup.
 
AquariaCentral.com