Nitrate Reduction Products - Page 2 - The Planted Tank Forum
 5Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #16 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 02:58 AM
Planted Member
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: PNW
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Edwards View Post
I can't recall all the biochemical details (Krebs cycle and all that) as it's been a long time since I took the pertinent classes, but the gist is the bugs use waterborne N and P in making tissues, proteins, and energy-bearing molecules such as NADP and NADPH. By adding an easily accessible carbon source in low carbon systems, ie saltwater with a protein skimmer, we supply the limiting factor, C, and stimulate proliferation of microorganisms. Similar mechanisms exist in low-organic fraction soils where dissolved N and P infiltrate the soil column but bacteria don't have enough labile C to utilize the supply.

Since our freshwater and planted tanks don't tend to be limited in dissolved or particulate C, products like NO-POx and BioFuel aren't particularly effective.

If you want to talk about chemical reduction, that should probably be a different thread.

So in a low tech setup with alot of plants it would be useful correct?
Quint is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 04:00 AM Thread Starter
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: PA
Posts: 1,226
Thanks for the in-depth answer, @Phil Edwards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Edwards View Post
NoPox is basically a carbon source to stimulate bacterial growth which causes a reduction in waterborne N and P. It's not something I would recommend for a planted tank as it could easily cause algae issues; especially cyanobacteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Edwards View Post
It [pumice products] will work well in canisters if maintained properly, but your idea of using it in an HOB with low flow and a prefilter would be nearly ideal.
Yes, I took is as such, but it seemed a more stable option than trying to dose impure vodka, methanol or vinegar. It is promoted as offering, essentially, more consistency and, therefore, being more ‘forgiving’ in terms of dosing vagaries. Dosing it directly into an HOB, at very low levels (some experimentation required), might avoid the typical problems with carbon dosing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Edwards View Post
I used to work for Brightwell and am pretty familiar with Xport NO3. It's basically an expanded ceramic that's impregnated with sulfur. The idea is you'll get anaerobic zones in the media in which sulfur based denitration occurs. It was really formulated for saltwater systems and isn't nearly as effective in fresh water.
The sulfur aspect is what intrigued me. I was thinking that that Brightwell has harnessed some of the benefits of a sulfur nitrate reactor for conversion of the NO3, while stripping the O2. I’m curious, though: why the need for a pH of >7.5?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Edwards View Post
Seachem Matrix and De*Nitrate are expanded pumice that does exactly what you described in a similar way to Xport NO3 only without the sulfur. The best way to maintain it over the long term is to gently shake it out when cleaning the filter to remove as much particulate organic matter as possible to keep water flow into the pores.
If I am correct, I believe that Seachem’s Pond Matrix (better than lava rock) is the better option than other Seachem pumice for denitrating media as they are larger pieces with, presumably, longer pathways for better development of an anoxic chamber. Speaking of shaking the pumice; are you aware of a ‘best practice’ for ensuring there is no air trapped in the pores?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Edwards View Post
Is there a particular reason why you're looking to reduce NO3? I worked in the industry for many years and may be able to recommend a better product to fit your needs.
I have no NO3 issues, right now. They are running in the 5 ppm area. Several weeks ago, after having withdrawn any N dosing several months ago, I re-introduced urea at a daily 1.5 ppm NO3-equivalent rate. NO3 remains where it was before adding the urea.

The reason for the question was to get testimonials on the effectiveness of the two products.
Deanna is offline  
post #18 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 07:59 AM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
PTrader: (39/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Edwards View Post
You're quite welcome. I hope it was helpful.
Thanks -- that was actually really helpful!

ADA 120P, DoAqua 90P, ADA 60P, ADA 30C x2, ADA 45P, ADA Mini-M
ced281 is offline  
 
post #19 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 04:33 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
Phil Edwards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (1/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quint View Post
So in a low tech setup with alot of plants it would be useful correct?
I would highly recommend against using products like this for planted tanks. The compounds used to make them are too reactive biologically and can potentially cause big issues in planted tanks, or any tank with a high nutrient load. You would be much better off using Seachem's Excel or Brightwell's Florin Axis as both products are designed specifically for use in planted tanks.
Deanna and Quint like this.

I've never regretted over engineering a system, but often regretted under engineering one.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Phil Edwards is offline  
post #20 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 04:57 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
Phil Edwards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (1/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanna View Post
The sulfur aspect is what intrigued me. I was thinking that that Brightwell has harnessed some of the benefits of a sulfur nitrate reactor for conversion of the NO3, while stripping the O2. I’m curious, though: why the need for a pH of >7.5?

The reason for the question was to get testimonials on the effectiveness of the two products.
The original product was designed to be used in salt tanks (as that's where 90% of the money in the industry is) and from what I've heard, they found out that prolonged exposure to pH <7.5 starts breaking down the material. I believe they've come out with a new formulation that this doesn't happen with. I don't know for sure as this all happened after I left.

Regarding the two different pumice products; they're basically the same and I would personally use the smaller one over the larger one as there's more overall surface area, more material can fit into a filter, and the spaces between the grains is smaller so there's more even flow/distribution of nutrient-laden water throughout. When it comes to deeper/longer fissures within the material itself, it gets sort of counterintuitive. Deeper pores are better up to the point where they get clogged by bacteria and no more N can get into those areas and this depends on the width of the pore and other factors that impact nutrient exchange at that scale. You may, or may not, be surprised at how close to the surface anaerobic zones can be in materials like this so smaller is better for aquariums. Pond Matrix is basically tiny compared to the scale of an average pond.

There's not much need to worry about killing off the bacteria by moving the material once it's matured. Most of the bacteria involved are facultative anaerobics and can survive just fine being exposed to a bit of fresh air now and then. Any pores that get oxygenated water in them will be ok too as the O2 will be consumed very quickly. The worst thing that happens is air getting trapped in the pores, but it will bubble out over time. If you're looking to transport the stuff from one filter to another then try to keep it submerged as much as possible, otherwise there's not a whole lot that can practically be done outside of a lab.

You're in luck then, I've used all of the products of concern and can say that they don't hurt anything. I was fairly unimpressed with Xport-NO3, but the rest have worked well for me.

Regards,
Phil
Deanna likes this.

I've never regretted over engineering a system, but often regretted under engineering one.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Phil Edwards is offline  
post #21 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 07:10 PM Thread Starter
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: PA
Posts: 1,226
@Phil Edwards:

Thanks and done!
Deanna is offline  
post #22 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 04:56 PM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
micheljq's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Quebec
Posts: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanna View Post

- Red Sea NO3:PO4-X
This product is for reef tanks and in a reef in must be used in conjonction with a protein skimmer.

Michel.

Bump:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveKS View Post
Seachem is anaerobic media.

“de❊nitrate™ is an economical, natural, porous material with a pore distribution and geometry that promotes both aerobic nitrification within the first few millimeters of depth and anaerobic denitrification at the core. The material has a high surface area and supports a high density of bacteria. Although de❊nitrate™ has capacity to trap nitrate, this, as with other nitrate retaining materials, such as certain zeolites and synthetic resins, is quite limited and the primary mechanism of nitrate removal is anaerobic.”
Not quite exactly, it depends a lot on the flow.

De*nitrates will be anaerobic only if the flow is less than 50 US gallons per hour. Often Matrix is better if someone wants denitrification. Matrix's beads are larger.

https://www.seachem.com/denitrate.php

Michel.

Plants and algae grower.
micheljq is offline  
post #23 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 06:30 PM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: 67212
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by micheljq View Post
This product is for reef tanks and in a reef in must be used in conjonction with a protein skimmer.

Michel.

Bump:

Not quite exactly, it depends a lot on the flow.

De*nitrates will be anaerobic only if the flow is less than 50 US gallons per hour. Often Matrix is better if someone wants denitrification. Matrix's beads are larger.

https://www.seachem.com/denitrate.php

Michel.
Yep, and exactly reason why this and similar products should be run in a dedicated reactor or custom designed module in canisters etc with a dedicated prefilter of around 5-10 micron to keep particulates from effecting the media’s efficiency. A dedicated module where you can also sample water both entering the module and exiting to read before/after nitrate levels as well as control flow rate through media is best case scenario.

In fresh you can use lava rock to make a nitrate filter if you want, it’s all about how you set it up.

Last edited by DaveKS; 05-09-2019 at 06:33 PM. Reason: Typo
DaveKS is online now  
post #24 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 06:35 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
Phil Edwards's Avatar
 
PTrader: (1/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,640
I'm going to have to disagree with you guys here. One of the great things about materials like Matrix and De*Nitrate is that the surface areas are perfect for regular nitrification and the pores are excellent for denitrification. Lower flow rate is good, but even then the majority of denitrification is going to occur in the pores rather than the surface and very low flow reduces the amount of N rich water being transported to the microbes. Packing a canister filter full of the stuff with good prefiltration will do very well.

I've never regretted over engineering a system, but often regretted under engineering one.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Phil Edwards is offline  
Reply

Tags
None

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Planted Tank Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hydrophpnics Maxigrow NH4 Nitrate Source Lazaro Fertilizers and Water Parameters 2 08-12-2015 12:07 AM
Some Questions about Nitrate Dosing (EI) kelly528 Fertilizers and Water Parameters 2 04-11-2010 04:57 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome