DSB in a bucket for nitrate control

[the other tang]

I am building a rdsb for my 40g reef using a 5g blue water container " wal-mart $9.99 like the ones you take camping. I saw this oh 30-35 pages back and like it much better than a bucket for me. Unforunately My tank is not drilled, so I have to get creative. i need some input here. I wany to use my water coming out of my skimmer but can't just deadhead the flow into the rdsb because it would cause backpressure in my skimmer and it would not work, hell it might overflow. I am going to put a plastic collection container" like the ones stores use after they catch fish" directly under my hob skimmer output, them put a powerhead in the container to the rdsb. The skimmer should be uneffected by this and I should have good water too. I will return into a decomissioned penguin 330 so i can run carbon. I will also have an airstone or two inthere to help the o2 level get back up and bubble out the nitrogen. I don't believe I will get all the nitrogen out but this should help. I am thinking about seeding the sand with live out of my dsb in my tank. I read that all 3 types of bacteria can survive in an o2 rich environment, which should kickstart this bacteria. Ok, if sugar boosts bacteria in the tank wouldn't it boost it in a dsb? If so you could mix in a tsp with the live sand to get it going...right?

[Spuds725]

Will the powerhead from the container after your skimmer be of higher capacity then the water flow to your skimmer?? or will it be designed somehow so it can't run dry...

is your skimmer HOB?? Need a better description of your setup...

I think you are overestimating how fast the nitrate will be broken down to nitrogen gas.. the O2 levels of your RDSB effluent shouldn't be significantly deficient to warrant running an airstone to "reoxygenate" your water.... it won't hurt (other then salt creep) however I don't think it will gain you anything..

I have no opinion on the "sugar" method...

HTH

[the other tang]

Thanks Spuds, yes it is a hob skimmer. Although I can't give you the exact # the flow from the skimmer will be higher than the rsdb supply pump will handle. good info on the ammount of nitrogen gas too, thanks wasn't sure exactly how much i'd get. The seeding with live sand then feeding the bacteria sugar just makes sense, but I am not certain it will help much.

[nick18tjetta]

I am curious how much flow everyone is using.
How much flow is too much? In the setup I plan on doing, the only way I could impliment the bucket method would to have 300gph going through it. Is this too much? I also read the mention of planting a mangrove in the bucket. Has anyone done this? How did it turn out.

Thanks,

Nick

[percula99]

nick18tjetta, the RDSB is supposed to have no light whatsoever, so planting a mangrove is not recommended. There is to be no fauna or flora at all as per Anthony Calfo's recommendation. As for flow, remember what you pump into the bucket has to be able to flow out as well. Example: my RDSB is a 20 gallon Rubbermaid container. I had a 300 GPH pump on it, and decided to up it to a Mag5 at 500 GPH. My container was about to overflow because it couldn't drain fast enough. I put a ball valve on it and adjusted the flow. I get increased flow from what I used to, but not a full 500 GPH.

[Spuds725]

The idea is to minimize detritus settling in it-- more then high flow-- so even if directing a small amount of "clean" water from say your skimmer to the RDSB, you should accomplish this...

I supply mine (a standard 5 gallon bucket) with a MJ 1200 so about 300 GPH--- I still get some detritus and have some filter feeders living in there

[nick18tjetta]

Great, many people mentioned "High flow" but there was never a quantative figure given to it, so I guess it would be safe to say anywhere from 200-400 gph would be fine.

Also, I believe Anthony Calfo said it was fine to have a mangrove planted in the bucket, and that light would be ok. I am just curious if anyone has tried the mangrove, the root systems do a lot to filter a system.

Nick

[DrBDC]

Mangroves are really just for looks. The amount of toxins removed is almost negligable. Fast way to determine is just to weight before and weigh it later. The increase is what was removed from the system and mangroves grow extremely slow compared to macro's.

[mr.wilson]

Denitrifying bacteria have difficulty competing with photosynthetic organisms, namely cyanobacteria. Nuisance algae should be eliminated from the DSB bucket for obvious reasons.

In theory, keeping the bucket dark will discourage algae and other competitors from populating the DSB. In practice, ambient light fails to penetrate beyond the first 1/4" of sand, so algae growth can only take place at the surface. It could become a maintenance issue, but it won't adversely affect denitrifying pseudomona colonies.

[BeanAnimal]

This thread has dragged on for over a year. Very few "RDSB In a Bucket" folks have come back with a full report. Those that have basically said ... "well the nitrates are down, but I added the RDSB, got a bigger skimmer and added x pounds of liverock and a fuge.... and have been using chemipure and nitrate mats too"

So as of yet we have no idea how MUCH work they DSB in a bucket is doing!

I do not doubt that these do some good... but I am looking for a "Hey this is the ONLY thing I changed and my nitrates are down from X to Y in Z months" Anybody?

Bean

[mr.wilson]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
This thread has dragged on for over a year. Very few "RDSB In a Bucket" folks have come back with a full report. Those that have basically said ... "well the nitrates are down, but I added the RDSB, got a bigger skimmer and added x pounds of liverock and a fuge.... and have been using chemipure and nitrate mats too"

So as of yet we have no idea how MUCH work they DSB in a bucket is doing!

I do not doubt that these do some good... but I am looking for a "Hey this is the ONLY thing I changed and my nitrates are down from X to Y in Z months" Anybody?

Bean

I've been waiting for that post as well. Perhaps one of the people with a "success story" could take their RDSB bucket off line, and report if high nitrates return.

[a4twenty]

errrr, i don't want to take mine offline. when i set mine up i always had 20ppm nitrates. for months i did regular water changes but never got it below 15ppm ( right after change ). when i installed my RDSB i didn't change anything, i left my fuge overgrown and didn't trim. approx. 1 month later the nitrates started dropping and have been at 0 ever since.

i did upgrade my skimmer about 4 or 5 months after set up but that was because my other skimmer crapped out and was drastically under sized. the tank ran for 2 weeks without a skimmer and there was no increase in nitrates.


" but I am looking for a "Hey this is the ONLY thing I changed and my nitrates are down from X to Y in Z months" Anybody? "

a little while back someone did take theirs offline and said they would post back. i haven't heard anything yet.

[Lordhelmet]

i dont know if it is the answer to everyones prayers with nitrates but it's like a bigger skimmer, adding a fuge, and more water changes. every little bit helps and this is just another type of filtration that helps add to the stability of the water.

[EnderG60]

yeah, I will be putting another one up in a week or two using playsand to see what happens since my last beach sand bucket was actually causing algea and nitrate problems Once removed my nitrates went down to 15 and my sand stopped turning brown in two days.

It will be a similar setup, small powerhead with a sponge on it going through the carbon/phosphate reactor then to the bucket. Low flow(100gph ish).

But Im still wondering why anyone would put a "feeding tube" in the sandbed to add a carbon source like sugar?

[jrandreassen]

Hi...
I'm redesigning my sump and was planning on adding in a segment of DSB. It will be located under the Refugium (in low ambient light) it will be about 8"deep x 6" wide x 40" long(zig-zaging under the fuge).
Here is the real qustion though, will 800gph be too high ??
JR

[mr.wilson]

Originally posted by EnderG60
yeah, I will be putting another one up in a week or two using playsand to see what happens since my last beach sand bucket was actually causing algea and nitrate problems Once removed my nitrates went down to 15 and my sand stopped turning brown in two days.

It will be a similar setup, small powerhead with a sponge on it going through the carbon/phosphate reactor then to the bucket. Low flow(100gph ish).

But Im still wondering why anyone would put a "feeding tube" in the sandbed to add a carbon source like sugar?

The practice of importing a carbon source, is a whole other thread. I installed a feeding tube in a recent RDSB for future developments.

I've never added a carbon source, and perhaps never will, but if a target food comes along that has no residual and doesn't encourage nuisance algae, I'm in.

My feeding tube doubles as a passive water exchange and water sampling/testing conduit.

[EnderG60]

thread I saw that in was talking about using sugar to promote bacterial growth(which ive heard can have great result on nitrates but could effect coral color)

But ive also read that it might introduce oxygen to the an-ox layers of the sand.

Maybe ill just leave that part out of the next bucket.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by Lordhelmet
i dont know if it is the answer to everyones prayers with nitrates but it's like a bigger skimmer, adding a fuge, and more water changes. every little bit helps and this is just another type of filtration that helps add to the stability of the water.

Yes, but the question is, what quantifiable benefit is there. The same "space" or energy may be better used with another type of NNR or filtration... likewise a bigger RDSB may be in order instead of using the space for other equipment. I.E. a lot of folks have put this in place, but we have very little data about them.

[a4twenty]

i don't understand why you want to feed the bacteria? the idea is to have the bacteria feed on the nitrogen / nitrates, so wouldn't feeding it be counter productive?

[jrandreassen]

Hmm...
There was a post way back, that outlined it.
I think it was that the anaerobic bacteria used both carbon and NO3/NO2 as food and/or respiration.
JR

[RichConley]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
This thread has dragged on for over a year. Very few "RDSB In a Bucket" folks have come back with a full report. Those that have basically said ... "well the nitrates are down, but I added the RDSB, got a bigger skimmer and added x pounds of liverock and a fuge.... and have been using chemipure and nitrate mats too"

Sounds like the barebottom threads.

[jrandreassen]

Here are some ref's:
http://www.erdingtonaquatics.com/sandfiltration.html
http://www.wrc.org.za/archives/water...jul99_p357.pdf

Ahh.... Found it...
In a post by Alfinus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...&pagenumber=37

I have built numerous denitrifiers from coils to sand in the bucket methods of all types. To understand how they work you need to understand the bacteria. Anerobic bacteria do not consume nitrates as a food, but as an oxygen source. These bacteria evolved in a low oxygen envoriment, so through time they devoloped the means to extract oxygen from nitrates and producing the by-product of nitrogen gas. Even tho they need nitrate to lived they also need a food source, some type of carbon fuel. Thats my I always had better results with the bucket method if you could at least have a drip trickle coming out the bottom. I understand about over complicating, but even tho the nitrates will diffuse through the sand over time, organic carbons don't diffuse as easy and need some a little push through the sand. And btw the trickle will not effect anything as the areobic bacteria always are in the top couple inches and as they consume food they will consume all oxygen. Thats also why you need a little trickle because the anerobic will also comsume all the carbon food too, before the anerobic can. I am not saying the simply flow over method will not work, just a way to make it work better.
Even tho I have not tried it yet, vodka dosing at very small amounts over the rdsb should kick it into high gear also, since vodka is a high carbon food source.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Pg18 of bigining of thread posted by baryhc:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...&pagenumber=18

I'm not sure if you are missing anything, but a lot of aquarists are, as evidenced in this thread in just the last page before my original post.

I will try, let's see how it goes.

Firstly, I was in error when I stated that the beginning of "denitrification" was in the Hypoxic or low oxygen zone.

I don't really know where we might say that "the beginning" of the denitrification process takes place. The process itself, however does take place at some depth, primarily in the anoxic zone of the bed.

The first statement should have been: "this is where the processing of Nitrate into other compounds begins. In effect, that is what I meant to be saying, and it is a good thing that we are getting that straightened out.

As I stated before ( originally ) in the "excerpt", this is where a lot of controversy begins.

EDIT: That is because the conversion of Nitrate to other compounds "begins" in the Hypoxic oxygen zone.

Too many aquarists are simply not familiar with this Low Oxygen zone, and this is why weatherman just explained about the fraction of a mm area where this is taking place.

My only intent with the entire original post, was to "clarify the definitions" of Oxygen Gradation Zones. That I did quite flawlessly, however, I stumbled over my shoelaces with the "beginning of denitrification" terminology. ( as well as the Nitrite to Nitrate part )

The terms "Aerobic and Anaerobic" refer to bacterial types and processes, whereas "Oxic and Anoxic" respectively, refer to the zones where these processes occur. These terms are used "in error" an awful lot, by aquarists and experts alike, causing a tremendous amount of confusion. Hypoxic is a rarely used but highly accurate term that correctly refers to "Low Oxygen", and eliminates a lot of confusion.

I hope we have that cleared up now, and that "WE" have correct terminology now available to use when discussing "Oxygenated Zones".

It's too bad that I contributed to the confusion myself to some degree, and I appreciate both yourself and Weatherman keeping me straightened up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Weatherman on Pg:17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...&pagenumber=17

The standard definitions I'm familiar with are the following:

Aerobic Respiration:
(the conversion of ammonium to nitrite to nitrate in the presense of oxygen)

106(CH2O)16(NH3)(H3PO4) + 106O2 => 106 CO2 + 16 NH3 + PO4

(1a) 16 NH4+ + 24 O2 => 16 NO2- + 16 H2O + 32 H+
(1b) 16 NO2- + 8 O2 = 16 NO3

106(CH2O)16(NH3)(H3PO4) + 138 O2 => 106 CO2 + 16 HNO3 + H3PO4 + 122 H2O

Denitrification:
(conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas or ammonia in the absense of oxygen)

Nitrate Reduction by Denitrification

106(CH2O)16(NH3)(H3PO4) + 94.4 HNO3 -------106 CO2 + 55.5 N2 + H3PO4 + 177 H2O


Dissimilatory Nitrate Reduction to Ammonia

106(CH2O)16(NH3)(H3PO4) + 84.8 HNO3 -------106 CO2 + 42.4 N2 + 16 NH3 + H3PO4 + 148.4 H2O

[mr.wilson]

I don't mean to add further to the confusion, but there are also aerobic denitrifying bacterial strains. They are clearly in the minority, but they do exist.

[jrandreassen]

You're probably right, I'm not a biologist...
It was just what I could gather from reading the thread.
JR

[6stang9]

I too would be very interested in long term results. I hope more people will post thier results.