Micro-Small Algae Remover System for Nano's: Free!


It's called a Turf Algae Filter, and it works in salt or freshwater. Takes just a few minutes to install into your nano, and best of all, it's free! It starts reducing your nitrate and phosphate within the first week, and after a few weeks they usually hit zero. This of course means your algae in your tank starts melting away!

A Turf Algae Filter is simply a "screen" that you put into your nano's hood, where water will flow across it. You then add a bright light, and you are done. Here is the 5 gal nano that I used as the test (I did not care how ugly it was)...




Here is the screen:



You put the screen in the nano's hood, where water will flow across it:



You add a light that shines on the screen, and you're done!...




In case your nano's hood is closed on the top, you might have to cut open a small square hatch so you can get the light real close to the screen (strong light is the most important requirement for this filter.)

The most powerful feature of a Turf Algae Filter is that it leaves food particles in the tank so the corals can feed, yet it removes nitrates and phosphates (which cause algae), most of the time down to zero! This is the OPPOSITE of what a skimmer does; a skimmer removes food particles (so corals starve) and then leaves the nitrate and phosphate in the water so you have to use other methods to get the nitrate and phosphate out. And how about all that gunk that skimmers pull out? Well, half of it is food that you just fed, and your corals wanted to eat it. What about the other half, the waste? Well, that's food too! Of course with nano's, size is a huge concern, and skimmers are just too big. A Turf Algae Filter actually fits into the hood you already have.

The process of using turf algae to filter aquariums has been around for decades, but the contraptions were just too huge and expensive, and for some reason nobody thought to make a simple one in a nano hood. It's simple enough (and free) that you should try one on your system even if you have no intention of eliminating your skimmer, etc. The principal is very simple: You have a screen; light is aimed at the screen, and tank water is streamed over the screen. What happens is that algae starts growing on the screen, and this algae eats almost all the nitrate and phosphate in the water flowing over it (and so the algae in your tank will not have anything to eat!). However, the turf does NOT eat the food/pods/plankton in the water, so this food will stay in the water for the corals to eat. This is the OPPOSITE of a skimmer, which takes out the food/pods/plankton (so corals starve), but leaves in the nitrate and phosphate that you have to then get out using other means. What about fish waste that skimmers normally pull out? Well that's food too, for somebody! Only after waste decomposes completely into nitrate and phosphate is it no longer "food", and at that point the turf zaps it! After all, what do you think the green algae on your rocks and glass are eating? Food? No. Nitrate and phosphate!

You might ask why you have not heard of turf algae filters before. Well turf algae is actually used quite a bit in commercial/industrial areas to clean lakes and rivers, but the units that were built for aquariums were just too big (as big as a 200 gal tank) and expensive ($3,000+). So they never caught on. But all they do is move water across a screen, and have a light. So putting a turf screen directly in your nano hood works just fine.

The only thing you need to decide is how big your screen needs to be. The basic rule for a one-sided screen (like nano's use) is two square inches of screen for each gallon of tank water. Thus a 12 gal nano tank needs just 24 square inches (4 X 6 inches) in the hood! This small thing replaces the skimmer, refugium, phosphate removers, nitrate removers, carbon, filtersocks, and possibly even waterchanges, if the purpose these things is to reduce nitrate and phosphate.

My example 5 gal version took about 5 minutes to build. I can feed the tank as much food as I did before, and anything not eaten eventually ends up as algae on the screen. The difference is that the nitrate and phosphate are WAY WAY low! Here's how a turf algae filter compares to other nano filtering options:


o Will eventually remove most algae growth in the display, since nitrate and phosphate will be LOW.

o Allows you to feed higher amounts without causing nuisance algae growth in the display.

o Will finally allow coralline to grow, since the phosphate will be too low stop it.

o Does not skim out coralline spores like a skimmer does.

o Can replace waterchanges, if the purpose of the waterchange is to reduce nitrate or
phosphate or algae growth.

o High removal of nitrate and phosphate, low removal of foods (the OPPOSITE of a skimmer).

o Can entirely replace a refugium, skimmer, DSB, carbon, phosban, polyfilters and any other
device you may use to reduce nitrate and phosphate (although you can certainly keep
these items around if you want.)

o Grows copepods and amphipods that will drain right down into your display.

o Removes both nitrate and phosphate, unlike rock/sand (which removes only nitrate), or
phosban (which removes only phosphate).

o Increases pH.

o Increases oxygen.

o Easy to clean; just lift the screen up and "scrape" (i.e., "harvest") it.

o Traps no food like a refugium or DSB/gravel does; food flows right past the screen.

o There is no odor from the turf.

o Will NOT start growing algae in the tank; instead it REMOVES algae from the tank.

o No filter pads (or any mechanical filter) needed, since you want all the food in the
water to continue circulating until eaten by the fish or corals.

o You do not have to turn a skimmer off when feeding, because a skimmer is not running in
the first place.

o Works in saltwater or freshwater nano's.


Start by getting your screen. The screen pictured below is a plastic tank divider (get the biggest one, and cut it down), but almost any stiff material with holes will do, as long as it holds its shape:

http://www.aquaticeco.com/subcategories/2/...ank%20divider/0


If you usa a tank-divider like this, you need to sand one side of it to make it rough, so that the algae will stick to it better. Window screen won't work, because it will not hold its shape. What does work good is knitting backing material. Whatever screen material you use, get enough to make THREE full screens, because you are probably going to mess up at least one the first time.

Now find a place in your nano's hood where the water is flowing horizontally (usually where a filter is located, which you just remove), and size the screen to fit snug in there. The whole screen needs to be under water when the water is flowing across it. Also, and this is probably the only hard part, you need to be able to add a very strong light that shines directly onto the screen. My example light in the pic above is only a half inch away from the water. Use the brightest light that you can tolerate/afford/deal with. You can't have too much light. My example nano uses a 23 Watt, 5100K compact fluorescent "full-spectrum" (125W output equivalent):

http://www.buylighting.com/23-Watt-R40-Com...p1r4023-51k.htm


Now put the screen and light in, and go! If you can get some green algae from your tank, and rub it onto the screen, this will help it start faster. You should start seeing algae in two days if you do this. The screen usually starts out in a few days with brown specs:

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay02screen.jpg


Then it gets thicker, with some green strands starting:

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay03screen.jpg


In a week or so, it just about covers the screen completely:

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay07screen.jpg


...then you take the screen out and clean off half of it and put it back in:

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDay12halfScrape.jpg


Dont' clean it down the the bare screen, though; leave a little behind so it does not have to start from scratch again. After the cleaned part has grown a little, take it out and clean the other half. Continue doing this half-screen cleaning of the green algae whenever it starts looking this thick, or at the longest, once a week.

After a few weeks, the algae will start getting to be a darker green, and then brown:

Hi-Res: http://www.radio-media.com/fish/5galNanoDa...eforeScrape.jpg


This is what you want. Darker algae absorbs more nitrate and phosphate than green algae does. So when you start seeing the brown stuff, continue to remove the green stuff, but try to leave the brown stuff. So, the general procedure is: When the green is starting to shade the brown (or once a week), take the screen out and rub the green stuff off of HALF the screen under some tap water, leaving the darker stuff. After the brown stuff starts covering the screen, then start removing it too, but always leaving some on the screen afterwards. And always, one HALF the screen at a time.

Always throw the scraped material away; this is the nitrate and phosphate that was taken out of your tank! You never want to put it back (or feed it) to your tank. Also, always use tap water (fresh water) to do your screen washings/scrapings, because the fresh water will kill any pods living in the turf (pods will eat the turf.) Lastly, to make the turf grow even faster, you can try adding Kent's Iron liquid to the tank water, per instructions.

If you already have a skimmer or refugium or other devices, just add your new turf algae filter to your system. Then you can start reducing or turning off your other filters one by one. Just be sure to test for nitrate and phosphate daily as you do this. And do post your pics and stories!

Here are some additional pointers: Time the turf light to be on for 18 hours, and off for 6 hours. This is easy if you use a separate light from your tank light. You can also use metal halide or sodium plant-grow lights; the more light the better, and the lower their K rating (more "red") the better. Don't melt your plastic parts though. CFL's work good too.

Mysterious rock algae: After your Turf Algae Filter gets going, and your nitrate and phosphate start measuring very low levels, you may start seeing spots of algae on some parts of your live rock, but not on other rocks right next to it. And this will happen at the same time that you are getting less green algae on your glass. So what is happening?

Phosphate is coming out of your rocks, that's what's happening. When phosphate get really low in the water (which you can test for), the higher phosphate levels in the rocks start flowing out into the water. And as soon as this phosphate from the rock hits the water, algae eats it and starts growing right there on the rock. Some of your rock will have lots of phosphate stored in it, and other rock will have none. That's why only some part of the rock will have algae develop on it, and others won't. Eventually (months), all the phosphate from all the rock will be removed, and all the algae will disappear. However your glass will starting clearing up the first week!

That's it! I hope some folks give it a try! Do post your pics and stories...

How is this different from a refugium? It is essentially doing the same thing and the chaeto in my fuge grows faster and thus removes more nitrates and phosphates.

Turf is different from a fuge in so many ways:



o Reduces N and P to much lower levels than fuge/macro can.

o Is very quick to respond to excess nitrate and phosphate spikes (the turf "screen" always
stays the same size after it is trimmed); much quicker than refugiums/macros which have
smaller surface areas after they are trimmed.

o Traps no waste/food like a refugium or DSB does; waste/food flows right past the screen.

o Does not release strands into display, like chaeto.

o Does not go sexual, like caulerpa can.

o Is 1/2 or 1/3 the size.

o Weighs nothing.

o Is free.

+1

Algae scrubbers have been around in one form or another for a long time and the design is different from a fuge but the desired result is the same.

Essentially, my HOB is a cryptic fuge with an algae scrubber on the front. The setup has worked for me for 4 years. When I upgraded, I removed the HOB and had a fit getting the balance back. Added it back and no more problems. Lesson learned, stick with what works for you.

I agree with all of your points except the first two. The lowest level of nitrate and phosphate is zero and refugiums are capable of achieving this level. Saying the the screen is quicker to respond to spikes doesn't add up. I don't see how a 4x6" screen is going to grow more algae over a 24 hour period than a baseball size clump of chaeto in my fuge. The chaeto probably has more surface area and grows faster than the algae on the screen.

I think this is a great alternative to someone with a nano tank that doesn't have room for a fuge. I just don't see it being more effective than a traditional fuge.

Ideally a fuge would be allowed to just grow any algae and be hidden away. Display fuges are the ones that require maintenance. I may not have a fuge (except my HOB) but I would go with a fuge. I think they have a greater potential for export, just from shear size and flexibility. Food/detritus does get caught in an algae scrubber. I have seen this when it is trimmed. it is a potential hiding place for numerous organisms that consume the matter trapped so it's not just accumulating like filter floss but it is there. Disturb the surface sometime, even from just the power going off and on. All of these screens will release strands of green and brown algae. They can be very messy.

It's basically the same concept as a fuge.
Either way dosing a ZEOvit system or vodka/VSV is going to be more effective at removing phosphates, ammonia, and unwanted nutrients that lead to algae growth.

Seems like a good idea for a pico... less equipment running the better in that small of a tank IMO.

Some good points. However...

Diatome:



Yes, a lot of the mechanisms of turf have been around for a while, back to the '70s for using turf in aquariums. The new part, however, is just putting the turf into a hood, for free, in five minutes, and taking no space doing it.

JustReef:



Yes they are, but they are huge, heavy, not free, and they trap food.



Sure it does. When you clean a screen, no matter what size, it's still the same size. When you harvest chaeto etc., the size drops.



Turf algae has the most nutrient pulling power of any algae, per unit size, and per unit weight. So it doesn't "grow" more, it just "absorbs" more. In my nano test, that compartment you see went from empty to packed in 24 hours.



Again, turf pulls much more nutrients per unit area, so it requires much less area. That's one of the benefits.

Diatome:



Not in these small things. Maybe in the old-style dumping mechanisms of the 80's and 90's, but not these. There's just too much flow over a tiny area.

Break:



The concept of using algae to consume nitrate and phosphate is the same, correct. Doing it for free, in a few minutes, at no risk, is what's different.



Depends what you mean by more effective. Besides risks, costs (zeo), side effects (vodka), all methods can get to zero N and P. Ammonia, by the way, is the preferred nutirent of algae.

Kraylen: Exactly.

Heat young grasshopper. You put a big azz bulb like that over your nano and you'll essentially cook it over along period of time if you dot have a chille ror your ac cranked. You can also achieve the same result with a polyp filter pad or polyester fiber pad from a craft store and no added light.

This idea intrigues me, what do others think?

algal turf scrubbers were used in many public aquariums, but like others have said, they are basically another type of fuge. I've read that one con is the water becomes yellowish from the algae. It still is a good idea to have some place to grow algae because algae make up a significant portion of the natural reef biomass.

if it make the water yellower, can you just add activated carbon to balance it out. i know it doesnt make sense for a minimalist approach.

but i guess you cant have everything.

It actually does not make the water yellow. At all. It clears the water, because of the higher oxygen levels.

Forgot to add

o Adds copious amounts of DOC to the system; an issue which is exacerbated if your tank is low in N & P.





How does that work?

Yes and that's what you want. DOC is food for the food web. By the way, skimmers do not remove DOC, only POC.

Perhaps food for the microbial food web but I have yet to see a flourishing SPS tank that carries a lot of DOC.

Skimmers only remove POC? How are you defining POC? What is the cut-off between POC and DOC?

Also, how does adding O2 "clear the water"?

+1 to how does O2 clear water? Can you provide a reference or a link?

OH this thread is back@

Dead thread resurrection FTW

+ infinity.

New 2009 research on skimmer removal of dissolved organics:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2

"In addition to some dissolved organics, small particulates and microbes (bacterioplankton, phytoplankton) can be removed at the air/water interface of the [skimmer] bubble as well (Suzuki, 2008). The skimming process does not remove atoms/molecules that are strictly polar and readily dissolve in water, such as some organics, salts, inorganic phosphate, carbonate, etc.

"The skimmer pulls out all of the TOC that it is going to remove by the 50-minute mark. Beyond that time point, nothing much is happening and the TOC level doesn't change much.

"Thus, all skimmers tested remove around 20 - 30% of the TOC in the aquarium water, and that's it; 70 - 80% of the measurable TOC is left behind unperturbed by the skimming process. It may be possible to develop a rationalization for this unexpected behavior by referring back to Fig. 1. Perhaps only 20 - 30% of the organic species in the aquarium water meet the hydrophobic requirements for bubble capture, whereas the remaining 70-80%, for whatever reason, don't."





Here are some interesting 2008 technical points taken out of recent issues of Advanced Aquarist:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2


"Greater than 97% of the organic matter in the oceans is in the form of DOC"

"The majority of the DOC in the oceans is consumed over a time span on the order of hours-to-weeks."

"The generally accepted value of deep ocean TOC (DOC in this instance) ranges from 0.45 - 0.60 ppm, a number that appears to be insensitive to collection location. On reefs, however, the DOC (and TOC) value is considerably higher. Even with this point noted, the values of DOC on reefs from the South Pacific to Japan to the Caribbean to the Red Sea are remarkably consistent in their range: 0.7 - 1.6 ppm"

"Bacteria are a critical component in the food web of the reef, as they occupy the role of 'middle man' in the transfer of energy from the source (sunlight) to the consumers on the reef"

"sponges are some of the most prolific repositories of marine bacteria. In fact, some sponges have been studied as effective bioremediation agents in marine aquaculture as a consequence of their exceptional ability to absorb TOC"

"Where does the DOC go ... studies suggest that it is rapidly consumed by bacteria that live in and on the coral itself and not by bacteria present in the water column. Shutting down these endogenous bacteria by antibiotic treatment abolished DOC uptake."

"In total, these data unequivocally demonstrate that the [skimmer] is not required to deplete the aquarium water of TOC. Apparently, naturally biological processes are sufficient in and of themselves to return the post-feeding TOC levels to their pre-feeding values after about 4 hrs or so ... Clearly the skimmer is doing something, given the copious residue accumulated in the collection cup at the end of the week. Perhaps, however, the residue removed by the skimmer is only a rather small, even inconsequential, portion of the entire TOC load that develops in the aquarium water over the course of a week."

Important keyword there. Note that most people on this site skim to remove the large DOC, the type that hasn't yet been broken up by microbes.



I would say that's precisely what is going on but that doesn't mean that skimmers only remove POC.



Not sure how those quotes address my questions.



Has little to do with our tanks unless you also have figures for the DOC and TOC in our tanks. The author did put up some numbers for his own tank, but I'd like to see a bit more.



So why is there still so much DOC left in the water if the bacteria consumes it all? The answer is that it doesn't. The bacteria chew up the big DOC into smaller bits, they take what they want and they leave the recalcitrant stuff behind. Some of the recalcitrant stuff is light-weight and some of it isn't.



This is a very interesting quote. If skimmers didn't do much or weren't required to keep SPS then people wouldn't be doing it. Large-scale aquariums who used to use algae scrubbers wouldn't have changed over to skimmers, then touted the improvement in water quality and coral health if it didn't happen.



Or perhaps it is actually a very large portion of the TOC but what is removed by skimmers isn't much like BSA. Since they didn't test that hypothesis, it is pure conjecture.

Are you skimming on your tank? Do you keep SPS?

Are you aware of any tanks who keep SPS that don't skim?

Now I think you know better, that you cant use this as a logical argument.



No and yes. Sps is growing.



Of course. Many many many (hundreds). When you talk on several boards, they surface.



Well they are a different operation, with different criteria. Things as different as income and labor costs, etc, which have no pertinence to you, probably weight greatly for them.

Remember that scrubbers started out in public tanks, and they they started there by not being run correctly. They did not remove their screens and take them to a sink for a FW cleaning, and, they did not clean them weekly. So they got yellow water, and thus all public aquariums assumed that scrubbers mean yellow water (the proper technique of scrubber cleaning was not discovered until June 2008.) Public tanks can't have yellow water, and they did not know that it would be fixed by changing how they clean, so they just dropped scrubbers all together. Remember that the proper cleaning technique was not discovered until just eight months ago.

Also, scrubbers large enough to handle public tanks would be very large, and thus would give off a lot of light. Enough light that it might get into the viewing areas where the public walks. It's not easy to build a box around such a big scrubber, and scrubbers are not available to be bought anywhere, so in order to keep excess light in control, it might be easier to just not have the light in the first place.

Another thing is that the rocks in public tanks are far away from the front glass. So a little bit of nuisance algae on the rocks (because of the excess nitrate and phosphate that the skimmers don't remove) will not be that obvious. Plus, public audiences won't even know the difference between nuisance algae and clean rock. The public will also not judge a tank by how much coralline vs. algae the rocks have; they just want nice fish and corals. And since coralline is reduced or eliminated because of the the higher phosphate in the water in skimmed tanks, it's less for them to have to clean off of those huge front glass panels.

Feeding such large tanks becomes more "shotgun" than feeding your tank. They can't hand feed each small tang or coral, so, food has to be broadcast out across everything. This causes a higher percentage of food to go uneaten (compared to our tanks), and thus a skimmer should help remove all that excess food.

None of these criteria apply to hobby tank.

Lastly is availability. Nobody makes scrubbers, especially, scrubbers the size of your living room.

No, no, no, no, and no.

I think this is kinda ridiculous. I'm not doubting the benefits of a scrubber, the one in your eclipse five gallon hex tank is completely free and easy to use. It efficiently exports nitrates and phosphates.

However, most people have lights over there aquariums and do not wish to have 40% of the water's surface area completely covered up. Most people have aquariums for their aesthetics and an algae scrubber is not pretty, nor is a floodlight from the grocery store. Most tanks do not have filters built into the hoods that can be easily modified such as your 5g hex.

And no one is going to say, screw skimmers, let's forget all about them and cover our hoods with algae!!!!!!!

However, I do own a 5g hex and I would do this in a heartbeat if I put a decent looking light over it.

If someone were to do this, I think this is an area where LEDs would shine -- LEDs are much smaller and much more efficient than other lights, and you could keep the heat away from the water (use a heat sink on the back).

It's a neat idea, but it would also have to modified to use in an aquaclear or some other standard piece of equipment that can be gotten cheaply, since most of us do not have the horizontal piece that you have in your 5g hex.

How do you know? There is no hobby DOC test kit. Apparently, only recently have lab instruments been applied to aquaria, and these are the results posted above. Result: All the SPS tanks that we thought were "ultra-low" nutrient tank, weren't. They were, however, ultra-low food. Which is why some SPS folks add fish when their corals bleach; the fish waste (food) helps feed the corals, hopefully before the waste (food) gets skimmed out. Add to this the fact that skimmers do not remove ammonia/nitrite/nitrate/phosphate/metals/C02.



From http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3#h2 ...

"Carbon in this context is a catchall phrase which refers to carbon-containing (i.e., organic) chemicals that are either dissolved in the water itself (= Dissolved Organic Carbon, DOC) or suspended in the water as small particles, including single-cell organisms (= Particulate Organic Carbon, POC) (Holmes-Farley, 2004). Together, these carbon sources are called Total Organic Carbon, TOC. The divide between DOC and POC is arbitrary and is based strictly on the capabilities of commercially available filtering materials. At present, the operational definition of DOC includes carbon-containing material that passes through the pores of a 0.2 micron filter. Any carbon-containing material left behind, which includes most bacteria/single-celled organisms, then is labeled Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) (Benner, 2002)."



Reports from user have said that it works in a related fashion to ozone: Higher O2 helps clear the water by oxidizing the carbon. I have no link for this, because it's not the focus of a scrubber. The point is: A scrubber will not yellow the water, which fortunately has been proven hundreds of times in the last eight months (not one single case of yellowing, when operated properly).



"Large DOC" would be POC, which you could also call "food". So you are correct: Skimming removes the food.



Skimmers clear the water pretty well of particulates, so most people agree they remove POC. But if the research is correct, then removing only 20-30 percent of DOC would have to be considered by anyone as "ineffective" at removing DOC. But I still say, high-DOC is not a problem, and is actually a benefit, because of it's food content.



Understood. However chemistry is chemistry; it does not change from ocean to tank. If a coral needs X chemical to survive in the ocean, it will also need X chemical in a tank.



Nope. The answer is that it's a continuous process. Corals and fish (and feeding) are continuously putting more DOC into the water; bacteria are continuously eating it.



LED scrubber are currently being experimented with on the algae scrubber site. The are not ready for prime time yet.

Update: CFL Reflectors

When I see a regular CFL bulb (not a floodlight) being used, I always say that it needs a reflector. Although it would just be easier to use CFL floodlight (which does not need a reflector), below are some reflectors you can use with regular CFL bulbs. You can find many others by searching for "CFL reflector", or by going to any hydroponics or gardening store:
http://www.hydroleaf.com/categoryview.do?cat_id=107

These posts are filled with so much gibberish I don't even know where to start. There is a reason no public aquarium in the world uses algal turf scrubbers on coral tanks. It is not because someone learned how to "properly clean" them in the last 8 months, either. If the tank in your link is evidence of your method, it's not proving your point very well at all.

I've walked away from this thread b/c there is too much crap to wade through... I have my comps coming up and I can't take the time to address all the points presented here. I am hoping that someone else will do it (wombat or another qualified person).

I will say this though: microalgae don't produce much, if any, ozone. If they did and they didn't immediately mitigate it, the ozone would oxidize their cell contents and they would die. O2 will not clear the water in the same way that O3 will, which is why you have no link to support your claim.

Also, how do I know that DOC will only fuel the microbial web? Because that is what directly uses DOC and it's what my research has focused on thus far. Sure, some of it will filter up through primary consumers but the idea that increasing skimmable DOC is good for reef aquaria is an anathema to all that has been learned regarding such aquaria over the last 30 years. There is a reason that coral tanks were largely an unreality until skimming was popularized in the late 80's.

When I am done with my comps next month and if I remember this thread, I will be back to address any remaining points in depth.

All I could read was "chemistry is chemistry". This is true, if you understand chemistry. I'm too lazy to analyze the psuedoscientific chemistry claims, but I'm pretty sure this is one of them:

They work. If Erin Borneman says so I am sold. Let him promote it, they work just fine at what they do.

Other threads have pointed out that they work very well in starting up a tank as they can be estabilished before the tank is setup and help to produce a ammonia free cycle.

I plan to use one on my next tank, cheato too.

NR did not get the previous parts of this series, but nevertheless, here is feeding information starting at part six:

Part 6 of 7:

"The Food of Reefs, Part 6: Particulate Organic Matter" by Eric Borneman
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/eb/index.php

"This article will address a very important food to corals and many other animals, particulate organic material (POM). This food source has many names, including detritus [waste], floculant organic matter, reef snow, marine snow, and suspended organic material.

"Not so long ago, marine aquarists made every attempt to be assured that their water column was "polished." I never fully understood the term, but the premise was that a clean water column was a good water column. Various means were employed to accomplish this, including the use of various power filters, mechanical flosses and screens, sterilizers, ozonizers, canister filters, diatom filters, foam fractionators [skimmers] and many other devices. [However] "polished" water might not be in the best interest of reef tanks or corals.

"Particulate organic material has its origins in life, being composed by and large of the remains, secretions and excretions of living organisms. On coral reefs, it is composed mostly of dead algae, bacteria, mucus, and feces.

"When food, waste, or other particulate organic matter (POM) is trapped, especially in an aerobic environment, it is acted upon by several types of bacteria that break down the substances into more basic dissolved organic and inorganic components. Some of these breakdown components are organic acids and refractory compounds that can impart a yellow tint to the water column. This yellowing has been called "gelbstoff." However, both the substances remaining after [various types of] filtration, as well as the substances removed by the filtration, can be utilized by the life in the aquaria, and are taken up by corals, sponges, some other invertebrates, phytoplankton, bacteria, and algae.

"On reef slopes and crests, the [waste] material is mostly coral mucus, while over the reef flats and lagoons, the material is mostly algae and fecal matter. This material, by itself, has a high carbon content. However, it acts as a substrate for bacteria, ciliates, cyanobacteria, and other microorganisms that coat the particles. Bacteria can even convert dissolved organic material (DOM) into particulate organic material (POM) by aggregating it in the presence of carbon. This provides a substantially enriched particle replete with amino acids and valuably higher nitrogen content. As such, detritus [waste] becomes a very nutritious food source for many organisms. It is such a complex "dirt", that detritus has been described as a completely self-contained microhabitat of its own, with plant, animal and microbial components, and its own "built-in" nutrient source.

"Another major consumer group of detritus is the zooplankton. These small animals, themselves a very important food sources to reef consumers, have been found to have 90% of their gut contents composed of detritus. Mucus-producing animals, like corals, tend to trap detritus, and the material is either removed or consumed by ciliary action across the tissue surface. Many fish also consume coral mucus, and any attached particulate organic material"

"Detritus [waste] forms the basis of several food webs that are part of a balanced autotrophic/heterotrophic community. It also plays a role in establishing various levels of nutrient production and decomposition. It is this material that is the principal food source for the many bacterial species that work in various nitrification and denitrification activities. Before reaching the microbial community, however, it acts as a food source for the smaller consumers such as amphipods, copepods, errant polychaetes, protozoans, flagellates, ciliates and other animals whose activities contribute to the stability and productivity of a coral reef and a coral reef aquarium.

"It is the microbial community, though, that is most important in the detrital processes. On the reef, the productivity of bacteria (both aerobic and anaerobic oxidation and reduction, including important sulfate reduction) depends heavily on detritus. Without this microbial community, coral reefs would cease to exist.

"Corals, in particular, are notable for their consumption of detritus. All corals studied feed to some degree on POM, and coral communities have been found to remove half of the POM present on some reefs. So prevalent is this material, that it is termed "reef snow" in the wild. [...] Given the ability of so many corals to consume and utilize this material, along with its relatively high abundance and ability to provide up to 100% of corals' carbon and nitrogen requirements, it may now (hopefully) seem rather foolish to attempt to remove this material from aquaria.

Saw "Borneman" and immediately though tl;dr

Here is a Nano hang-on-back or hang-on-top box scrubber that somebody could build to sell. That is the reason for the tighly fitting lid, and the built-in pump; no decisions or adjustments are needed by the customer. After building it, you could buy a banner ad on this site to sell them.

However if you were just building it for yourself, you can make the lighting simpler by just setting a T5HO light fixture on top of the box (although you would not get the benefit of the noise and light being sealed off by the lid), and you could make the pump simpler by just putting the pump in the tank (up near the waterline):






I'm not providing any links or part numbers, because it's up to the person building it to make sure that everything works together properly (it's not a beginner's project). Here are a few notes:


This scrubber MUST be placed above the tank, so it drains down into the tank.

The overflow drain must be lower than the bulbs.

The pump must be self-priming, capable of pulling water up 12" or so from the tank.

There should be no holes in the sides or bottom of the box, except for the drains; all other tubing and wires should come out of the top of the box. This will eliminate any possibility of leaky connections.

Two bulbs will provide more filtering than one will. And if you can fit three, all the better. 12" T5 bulbs are only 8 watts each.

The screen needs a solid backing, with some plastic canvas laid on over it.

The mounting brackets could hook onto the top of the nano, or they could be made into extended legs that go all the way down to the cabinet. Or, the whole box scrubber could be set on top of the nano, and be moved as needed.

The pump should be able to run "dry" without burning up.

The upflow-tubing should not go very far into the display; maybe a half inch or so. This limits how much water can be pulled out of the tank if there is a problem.

The size shown, 13.5" X 3" X 3", gives a one-sided screen of about 40 square inches. This will fit neatly behind (and on top of) a typical 6 or 8 gal nano without sticking out, but will also provide enough filtering for an 18 gal nano that gets weekly cleanings. For 24 gal and larger, use two separate scrubbers. This has the added benefit of redundancy, and, allows you to keep one running while the other one grows back after cleaning.

Overflow protection test: (1) plug up the drain at the bottom of the screen; the water should rise and start going out the overflow drain without spilling out of the lid, and it should not get high enough to touch the bulbs. (2) Now, also plug up the overflow tube. The pump should start running dry before the box spills, if you placed the upflow tubing high enough in the tank.

The T5 sockets should be the "waterproof" type, they keeps spray and salt out. They are not really "waterproof", but they are made for aquarium use.



Basic costs of building one (multiples would be cheaper)...

Box w/lid: $40
Pump: $35
2 Bulbs: $15
Sockets: $20
Ballast: $35
Misc: $40
---------------
Total: $185 USD

Thats far to expensive for what it does. SM, seems like you arent trying anymore, tisk tisk.

holy non-responsive quoting, santa monica!!

You make claims, and then quote random sentences that have nothing to do with your claims to back them up...

Well, considering that I have the exact same tank... that I can use natural filtered light on.... I'm gonna give it a try... There's no where for a refugium without removing the filter in the hood... and then my cat would go fishing.... I'm soooooo trying this.

On my first tank (no longer in use) I had a BackPack II skimmer than fit on my little 12gal hex, which had almost no edge to fit anything on to begin with and it worked beautifully. It was the perfect size. The return chamber was stuffed full of chaeto too and it thrived in there nicely.


Your "free" system turned out to cost more than most nano skimmers LOL

This is not the free system. Try reading page 1.



Which one?... the box scrubber or the free one?

Update: N and P are invisible:

It's important to know/remember that Inorganic Nitrate and Inorganic Phosphate, which is what your test kits read, and which are also what causes the nuisance algae to grow in your tank, are invisible. You can see the results of the nitrate and phosphate; it's the nuisance algae. But you cannot see the nitrate and phosphate itself. This fact causes the most problems when people see a lot of stuff (food) that their skimmers have removed, but wonder why their nuisance algae is not being removed (skimmers don't remove Inorganic Nitrate and Inorganic Phosphate), and also when their phosphate tests zero, but they still have algae on certain parts of the rocks (the invisible phosphate is coming out of the rocks.)

wtf? you should win best troll on nano-reef.com

This subject has been beaten to death on every single aquarium related website on the net. Just search for it. By the way, I think all of the other threads were closed because of the arguments and personal attacks. The bottom line as I remember it is this:

The algae scrubber is supposed to grow turf algae. This type of algae is supposed to use up more phosphate and nitrate than cheato and a DSB in a refugium. Most people argue that the algae scrubbers cannot replace all of the other filtration we use, but that it has its own benefits. It's an old method that Santa Monica has perfected and apparently works better because he's cleaning half of the turf algae off of the screen every week or so. He removes the screen and rinses off the turf algae to prevent the yellow water effect these scrubbers are known for. I think the old method had you cleaning the screen off above your sump or something. Anyway, I'll have a HOB refugium but I'll try to use one of these as a supplement.

I added small screens to the outputs of my HOB filter and my HOB skimmer and they're starting to grow junk on them. It's been about a week and I've seen no benefits yet. That was my idea for a super-tiny scrubber.

Even the "free" method required a tank divider, CF Flood light, and later, a reflector was recommended. I'm not saying that there is, or isn't anything to turf scrubbers, just that there is no free lunch, and every equipment has a trade off.

The only thing he's perfected is rewriting history. I wish I had time to respond to his post about large public aquarium tanks bit by bit--I help maintain a 200,000 g tank and nearly every sentence is pure BS.

It really did occur to people a long time ago to remove and clean them frequently, and they still didn't work long term as a stand alone filtration method to grow corals. Take a look at the link in his sig if you want evidence of this.

Benji that's a good overview of scrubbers. Probably the best in one paragraph that I've ever seen. Your micro-size version may indeed work too, although I'm guessing it's more for experimenting with.

Update: FW cleanings

Pods eating the algae: The reason you need to run freshwater over your screen every week is because you want to kill the baby pods that start to grow and eat the algae. You may not see the eaten areas, unless the algae is very thin like this:



However, pods are always growing and multiplying. And they eat algae. The reason this is a problem is that (1) pods are constantly flowing out of your scrubber into the tank. If they eat algae first, then the nitrate and phosphate that is in that algae gets released back into the water, and (2) you now have less algae to do the filtering. Unlike the picture above, however, the algae is usually too thick for the eaten areas to be seen. The pods stay out of the light, in the underlying layers; so you don't see what they are eating. By cleaning your screen in freshwater, you kill the pods that are on your screen. They will start multiplying again within a few minutes, but at least you can keep them under 7 days old. And even if you clean only half of the screen each week, you still want to wash the whole screen in FW.