What do you think would be better on an 24g sps tank with a 9002, phosban or a fuge? Im was thinking about adding one of these. All params are in check, but just wanted a little extra help

what is the problem you're trying to solve?

Very slight algae growth, even though no3 & no4 show up undetectable. A few sps seem a bit dull and a few are a bit brown. Just feel like I need something to put my tank over the top.

IMO I would go with a fuge if alegea is what you're trying to solve. Of course that's assuming you are using RO/DI water for changes/make-up and not continualling adding phosphates to the tank by using tap. A fuge with a healthy population of Macros should take up most of the nutrients the alegea is using now. Plus you have the added benefit of running an "opposite light cycle" which helps stablize pH swings over the 24 hour period. And a final benefit, if you have the luxury and are planning on adding a sump and turning a portion of that into the refugium area, the added water volume never hurts. More H20 volume = slower swings in temperature & chemisty.

If you go with a sump you can actually do both by upsizing your return pump a little, plumb the return into a two valve PVC manifold then route a slow flow through a media cylinder with the media of choice or down through a solid wall media basket back into the sump. If you need more clarification as to what I mean there, let me know and I'll go into depth. The sump option gives you the best of both worlds.

My tank is in my bedroom so in the winter months my exterior windows and doors are closed so I do get a bigger ph swing than I'd like. So that would be a nice benefit of a fuge. I have a 24g aquapod so I dont plan on a sump and would be actually using a phosban reactor for the fuge in my stand. I do use ro/di for all water so that is not an issue. But like I said algae isn't really a big issue, I just feel like I need a little extra help to make my sps really shine

I would do the fuge. Mine really helped. I bought my live rock and a lot of it had a nice layer of some sort of macro algea growing that almost looked like turf! It was actually nice to look at, but made it hard for my corals to grow and spread on the rocks. I added some chaeto to the back and a light and it was all gone in less than a month. The chaeto just out competed it.

I like the idea of using a 2LF reactor for a fuge. Seems like it could be done easily.

Ya Im leaning toward a fuge at this point for a couple reasons. One is it is more natural. Two I wont have the expense of adding gfo to it. I got the idea of using a reactor from somebody over at rc. He had it hung on the side of this tank, but Im going to put it in the stand. I guess if I ever decide to run gfo instead of a fuge its an easy sway. Is there any negatives about a fuge and sps?

The fuge just has more benefits than the phosban, both would probably help your problem, but I think the added benefit of the water volume, light timer, macro nutrient sponge, place to isolate critters in your tank, etc is worth more than the cheaper phosban alternative.

Only negative with the sump I'd say is the overflow box or pvc overflow or whatever you end up going with can be a pain to purchase or difficult to design with all the right failsafes, but that's an initial thing, and it's not a big one.

I'm going to go against the trend and vote for some sort of PO4 sponge. IME, you will have better results than with a fuge if your solely trying to rid the tank of unwanted algae. Personally I prefer GFO. Why not both?

Fwiw, I'm running GFO, carbon (rox 0.8), and a small clump of cheato in my tank with good results. I've got a good amount of SPS w/ no skimmer and coloring is definitely not an issue for me.

Im not going to use a sump, Im going to use a two little fishes 150 phos reactor and convert in into a fuge, or just use gfo in it.


I wonder if I could use a bulk reef supply dual reactor, one part for fuge and the other for gfo? And if I can do this Im thinking gfo first then fuge

Interesting and creative. You would want your flow going through both to be fairly moderate, so I see no problem there. You'll just have to figure a way to get enough light into the reator to support the macros. Should work and if you go that route, IMO I would put the fuge ahead of the media reactor.

I'm rambling now, but 90+% of the premade sumps I see on the market have two MAJOR flaws. First, if they have a dedicated compartment for a fuge, it's usually located between the "tank water in" side and the return pump which forces water to cross the fuge section too fast. Second, the sumps with skimmer compartments, also tend to skim before the fuge area, which again make no sense. Flow through any fuge should be rather slow to allow maxium exposure/exchange/contact time and why would you deprive the macros from the nutrients they are suppose to be depleating by running the skimmer upstream from it? Anyway, apparently I'm the lone voice here as the majority of "name brand" sump/refugium manufactures don't do it that way.

Hey, once you get it all hook up and running, report back on your results. Tons have modded the AC70s into working fuges, I see no reason why a clear wall media reactor wouldn't work. Clear.....as I assume you will have the required lighting outside the container.

The reason I was thinking to run gfo first and fuge second was if any pods decide to leave they would be pumped back into the tank which my fish could feed on, rather than them going through media which might shred them up so the fish have no chance with them. And yes of course I will light this thing up, right now Im thinking either a led set up or a cheapie home depot clamp on with a cfl. The reason I didn't go with the ac70 mod was Im trying to keep viewing area as clean as possible with out a ton of wires or gadgets.