Jump to content
inTank Media Baskets

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


SantaMonica

Recommended Posts

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)...

 

5galNano.jpg

 

 

Here is the screen:

5galNanoDay00screen.jpg

 

 

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

5galNanoCompartment.jpg

 

 

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

Light.jpg

5galNanoLight.jpg

 

 

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:

ScreenInBox.jpg

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):

Light.jpg

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:

5galNanoDay02screenSmall.jpg

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

 

 

Then it gets thicker, with some green strands starting:

5galNanoDay03screenSmall.jpg

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

 

 

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

5galNanoDay07screenSmall.jpg

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:

5galNanoDay12halfScrapeSmall.jpg

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:

5galNanoDay09screenBeforeScrapeSmall.jpg

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...

Link to comment
  • Replies 612
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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.

 

+1

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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.

 

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Some good points. However...

 

Diatome:

 

Algae scrubbers have been around in one form or another for a long time

 

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:

 

The lowest level of nitrate and phosphate is zero and refugiums are capable of achieving this level

 

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

 

Saying the the screen is quicker to respond to spikes doesn't add up.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

The chaeto probably has more surface area and grows faster than the algae on the screen.

 

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

 

Diatome:

 

Food/detritus does get caught in an algae scrubber

 

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:

 

It's basically the same concept as a fuge

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
The Propagator

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.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...
SantaMonica

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

Link to comment
Turf is different from a fuge in so many ways:

 

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.

 

 

 

It clears the water, because of the higher oxygen levels.

 

How does that work?

Link to comment
SantaMonica

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

Link to comment

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"?

Link to comment
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"?

 

+ infinity.

Link to comment
SantaMonica

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."

Link to comment
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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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

 

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

 

Not sure how those quotes address my questions.

 

"The generally accepted value of deep ocean TOC (DOC in this instance)...

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

"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...

 

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.

 

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."

 

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?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recommended Discussions


×
×
  • Create New...