# Anoxic filteration



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Hi, I am trying out this anoxic filteration. It basically converting ammonia/ammonium to nitrogen gas. Full nitrogen cycle.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)




----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

This is my cabomba, grown in anoxic [low oxygen] filtered water. The water is crystal clear with 0 ppm ammonia and nitrites, and 10-15ppm nitrates, because I have about 300 +guppies in my 50gal tank. My nitrates will be zero if I reduced my guppies to about 10
Anoxic filteration has quite a lot of science in it. Basically it converts ammonia/ammonium to nitrite to nitrates and nitrogen gas. Nitrification occurs in the oxygen rich zones in the outer/upper part of the filter medium. As the water is drawn to the inner zones, oxygen levels drop as they are being used up by the outer nitrifying bacteria.Under very low oxygen levels, or anoxic conditions another group of bacteria will use the oxygen in the nitrates[NO3] converting the nitrates to nitrogen gas. Phosphates gets reduced as well. Phosphates are the main cause of the bba[black beard algae] 
In my 40years of fish keeping, going from the basic ug to hang at the back filters, to the canisters filters, sump filters,to the optimum aquarium by dupla with the CO2 , ferric and micro nutrients, bio balls and trickle filters,to the dirted substrate by Diana Walstad, even the ADA stuff by Amano, not missing out the K1 media,I find the anoxic most fancinating and satisfying.
While most are expensive, the Walstad method was quite good but very limited to plants and very small fish population.
In the anoxic system I get max plants and alot of fish.


----------



## Norfgal (May 20, 2021)

I watched a lot of videos on it and it seems so promising. Your cabomba look incredible, lush green and healthy  . I always wanted to see a controlled tank where nitrates were high and say an established anoxic canister filter added to see the results. Because nitrates can come from so many sources and be reduced by so many methods I wasn't quite certain. I have a 55 quarantine tank that I wanted to try it in, but my 3 tanks nitrate levels stay relatively within normal range 5-20ppm due to weekly water changes. How old is your tank and how often do you do water changes? Was wondering if maintenance was decreased by this method. Good luck. Seems to be working wonderfully for you


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

I believe you mean there's quite a bit of pseudoscience around it. Mostly stemming from this guy who speaks in circles. He does more harm than good. People just believe him because he's spewing his nonsense on YouTube.

I've yet to see experiments that can be duplicated with controls. Just circular references, a lot of claims that aren't based in reality, indignation when anyone points out that the YouTube guy can't back up any of his claims.

This topic comes up here every once in a while. Encourage you to do a forum search or two to learn about the nitrogen cycle, how it's happening on every surface in your tank, Novak's hucksterism and the like.


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

sunny3 said:


> This is my cabomba, grown in anoxic [low oxygen] filtered water. The water is crystal clear with 0 ppm ammonia and nitrites, and 10-15ppm nitrates, because I have about 300 +guppies in my 50gal tank. My nitrates will be zero if I reduced my guppies to about 10
> Anoxic filteration has quite a lot of science in it. Basically it converts ammonia/ammonium to nitrite to nitrates and nitrogen gas. Nitrification occurs in the oxygen rich zones in the outer/upper part of the filter medium. As the water is drawn to the inner zones, oxygen levels drop as they are being used up by the outer nitrifying bacteria.Under very low oxygen levels, or anoxic conditions another group of bacteria will use the oxygen in the nitrates[NO3] converting the nitrates to nitrogen gas. Phosphates gets reduced as well. Phosphates are the main cause of the bba[black beard algae]
> In my 40years of fish keeping, going from the basic ug to hang at the back filters, to the canisters filters, sump filters,to the optimum aquarium by dupla with the CO2 , ferric and micro nutrients, bio balls and trickle filters,to the dirted substrate by Diana Walstad, even the ADA stuff by Amano, not missing out the K1 media,I find the anoxic most fancinating and satisfying.
> While most are expensive, the Walstad method was quite good but very limited to plants and very small fish population.
> In the anoxic system I get max plants and alot of fish.


What science? If the anoxic filtration works, then remove all live plants and let us know what happens to ammonia/nitrite//nitrate and phosphate levels.


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm not sure what sort of method is being suggested here, but anoxic filtration is used in SW aquarium keeping. I run a sulfur denitrator -- in an chamber filled with elemental sulfur, anoxic bacteria strip off and use the oxygen from the nitrate according to this equation: 2 H2O + 5 S + 6 NO3- → 3 N2 + 5 SO42- + 4 H+. No phosphate reduction with this method, but decent nitrate reduction as measured in the effluent.

Other methodologies add a food (available carbon) source, though I know less about the science at work there, but these are said to harness PO4 reducing bacteria as well.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

They already did that in the ISS[international space station] 2010 i think.
*Biological filter capable of simultaneous nitrification and denitrification for Aquatic Habitat in International Space Station
H.Uemto, T.Shoji & S.Uchida.*

All fish and no plants. Anoxic system


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Not pseudoscience . Often our bias throws us off. 
I am looking into CEC as well.

Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is *a measure of the soil's ability to hold positively charged ions*. It is a very important soil property influencing soil structure stability, nutrient availability, soil pH and the soil's reaction to fertilisers and other ameliorants (Hazleton and Murphy 2007).

The careful selection of substrate can improve the cec of mu aquarium filtration.
ammonia/ammonium being +ve will be drawn into -ve charged substrate


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Norfgal said:


> I watched a lot of videos on it and it seems so promising. Your cabomba look incredible, lush green and healthy  . I always wanted to see a controlled tank where nitrates were high and say an established anoxic canister filter added to see the results. Because nitrates can come from so many sources and be reduced by so many methods I wasn't quite certain. I have a 55 quarantine tank that I wanted to try it in, but my 3 tanks nitrate levels stay relatively within normal range 5-20ppm due to weekly water changes. How old is your tank and how often do you do water changes? Was wondering if maintenance was decreased by this method. Good luck. Seems to be working wonderfully for you


I think i switched to anoxic probably a year and half plus.
10 litres harvested daily just for watering my potted garden plants.
Maintenance is cleaning glass panels, trim backs, replacing cleaned prefilters and liquid iron addition.

I also relooked into the ug filter. The important part is a very very slow water flow rate. A very fast flow rate will reduce the ug fliter into a giant prefilter sucking in all the debris and causing a crashdown. That is most likely why most hobbyists condemn the ug. but not themselves. Like most medication they kill you if you do not know what you are doing. lol


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Socratic monologue said:


> I'm not sure what sort of method is being suggested here, but anoxic filtration is used in SW aquarium keeping. I run a sulfur denitrator -- in an chamber filled with elemental sulfur, anoxic bacteria strip off and use the oxygen from the nitrate according to this equation: 2 H2O + 5 S + 6 NO3- → 3 N2 + 5 SO42- + 4 H+. No phosphate reduction with this method, but decent nitrate reduction as measured in the effluent.
> 
> Other methodologies add a food (available carbon) source, though I know less about the science at work there, but these are said to harness PO4 reducing bacteria as well.


Take a look the the anoxic system used in the ISS for the tish experiment. They refined the system with alcohol as the food source whereas we hobbyists use fish waste here. The whole system in principle is similar with differences in that their components are tailored made, and you bet expensive


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

gjcarew said:


> What science? If the anoxic filtration works, then remove all live plants and let us know what happens to ammonia/nitrite//nitrate and phosphate levels.


Already did in the ISS[int space station], All fish no plants


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> They already did that in the ISS[international space station] 2010 i think.
> *Biological filter capable of simultaneous nitrification and denitrification for Aquatic Habitat in International Space Station
> H.Uemto, T.Shoji & S.Uchida.*
> 
> All fish and no plants. Anoxic system


Eh, we've been doing it in reefs since at least the 1990s. 

This does sort of emphasize the point that it is most practical in space, or in SW tanks, where replacement water is at a premium. In the average FW planted tank, simple water changes are, well, simple.


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> Take a look the the anoxic system used in the ISS for the tish experiment. They refined the system with alcohol as the food source whereas we hobbyists use fish waste here. The whole system in principle is similar with differences in that their components are tailored made, and you bet expensive


Yes, that's analogous to carbon dosing in SW tanks. They use vinegar, or vodka, or biodegradable plastic beads.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Socratic monologue said:


> Eh, we've been doing it in reefs since at least the 1990s.
> 
> This does sort of emphasize the point that it is most practical in space, or in SW tanks, where replacement water is at a premium. In the average FW planted tank, simple water changes are, well, simple.


yes, if it is good why not, reducing major waterchanges. More stable water parameters


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Socratic monologue said:


> Yes, that's analogous to carbon dosing in SW tanks. They use vinegar, or vodka, or biodegradable plastic beads.


Have tried sugar in small amount? May cause a bloom if it is too much lol


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I suggest that a few hours spent on searching this forum for "denitrification" would answer a lot of the questions. It has been explored ad nauseum. Dentrification can be done (I've done it) in a FW aquarium. However, it can only shave a relatively small amount of NO3 and, as someone mentioned, water changes dwarf denitrifiers in their ability to reduce nitrates (if that's what you really want to do in a planted tank). It's simply not worth the effort.

If you have nitrates so high that you need to reduce them, anoxic bacteria are not going to make much of a dent. You would be far better off looking at the source of the problem, which is likely organics issues and, if this is the source, the organics are going to contain a lot more problematic things than just nitrates.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Deanna said:


> I suggest that a few hours spent on searching this forum for "denitrification" would answer a lot of the questions. It has been explored ad nauseum. Dentrification can be done (I've done it) in a FW aquarium. However, it can only shave a relatively small amount of NO3 and, as someone mentioned, water changes dwarf denitrifiers in their ability to reduce nitrates (if that's what you really want to do in a planted tank). It's simply not worth the effort.
> 
> If you have nitrates so high that you need to reduce them, anoxic bacteria are not going to make much of a dent. You would be far better off looking at the source of the problem, which is likely organics issues and, if this is the source, the organics are going to contain a lot more problematic things than just nitrates.


I know, but the fun is re tweaking like for eg the ug with an ultra slow water flow, plus the fact that it a potential large asset not fully utlised. Careful substrate selection wirh cec is something hobbyists missed.
Magnets to us are like ad nausem, until neodymium magnets and more super magnets on the way. 
My point is can't we take the hobby a few notches higher instead of the same old loco, people are already on maglev.


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

sunny3 said:


> I know, but the fun is re tweaking like for eg the ug with an ultra slow water flow, plus the fact that it a potential large asset not fully utlised. Careful substrate selection wirh cec is something hobbyists missed.
> Magnets to us are like ad nausem, until neodymium magnets and more super magnets on the way.
> My point is can't we take the hobby a few notches higher instead of the same old loco, people are already on maglev.


People have been using capped dirt substrates since at least the early 1900's. Aquasoils came on the scene like 25 years ago. You may be a bit behind the curve.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

gjcarew said:


> People have been using capped dirt substrates since at least the early 1900's. Aquasoils came on the scene like 25 years ago. You may be a bit behind the curve.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


[What science? If the anoxic filtration works, then remove all live plants and let us know what happens to ammonia/nitrite//nitrate and phosphate levels.] Hmmm ISS curved

CEC, cation exchange capacity of substrate is what I am into.

capped sub and aquasoils are old loco


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Deanna said:


> I suggest that a few hours spent on searching this forum for "denitrification" would answer a lot of the questions. It has been explored ad nauseum. Dentrification can be done (I've done it) in a FW aquarium. However, it can only shave a relatively small amount of NO3 and, as someone mentioned, water changes dwarf denitrifiers in their ability to reduce nitrates (if that's what you really want to do in a planted tank). It's simply not worth the effort.
> 
> If you have nitrates so high that you need to reduce them, anoxic bacteria are not going to make much of a dent. You would be far better off looking at the source of the problem, which is likely organics issues and, if this is the source, the organics are going to contain a lot more problematic things than just nitrates.


Ironically anoxic bacteria[ab] are the main work horse in very large waste water treatment plant in reducing nitrates very effectively.
I think they use ab floc held in supension.[?] And after a period the whole section is moved foreward in the line, by the system flow.

At the moment more tweaks are done to turn the 'dwarf'' into giants denitrifiers in FW aquarium. lol


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Good luck. If you achieve what you think is success, make sure it’s repeatable and let us all know, so that we can try it. All of the approaches mentioned have been used and explored for decades. We just can’t commit enough space to these processes to make it practical for significant NO3 reduction.

If you are looking for a more typical food source for anaerobic bacteria in an activated sludge treatment, you may want to try methanol.

There are new technologies, such as MABR, that offer some hope for more efficient detrification. However, I have not seen it attempted with aquariums. Perhaps that is a path that you might follow for true innovation.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Deanna said:


> Good luck. If you achieve what you think is success, make sure it’s repeatable and let us all know, so that we can try it. All of the approaches mentioned have been used and explored for decades. We just can’t commit enough space to these processes to make it practical for significant NO3 reduction.
> 
> If you are looking for a more typical food source for anaerobic bacteria in an activated sludge treatment, you may want to try methanol.
> 
> There are new technologies, such as MABR, that offer some hope for more efficient detrification. However, I have not seen it attempted with aquariums. Perhaps that is a path that you might follow for true innovation.


Nice sensible input.
I thought MABR is more on the aerobic? Membrane areated biofilm, closer to K1. nitrate producer?
Anaerobic bacteria can be confusing depending on which people I talk to. My take is zero lvl O2. Others may disagree.
Methanol/alcohol had been used in the ISS. in very specialised format.Limited life span.
Repeatable will depend largely on the hobbyists. 
Maybe you can also be a brave soul for true innovation.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

MABR is for both, as a system approach, with high efficiency. I also seem to recall that it can remove organic phosphorus, which would enhance the benefit. Basically, it attacks much of the organic stream we try to fight. You'd have to investigate that part further, though.

I've played with dentrification simply to see if I could do it. However, I don't have incentive to do more, since I don't have a nitrate problem.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

Just a feedback loop. As I said. Nothing substantive. No controls. Just random claims with little to back them up. In theory, it works. In practice in this hobby? Just barely. Because the nitrate cycle is happening on every surface in the water - from filter media, substrate, hardscape, plants, glass, pipes. 

Sulphur media reactors aren't the hokey Novak cat litter and plenum setup with massive baskets. They're sealed chambers and water enters them slowly so oxygen can be removed. (I've run them on some of my reefs in the past.)

Y'all can keep beating a dead horse if you want. Just be prepared for people like us to chime in and roll our eyes. In other words, if you don't like feedback? Keep the - yes - pseudoscience (Don't like the term? Pick another.) under wraps. 

And *GIANT CAPITAL LETTERS* won't help any argument.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

somewhatshocked said:


> Just a feedback loop. As I said. Nothing substantive. No controls. Just random claims with little to back them up. In theory, it works. In practice in this hobby? Just barely. Because the nitrate cycle is happening on every surface in the water - from filter media, substrate, hardscape, plants, glass, pipes.
> 
> Sulphur media reactors aren't the hokey Novak cat litter and plenum setup with massive baskets. They're sealed chambers and water enters them slowly so oxygen can be removed. (I've run them on some of my reefs in the past.)
> 
> ...


LOL might be my favorite post ever from you @somewhatshocked!😆

And I couldn't agree more. That Novak guy is a snake oil salesman. I can't believe people are still taking his nonsense seriously.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Deanna said:


> MABR is for both, as a system approach, with high efficiency. I also seem to recall that it can remove organic phosphorus, which would enhance the benefit. Basically, it attacks much of the organic stream we try to fight. You'd have to investigate that part further, though.
> 
> I've played with dentrification simply to see if I could do it. However, I don't have incentive to do more, since I don't have a nitrate problem.


Membrane aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) technology provides a revolutionary improvement in aerobic wastewater treatment. In particular, it has high nutrient removal and energy efficiency, compared to traditional wastewater treatment systems. [Fluence]
The MABR is in the upper tract where nitrification takes place, and denitrification lower down the loop where
the anoxic floc is in the waste water treatment plant


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Greggz said:


> LOL might be my favorite post ever from you @somewhatshocked!😆
> 
> And I couldn't agree more. That Novak guy is a snake oil salesman. I can't believe people are still taking his nonsense seriously.


Will that mean the international space station [ISS ]fish experiments were based on nonsense too as their systems include the anoxic filteration principles? The ISS fish experiments team are certainly no bigger fools in my take.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> Will that mean the international space station [ISS ]fish experiments were based on nonsense too as their systems include the anoxic filteration principles? The ISS fish experiments team are certainly no bigger fools in my take.


I guess we are all in the hobby for different reasons. My goal is to grow colorful healthy plants and arrange them in a pleasing display. 

If your goal is to mimic ISS fish experiments, more power to you. But they have little in common with an aquarium in our home.

And there is probably a reason topics like these are never discussed by the 99.7% of the planted tank community. Because they have little to do with growing plants.

In the end, to each his own.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

somewhatshocked said:


> Just a feedback loop. As I said. Nothing substantive. No controls. Just random claims with little to back them up. In theory, it works. In practice in this hobby? Just barely. Because the nitrate cycle is happening on every surface in the water - from filter media, substrate, hardscape, plants, glass, pipes.
> 
> Sulphur media reactors aren't the hokey Novak cat litter and plenum setup with massive baskets. They're sealed chambers and water enters them slowly so oxygen can be removed. (I've run them on some of my reefs in the past.)
> 
> ...


CEC [cation exchange capacity] is a wide subject and substantive. The capitals use are std to define and not as to denote anger.
ISS use of anoxic principles is no radom claim.
Pseudoscience is unproven science. I doubt the ISS fish researchers will use unproven science. Or they did? lol
Electric cars likewise are not a dead horse just because they have battery issues. Think they are making good progress and did not give up.
You pointed water enters slowly and that is one key. Sulphur as food source. Wondering what if the flow is fast? Doesn't work right? Or it can still work? Bacteria need time to grow and do their job. How to fit them in?
Chime in if you must but constructively. 
The real challange is in the practice [read refining the anoxic filter to be pratical]


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

sunny3 said:


> Will that mean the international space station [ISS ]fish experiments were based on nonsense too as their systems include the anoxic filteration principles? The ISS fish experiments team are certainly no bigger fools in my take.


At this point it seems like you may be a troll, but I'll take the risk of trying to respond as if you're sincerely open to discussion. In all actual denitrification reactors, there is an *electron donor*. It's the ethanol in the ISS experiments and the "vodka" reactors used by reefkeepers. It's inorganic sulfur compounds in a sulfur-driven denitrification reactor. It's organic carbon in natural systems (i.e. wetlands) and the sludge denitrification reactors used in wastewater treatment. 

Novak's design does not have any of these things. No proposed mechanism of action, no experiments to show effectiveness, just rampant handwaving and pseudoscience. The reason your tank doesn't have high levels of nitrogenous compounds is the crazy amount of cabomba soaking it up AND the fact that you're doing frequent water changes. As I mentioned when I first commented in this thread, I would encourage you to stop the water changes and remove the plants from your tank, then you will be able to see if there is any denitrification going on.

Unless you are using 99.5% pure ethanol in a non-porous polyethylene bag, then your "reactor" is completely unrelated to the ISS one. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The peer reviewed scientists are not dabbling in pseudoscience, YOU are. To use an analogy, let's say you claimed to make a nuclear bomb out of a tin can and some string. You can't point to the Manhattan Project as proof that your tin can nuke works. 

Nobody is doubting the existence of denitrification, just that you have denitrification going on in your aquarium.

I wrote this a while back. If you're open minded, it may be informative:



gjcarew said:


> Kevin Novak is the guy behind Anoxic Filtration System and the surprisingly popular Youtube channel.
> 
> He makes a number of pretty crazy claims. Here's a quick rundown:
> 
> ...


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Greggz said:


> I guess we are all in the hobby for different reasons. My goal is to grow colorful healthy plants and arrange them in a pleasing display.
> 
> If your goal is to mimic ISS fish experiments, more power to you. But they have little in common with an aquarium in our home.
> 
> ...


Planted tank community are limited to plants and very small fish population or none at all. Either the fish destroy the plants by their habits or they simply degrade the water quality to the point that the plants are algaed and dying. Fish habits can be solved by careful selection. Water quality can be further improved by the ISS experiments, read anoxic filteration. See the common goal?

CO2 injection was not new. But the thinking in early days were that CO2 must be rid off in fish tanks. Kipper and Horst in their book The Optimium Aquarium cash in with the CO2 craze.The planted tank took off. lol. Amano with his ADA got the loot.
99.7% are maybe not thinking out of the box? No offense


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> Planted tank community are limited to plants and very small fish population or none at all. Either the fish destroy the plants by their habits or they simply degrade the water quality to the point that the plants are algaed and dying. Fish habits can be solved by careful selection. Water quality can be further improved by the ISS experiments, read anoxic filteration. See the common goal?
> 
> CO2 injection was not new. But the thinking in early days were that CO2 must be rid off in fish tanks. Kipper and Horst in their book The Optimium Aquarium cash in with the CO2 craze.The planted tank took off. lol. Amano with his ADA got the loot.
> 99.7% are maybe not thinking out of the box? No offense


I guess I didn't get the memo.

I keep a planted tank with heavy Rainbowfish stocking. The fish haven't destroy the plants and the water quality has not degraded to the point where plants are algaed and fish dying. 

And I haven't even used the ISS methods. Just good old fashioned light, CO2, fert dosing and good general maintenance. Would thinking outside the box help me? 

And oh my the Optimum Aquarium. You are showing your age. Most of the Dupla method was also voodoo science or just flat out wrong. 

I always find it interesting when folks are more curious about this stuff than about learning how to grow plants.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

gjcarew said:


> At this point it seems like you may be a troll, but I'll take the risk of trying to respond as if you're sincerely open to discussion. In all actual denitrification reactors, there is an *electron donor*. It's the ethanol in the ISS experiments and the "vodka" reactors used by reefkeepers. It's inorganic sulfur compounds in a sulfur-driven denitrification reactor. It's organic carbon in natural systems (i.e. wetlands) and the sludge denitrification reactors used in wastewater treatment.
> 
> Novak's design does not have any of these things. No proposed mechanism of action, no experiments to show effectiveness, just rampant handwaving and pseudoscience. The reason your tank doesn't have high levels of nitrogenous compounds is the crazy amount of cabomba soaking it up AND the fact that you're doing frequent water changes. As I mentioned when I first commented in this thread, I would encourage you to stop the water changes and remove the plants from your tank, then you will be able to see if there is any denitrification going on.
> 
> ...


Appreciate your risk. I am not trolling. But if provoking slumbered hobbyists to awake into thinking again then one can argue.
As I have said I am relooking and trying out after going a whole circle.
As you mentioned electron donor, the finer point to look is the NO3. Take away the O3 and Nitrogen is liberated as nitrogen gas. Who do you think will take away the oxygen? I am not dabbling in p.science but more towards pure science.No? Electron donor not science?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

sunny3 said:


> Membrane aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) technology provides a revolutionary improvement in aerobic wastewater treatment. In particular, it has high nutrient removal and energy efficiency, compared to traditional wastewater treatment systems. [Fluence]
> The MABR is in the upper tract where nitrification takes place, and denitrification lower down the loop where
> the anoxic floc is in the waste water treatment plant


I think that, if you look outside of Fluence, you will find that efforts have been made to enclose the two components, system-wise, so that the low and very directed O2 delivery to the aerobic section, isolates the O2 from the anaerobic section, allowing for increased efficiency in both components. Probably more a point of interest, since no one is likely to attempt this in our hobby.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Greggz said:


> I guess I didn't get the memo.
> 
> I keep a planted tank with heavy Rainbowfish stocking. The fish haven't destroy the plants and the water quality has not degraded to the point where plants are algaed and fish dying.
> 
> ...


Try gold fish or gravel diggers like cichids for tryout and see if will not.Do not choose non diggers fish and then say they don't. Try 500-1k neons for try out. It is fun


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Deanna said:


> I think that, if you look outside of Fluence, you will find that efforts have been made to enclose the two components, system-wise, so that the low and very directed O2 delivery to the aerobic section, isolates the O2 from the anaerobic section, allowing for increased efficiency in both components. Probably more a point of interest, since no one is likely to attempt this in our hobby.


Good tip.Nice. I appreciate it.Thanks
My after fhoughts, could be adapted in the aquarium like placing it at the bottom, but it has other whole lots of problems like availability of the MABR, air plumbing, not to mention cost. The common denominator would the anoxic and aerobic interface/zone in the MABR and anoxic filter.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Greggz said:


> I guess I didn't get the memo.
> 
> I keep a planted tank with heavy Rainbowfish stocking. The fish haven't destroy the plants and the water quality has not degraded to the point where plants are algaed and fish dying.
> 
> ...


Dupla got it not right in their heating cables. They were on to artificial heating to create convection, Micro thermodynamics is a way I am looking into in lieu of that heating cable failure. You maybe using voodoo science as Dupla advocate CO2 . NO? Fert dosing also voodo science? 
You do not grow old?
Sure is intresting


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

gjcarew said:


> At this point it seems like you may be a troll, but I'll take the risk of trying to respond as if you're sincerely open to discussion. In all actual denitrification reactors, there is an *electron donor*. It's the ethanol in the ISS experiments and the "vodka" reactors used by reefkeepers. It's inorganic sulfur compounds in a sulfur-driven denitrification reactor. It's organic carbon in natural systems (i.e. wetlands) and the sludge denitrification reactors used in wastewater treatment.
> 
> Novak's design does not have any of these things. No proposed mechanism of action, no experiments to show effectiveness, just rampant handwaving and pseudoscience. The reason your tank doesn't have high levels of nitrogenous compounds is the crazy amount of cabomba soaking it up AND the fact that you're doing frequent water changes. As I mentioned when I first commented in this thread, I would encourage you to stop the water changes and remove the plants from your tank, then you will be able to see if there is any denitrification going on.
> 
> ...


Sorry I missed the very informative piece. No harm in looking into the very fine details. Phd holders have the tendency to overlook fine details like a programmer find the very small bugs. Thanks


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

Moderator hat on: If anyone insults another member or trolls, I'll be the first to send them on their way. Please do not troll - especially about something as hokey as this. Won't even wait for input from the rest of the moderation team. I _get_ that it sucks to have a bunch of people pile on to point out you're... mistaken. But don't lash at out people who are offering input in a friendly and professional manner. Your snide remarks toward Greggz and others are not welcome. Now let me take off my moderator hat and respond...

..........

Full disclosure: I think Novak causes more harm than good because I moderate a large forum and read thousands of posts per week. Frequently have to read about the harm and confusion his hokey shtick causes with newcomers. Probably 2-3 times a month for the last decade. So I automatically roll my eyes and dismiss _anything_ from him as unworthy of consideration. Much like he dismisses anyone in the comments who dares question him. I won't even begin to wade into his credentials but something doesn't smell right on that front, to say the least.

The international space station experiment is _not remotely_ like anything you're doing in the planted tank hobby. I'll let what others have already said speak for itself on that matter.

Plenty of people keep planted tanks with tons of livestock. I'm one of them. We frequently have to add nitrates in order to grow plants. Even in tanks with tons of critters.

We know what CEC is.

Plenty of people here use undergravel filtration systems - mostly shrimpkeepers who want water to move through active/buffering substrates to facilitate more stable water parameters.

Any member of the forum is welcome to chime in on any discussion taking place on this forum if they have access. It's for discussion. They're free to discuss things, constructive or not.

Pretty sure the sulphur reactor bit is confusing you. Google how it works. I don't have the energy to explain it further because this is a massive drain.

Pseudoscience isn't unproven science. (Unproven science = theory.) Pseudoscience = beliefs or practices misconstrued as being based on science and the scientific method when they're not. Novak's theory, at this point, is just that. He hasn't proved it. That's fine. Just don't present it as being based in scientific fact. Cause when you do that? It's pseudoscience.

I'm all for trying new things when it comes to planted tanks. (Recent example here and here. Because doing stuff like this can be fun.) Pretty sure everyone here is. I'll try almost anything that's reasonably within reach. But a good rule of thumb: If something truly works? It gets picked up quickly in hobbies like this. There's a reason Novak's stuff hasn't been picked up in the _decades _he's been going on about it: it doesn't work as he claims. What works well is what gets widely accepted and picked up by most people in the hobby. So when it works and can be duplicated? Let us know. I won't be holding my breath - and not just because I have lung damage from COVID.

I always get a kick out of reading stuff like this. Makes my weekly water change (which accomplishes more than merely removing waste) seem like less of a hassle. Makes growing plants in boxes of water seem more relaxing - just like I like it.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

somewhatshocked said:


> Moderator hat on: If anyone insults another member or trolls, I'll be the first to send them on their way. Please do not troll - especially about something as hokey as this. Won't even wait for input from the rest of the moderation team. I _get_ that it sucks to have a bunch of people pile on to point out you're... mistaken. But don't lash at out people who are offering input in a friendly and professional manner. Your snide remarks toward Greggz and others are not welcome. Now let me take off my moderator hat and respond...
> 
> ..........
> 
> ...


sorry about your lung damage


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

somewhatshocked said:


> Moderator hat on: If anyone insults another member or trolls, I'll be the first to send them on their way. Please do not troll - especially about something as hokey as this. Won't even wait for input from the rest of the moderation team. I _get_ that it sucks to have a bunch of people pile on to point out you're... mistaken. But don't lash at out people who are offering input in a friendly and professional manner. Your snide remarks toward Greggz and others are not welcome. Now let me take off my moderator hat and respond...
> 
> ..........
> 
> ...


I take back what I said earlier in this thread.

This is now my favorite post from you!!


----------



## Norfgal (May 20, 2021)

somewhatshocked said:


> I believe you mean there's quite a bit of pseudoscience around it. Mostly stemming from this guy who speaks in circles. He does more harm than good. People just believe him because he's spewing his nonsense on YouTube.
> 
> I've yet to see experiments that can be duplicated with controls. Just circular references, a lot of claims that aren't based in reality, indignation when anyone points out that the YouTube guy can't back up any of his claims.
> 
> This topic comes up here every once in a while. Encourage you to do a forum search or two to learn about the nitrogen cycle, how it's happening on every surface in your tank, Novak's hucksterism and the like.


Yes, you read me well


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Technically.. Novak isn't the only one that preaches this:
Anoxic Filtration

I'm not going to judge one way or another.
Conversion (denitrification) of nitrate to N(gas) is pretty well understood.


> The preferred nitrogen electron acceptors in order of most to least thermodynamically favorable include nitrate (NO3−), nitrite (NO2−), nitric oxide (NO), nitrous oxide (N2O) finally resulting in the production of dinitrogen (N2) completing the nitrogen cycle. Denitrifying microbes require a very low oxygen concentration of less than 10%, as well as organic C for energy. Since denitrification can remove NO3−, reducing its leaching to groundwater, it can be strategically used to treat sewage or animal residues of high nitrogen content. Denitrification can leak N2O, which is an ozone-depleting substance and a greenhouse gas that can have a considerable influence on global warming.
> 
> The process is performed primarily by heterotrophic bacteria (such as _Paracoccus denitrificans_ and various pseudomonads),[1] although autotrophic denitrifiers have also been identified (e.g., _Thiobacillus denitrificans_).[2]











Denitrification - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Applying it in a practical sense???
Somewhat a polarizing subject I'd say.





__





Anoxic filtration - miracle or myth? - Page 8


Hi all, I'm new to koi keeping and have been reading up on anoxic filtration. I think I understand the chemistry, but now need to know more about the



www.koiforum.uk












Anoxic Filtration | PDF | Nitrogen | Oxygen


Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.




www.scribd.com




Anyone have a Scribd acount?

Or free book?
*



Anoxic Filtration Book... Still free on Apple's iBook store

Click to expand...

*


> This is to inform everyone on a new way of obtaining the Anoxic Filtration System’s CD-book that Syd Mitchel has so gracelessly added to his web sight.
> 
> If you have an Apple iPad, iPhone or iPod you can now download the book for free from the Apple iBook Store on your computer with iTunes. The Anoxic Filtration System CD-Book has been converted with the help of Apple’s iBook Author into a very colorful full version of the original CD-Book. Easier to read and page through without the breaking up of pages. Any page of the book can now be looked up easily and fast for reference when needed.
> 
> ...


----------



## gjcarew (Dec 26, 2018)

jeffkrol said:


> Technically.. Novak isn't the only one that preaches this:
> Anoxic Filtration
> 
> I'm not going to judge one way or another.
> ...


Mankey Sanke is Syd Mitchell. It's his pseudonym. Syd Mitchell cites research by Kevin Novak. Kevin Novak cites explanations by Syd Mitchell. Kevin Novak has never done any research. Syd Mitchell has never made any explanations that make any scientific sense. It's a big grift... They sell books, merch, and get youtube money from gullible people.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

gjcarew said:


> Mankey Sanke is Syd Mitchell. It's his pseudonym. Syd Mitchell cites research by Kevin Novak. Kevin Novak cites explanations by Syd Mitchell. Kevin Novak has never done any research. Syd Mitchell has never made any explanations that make any scientific sense. It's a big grift... They sell books, merch, and get youtube money from gullible people.


Refund Policy | K.O.I. 




__





Certified Koi Keeper | K.O.I.







koiorganisationinternational.org





I've seen worse.....


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

jeffkrol said:


> Refund Policy | K.O.I.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True.
Nitrification and Denitrification, are well understood.
Like I said I started off in my early days with the simple undergravel filter [UG]. It works fine till my ignorance in feeding[40yrs ago] would jamed it out to crashing. Then the craze was to fitting a powerhead to the UG. Turns out to be a big prefilter [in my present day understanding]. The UG was history for me then. Till this day most will pour contempt on the UG.
My point is did we see the finner point of UG? Judging from our present day thinking, a likely no, me included.
So why a relook into a failure? I maybe wrong but I think time is a big factor. So tweaking flow rate I can increase the time for the denitrifiers to their favour.
Trolls will drown out thinking, but the sensible can input in some pros and cons.

Btw jeffkrol, "A _man_ with a watch knows what time it is. A _man_ with two _watches is never_ sure" Not really sure what it means cos I kinda of have "two" watches on my time piece. By a click on my watch I can switch over to the current time when I cross time zones. Hmmm. No malice intended. O well...


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

sunny3 said:


> Btw jeffkrol, "A _man_ with a watch knows what time it is. A _man_ with two _watches is never_ sure" Not really sure what it means cos I kinda of have "two" watches on my time piece. By a click on my watch I can switch over to the current time when I cross time zones. Hmmm. No malice intended. O well...


*



Segal's law

Click to expand...

*


> is an adage that states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Segal's law - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

jeffkrol said:


> Segal's law - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nevertheless, the saying is also used in its purely surface sense, to caution against the potential pitfalls of having too much potentially conflicting information when making a decision.

Fair.
On the other side, too fearful of caution against potential pitfalls may dull. 
The DC and AC development is an intresting case study in the electrical industry.
Ok sorry for the digression.


----------



## kfish (Nov 14, 2020)

I recently (11 1/2 weeks ago) converted an existing aquarium (it's been running for about 1.5 years) to a Novak type annoxic filtration set-up. This is my experience.

TANK: 29 gal freshwater, minimal plants ( a couple good sized anubius, 1 java fern, and 3 pothos rooted in the tank). When I made the change-over to the Anoxic system I tried to change as little as possible so that I could compare before and after. The only change I made was to add the anoxic set-up per Novak's instructions. Filter media, plants, hardscape, substrate, fish, and snails all stayed in. The bioload consists of a few pond snails, 10 Glowlight danios, 7 Bickfords pencilfish, 7 Golden Dwarf barbs, 2 "dwarf" bristlenose plecos**.

The fish are fed lightly once daily with one day off each week. Water changes are 50% weekly. Before the anoxic changeover the nitrates were consistantly 10-20ppm prior to weekly WC (closer to 20ppm). The anoxic system has been set up for about 80 days. I believe Novak says it must be set up for 40-60 days for the anoxic bacteria to establish themselves.

So after 80 days I have seen no changes of any kind in the tank. Nitrates have remained exactly as before. I'm waiting on a large plant order, so my "controlled" experiment will end this week, but I will continue to monitor.

On the plus side, I figured I had nothing to loose except a little time and some pocket change. I didn't see any potential to harm the aquarium and I do enjoy DIY stuff. So if it didn't work, no harm done, but if it did work, well, wouldn't that be awesome!!

My concern about Novak is that he is a PHD that has (according to him) discovered or refined this denitrification approach that could revolutionize our hobby, but he apparently hasn't published any research on it. No studies of any kind that I can find. Instead all he delivers are anecdotes and generalized scientific explanations while dismissing those that challenge him. 30+ years is plenty of time to research and document his system, but he says that people don't want to hear the science. I do!! He should insist on it.

I asked him for research papers I could read, but got no response.

My mind is still open, but so far, I've seen no benefit to this set-up.

**EDIT: The 2 "dwarf" plecos were runts from a grow-out tank. They are 2 year old females that were out competed for food by their more aggressive siblings. They only grew to a couple inches. When I was setting this tank up I used them to keep the biofilter healthy while I waited for my other fish to arrive.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

kfish said:


> I recently (11 1/2 weeks ago) converted an existing aquarium (it's been running for about 1.5 years) to a Novak type annoxic filtration set-up. This is my experience.
> 
> TANK: 29 gal freshwater, minimal plants ( a couple good sized anubius, 1 java fern, and 3 pothos rooted in the tank). When I made the change-over to the Anoxic system I tried to change as little as possible so that I could compare before and after. The only change I made was to add the anoxic set-up per Novak's instructions. Filter media, plants, hardscape, substrate, fish, and snails all stayed in. The bioload consists of a few pond snails, 10 Glowlight danios, 7 Bickfords pencilfish, 7 Golden Dwarf barbs, 2 "dwarf" bristlenose plecos**.
> 
> ...


[On the plus side, I figured I had nothing to loose except a little time and some pocket change. I didn't see any potential to harm the aquarium and I do enjoy DIY stuff. So if it didn't work, no harm done, but if it did work, well, wouldn't that be awesome!!] [/Quote]

I like your spirit.
Aged person like me do still learn. Thanks for the edit example at the foot note style. My ignorance.
Given a set reciepe, two cooks will come out with different results, especially with chinese cusine.
I will avoid criticizing people so that my focus is on relooking into anoxic filteration, and not derailed by bias.After all alternating current [ac] was side lined in the early development.
So far water flow rate is one crucial component.
I do not know your set up. Most of us may tend to think there is only one. There is the fast flow rate and there is the slow flow rate. Sounds confusing to me too. Maybe some thinking/relooking into it helps.
Thanks kfish for your valuable input. Will appreciate it if you can detail out your set up, like pumps, substrate material ect.

**Edit recipe not reciepe


----------



## kfish (Nov 14, 2020)

HI Sunny3,

Here are the details of how I set up the plenum etc.

The plenum is 1" deep and it covers the entire footprint of the tank. Prior to installing the Plenum I placed a small 90 gram package of MarinePure biomedia on the bottom of tank.

The substrate is EcoComplete over Flourite red. Substrate depth ranges from 3-4" in the back to 2-3" in the front.

The lift tube is 5" tall. The air pump is rated for 5 gal. per hour.

The canister filter runs at 10x turnover per hour.

Heat is kept in mid 70s

Did I forget anything?


Here's a photo of the plenum.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

People swear by nitrate reactors (usually fed with vodka) in the reef tank hobby. I bought and briefly set on up on my shop's reef tank shortly before selling the tank. I saw no improvement and no longer remember how long it was on there. But in that side of the hobby, nitrate is a no-no whereas most of us add it to planted tanks. I'm confused as to its freshwater application at all unless we were talking about a fish-only tank.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

kfish said:


> HI Sunny3,
> 
> Here are the details of how I set up the plenum etc.
> 
> ...


Oh wow. High quality diy, very fine work.
Like I said, I am relooking into UG. Try to slow the air flow lower in the airlift by adding in a simple cheap controllable air valve. That will allow you to control the water flow. [A nice variable component] 
Another area to look into is your canister. Mind detailing your canister " ïnnards" ? 
Details like this helps me in understanding why some take off and why some don't. After all there were lots of accidents in the space program in the early stages, thankfully that did not stopped the success.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> People swear by nitrate reactors (usually fed with vodka) in the reef tank hobby. I bought and briefly set on up on my shop's reef tank shortly before selling the tank. I saw no improvement and no longer remember how long it was on there. But in that side of the hobby, nitrate is a no-no whereas most of us add it to planted tanks. I'm confused as to its freshwater application at all unless we were talking about a fish-only tank.


Nitrate reactors were proven science[?] correct me if i erred.
And here is an incidence where it did not work. I am not doubting your words of "no improvement".
I will think that the correct/proper bacteria did not take hold. i could be wrong as there are to many variables out there.

There is no confusion here. It is water stability that we are looking at.

***edit more water stability


----------



## kfish (Nov 14, 2020)

sunny3 said:


> Oh wow. High quality diy, very fine work.
> Like I said, I am relooking into UG. Try to slow the air flow lower in the airlift by adding in a simple cheap controllable air valve. That will allow you to control the water flow. [A nice variable component]
> Another area to look into is your canister. Mind detailing your canister " ïnnards" ?
> Details like this helps me in understanding why some take off and why some don't. After all there were lots of accidents in the space program in the early stages, thankfully that did not stopped the success.


In one of his videos, Novak has a 30gph air pump in his plenum tank. He says it's too much, but still works. Not sure what that means, but I figured I was safe at 5gph. As for how much water is actually being pulled through the plenum, who knows?

The canister is a rena XP1. It has been running continuosly for 11 years. I clean it 3-4 times a year. It contains the 2 foam filters it came with, course and medium. I added a polishing pad and a few ceramic nuggets.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> Nitrate reactors were proven science[?] correct me if i erred.
> And here is an incidence where it did not work. I am not doubting your words of "no improvement".
> I will think that the correct/proper bacteria did not take hold. i could be wrong as there are to many variables out there.
> 
> ...


It makes sense that denitrification happens in the anaerobic chamber with proper sugars. And I believe that is proven to happen. Just not something I want removed from my freshwater tanks seeing as all are planted and have various amounts of NO3 added. My confusion is why would I add and simultaneously remove NO3?


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> It makes sense that denitrification happens in the anaerobic chamber with proper sugars. And I believe that is proven to happen. Just not something I want removed from my freshwater tanks seeing as all are planted and have various amounts of NO3 added. My confusion is why would I add and simultaneously remove NO3?


Anoxic can be confusing in definition, the 3 major disciplines, microbiology, geologly and wastewater process engineering have different definition. So the 3 tend to disagree over anoxic and anaerobic.
My understanding of NO3 intake by plants is that it takes more energy/greater 'route' than ammonium. You can disagree, and go ahead with adding NO3 as it is.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

kfish said:


> In one of his videos, Novak has a 30gph air pump in his plenum tank. He says it's too much, but still works. Not sure what that means, but I figured I was safe at 5gph. As for how much water is actually being pulled through the plenum, who knows?
> 
> The canister is a rena XP1. It has been running continuosly for 11 years. I clean it 3-4 times a year. It contains the 2 foam filters it came with, course and medium. I added a polishing pad and a few ceramic nuggets.


That 5gph airpump can be lowered further with a simple cheap airline control valve.Your call for the rate that produce denitrifiers.
Wow rena XP1, 11 years, awesome. At 900+ l/h it is a nitrate factory producing lots of nitrates. Small wonder.
Some reconfiguration that can achieve water passing by and around your repacked media [you have to figure it out youself]
At your present configuration, water is forced through all your media, sure nitrification.

Water can pass through your foam and polishing pads, you have to figure out how to reassemble your ceramics in such that water can only pass by/around it and not forced through it. You already have matured ceramics.

Anammox bacteria converts ammonium. nitrite to N2, by passing nitrification. Think this 90s discovery of the strain and was exciting to the wastewater treatment people. Not for aquarists at the moment [?]
Researchers had intial hard time trying to propagate and maintain it in the labs. Turns out that O2 decimate it and also it is doubly slow in multiplying. I really like these persistent people.

So it is with the denitrifiers in the simultaneous nitrification and denitrification filter. Nitrifiers has no problems, denitrifiers need some tweaks.

You can see in UG water is slow, In repacked ceramics[water not flowing through it] in canisters water flow should at maximum. These are finner points I missed in my former tryouts.


----------



## kfish (Nov 14, 2020)

I guess I'm not clear about how Novak says 30 gph is not ideal, but will work ok but your saying 5 gph is too much??.

I've never had nitrate issues while using canister filters. I've heard the common refrain that they are nitrate factories, but just never experienced it. Also, I'm not trying to set my canister up as an anoxic filter.


----------



## kfish (Nov 14, 2020)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> I'm confused as to its freshwater application at all unless we were talking about a fish-only tank.



Good question. 

In my situation, I have a fish tank with plants as opposed to a "planted tank". My goal is to decrease nitrates so I can add more nano fish. Right now this tank approaches 20ppm nitrates by the end of the week, just before the WC. I fertilize with 2HR aquarist ZERO every other day. ZERO has no nitrates or phosphates.

So I would agree that the use of this type of system is limited or unnecessary in a fresh water planted tank (a tank that may have a few fish, but is primarily set up as a heavily planted aquarium requiring nitrate supplimentation).


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

somewhatshocked said:


> Sulphur media reactors aren't the hokey Novak cat litter and plenum setup with massive baskets. They're sealed chambers and water enters them slowly so oxygen can be removed. (I've run them on some of my reefs in the past.)


I was doing some testing yesterday so I tested the effluent of my sulfur denitrator -- 0 ppm, while the system water tests at its usual 2.5 ppm. This is a standard reef tank, no algae scrubbers or anything else pulling out NO3.

What is the tested removal rate per pass through these plenum-style setups? Plenum denitrification in aquariums was discovered by SW keepers in the early 1990's (by an aquarist, Sam Gamble, working at Pennecamp Park in FL -- here's the only online mention of this I can find anymore), and it didn't work very well then, which is why keepers moved on to useful methodologies. Without testing input and output though the filter, there's reason to doubt there is anything gong on at all, at least anything more than happens with the usual tiny bit of denitrification that could take place down in a gravel bed.


----------



## kfish (Nov 14, 2020)

Socratic monologue said:


> Without testing input and output though the filter, there's reason to doubt there is anything gong on at all, at least anything more than happens with the usual tiny bit of denitrification that could take place down in a gravel bed.


I agree. That's the kind of data I would like to see.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Socratic monologue said:


> I was doing some testing yesterday so I tested the effluent of my sulfur denitrator -- 0 ppm, while the system water tests at its usual 2.5 ppm. This is a standard reef tank, no algae scrubbers or anything else pulling out NO3.
> 
> What is the tested removal rate per pass through these plenum-style setups? Plenum denitrification in aquariums was discovered by SW keepers in the early 1990's (by an aquarist, Sam Gamble, working at Pennecamp Park in FL -- here's the only online mention of this I can find anymore), and it didn't work very well then, which is why keepers moved on to useful methodologies. Without testing input and output though the filter, there's reason to doubt there is anything gong on at all, at least anything more than happens with the usual tiny bit of denitrification that could take place down in a gravel bed.


_The New Wave: Aquarium Husbandry-A More Natural Approach_ is the result of an ongoing collaboration between the two authors. For more than 6 years, Gamble and Goemans have researched and experimented with the plenum method of filtration. "Our goal has mainly been to explain its (plenum) benefits and compare it to other methods because we see the plenum method as an enhanced extension of Mother Nature" (p. 257).

The two guys wasted their 6years +, or did we missed their finner points?


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

Not sure what you're asking.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

kfish said:


> I agree. That's the kind of data I would like to see.


Do some research into Universities students PHD publications.


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> Do some research into Universities students PHD publications.


That's dismissive. I posted my data here to defend my point, others could easily do the same.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Socratic monologue said:


> Not sure what you're asking.


We must have missed their "enhanced extension of mother nature"


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Socratic monologue said:


> That's dismissive. I posted my data here to defend my point, others could easily do the same.


Apologies if it is dismissive.
I must have missed connecting your data on the sulphur denitrator to the plenum.
Sulphur denitrator works when it is done correctly.


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> Sulphur denitrator works when it is done correctly.


Correct. Plenums, not really. Unless someone takes a water sample from their effluent and it tests measurably lower than the inflow water, and these tests can be replicated not only on this system but others similarly set up.



sunny3 said:


> We must have missed their "enhanced extension of mother nature"


Again, correct -- because it turns out to be a more or less unworkable methodology. The theory was there, a couple early experiences suggested it might be applicable to hobby closed systems, didn't turn out that way, gave it up. But that's been repeated numerous times in this thread. The horse is dead.


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

Socratic monologue said:


> Correct. Plenums, not really. Unless someone takes a water sample from their effluent and it tests measurably lower than the inflow water, and these tests can be replicated not only on this system but others similarly set up.
> 
> 
> Again, correct -- because it turns out to be a more or less unworkable methodology. The theory was there, a couple early experiences suggested it might be applicable to hobby closed systems, didn't turn out that way, gave it up. But that's been repeated numerous times in this thread. The horse is dead.


Ok thanks for your views.

***edit addition, Sulphur denitrator as some found out did not work for them. Most likely it was not done correctly. [my assumption]
Plenum theory remains a theory [?] because it is more or less unworkable methodology.
So the horse is dead. Anything else died? [just wondering out aloud, no offence]


----------



## kfish (Nov 14, 2020)

sunny3 said:


> Do some research into Universities students PHD publications.


Can you point me to the relevant publications?


----------



## sunny3 (Jan 16, 2018)

kfish said:


> Can you point me to the relevant publications?


Too many,
One of the many Technologies for biological removal and recovery of nitrogen from wastewater


----------



## Socratic monologue (Dec 8, 2008)

sunny3 said:


> Too many,
> One of the many Technologies for biological removal and recovery of nitrogen from wastewater


That study contains no test data regarding plenum-style denitrification in closed system aquariums that I can find.


----------

