Reef Central Online Community
Champion Lighting

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community > General Interest Forums > The Reef Chemistry Forum
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

User Tag List

Reply
Thread Tools
Old 02/16/2018, 05:09 AM   #1
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
N0P0x: N03 rising, P04 falling

Cant quite figure this out and would appreciate some thoughts.

Been dosing N0P0x for months now as per the instructions. N03 did come down but when I reduced the dosage to 2ml/25gal, N03 slowly creeps from 5ppm to 10ppm over a couple weeks. But.....my P04 is steadily decreasing (from 0.15ppm to 0.05ppm).

Why would my P04 be falling while N03 is rising? I thought that the N0P0x is more effective on the N03.

I feed pellets 3x/day on a feeder and 1 cube of frozen on a 60gal(net volume) system.
10 fish in the system
10L Siporax in the sump

No algae on rocks/glass (other than a little bubble algae) and only have to scrape the glass 1x week (if that).

Do I just dose more N0P0x and feed more frozen to maintain a stable P04?


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 05:36 AM   #2
reeftanker3295
Registered Member
 
reeftanker3295's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 185
I have the same problem, undetectable po4 and the nitrates won't come down from 15 even after weeks of dosing. No algae growth on rocks or glass. Interested to see responses. On the other hand, my corals look great so I'm not too worried about it, how's your tank doing with 10 nitrate?


reeftanker3295 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 06:20 AM   #3
hegeh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 107
Imo its still an acceptable ratio.. look out for corals. If they look healthy with good PE.. i wont be bother with the readings

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


hegeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 07:03 AM   #4
ClownNut
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,825
i had never have this issue with nopox, with 16:1 ratio, it's hard to imagine to have NO3 at all.
i have to dose NO3 into the tank to keep the PO4 in check.


__________________
Dont let me know where u lived if u have a nice pair of clownfish in ur tank!^_^
Clown kidnaper^_^

Current Tank Info: 300DD, SM200/RD3,ATI 60-8X80+4X75, 2 Sea Sweep & 4X6105 & 6208
ClownNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 07:21 AM   #5
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by hegeh View Post
Imo its still an acceptable ratio.. look out for corals. If they look healthy with good PE.. i wont be bother with the readings

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Corals looking terrible. LPS struggle with P04 this low in my system and 90% of my SPS slowly fade. Of course there are two frags that are look great and can't figure out why. Go figure.

May be tied to previous param swings though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 07:41 AM   #6
ClownNut
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,825
post a pic of your tank and corals.


__________________
Dont let me know where u lived if u have a nice pair of clownfish in ur tank!^_^
Clown kidnaper^_^

Current Tank Info: 300DD, SM200/RD3,ATI 60-8X80+4X75, 2 Sea Sweep & 4X6105 & 6208
ClownNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 08:25 AM   #7
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClownNut View Post
i had never have this issue with nopox, with 16:1 ratio, it's hard to imagine to have NO3 at all.
i have to dose NO3 into the tank to keep the PO4 in check.


About a year ago I was in the same boat and dosed sodium nitrate to keep N03 detectable.

Shoe is on the other foot now and trying to figure it all out. Lol!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 09:50 AM   #8
Tripod1404
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,664
You cant get nitrates down if phosphate is limiting. Did you use GFO before?


Tripod1404 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 10:37 AM   #9
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod1404 View Post
You cant get nitrates down if phosphate is limiting. Did you use GFO before?


I've used both GFO and lanthanum chloride previously. Managed to strip the tank of P04. Wasn't pretty.

Agreed that either can be limiting but thought that it was consumed at roughly a 16:1 ratio. Given that, I'm struggling to figure out why my P04 continues to decline while NO3 is rising.

Maybe It is just the peculiarities of my system and simply need more P04.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 11:43 AM   #10
Hitch08
Registered Member
 
Hitch08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Philly Suburbs
Posts: 663
I'm not sure that I understand the ratio you all are talking about. NOPOX is generally understood to consume nitrates to phosphates at about a 16 to 1 ratio? Sort of, 16 nitrates for 1 phosphate?

I'm having a similar issue with my tank. Phosphates are not detectable with a Hanna ULR, yet nitrates are still rocking.

I'm not feeding as much as Dubmaneh. Although I ran GFO for a bit, I stopped when I switched to NOPOX.


__________________
120g tank with 40g breeder sump. SVS-30 LifeReef Skimmer. EcoTech Radion Pros.
Hitch08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 02:25 PM   #11
Tripod1404
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubmaneh View Post
I've used both GFO and lanthanum chloride previously. Managed to strip the tank of P04. Wasn't pretty.

Agreed that either can be limiting but thought that it was consumed at roughly a 16:1 ratio. Given that, I'm struggling to figure out why my P04 continues to decline while NO3 is rising.

Maybe It is just the peculiarities of my system and simply need more P04.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I doubt that 16:1 ratio is the consumption rate. It is the ratio of nitrogen to phosphate that is strikingly well preserved all across the ocean in a large number of distinct habitats. This is known as Redfield ratio.

Here is a quick summery of it from Wikipedia;

Redfield ratio or Redfield stoichiometry is the atomic ratio of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus found in phytoplankton and throughout the deep oceans. This empirically developed stoichiometric ratio was originally found to be C:N:P = 106:16:1 (and has more recently been revised to 117:14:1[1]). This term is named after the American oceanographer Alfred C. Redfield, who first described this ratio in an article written in 1934 (Redfield 1934). As a Harvard physiologist, Redfield participated in several voyages on board the research vessel Atlantis. Alfred Redfield analyzed thousands of samples of marine biomass across all of the ocean regions. From this research he found that globally the elemental composition of marine organic matter (dead and living) was remarkably constant across all of the regions. The stoichiometric ratios of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus remain relatively consistent from both the coastal to open ocean regions.


Based on this info, people made the assumption that in order to have a healthy, algae-free tank, the ratio should be close to 16:1. Otherwise which ever components is excess, cant be utilized and accumulates in water. Normally, in an aquarium, the limiting factor is carbon. And since only autotrophic organisms like algae and cyano bacteria can fix CO2 (so in a sense not limitted by C), only they have the capacity to use the excessive pools of N and P, hence it mostly cause algae growth.

This makes me think your 16:1 ratio is much higher at nitrogen end of the ratio. And this makes uptake trough carbon dosing ineffective.



Last edited by Tripod1404; 02/16/2018 at 02:31 PM.
Tripod1404 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 07:38 PM   #12
ajoe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 271
Pretty sizeable bio-load with 10 fish in a 60 gal not to mention all that food. What is your water change schedule? Siphoning the sand bed? Using any other media reactors?


ajoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/16/2018, 10:51 PM   #13
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod1404 View Post
I doubt that 16:1 ratio is the consumption rate.
I agree. The Redfield Ratio wasn't based on carbon dosing techniques, so there's no reason to think that it'd apply very well here. Feeding a bit more food might help keep the phosphate up. I'd give it a shot.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/17/2018, 06:29 AM   #14
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod1404 View Post
I doubt that 16:1 ratio is the consumption rate. It is the ratio of nitrogen to phosphate that is strikingly well preserved all across the ocean in a large number of distinct habitats. This is known as Redfield ratio.

Here is a quick summery of it from Wikipedia;

Redfield ratio or Redfield stoichiometry is the atomic ratio of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus found in phytoplankton and throughout the deep oceans. This empirically developed stoichiometric ratio was originally found to be C:N:P = 106:16:1 (and has more recently been revised to 117:14:1[1]). This term is named after the American oceanographer Alfred C. Redfield, who first described this ratio in an article written in 1934 (Redfield 1934). As a Harvard physiologist, Redfield participated in several voyages on board the research vessel Atlantis. Alfred Redfield analyzed thousands of samples of marine biomass across all of the ocean regions. From this research he found that globally the elemental composition of marine organic matter (dead and living) was remarkably constant across all of the regions. The stoichiometric ratios of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus remain relatively consistent from both the coastal to open ocean regions.


Based on this info, people made the assumption that in order to have a healthy, algae-free tank, the ratio should be close to 16:1. Otherwise which ever components is excess, cant be utilized and accumulates in water. Normally, in an aquarium, the limiting factor is carbon. And since only autotrophic organisms like algae and cyano bacteria can fix CO2 (so in a sense not limitted by C), only they have the capacity to use the excessive pools of N and P, hence it mostly cause algae growth.

This makes me think your 16:1 ratio is much higher at nitrogen end of the ratio. And this makes uptake trough carbon dosing ineffective.


Thanks. That actually makes a lot more sense. Was thinking the ratio was relatable to carbon dosing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/17/2018, 06:31 AM   #15
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertoni View Post
I agree. The Redfield Ratio wasn't based on carbon dosing techniques, so there's no reason to think that it'd apply very well here. Feeding a bit more food might help keep the phosphate up. I'd give it a shot.




Makes sense. I'm going to increase frozen feedings and see what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/17/2018, 06:35 AM   #16
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajoe View Post
Pretty sizeable bio-load with 10 fish in a 60 gal not to mention all that food. What is your water change schedule? Siphoning the sand bed? Using any other media reactors?


It is but I knew that getting into it. Was planning on carbon dosing/skimming as a means to export the excess nutrients.

Have been at 0 N03 before so I know it's not impossible with this setup but something is off/out of balance.

10% weekly WC. Less than 1/2" sand to syphon so not much of a sink there. GAC in a reactor that also gets changed weekly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/17/2018, 08:02 PM   #17
ajoe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 271
NoPox is pretty clear that a skimmer is necessary and must be maintained at a pretty good pace. No other carbon dosing should take place with NoPox. If you do not have a skimmer that alone would likely solve this issue entirely. NoPox is cranking out the bacteria which is consuming a lot of nutrients. That absolutely needs to be exported by a skimmer. Water changes alone won't do it. I would start 20% weekly water changes going forward and try and siphon the sand bed once in a while. It doesn't have to be weekly but now and then. I am betting that these two changes combined will get things in balance pretty quickly. Selling forum always has a steady stream of used skimmers for sale and I bet you can pick one up there at a nice price. Check that out here.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2

Keep us posted.


ajoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/18/2018, 11:49 AM   #18
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajoe View Post
NoPox is pretty clear that a skimmer is necessary and must be maintained at a pretty good pace. No other carbon dosing should take place with NoPox. If you do not have a skimmer that alone would likely solve this issue entirely. NoPox is cranking out the bacteria which is consuming a lot of nutrients. That absolutely needs to be exported by a skimmer. Water changes alone won't do it. I would start 20% weekly water changes going forward and try and siphon the sand bed once in a while. It doesn't have to be weekly but now and then. I am betting that these two changes combined will get things in balance pretty quickly. Selling forum always has a steady stream of used skimmers for sale and I bet you can pick one up there at a nice price. Check that out here.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2

Keep us posted.


I've got a vertex omega 150 skimmer going and it's cranking out some nasty stuff.

When enough P04 is present I get thicker skim mate with some chunks in there. When P04 drops it becomes thinner and more of a tea colour.

Skimming wet already as per the instructions. Can't skim any more wet as it starts to affect my salinity.

Totally anecdotal but when my skim mate is thick and chunky my corals look better.

Going to start vacuuming the sand bed every other water change and feed more frozen for now. See how those changes stack up.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/19/2018, 10:22 AM   #19
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
So I performed my 10% WC and rinsed my baskets of Siporax in the old water. Wow was there ever a lot of detritus hiding under there! Kinda making me take another look at my sump setup.

Thinking of adding some old powerheads into the sump to keep any detritus in suspension so it can be filtered out by the filter socks on its next pass into the sump. Currently My sump is a one chamber 40Gl breeder with filter socks on the drains, a skimmer, some live rock and two baskets of Siporax in there.

My only concern is that the detritus might settle in the display and not the sump but I think I have enough flow in there to prevent that from happening. Currently have 2 Tunze 6095 and 1 Tunze 6055 in there.

Thoughts?


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/19/2018, 05:49 PM   #20
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,004
Anything that prevents detritus buildup is likely to help with dissolved nutrients. I don't know whether more flow will help keep detritus out of such traps, though. You could give it a shot. It's very unlikely to cause harm.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/22/2018, 04:50 PM   #21
NeverlosT
A bit fishy
 
NeverlosT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 402
I am in the same boat, tried NO3PO4X for some time, have a SPS heavy tank, skim heavily, lots of flow, only about 10 fish in a 150g cube.

My nitrates are typically 20-30, while my phosphates are close to zero when measured with a ULR Hanna Tester.

The nitrate levels stunt my SPS growth and make things unhappy.

Large water changes would help temporarily, but not a feasible long term solution.

I vacuum my sandbed from time to time, and my wrasses keep it pretty mixed up.

I recently removed my refugium that was just storing lots of detritus. Not sure what ill put in that sump chamber now.

Considering switching to dose vinegar regularly since it is cheaper than NO3PO4x and I think it will accomplish the same thing (which is not much at this time).

Anyhow, dont mean to hijack, just want to mention that you arent alone, I see very similar behavior between our systems.


NeverlosT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/22/2018, 06:20 PM   #22
dubmaneh
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverlosT View Post
I am in the same boat, tried NO3PO4X for some time, have a SPS heavy tank, skim heavily, lots of flow, only about 10 fish in a 150g cube.

My nitrates are typically 20-30, while my phosphates are close to zero when measured with a ULR Hanna Tester.

The nitrate levels stunt my SPS growth and make things unhappy.

Large water changes would help temporarily, but not a feasible long term solution.

I vacuum my sandbed from time to time, and my wrasses keep it pretty mixed up.

I recently removed my refugium that was just storing lots of detritus. Not sure what ill put in that sump chamber now.

Considering switching to dose vinegar regularly since it is cheaper than NO3PO4x and I think it will accomplish the same thing (which is not much at this time).

Anyhow, dont mean to hijack, just want to mention that you arent alone, I see very similar behavior between our systems.

Thanks. Not glad you're experiencing a similar issue, but glad I'm not the only one.

Hoping for some positive results from the increased feeding and flow in the sump but so far my LPS are retracted one SPS frag is bleaching. Another one that was fine is showing some STN.

Gonna do a full water test tomorrow before another 10% water change.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


dubmaneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/23/2018, 03:21 AM   #23
tew47
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 204
Are you running any carbon? I have always used a bag of Chemi pure elite in my systems and with neglecting water changes and using NoPox I don’t think iv seen nitrates over 5ppm in over a year - I have a 93 cube, sps dominate, 10 fish and use the chemi pure elite rated for 200 gallons


tew47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/23/2018, 05:33 AM   #24
RobZilla04
Registered Member
 
RobZilla04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 1,801
Lately I've found myself on this boat as well, might need a ship if anyone else is gonna join.

All params in place with low Po4 (<.05). Been working on increasing No3 from 1ppm. Got them up to 5ppm using increased feeding of fish, reef roids, and reef energy A/B. Many SPS and a few LPS showing signs of STN, color loss, and generally not happy.

Also tried to reduce the lighting intensity, couple of 15%-20% WC's over the past month or two with no real results.

Although no dosing of NoPox, I do a very small dose of the DIY mix (Vodka, Vinegar + RODI). Also have a bag of GAC that I'm considering pulling out just to see what'll happen.

Very curious to get other opinions on this. Need to find the balance between clean water/no algae and algae/coral growth.


__________________
90g Mixed Reef
RobZilla04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/24/2018, 07:45 PM   #25
Indiana Reefin
Garrett
 
Indiana Reefin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 816
I had the same issue. I had much better success with vinegar.
I had 0 PO4 and up to 50 NO3
Now I am .02 PO4 and 2 NO3


Indiana Reefin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:16 AM.


TapaTalk Enabled

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2018 Axivo Inc.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef CentralTM Reef Central, LLC. Copyright 1999-2014
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.