View Full Version : Rowa-phos
I usually buy Rowaphos and put it in the bag supplied,then leave it in the sump. No problem but it doesn't work very well.Usual probs with clogging etc.
So, I splashed out on a reactor this weekend and plumbed it all in. I put in the recommended amount of Rowa and sat back. The water went a milky brown!!!
Ok,it'll clear through in a few minutes......... nope. 2 days later... nope. Now I'm worried. All the fish and corals seem fine, (from what I can make out through the milky water) but how do I clear the tank. I'm doing a 50g water change tonight (about a third) in the hope it helps. But is there a better way of getting rid of this suspended Rowa.
Thanks Martin
CoralCulture
31-10-05, 07:45
Use some filter floss, this will catch the fine particles. Its possible you need to slow the flow on the reactor, or wash the media first.
Good luck !
simon garratt
31-10-05, 08:16
Much as Nick has said, Usually it is advised that when fluidising rowaphos, that it is gently rinsed through with RO water a few times to clear the brown tint (fines) before it is added to the reactor, or run the reactor through some floss for a few hours before allowing it to run free. (at all times though, only run gently so the media appears to bubble/bounce up and down a little, otherwise exessive grinding will occure and a constant tinted effluant will be encounterd).
If the brown has made it to the tank, dont panic, just run your overflow to some floss for a day (keep an eye on it though) and possibly go across your rockwork/corals with a gentle powerhead to clear them of any settled fines. Overall though, it wont cause any real problems with most softies LPs etc. or fish.
Regards
Si. :)
The instructions on RowaPhos specifically say NOT to wash it before use and that any particles carried into the display tank will not harm fish/inverts. However, you probably do have too great a flow in your reactor if it's not clearing after a matter of days. As said fine filter floss in an external should clear it.
John
edit: Must type faster
edit again: Disregard the bit about "NOT washing" as per subsequent mails. I stand corrected - thanks Si and everyone else :blush: :blush:
simon garratt
31-10-05, 08:43
Hi John, I understand Its an oversight on behalf of D&D, it says not to rinse on the container, but says otherwise on the website as far as fluiding goes.
I think this stems from the fact that the packaging has never been updated since addition of fluided filters.
Regards
Si. :)
Agree with Simon, when ever I add any media I always rinse first with clean R/O despite what the instructions may or may not say.
Anyone informed D&D about this, would be handy to have them update the packaging to indicate washing it before us in a reactor.
Thanks for the info guys, I will note this down for when I get a reactor :)
the instruction leaflet inside the tubs says to rinse in r/o if you fluidise!
they know about this problem. the reps do say give it a quick flush and only let the media only simmer in the reactor. this has happend once to me and it caused no problems at all in the tank.
regards
aNdY
Just to add - should only be gently fluidised. If fluidised too vogorously, through attrition, Rowaphos breaks down and will continue to cloud your tank.
G
Martin,
a far safer approach IMO is to run all effluent from the fluidised reactor through a 5 micron filter sock.
This should ensure the fines are not returned to the display tank. It also allows you to fluidise aggresively, providing better usage of the Rowa media. The media should gradually break down exposing new surface area in the process. The sock will however require a regular rinse.
In the past. I've simply connected a garden house to the reactor and let it run for a few mins until the inital fines have been removed. I'm not so sure that using RO will make any measurable/significant difference to the media but would be interested in any known impacts of using RO over and above tapwater for rinsing media.
The above applies to all Iron based phosphate removal media, but IME some do break down quicker than others when aggresively fluidised.
If you are fluidising gently, then it's also good to ensure that you feed the reactor with the cleanest water than you can to prevent detritus accumulation in the reactor (post Skimmer e.t.c).
Try rinsing in a dilute solution of copper chloride. Sure, it will kill everything in your tank but the phosphates won't stand a chance. TurboPhos is born !
Sadly, already patented. :(
More seriously, it might be best to avoid tapwater where it contains high phosphates or silicates. I don't know how long the adsorption takes, but these will begin to exhaust the media.
kim
(ps any suggestions that the grains degrade and that it might clog with detritus are scurrilous. :ph34r: )
I don't know how long the adsorption takes, but these will begin to exhaust the media.
Significantly ?
(ps any suggestions that the grains degrade and that it might clog with detritus are scurrilous.Â* )
have a crack at running effluent through a 5 micron sock in a seriously fluidised reactor :whistling:
just to be clear, it's not the media that will clog, but the filter wool thats included in the reactors to prevent the media from escaping ;)
the scurrilous one :D
Sorry for the delay in coming back on to UR-- been work and was hoping to come home to a sparkly clear tank---not
Thanks for the advice. I must admit i didn't really think putting the Rowa straight in the reactor would cause any real probs. A small concillation is however that I don't seem to be the first to make the mistake. Was going to go onto D&D tonight and explain my situation. As already mentioned though, they seem to be aware of the problem. Is this unique to that particular brand or all types of compounds? I wondered if perhaps other makes have larger/heavier particles.
The reactor is powered by a 402 powerhead which is sat in the sump.I've put in about 500ml ( half a tub) in the D&D reactor. So its only covering about an inch of the chamber.
I'll do a water change tonight as I have some ready.I'll go over to my LFS tomorrow and pick up some floss.I have a media bag which i can easily add to the return but it does seem to be a very fine particle to trap.
Thanks for all the advice
Martin
Hi I have used rowa both ways rinsed and unrinsed and it still TANGOd my tank i have solved the problem now, I just dont use it any more, utter crap. Eric.
robsmarines
02-11-05, 23:23
when useing phosphate removers some points to look out for some are aluminium based and some are iron based now aint that a plant/algae fertilizer if your having trouble with diatoms/cyno nuisance algae and you are using a iron based phosphate remover then do a iron test this may be adding to the problem best not to use any at all do plenty of water changes by far the best method all round for the tank
robsmarines
What is the recommended flow rate for a reactor?
The reason I asked is that the Aquaclear 402 powerhead kicks out something like 1100 lph. You might have to put a shut off tap on that to reduce the flow a little.
Originally posted by robsmarines@Nov 2 2005, 23:23
when useing phosphate removers some points to look out for some are aluminium based and some are iron based now aint that a plant/algae fertilizer if your having trouble with diatoms/cyno nuisance algae and you are using a iron based phosphate remover then do a iron test this may be adding to the problem best not to use any at all do plenty of water changes by far the best method all round for the tank
robsmarines
Fwiw, a while back I asked Randy Holmes-Farley on RC whether ferric oxide adsorbers could dissolve and lead to algae issues. His response (which I just pass on) was that they were extremely unlikely to enhance iron levels in the water to any measurable extent given their extreme insolubility.
At the time, he was dosing ferric chloride to try and perk up his chaetomorpha. :lol:
Hopefully Andrew's tests on the "different" ferric oxides available also will shine a bit more light here. One thing is for sure - they are a bit more complicated than the marketing suggests.
kim
something to also keep in mind, is what happens to the escaping ferric oxide fines when they find their way into anoxic and anaerobic environments. Especially when nitrates and phosphates are 'under contol'. When do the iron eating bacteria come into their own? :ph34r:
Nav,
The fun bit is that these bacteria use iron as a catalyst to oxidise sulphides to sulphates. Quite an important bit of the sulphur cycle. Are they the problem or in fact part of the solution, and just innocent (in fact beneficial) bystanders ?
Maybe you should consider adding a few kilos of Rowaphos (no penny-pinching, you know you are worth it :) ) to the DSB that I know you pine for !
I've been trying to summon up the courage to ask Ron S about this - but any mention of sulphide.....
Is this an advantage of the "Mud" ?
kim
AFAIKG, It all appears to goes back to not deviating too far from Redfield and the sequence of electron acceptors , O2, NO3-, Mn++++, Fe+++, SO4--.
This keeps my renowned devoted passion of DSB's in check :D
Did you mean a few tonnes of Adsorpas :lol:
It's a shame we don't consider the Sulphur, Phosphate and Carbon cycle to the same extent as the N cycle :( . It might progress the hobby somewhat ;)
Is this an advantage of the "Mud" ?
If I knew what was in it, then I would hazzard a guess :idea: I suspect It harbours a massive reserve such that sulphides never become a problem/evident.
Looking forward to Randy Sulphur article in the December issue, i'm sure he will take a stab at some of the current issues that Ron should really address ;)
Still playing with Sulphur and GFE in mad experiments :evil: , The potential is massive, controlled decomposition of media can be very beneficial ;)
Sorry to butt in on the advanced chemistry class :D
All I wanted to do was to try and bring my phosphates down to zero.
I've been lazy on my maintenence and instead of just bunging in a bag of Rowa now and again, I thought I'd do it properly with a reactor.
I've done a quite hefty water change and thats definetley helped. The tank is now much clearer although there is alot of brown staining which I'm trying to aggitate, as per advice on this thread.
Perhaps this thread links in with a couple of others active on here at the moment. Its great to have a group of very experienced guys running a "ask the board forum."And quite rightly, it should be for technical questions only... but it seems to me,as a beginner, you need to pick an experienced reefer and follow their recommendations. To be able to look up a members site and look through to Phosphates. "Put Rowa in reactor and turn on powerhead" or "don't use Rowa--use this".
So many threads on here are from people who have made a mistake and want to know how to rectify it (like me). And so often there are conflicting opinions.
I know the experienced ones will say, buy a bloody book and read. but they rarely offer practical opinions. Does Rowa work, should I add this additive or that fish etc etc.
I understand the need for an advanced forum as Si and the others are advocating,brilliant, but is there not also a place for a idiots guide to reefkeeping,this is how I did it, and this is what I think you need to do to have a set-up like mine.
Just a thought
Martin
Cass,
IMO the media you mentioned does work, as do other iron based phosphate adsorption medias.
These medias are soft, so if you bash them about they will break down literally to dust.
In transit they will produce fines so IMO a good rinse helps. I would use RO water. Rinsing in liters of tap water containing 2ppm phosphate could be a poor plan.
Then you have two options:
1/ Don't bash it about again. In other words don't fluidise it. With the media you mention this could result in it "setting". With coarser media IME this is less of a problem.
2/ Do bash it about again but stop the dust getting into your tank. As suggested, a filter sock or some filter floss downstream is ideal.
With the notable exception of pelleted "UltiPhos P". These industrial medias were designed for use in depth filters, not in fluidised beds.
Personally I think the problem is "our" use of fluidisation rather than the media itself. We are simply using a filtration method for which it was not intended. Can you imagine "tango coloured" drinking water :o
IME to limit fines production the media should be just about moving, rather then violently "boiling".
HTH
Andrerw (UA)
Robsmarines/Kim,
IME there is no significant soluble iron released by these medias in oxygenated saltwater at sensible temperatures and pH's. Typically you are down in the hundredth fractions of a ppb range. In fact in our preliminary studies it was under the native limit of detection of the ICP-MS.
Also bear in mind that UK tap water can legally contain up to 200 ppb iron. Even sticking this through an RO at 95% retention there's still "loads" of iron entering this way. Compare this to typical oceanic levels in the parts per trillion range.
IMO it would be impossible for aquarium bulk water iron levels to be low enough to become a limiting factor for "diatoms/cyno nuisance algae" or iron utilizing bacteria.
IMO it is true to say that a well known brand of 'mud' used in many reef systems has an iron content of several percent by weight. By it's very nature this product is used in large (many kg) amounts in the aquarium, but AFAIK there have been no reports of ill effects in terms of iron over-supplementation.
In short I would not worry about the tiny amounts of soluble iron released from iron based phosphate removers.
HTH
Andrew (UA)
I would use RO water. Rinsing in liters of tap water containing 2ppm phosphate could be a poor plan.
Andrew, have you found any info on the impact of using tap water for such a short flushing. Maybe something you could include in your testing as everyone will need to do it and would be good to have some quality information in this area.
Judging by the way the media is used in the more general application, I really cant see a 2 minute tapwater flush having any significant impact. Be interested in any info you may have :)
Cass, apologies for the nerding Hijack :P . I think Andrew summed up the options well in points 1 and 2. ;) .
reefclown,
The damned stuff grabs things very quickly. In the industrial application they work on a contact time of <3 minutes. So your 2 minute rinse is just too slow, get your cape and spandex on :D
A "back of the fag packet calculation" might go like this:
Say 1kg of media "X" adsorbs 10g PO4 in saltwater.
My tapwater has ca. 2ppm phosphate in it.
Say I wash it in 100 litres of this water.
So I'm exposing it to 200mg of phosphate. Take the pessimistic view and it adsorbs it all.
So I've just used up 200mg out of my 10,000mg saltwater capacity.
That's about 2%
Does it worry me?
Yes, I'm a Yorkshire man living down the road from Aberdeen :lol:
I suppose if you had to use tapwater then the trick would be to wash it very fast under as little as possible. Probably in a sieve so that the water runs away fast and is no longer in contact with the media.
Personally we have loads of RO water so I just connect the reactor to our RO tap and run it through until the water comes out colourless.
Andrew
Thanks for the response. Very interesting.
A couple of points come to mind.
I bought the Rowa from a LFS who,it might be said,doesn't have a huge turnover of dried goods.I assume the Rowa is capable of gradually breaking up on its own accord over time if its aggitated within the shop.ie people picking it up and putting it back.etc.
Secondly. did I get the concept slightly wrong. I always assumed the problem with Rowa (or any other media) was that it settled and clogged when placed in a sump.I bought the reactor as it seemed most established reefers had one.Certainly a couple of experienced reefers I've visited recently. Should I have saved my money or bought a different variation as Uda suggestes (Rowa p).
Is there a gap in the market for a specific phosphate remover that will be happy placed straight in the reactor.
As part of the learning curve I have/will:
Wash the media gently in RO
Install some filter floss into the sump compartment to catch the brown stuff.
Reduce the aggitation in the chamber to try and kep the rowa from breaking down.
Well at least my Phosphate reading is down to zero..... which was the object. :)
Cheers
Martin
Martin
How's your tank now?
Tony
Hi Tony
Things have improved 95% from the weekend.Still a bit "cloudy" but compared to Saturday when I couldn't even se the fish,its alot better.
There is still quite a bit of brown film on the LR but it does sem to be clearing. All the corals,frags and fish seem to be fine
Martin
That's good to hear.
Would using some carbon help at all?
Hi Tony
Well carbons another subject isn't it ;)
Looking on here recently it was a divided opinion between don't use it.Do use it and use it sometimes.
Then theres the subject of how to use it. In a bag,or reactor.
The reason for adding Rowa phos in the first place was that I had a slight reading on my phosphates and was told,quite rightly that was probably why my frags wern't doing that well.They're growing but very slowly.
So I decided to do it "properly" and buy a reactor and Rowa.
Seems now I've opened myself another can iof worms :whistling:
Martin
Originally posted by CASS@Nov 3 2005, 21:41
Is there a gap in the market for a specific phosphate remover that will be happy placed straight in the reactor.
I sincerely hope so, or we are going to look right prats :lol:
To be fair all of the ones we have looked at needed that initial rinse. But one in particular seems to "fall to bits" less than the others when fluidised.
No I don't think you have got the concept wrong. IMO you are right, Rowa does best in a fluidised reactor. As you say in a bag in the sump it has the reputation of setting and clogging. Said to be due to the gluing of its fine particles together with self-induced calcium carbonate precipitation.
I'm glad you got your modifications done. IMO there is nothing especially wrong with Rowaphos you just have to be careful with it.
Andrew (UA)
Martin, glad to see all is back in order :)
That's about 2%
Does it worry me?
Yes, I'm a Yorkshire man living down the road from AberdeenÂ*
Nah, a true Yorkshire man would force the gradual decomposition of all the media to ensure that the full capacity of the media was utilised, if you throwing away anything other than saturated dust you should be ashamed :ph34r: :D
and so far, It's workin real good :thumbsup:
much check the family tree this weekend :lol:
IME there is no significant soluble iron released by these medias in oxygenated saltwater at sensible temperatures and pH's.
Andrew, AFAIK, it's not the soluble iron that's an issue. It's more a case of when the Ferric fines make their way into an 'area' that is favourable to their being processed ;) As N03 an P would have to under control for this to occur, it probably won't affect most hobbyists :ph34r:
ReefClown,
IMO the soluble iron thing is a red herring but there are a number of people who give this as a good reason for avoiding iron based medias.
Being lazy it's easier to show there isn't "any" than it is to argue why it's not important in the first place. A bit Peter Mandelsonish I suppose :blush:
With regards to the fines, I agree it's unlikely that a typical reef keeper would replicate the conditions required for iron fines to cause unpleasantness. Those with the famous mud based system (which reportedly gives zero nitrate/phosphate) already have a huge solid iron content in their tanks anyway.
I'm surprised that nobody has come up with a "double-barreled fluidiser". R***phos in one "barrel" with the water flowing up through it and out into the second open topped "barrel" (with floss) and finally out the bottom into the sump.
Or with a big reactor why not have a hook for a filtersock under the outflow or a second "barrel" the right size to just drop a sock in? Any acrylic guys out there?
You're right as a true Yorkshire man I should be selling used UltiPhos as UltiMud the new miracle filter medium :lol:
Sorry for letting the side down, must have been in the frozen North for too long. I blame it all on the lack of proper stout, never trust "beer" you can see the beermat through :cheers:
Andrew (UA)
Had a stout with a Yorkshireman this afternoon, and reminded me of the good old days with Andrew:):thumbsup:.
Did ya ever post the results:whistling:. I guess it's irrelevant now, results speak for themselves:).
goooo oon, give us some stats , just for the hell of it....
The best part is, that every Tom, Dick an Harry is suddenly selling thier 'Own Brand'.
The Worst part is, most are still selling aquarists 'ancient technology' with no added innovation or value, just financial reduction!, the 'non fishy' world has moved forward... who will capture, understand, market and sell the new scope:whistling:.
happy days ahead..............
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.