Dr.Tims Pearls VS BRS bio pellets

So far, yes. I will be receiving a proper reactor in the mail this week. The modified solid media reactors just aren't cutting it for me.

 

what reactor do you have now?

 

Slightly modified NextReef MR1 reactor. Just purchased a Reef Octopus BR-110 from bulkreefsupply.com.

 

Sure, makes sense. There could be other theories though, bacterial blooms, at first, are most common. However, I've know people comment on blooms at various times through usage and I've talked to a number of people who have experienced the same. So, there has to be other mechanisms at work.

One I can think of, for example, is getting back to the the prevention of pellet erosion. We know the bacteria sloshes off, that's why the manufacture recommends running through a skimmer. However, skimmers are not that efficient, some estimates put them around 30%, but that isn't first pass, but rather once it reaches a steady-state (i.e. after lots of passes). First pass, they will be significantly less removed. So, you have bacteria, taking carbon with it into your system. So, there should be an increase in bacteria in the system. If that bacteria dies before it is eaten by corals or something else, or removed, then there is an increase in biologically available organic carbon in the system.

I'm sure there are other example and possibilities too.

 

It's such a shame that the only number ever quoted out of that study is 30% without any qualification at to what that 30% is talking about. It's very misleading. (Not saying that is your intent)

And it is obvious that a bloom is happening, where none happened before the pellets. I do think though that it can be eliminated with better use.

I also think that while the pellets may be inert in water, that there is some loss of material simply ue to abraision since they must be kept moving. Just like GAC. No telling. And I won't take it as gospel... but there are some manufacturers, that claim that other competing products are not inert. That they do disolve in water. We don't have to take the competing manufacturers word for it, but it is possible it is true.

 

Great point, I don't mean to imply that skimmers only remove 30% of anything in the water. 30% is one estimate for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) removal and is from one study:
Feature Article: Further Studies on Protein Skimmer Performance — Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog

However, removal will likely vary substantially by compound. They also showed that removal of a tested organic compound Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) was close to 100%. So, it certainly depends on the particular organic. My point was that we don't know what the efficiency is for removing the organics used in BPs. It could be very low, or could be high. Likely however, it is not super high on first pass. If it's lower, that would be one possible explanation for why people see cloudy water. Certainly there are other possible hypotheses though.

 

Yes, and it is a very valid point. Skimmers remove 100% of hydrophobic DOC. They do not remove hydropholic DOCs. As a mechanical filter, they can remove particulate just by binding them up in the bubble column... but most certainly, as a mechanical filter, they are probably not very good compared to micron filters.

I have always wondered the same... we know carbon dosing provides a food source for bacteria that take up N and P. We know we expeort those bacteria from the system via skimming because excess N and P is lowered in the system. But we do not know how good a skimmer is at rremoving bacteria, or by what mechanisim... mechanical, or chemical attraction as a hydrophobic material. I've been curious as the how well that works.

 

information and more information lol i love it !