Filtration before the refugium?

[ceastman]

Is there any harm in putting a mechanical and chemical filter before the refugium? I am looking to minimize the amount of water pumps in use. In the chemical filter could be anything like, carbon, GFO or something else as needed.

I was planning on having macro algae, pods and a substrate in the refugium.

[jestep]

I have a 3 chamber sump/fuge. Mine goes through a sock and biopellets and skimmer before the refugium. I run my Carbon and GFO from the return pump chamber back to the filter sock chamber. Since all the water is turned over through the sump at some point, I really doubt it matters what order you go in.

[victoly]

To echo jamie's points, you could probably go either way and it would be fine. On the one hand, you want the "rawest" water (minus mechanical filtering) to hit the fuge because the algae gets the highest potential nutrient. Effluent from GFO or Carbon is going to pack a little less punch.

On the other hand, you could get more crud in fuge area, which may be more difficult to export, if that's your aim.

[Sascha D.]

There is no harm putting mechanical or chemical filtration before the refugium. In fact, most people do it that way. In the standard three-chamber sump, you'll have a skimmer and mechanical filtration in the first chamber, refugium in the middle chamber and the return in the last chamber. Chemical filtration is normally run in the first chamber to prevent bubbles in the return section. Jestep's solution is a workaround for that problem. If you are concerned about the "dirty" water not getting to the macros, then you can split the drain line with a ball valve going directly to the refugium.

I have removed all filter socks from my tank, but one thing I noticed when I had them was that the sock was always full of pods. Cleaning the sock becomes difficult when that happens because it takes forever to get the pods out of the sock before you clean it.

[+Woods]

I think most people run their Chemical filtration, like GFO/Carbon, Biopellets, after their refugiums not before... That way, like Ian said, the macros in the fuge get the most nutrient update possible and the chemical filtering is an after process cleaning up the leftover...

I run a 3 chamber sump. 1st = Skimmer, no filter socks. 2nd = 6" DSB, rubble, and Chaeto on top, 3rd = BioPellets with return to 1st chamber for bacteria skimming afterwards, GFO/Carbon with return back to 3rd and then finally return pump back to DT. I run the BioPellets and GFO/Carbon last so mechanical filtering has already happened in 1st and 2nd chambers, so the media filters don't get clogged as easily...

[FarmerTy]

My setup is similar to Woods and I have found it very effective.

[Planeden]

one of these days i'm going to test my water in each chamber and see what the difference is. my hunch is that our turnover rate is so high, and our filteration methods are so...hmmmm....not bad, hap-hazard maybe...that you will see no difference in the tests. if it was an RODI system where the water passes through once it'd make a big difference. but at turnover rates of 20+ times per hour, i think our filters are basically trying to catch a swarm of gnats in a wind tunnel. they'll get some on each pass, but just wait for it to come back to grab more.

[Wade]

Can Woods and/or Jeeper post some pics of their set up please?

[+Woods]

Yes, i will try to take some pics later today and post them...

[Bpb]

Those of you keeping refugiums, and biopellets, and gfo, and carbon...what macro species are you growing in these refugiums? I have been unsuccessful at keeping chaeto alive ever since I started running gfo. Intrigued to hear what you all are growing in there that can withstand such low waste water.

[jestep]

Chaeto and Gracillaria Hayi. But I keep bleaching the hayi to H*** and gone.

What fuge lighting do you have?

[Bpb]

Apologize in advance to ceastman if this stinks of a hijack. I feel it's relevant. Used to use a 15 watt clamp on shop light spiral bulb 6500k. Chaeto always withered away. I'm constantly trying to eradicate caulerpa serrata and halimeda from my display though. I also run pellets, gfo, and carbon. Refugium cracked nearly a year ago and I took it offline. No fuge now. I've noticed over the last year my pod population has dwindled to almost nothing. Used to see them running around by the thousands. Day and night. Now I NEVER see any. Wanting to set up some kind of refugium to help build my pod population back up but wasn't sure if macro and light were essential to a true "refugium" or if a separate low flow area with lots of rubble and detritus would suffice. Again. Not meaning to hijack. I feel this is directly relevant to the OP question

[+Woods]

I have Chaeto in my fuge running a philips EcoVantage 730 Lumens 50W Floodlight about 10" off the surface. I slightly overstock my tank with fish and slightly overfeed so I always have some nutrients to absorb... I do monthly water changes so that probably adds some nutrient for lack of export. But I also do more Zoas and LPS with limited SPS/Chalice so I am not looking for a ULNS... I have pods all over my DT and Fuge day and night...

As far as a fuge with no light, that is a Cryptic zone and if your goal is simply more pods, they will love it... you will want to make sure atleast some small amounts food and debris gets there so you feed the population some for growth.

[Sascha D.]

one of these days i'm going to test my water in each chamber and see what the difference is. my hunch is that our turnover rate is so high, and our filteration methods are so...hmmmm....not bad, hap-hazard maybe...that you will see no difference in the tests. if it was an RODI system where the water passes through once it'd make a big difference. but at turnover rates of 20+ times per hour, i think our filters are basically trying to catch a swarm of gnats in a wind tunnel. they'll get some on each pass, but just wait for it to come back to grab more.

I believe that you are right.

Those of you keeping refugiums, and biopellets, and gfo, and carbon...what macro species are you growing in these refugiums? I have been unsuccessful at keeping chaeto alive ever since I started running gfo. Intrigued to hear what you all are growing in there that can withstand such low waste water.

I run a standard Berlin sump, DIY built from a 40g breeder. and for macros I have G. Hayi, C. Prolifera, Chaetomorpha, Ulva and Red Ogo.

Chaeto and Gracillaria Hayi. But I keep bleaching the hayi to H*** and gone.

What fuge lighting do you have?

I keep my G. Hayi under a 14w 5k twist CFL. The light plus the bulb was $14 from HD.

[+Woods]

one of these days i'm going to test my water in each chamber and see what the difference is. my hunch is that our turnover rate is so high, and our filteration methods are so...hmmmm....not bad, hap-hazard maybe...that you will see no difference in the tests. if it was an RODI system where the water passes through once it'd make a big difference. but at turnover rates of 20+ times per hour, i think our filters are basically trying to catch a swarm of gnats in a wind tunnel. they'll get some on each pass, but just wait for it to come back to grab more.

I believe you are ight from a chemistry perspective that it will be undetectable but there is a difference between what is coming into my 1st chamber and what leaves it; due to my skimmer pulling out at least some proteins and debris whether immediately detectable or not. I also believe the mechanical filteration that occurs in the 1st and 2nd chambers, significantly improves the suspended debris in my 3rd chamber so my GBO/Carbon and BioPellet reactors do not clog as much as they would if placed in my 1st chamber. But I do agree with you that the chemistry differences with the tests that we use will not detect the differences from 1 chamber to the next when tested at the same time as the flow rates are too high. That does not mean that I would switch my configuration just b/c the differences are undetectable in snapshot testing between chambers. I think the significance is shown over time and not in a snapshot test.

[+Woods]

Sorry for the delay in posting my sump pics... the first 2 are close ups and the last is to give a better perspective of space under tank.

The sump is made up of a 55g tank with acrylic dividers siliconed into place. They have remained solidly in place for over 2.5 years so don't like anyone tell you silicone will not hold acrylic to glass for this type of application. It may not for other applications, but for sump dividers it works perfectly fine.

[subsea]

With respect to filtration before the refugium, I don't. I have used the same mud filter for 12 years with no changes. Bio balls in first chamber break up detritus to be assimilated into mud filter organic soup of worms and stuff. I have used Chaeto, Prolifera and Paspoidies as fast growing macro for nutrient export. Just recently, I replaced 100W CFL with 200W of LED. I also replaced fast growing macro with two deep water red macro: red grapes and dragons breath. Dimmer is dialed down to 30% with a 45 PAR using only 450nm and 420nm spectrum (blue and royal blue).

Patrick

[Planeden]

one of these days i'm going to test my water in each chamber and see what the difference is. my hunch is that our turnover rate is so high, and our filteration methods are so...hmmmm....not bad, hap-hazard maybe...that you will see no difference in the tests. if it was an RODI system where the water passes through once it'd make a big difference. but at turnover rates of 20+ times per hour, i think our filters are basically trying to catch a swarm of gnats in a wind tunnel. they'll get some on each pass, but just wait for it to come back to grab more.

I believe you are ight from a chemistry perspective that it will be undetectable but there is a difference between what is coming into my 1st chamber and what leaves it; due to my skimmer pulling out at least some proteins and debris whether immediately detectable or not. I also believe the mechanical filteration that occurs in the 1st and 2nd chambers, significantly improves the suspended debris in my 3rd chamber so my GBO/Carbon and BioPellet reactors do not clog as much as they would if placed in my 1st chamber. But I do agree with you that the chemistry differences with the tests that we use will not detect the differences from 1 chamber to the next when tested at the same time as the flow rates are too high. That does not mean that I would switch my configuration just b/c the differences are undetectable in snapshot testing between chambers. I think the significance is shown over time and not in a snapshot test.

Valid point. I was not considering the solids that will fall out before your reactor sponges catch them. Of course, since I don't think it matters I'm not going to ask you to switch. Well, that, and it's your tank. You can put it in the bathtub and I won't complain .