# Nitrate filter



## Teammuir1 (Sep 15, 2009)

Has anyone ever used this filter system for nitrate removal?

Aquaripure Nitrate Filter

seems to good to be true !!


----------



## MoneyMitch (Aug 3, 2009)

you should post this in the aquaripure section. as this is one of the forum sponsors nobody is going to bash it.


----------



## Teammuir1 (Sep 15, 2009)

OK I thought I saw it at one time listed to the right as an add..
but I have to ask has anyone used one?
I have done religious water changes.. ( it promotes healthier fish )
I just checked my nitrate level just earlier.....and its at 0
so I must have to ask... if your doing water changes then whats the need?
now I am wondering this because I will be building my 210 gallon soon.....
still working on were its going to be placed.. ( making Room ) lol
but I might need such a filter in the help of obtaining clean water conditions for 
the Discus that I want to raise....


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

Fine I won't bash it then....:-?. 

There section on it saving you money is really skewed, to the point that it is funny. 

The thing does remove nitrates though. I somewhat understand how they work. One thing though I don't get.... they obviously contain a anaerobic chamber and support anaerobic bacteria. But how does one clean or maintain that chamber? If you expose it to the air you kill the anaerobic bacteria. Yet if you don't maintain chamber wouldn't non-organics still build up in it?

IMO if you want 0 nitrates get a RO system.


----------



## MoneyMitch (Aug 3, 2009)

the whole thing around that filter is so you have to do less water changes, but concerning the item mentioned wont give my opinion on this. again you should really post in the aquaripure section of the forum.


----------



## Teammuir1 (Sep 15, 2009)

Mikaila31

The pic on your advitar at the bottom?
what fish is that?
is it fresh water? looks like a catfish? 
whats the name of it so I can look it up.

Thanks 
Ron


----------



## Jack Middleton (Oct 13, 2009)

The fish that mikaila pictured is _Pseudomugil gertrudae_

Theres no need for nitrate filters on freshwater tanks, nitrates aren't dangerous until you go past the 400ppm mark and I don't know of anyone with nitrate that high.


----------



## Teammuir1 (Sep 15, 2009)

*Thats good to know*

I know I have never had a problem with Nitrates with my tanks....
but there is always a first for everything I guess.. 
I know the advertisement states for Fresh water and Salt water tanks

thanks for the info.... appreciate it.

Ron


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

Jack Middleton said:


> The fish that mikaila pictured is _Pseudomugil gertrudae_
> 
> Theres no need for nitrate filters on freshwater tanks, nitrates aren't dangerous until you go past the 400ppm mark and I don't know of anyone with nitrate that high.


Thats the correct ID for my avatar, the fish in my sig is _Garra flavatra_.


----------



## Teammuir1 (Sep 15, 2009)

*Very Nice*

I just looked him up and he is very nice looking fish he does not get very big I think 2 inch or 3 ???
do they prefer Sand or Gravel?


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

Yeah they stay small. Sand or gravel should be fine, but I lean more towards gravel since that is the substrate that is more natural to them. They exhibit the same behavior as Garra ruffa if kept in a group, they will clean your hand/ arm if you stick in in the water. They are fairly passionate about this. Its cute at first, but can get annoying if you are cleaning/scaping the tank. I had 3 a while back, but lost them and alot of other fish when my tank crashed. I very recently found a good deal on them online, and 6 of them are in the mail as we speak.


----------



## Teammuir1 (Sep 15, 2009)

Please share the place that you are buying them from?


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

PM'ed


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

No comments on this filter compared to any other filter. And I agree with Mikaila31 on the saving money comedy. But as for eliminating or reducing water changes, no filter except plants can really do this.

It is often said that we perform regular partial water changes (pwc) to reduce nitrates and maintain water stability. But this is not actually the prime reason for the pwc. *The pwc removes the toxins than no filter can ever completely remove *unless it is connected to a continual flow of new (fresh) water, and I suspect none of us has such a system. Plants will do this but only when the plant density is high and the fish load is very low. I recall one article (tried just now to dig it out, but can't remember where) about stocking levels being in the range of 9 neon tetras only in a 55g heavily-planted tank. The plants can take care of things in this situation, but most of us have far more fish in our aquaria.

What are these toxins? Fish waste. Fish excrete urine and solid waste regularly; one medium-size tetra is estimated to release its body weight in urine alone every 3-4 days. And if the solid waste is not removed, it breaks down into liquid, either in the filter or in the substrate, and there it stays--in the water column. There is no filter that can effectively remove all of this; over time, the fish is literally swimming around in it own excrement, and every day it becomes more and more. Only the pwc removes this and replaces it with fresh water.

There is an excellent article in the November 2009 issue of TFH describing the effect of various pwc on pollution levels in an aquarium. I won't go into the numbers here, but it makes for interesting reading.

Some aquarists think they can ignore a pwc until the nitrates or ammonia or something rises, then they do one. While this will obviously relieve the poor fish, it is not going to help long-term. And nitrate levels should be kept under 40ppm. Most on this forum have previously recommended 20ppm at the maximum; in a planted aquarium of course nitrate will remain at 10ppm or lower unless something occurs to affect the biological equilibrium.

So, this or any other filter may remove nitrates, but that is not the real problem, and you are still going to have to do a weekly pwc if you want healthy fish and are not prepared to drastically understock the aquarium.

Byron.


----------



## 1077 (Apr 16, 2008)

Teammuir1 said:


> OK I thought I saw it at one time listed to the right as an add..
> but I have to ask has anyone used one?
> I have done religious water changes.. ( it promotes healthier fish )
> I just checked my nitrate level just earlier.....and its at 0
> ...


In my expierience with raising Discus, Frequent water changes are all that is needed to maintain low levels of nitrAtes. Levels above 30ppm can have negative effect on these fish and I have seen firsthand, Discus that were kept in waters with high levels of organics and fish that were kept in ideal conditions. If successful rearing of young is your aim, I would disregard those who suggest that elevated levels of nitrates (much above 20ppm) are no reason for concern. Also would not waste money on a product or device when i could/can, achieve the same results much cheaper and faster without it. That means more money for fish.8)


----------



## Aquaripure (Sep 28, 2007)

Byron said:


> No comments on this filter compared to any other filter. And I agree with Mikaila31 on the saving money comedy. But as for eliminating or reducing water changes, no filter except plants can really do this.


I based the example on saving money on my actual two aquariums. You can actually see them here Pictures of Aquarium Coral, Saltwater aquarium, FW tanks There is no exagerration in any way shape or form. Nope, not one bit. Of course not everyone will need to use distilled, RO, or salt water for thier water changes. I live where the tap water quality is poor so I certainly need to as do many of my customers. 

Also, the Aquaripure nitrate filters do in fact greatly reduce my need for water changes in both my 29 gallon planted tank and my 180 gallon reef tank. I do in fact do water changes maybe every 3 months and everything is healthy and vibrant with exceptional water quality.

If you don't want to take my word for it, how about one of my hundreds of very happy customers? Nitrate Removal Filter Testimonials

I know that now someone might accuse me of making them up or make any of a number of other disparaging remarks. 

The bottom line is the Aquaripure works for a LOT of people as a part of very effective aquarium maintenance routine. There are other ways to go about it and there are a lot of other products and either someone wants to try it or they don't. The Aquaripure works very well and EXACTLY as advertised for the vast majority of customers who try it.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Aquaripure said:


> I based the example on saving money on my actual two aquariums. You can actually see them here Pictures of Aquarium Coral, Saltwater aquarium, FW tanks There is no exagerration in any way shape or form. Nope, not one bit. Of course not everyone will need to use distilled, RO, or salt water for thier water changes. I live where the tap water quality is poor so I certainly need to as do many of my customers.
> 
> Also, the Aquaripure nitrate filters do in fact greatly reduce my need for water changes in both my 29 gallon planted tank and my 180 gallon reef tank. I do in fact do water changes maybe every 3 months and everything is healthy and vibrant with exceptional water quality.
> 
> ...


The issue is not one of money or nitrates. There is, to my knowledge, no filter or product on the market that can remove urine from aquarium water, and that is the sole reason for partial water changes. The extent of necessary partial water changes depends upon the fish load in relation to the water volume in the aquarium, and whether or not there are plants. Removing nitrates is not removing urine and liquified solid waste from the water. Only plants can do this, but in very limited amounts so the fish load must be low for this to work. I would welcome any scientific evidence that urine is somehow extracted from the water passing through this or any filter.


----------



## rsn48 (Nov 26, 2009)

I think all of us would cheerfully give up the need to do any pwc's or even reduce them to once every 3 months. My take on pwc's is that it removes items you might not be aware of in your crystal clear water, the said bad stuff not being visible. Having crystal clear water is not a test for negative "stuff" in your water; we don't have tests for everything in the water and I suspect we are still not aware of biological ecology of what is happening in our individual tanks.

The only system I can think of that would enable us lazy types to avoid water changes is to have dedicated plumbing where the tank can automatically be drained and topped up, daily at around 5% to 10%, and the anti-chlorine additive being added automatically along with the water change. The unit could be set for an automatic monthly 20% change; this would definitely be pricey but sure worth it.


----------



## Aquaripure (Sep 28, 2007)

Byron said:


> The issue is not one of money or nitrates. There is, to my knowledge, no filter or product on the market that can remove urine from aquarium water, and that is the sole reason for partial water changes. The extent of necessary partial water changes depends upon the fish load in relation to the water volume in the aquarium, and whether or not there are plants. Removing nitrates is not removing urine and liquified solid waste from the water. Only plants can do this, but in very limited amounts so the fish load must be low for this to work. I would welcome any scientific evidence that urine is somehow extracted from the water passing through this or any filter.


 
Using anaerobic bacteria to process wastewater containing both urine and solid waste has a tremendous amount of scientific research behind it going back decades. The only difference between an aquarium nitrate filter and large scale anaerobic digester is that digesters sometimes process more of the solid stuff. This is NOT true of all the anaerobic plants and many treat a wide range of pollutants as the bacteria actually break down a lot of different pollutants in addition to urine, solid waste, and nitrates. 

For the Wikipedia entry on it see Anaerobic digestion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is an extensive United Nations paper on the subject Bioconversion of organic residues for rural communities

Other websites and scientific articles are:
ArchaeaSolutions Scientific Papers regarding Arkea
Trends in Biotechnology - Challenge of psychrophilic anaerobic wastewater treatment
May 2001: Anaerobic wastewater treatment reviewed
G1881 Generating Methane Gas From Manure | University of Missouri Extension
Turning manure into gold
Science Links Japan | The Application of Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment System in Paper Industry.

Aquaripure's explanation is here More on Nitrate Removal

These are just what searching for 1 minute on Google has turned up. No offense but obviously you didn't try at all to find any scientific research showing anaerobic bacteria can and do in fact remove urine among other things. Before you make statements such as, "I would welcome any scientific evidence that urine is somehow extracted from the water passing through this or any filter" perhaps you should spend 1 minute looking it up on Google. I do not want to inflame anyone but really, you made that statement with such authority and certainty that many people might believe it.

If you want more, spend a few hours at a university library and I am certain you will have hundreds if not thousands of actual scientific articles in respected scientific journals on the use of bacteria to process and completely remove urine, solid waste, nitrates, and other harmful compunds from wastewater.


----------



## Aquaripure (Sep 28, 2007)

rsn48 said:


> I think all of us would cheerfully give up the need to do any pwc's or even reduce them to once every 3 months. My take on pwc's is that it removes items you might not be aware of in your crystal clear water, the said bad stuff not being visible. Having crystal clear water is not a test for negative "stuff" in your water; we don't have tests for everything in the water and I suspect we are still not aware of biological ecology of what is happening in our individual tanks.
> 
> The only system I can think of that would enable us lazy types to avoid water changes is to have dedicated plumbing where the tank can automatically be drained and topped up, daily at around 5% to 10%, and the anti-chlorine additive being added automatically along with the water change. The unit could be set for an automatic monthly 20% change; this would definitely be pricey but sure worth it.


 
Aquaripure's explanation on why frequent partial water changes are NOT needed is here More on Nitrate Removal I have many customers who have had Aquaripure filters for years who will back me up.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Aquaripure said:


> Using anaerobic bacteria to process wastewater containing both urine and solid waste has a tremendous amount of scientific research behind it going back decades. The only difference between an aquarium nitrate filter and large scale anaerobic digester is that digesters sometimes process more of the solid stuff. This is NOT true of all the anaerobic plants and many treat a wide range of pollutants as the bacteria actually break down a lot of different pollutants in addition to urine, solid waste, and nitrates.
> 
> For the Wikipedia entry on it see Anaerobic digestion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


I am not going to waste my time trying to prove your business. My statement was accurate and true, I am not aware of any such filter. When I have time I will read your links. It is odd that such a marvel, if it exists, would not be touted by those with considerably more knowledge and experience in the hobby than I have.


----------



## Aquaripure (Sep 28, 2007)

Byron said:


> I am not going to waste my time trying to prove your business. My statement was accurate and true, I am not aware of any such filter. When I have time I will read your links. It is odd that such a marvel, if it exists, would not be touted by those with considerably more knowledge and experience in the hobby than I have.


You don't have to, here's one right here.

One other thing, there are a lot of things people could do in general which would be better but don't. Why don't we all drive more fuel efficient vehicles? Why don't we use more solar power? There will be tons of "experts" who claim it's not practical, etc, etc, etc but frankly I don't buy it. We could dramatically curb our carbon footprint using existing technology. It's really not in the best interest of "big oil" who makes billions upon billions of dollars on fossil fuels so things will have to wait until we absolutely have to change. So we buy the myth that we have to have vast supplies of cheap fossil fuels to exist. This is just like most people buy into the myth that frequent water changes are an absolute necessity.

There are a lot of people who make or sell products that the Aquaripure could compete with and then there are people who are just old fashioned and used to doing things differently. Both will come across as "experts" who wish to keep things the way they were.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

> One other thing, there are a lot of things people could do in general which would be better but don't. Why don't we all drive more fuel efficient vehicles? Why don't we use more solar power? There will be tons of "experts" who claim it's not practical, etc, etc, etc but frankly I don't buy it. We could dramatically curb our carbon footprint using existing technology. It's really not in the best interest of "big oil" who makes billions upon billions of dollars on fossil fuels so things will have to wait until we absolutely have to change. So we buy the myth that we have to have vast supplies of cheap fossil fuels to exist.


I will certainly agree with you on this. Totally.



> There are a lot of people who make or sell products that the Aquaripure could compete with and then there are people who are just old fashioned and used to doing things differently. Both will come across as "experts" who wish to keep things the way they were.


The experts I listen to are those biologists, botanists, microbiologists and regular experienced fishkeepers in the hobby, not those who directly benefit from manufacturing the products. There are many reliable manufacturers connected to this hobby, like Seachem and API, but there are some of their products that I know are not necessary or can be detrimental to my fish and I will not recommend the product notwithstanding the normal trust I would give to that manufacturer.

When the health of our fish is at stake, I am going to continue to recommend those practices that are tried and true at keeping those fish alive and healthy. Right now, I'm off to do my weekly 50% pwc on my three tanks; after 20 years of doing this I know the positive health benefit this gives to my fish, and they are worth the time and effort.


----------



## Aquaripure (Sep 28, 2007)

Byron said:


> When the health of our fish is at stake, I am going to continue to recommend those practices that are tried and true at keeping those fish alive and healthy. Right now, I'm off to do my weekly 50% pwc on my three tanks; after 20 years of doing this I know the positive health benefit this gives to my fish, and they are worth the time and effort.


Again, I certainly wish no ill will towards you in any way and I do not wish to come across as "trading jabs" but with 20 years of doing water changes I would certainly put you into the category of someone who most people would consider an "expert" simply by the length of time you have been in the hobby. At the same time you have a resistance to this new idea. This is perfectly natural and understandable and I don't see anything wrong with you sticking to the staus quo. In science this is called a "paradigm shift." However, I would try to persuade you to at least be open to the idea that there are other methods and products that might do a better job and be a better fit for others. I have also spoken to many scientists with fish tanks and some have purchased my filter and some have even sent testimonials.


----------



## iamntbatman (Jan 3, 2008)

As far as I know, fish (not including sharks) don't urinate. They excrete ammonia directly into the water through their gills.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

iamntbatman said:


> As far as I know, fish (not including sharks) don't urinate. They excrete ammonia directly into the water through their gills.


A tetra can release its body weight in urine every few days. This was in an article in either TFH or AFI this past year, sorry I can't recollect which. Not to mention related articles from a number of biologists and experienced fishkeepers. Water is constantly passing into the body of a fish by osmosis across the cell membranes. The kidneys flush toxins out of the bloodstream as they do in all animals, and all this has to go somewhere. Then there is the matter of salinity that affects freshwater fish differently from marine.

I'm quite prepared to accept that all these scientists and authors can be wrong, but given they are the majority I accept what they tell me; I'm not a trained biologist.


----------



## iamntbatman (Jan 3, 2008)

Upon further reading (it's been a while since I've learned about this sort of stuff) it appears we're both correct. Fish do excrete large volumes of urine, but unlike terrestrial animals this is dilute urine that is free of nitrogenous waste in freshwater fish. Nitrogenous waste is excreted almost exclusively as ammonium through the gills; freshwater fish "urine" is largely an osmoregulatory process that rids the fish of excess fluids, as there is a higher concentration of diluted material inside the fish than outside it. So yes, a tetra might pee an awful lot but this pee is essentially just water.

Sources:
New Page 1
Osmoregulation in Fish

What toxins are you suggesting are present in fish urine that need to be removed, then? To my knowledge, water changes provide two basic functions: removal of nitrate (the end product of ammonia excreted through the gills and a large part of solid waste after it has been broken down by bacteria) and the addition of trace elements essential to healthy fish growth.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Good articles, thanks for the links. I read both, but also saved them for later reference when this topic may come up.

I'll answer your first question by citing from David Boruchowitz in his 2-part article "Time for a Change: A Mathematical Investigation of Water Changes" in the November and December 2009 _TFH_.
Most aquarium maintenance is a matter of crud and how to get rid of it. A mechanical filter traps suspended crud, a chemical filter removes certain dissolved crud, and a biofilter changes very toxic dissolved crud into much less toxic crud. But no matter how much filtration you have on your aquarium, dissolved crud in some form continues to accumulate.

We don't even know everything that accumulates, but we do know that keeping the amount of dissovled crud to a minimum really makes a difference in tghe growth, health, and apparent happiness of our pet fish. The simplest, easiest and most effective way of removing the accumulated pollution in an aquarium is to do just that--physically remove it by taking out the water and replacing it with fresh, clean water.​The "crud" I understand to be (now dilute) urine, dissolved solid waste, and those "unknown" substances referred to above. I'll use "crud" from now on for clarity.

To the second point, the water change is the only method of removing the crud, plus it does dilute nitrates (important in non-planted tanks) and may supply trace elements depending upon what is in the water; my tap water is absolutley zero DH and KH with no trace minerals according to the water board tests, so it is not supplying anything. I have no nitrates to dilute, they constantly measure 5ppm and many planted tank aquarists (like Kym) have zero nitrates. Yet, there is absolutely no mistaking the vastly higher level of activity in the fish caused by a pwc. So the only obvious benefit has to be the exchange of water that removes some or most (depending upon the volume) of the crud.

Byron.


----------

