Refugium or algae turf scrubber??

[Jasongtr]

I currently use an algae turf scrubber, home built and works very well, I harvest every 10/14 days, takes about 5 mins so really isn't an issue

Just thinking I might swap over to a refugium as the chamber below where I have the turf scrubber is now empty.

What's the pros and cons for a refugium and the benefits over a turf scrubber, I guess I could start one whilst gradually turning the light schedule down on the turf scrubber until it's swapped over

Thoughts?

 

[MnFish1]

I currently use an algae turf scrubber, home built and works very well, I harvest every 10/14 days, takes about 5 mins so really isn't an issue

Just thinking I might swap over to a refugium as the chamber below where I have the turf scrubber is now empty.

What's the pros and cons for a refugium and the benefits over a turf scrubber, I guess I could start one whilst gradually turning the light schedule down on the turf scrubber until it's swapped over

Thoughts?

The benefit of a refugium - you can store fish there - temporarily (you can do that already without making a change) - I guess the comment would be - my feeling is that the algae scrubber will do a better job.

 

[Jasongtr]

The benefit of a refugium - you can store fish there - temporarily (you can do that already without making a change) - I guess the comment would be - my feeling is that the algae scrubber will do a better job.

That's the thing, mine performs so well it's hard to take it off line, the main downside to a huge I see is the light spill into other sump chambers roo

 

[SantaMonica]

Scrubbers compared to refugiums

If you are starting a new tank, then the obvious difference is that a scrubber gives you the option of not having a fuge at all because the scrubber can go on top of, in, or behind the display. There are other uses for a sump/fuge of course, but we'll only cover the filtration.

A not-so-obvious difference is that a scrubber, if run together with a fuge with macros, will kill the macros even though the macros are much larger. This is because the scrubber thinks the macros are nuisance algae. Some people do run both together without killing the macros, but this is just because their scrubber is not strong enough, and actually the macros might even be slowing down the scrubber because the scrubber thinks it has to remove the macros, and the nutrients in the water, and the nuisance algae in the display. However, if it works for the current setup, good.

But assuming you have to decide on either a sump/fuge or a scrubber (not both)...

o Filtration with algae is proportional to photosynthesis, which is proportional to Light x Flow x Attachment. Meaning, stronger light grows more algae; stronger water flow grows more algae; and stronger attachment lets more algae grow without floating away. A scrubber is designed to maximize Light, Flow, and Attachment.

o The main problem with macros in a refugium is the self-shading that the macros do. Any part of the macro which is not directly in front of the light at any moment is not filtering. And any macro inside of a "ball" of macro (like chaeto) is self-shaded all the time. Only the surface macro that is directly in front of the light is doing any real filtering. A scrubber is designed to have all the algae in front of the light at all times. Rotating macro does not solve the problem because the time that the macro is rotated away from the light is time that the macro is not filtering. This is why it takes a much larger size of chaeto to do the same filtering as a scrubber.

o Self flow-blocking is another problem of macros in a refugium, for the same reason as light-blocking. And the thicker the "ball" of macro, the more the flow-blocking.

o Particle trapping is another result of a ball of macro. These particles need to cycle back around to feed the corals, but instead they get trapped in the macro and rot, and in doing so they block even more flow and light.

o With a scrubber, there is very little water standing in the way of the light. Also, the light is (or should be) very close to the scrubber... 4 inches (10cm) or less. The power of light varies with the inverse square of the distance, so going from 8" to 4" actually gives you 4X the power, not 2X. And the nutrient removal power of algae is proportional to the power of the light, because it's the photosynthesis that is doing the filtering.

o Rapid flow across the algae in a scrubber gives more delivery of nutrients, compared to the slow moving water in a fuge. Filtering is proportion to nutrient flow.

o The turbulence of water moving over the sections of algae in a scrubber help to remove the boundary layer of water around the algae. This boundary layer slows the transfer of metabolites in and out of the algae. There is no turbulence in a fuge (if there were, you'd have waves and bubbles).

o Scrubbers do not let food particles settle like a refugium does; most particles flow right out of the scrubber.

o Scrubbers do not (if cleaned properly) release strands into display, like chaeto does.

o Scrubbers do not go sexual, like caulerpa can.

o Scrubbers do grow lots of pods; more than was previously thought.

o Scrubber don't, obviously, provide a place for snails and crabs, etc.

However, if you already have a sump with an empty compartment, and you don't mind using all of it and putting a light over it, then maybe it's easier and cheaper to try macros than even a DIY scrubber.

 

[Jasongtr]

All interesting points. Decided I'm sticking with the turf scrubber, just works too well, if I need to reduce or increase nutrients I just alter the light schedule, easy to harvest etc