Pretty much full on win in my opinion. To me the most telling thing is that in a single-passthrough Phosban reactor running maybe 3/4litre of pellets that the water at the input had a nonzero nitrate reading, and the water exiting at the output had a zero nitrate reading, not just a slightly reduced reading an actual zero reading. Thus the turnover proportion through the reactor versus the tank volume becomes the limiting factor in how fast you will see nitrate reduction in your tank.

In a nutshell, I would say it does what they claim, but if anything what we can learn from this thread is that how you run it is the most important variable. The pellets will do nothing for you or in fact can make nitrates worse if just run passively - they need to be fluidized 24/7. So the the reactor you choose needs to be sized appropriately or you have to tailor back the volume so that the reactor you do use can appropriately energize the pellets without clumping issues or slamming into the top of the reactor and gumming up. The slightest obstruction at the output means the mulm will not have a chance to escape and it's amazing how fast it builds up and then the pellets start to congeal together. It's important to have a strong skimmer removing mulm from the water column.

But compared to other methods I've run - ULNS, sulfur denitrators, chaeto, remote DSB's .. this one seems the most win. ULNS work better for visual results but involves more labor, my sulfur denitrators never dented my nitrates and I tried many different configurations, chaeto never makes a dent for me, and neither did remote DSB.

I would totally recommend for a heavy FOWLR as well as a reef.

Another thought - I would say it's more important to have the reactor charged up and able to run energized pellets without intervention, than the actual total volume of pellets itself. Ie, if the recommendations are 1 litre per 100g, but your reactor can only reliably fluidize say somewhere between 1/2 - 3/4 litre of pellets, then run the 1/2 - 3/4 instead, and just plan to reload the reactor more often than you might with the larger volume.

NP biopellets for the win!! I agree 110% with what Tony said. We got our pellets at the same time. Before pellets I had a nitrate reading of 8 (with a pinpoint meter). Two weeks later that dropped to 4ppm. 4 weeks later I'm sitting at 0 ppm. I can't explain what else could have pulled my nitrates down other than the pellets :-D.


I do have a small amount running passivley along side the main batch in my phosban reactor but will soon be looking into getting a larger reactor to house all 1000mL worth of pellet.

From what I gather so far, it seems that the more fluidize pellets you can create in the reactor, the better the results are. With that in mind, can you actually have too much flow that can somehow adversely be detrimental? If not, then why not super-fluidize the pellets in a larger recirculating reactor and control the throughput by other means.

I am thinking of a recirculating design like a ca reactor with the throughput being determined by the size of the a feed pump and/or valve. Of course it wouldn't be drops per minute but rather gph for the effluent and you would need two pumps in this setup. what's your thought on this?

I was thinking along the lines of that myself Will, at the very least maybe a circular flow style reactor; since I have had a few incidents of the pellets clumping up on me - it would be nice to find a more trouble-free way to run it (for now I'm just going to go with a larger reactor so that the pellets can move around more freely).

My guess on a recirculation/multipass reactor however is that it would probably be not as good. The mulm production of these pellets is insane and if not actively shed from the reactor, as it is produced, seems to act as a binding agent for the pellets and they eventually stop fluidizing and then you have to manually stir them up to re-energize them and you also end up releasing a LOT of mulm (I think there's such a thing as "too much of a good thing" in this case). Just my guess though.

Plus though, seeing as single pass is enough to emit effluent with 0 nitrates, there may not be that much benefit to going beyond that. My tank bioload is huge and single pass seems enough to make that zero.

IMO, something like TLF phosban reactor might be too tight for us to achive the fluidization we want without it binding and clogging. In a larger reactor, you will definately be able to turn up the flow and super charge the pellets in a way that I think it is meant to be. I have a huge recirculating reactor powered by an 500gph pump that I think will keep the pellets nicely suspended to do the job. With this level of flow within the reactor, the pellets shouldn't encounter the binding problem, especially if it's composed of light weight polymers, and the mulm should not be noticable as it sheds. For the throughput I am considering a 200-300gph pump, or might even consider gravity feed.

Ya, when I get my new skimmer, I'll be retiring my DIY recirc. That might make a nice in sump reactor too?

I have to agree with Tony. I initially put the pellets in the ZeoRX and saw some mulm and changes, but still could not get the green film on back glass to go away, it would dissapate but still form in a different area.

Since putting them in a deltec fluidizer, and only a week later, wow what a difference. No green algae film forming and everything else falling off the back walls.

They do work, if setup properly

with these pellets one would not run macroalgae as well, correct?
assuming no nutrients for the algae to grow.

I have been running a chaeto fuge but have noticed a significant slowdown in its growth since starting. I'm considering stopping running it altogether, just haven't quite pulled the plug on it as yet.