Trickle Tower defined

[DrCase]

I made 2 trickle towers last year you never said good or bad !

Im still running both of them on 2 smaller pond pumps
trickling through pillow stuffing & hair curlers

good or bad im ready for a improvement if i keep them

 

[crsublette]

There have been many studies related to bacteria converting ammonia. It's important to many areas beyond ponds. One study, I think in France, counted the types of bacteria found on media in conditions like a TT, moving, thin, water. They found 90% of the bacteria on the media was heterotroph, what we call "bad bacteria". Only 10% were ammonia converting kinds. This is on "clean" media in a lab.

To get into the weeds a bit here... Can or would you provide a hyperlink reference that you state substantiates that "only 10% were ammonia converting kinds" ?? Also... How is "ammonia converting" defined in those studies ??

Not arguing with ya here... just curious as I quite enjoy reading these materials.

"Ammonia converting" is a loaded term in microbiology so I am quite curious of the study's context. I imagine there is a large disparity in obligate microorganism, dimorphic microorganisms, and aerobic microorganisms throughout the layers in the bio-film. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing, that is depending on the microorganism. Ammonia is oxidized in many formulations and I am quite curious if these other formulations are taken into account.

Also, Heterotroph is an extremely broad classification of microorganisms and I would not refer to heterotrophs as "bad bacteria", even in our pond context; however, I know it is the knee jerk reaction of many aquatic hobbyists to suggest heterotrophs are "bad bacteria" since there are "bad" heterotrophs. This classification also refers to microorganisms that oxidizes ammonia, that is depending on if the species views it as an energy source, the degree of oxygen saturation and light penetration around the microorganism, and the type of inorganic carbon consumed. However, this type of ammonia oxidation is slightly different than the typical ammonia oxidizing bacteria that are entirely aerobic in nature. Thus, this leads to my question above.

The reason trickle (low flow) and shower (high flow) wet/dry filters are quite effective is due to this large range of heterotroph that work in cooperation with the obligate aerobic microorganisms. Surface area simply exponentially increases these populations due to the additional water flow.


To add further validation on the claim of trickle tower effectiveness, in the waste treatment context, the idea was a spin off from the Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) except a different product was created for the trickle towers due to the excess materials available at the time, which are still used in the aquaculture industry, and, back in the day or possibly even still today, there were trickle towers used in the waste treatment industry that was 20 meters (65 feet) tall.

For anyone curious on the origins of the aquarium bio-wheels, these were built to be a small scale version of a RBC bio-filter, which is essentially a trickle wet/dry filter.


However, still, with all of the benefits of wet/dry filters, there are costs to everything and space and additional equipment is a major variable.

For large aquaculture establisments, outside the context of the RBCs, I have not found a single commercial establishment that utilizes a wet/dry filter, that is establishments processing 25 tons of fish waste per year. These establishments often choose to use a type of quite extensive polygeyser bead filter, which the beads are nearly the size of snow flakes. However, these systems utilize an extensive automated particulate filtration all the way down to around 10~20 microns.

 

[crsublette]

So if I'm understanding right many, if not most, garden ponds don't even need a boi filter - right? I mean if you're testing zero ammonia, nitrites and nitrates, why build a bio filter at all? Aside from the DIY fun aspect.

Or am I missing something?

Ultimately, you are correct... However, you have to also view the bio-filter as an insurance policy. What do you think will happen if all your plants suddenly die due to some unforeseen disaster?

Also, the incorporation effectiveness of a bio-filter would depend on how the plants are incorporated into the pond due to plant's cation exchange capacity (CEC) system's influence on pH. If the plants are in the pond, then there is really no way to "bio-filter" the water before the plants come into contact with the water.

If the plants are in an external grow bed, that is not a bog, then there would be a benefit to converting the ammonium to nitrates before the plants encounter the nitrogen fertilizer. Bogs is a different critter due to the expelling of hydroxides from denitrification and the special oxidation of ammonia in the bog ecosystem. Due to the plant's CEC system, the plant much exchange an equivalently charged ion so to absorb another ion out of the water. However, if the ion in the water does not have a charge, such as ammonia (NH3), then this instantly penetrates the plant's roots and directly converts into ammonium (NH4+) directly inside the plant. So, for the plant to absorb ammonium nitrogen, then the plant must expel the most dominate free cation (positive ion), which is often a hydrogen cation (H+), into the water so the plant's root hairs can grab the ammonium (NH4+) nitrogen. This exchange would cause the localized area around the plant root zones to be more acidic. For the plant to absorb nitrate (NO3-) nitrogen, then the plant must expel the most dominate free anion (negative ion), which is often a hydroxide anion (OH-), and this makes the plant root zone area to be more alkaline. However, there would have to be many many plants for this to have a dramatic impact on the pond water's pH, such as in an aqua-ponic system or if the pond is quite shallow with like 80% plant cover.


For pond beginners with a proper low fish density (which beginners often have a high fish density and uncontrollable feeding tendencies ) and various plants, then they likely do not need a bio-filter, except I would just view the bio-filter as a good insurance policy.

Also... a basic trickle tower can be easily made and look quite beautiful even though it might rarely be used as a bio-filter... Whether you need it or not, I would still have a trickle tower as a nice pond accent somewhere so to serve as an insurance policy.

If you do not want a pond accent, then maybe a trickle tower as a patio accent, such as hanging a Zip Grow tower to grow your favorite flowers on a patio wood column or wall and then cleverly installing the water return line to the pond... or can build some other similar type of system elsewhere... If the input water line and return water line is cleverly figured, then the trickle tower would not have to near the pond.


Nice about trickle towers is that it is easy to beautify them... Imagination is the only limitation.

 

[Priscilla]

If I did a trickle tower about 4 feet high, what size pump would I need to get the water up to it? I need a back up pump anyways.

 

[crsublette]

If I did a trickle tower about 4 feet high, what size pump would I need to get the water up to it? I need a back up pump anyways.

You would think that is an easy question to answer, but it really is not so easy since many variables are involved to determine the total head height requirements.

What you are asking for is the pump's head height. Head height describes the capabilities of a pump to operate under pressure. When going vertically, then it is a 1:1 ratio, that is vertical height in feet to head height in feet. In other words, when going vertically 4 feet high, then the additional static head height is 4 feet. When going horizontally, then it is a 10:1 ratio, that is 10 horizontal feet equals 1 head height in feet. Now, this is only part of the equation. The other part of the equation is to calculate the dynamic head height, which involves determining how plumbing elbows, degree of elbow, other plumbing fixtures, etc., and, once this is determined, it is added to the static head height. As you can see, it gets complicated.

I don't know too much about pumps.. I simply take the basics and then use more than I likely need to use..

To take a guess in the dark... Assuming other pipe fittings and other friction loss issues. To be more precise, then would really need to know exactly what plumbing pieces you would use, but this isn't really a big deal for a hobbyist unless trying to save on electricity consumption since higher head height means the pump consumes more electricity, that is depending on how the pump is built.

I would say any pump with a head height of around 6-8 feet. This should work for a trickle tower that is 4 feet tall.

 

[Waterbug]

To get into the weeds a bit here... Can or would you provide a hyperlink reference that you state substantiates that "only 10% were ammonia converting kinds" ?? Also... How is "ammonia converting" defined in those studies ??

As I said in the first post, if I have time I would like to write a web page someday and take the time for footnotes. It all gets a little jumbled.

But in general... The 10% thing I'm not sure of the source. And maybe they said 90% were heterotrophs, or at least non-ammonia converters, and maybe I assumed that meant 10% were ammonia converters. And of course this was not like they surveyed a 100 bio filters. I assume it was just one. What I took away is these bio filters are not just ammonia converters, or even mainly populated by ammonia converters.I'm not holding my breathe waiting for another study on this. I think it's a reasonable finding, it fits with other things learned about these critters.

For a proper article I'd have to find it a again and be more precise. These don't seem to be hard to find, but it does take time. I figure if people really want to find them they can just like I did. Takes some Googling, but they're not hidden.

The picture of the bio film I posted I'm pretty sure came from one of these studies and I added "G.J.S. Thorn" to the picture to give credit. So I assume a Google of that name and some bacteria terms should at least find at least one study. Most studies have lots of footnotes to related papers. So in short order you have access to a lot of relevant material which is a big time saver. Not all are available online so It takes a little digging, some you have to buy.

"Ammonia converting" is a loaded term in microbiology so I am quite curious of the study's context. I imagine there is a large disparity in obligate microorganism, dimorphic microorganisms, and aerobic microorganisms throughout the layers in the bio-film. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing, that is depending on the microorganism. Ammonia is oxidized in many formulations and I am quite curious if these other formulations are taken into account.

All the studies I've read, ammonia conversion type deals, use and grow a single species of bacteria. Apparently there's some place these can be purchased and the studies do go into detail what species is used, how they obtained it, how they make sure another species doesn't contaminate the tests. Apparently this is really pretty hard and they generally devote a lot of space describing their methods. One study out of France, I think, talked about the species being local to their area and other species could be different, maybe they weren't of their range, etc.

I get the sense science has only studied a few species, that there are probably many unknown species out there. They only nailed down the first species like in 1977 I think. But I also get the feeling these few species are considered a reasonable representation of how these creatures operate because just based on measuring ammonia conversion, carbon consumption it seems very similar across the world without actually knowing what species each site has. Kind of like once you study how birds create eggs you probably have a good understanding of how it works in all birds. And I think maybe they all want to use the same species in order to be able to compare results. Kind of a baseline species. Or maybe there's only one species available. Don't know.

Also, Heterotroph is an extremely broad classification of microorganisms and I would not refer to heterotrophs as "bad bacteria", even in our pond context; however, I know it is the knee jerk reaction of many aquatic hobbyists to suggest heterotrophs are "bad bacteria" since there are "bad" heterotrophs.

In the context of this forum I think most readers prefer the term "bad bacteria". I provide the term heterotroph only so it can be used as a Google term for anyone interested. Just I often say "green water algae" along with a little more precise term that can be Googled. I don't see a need to go out of my way to confuse readers.

This classification also refers to microorganisms that oxidizes ammonia, that is depending on if the species views it as an energy source, the degree of oxygen saturation and light penetration around the microorganism, and the type of inorganic carbon consumed. However, this type of ammonia oxidation is slightly different than the typical ammonia oxidizing bacteria that are entirely aerobic in nature. Thus, this leads to my question above.

Thus confusing for no reason I can understand. Sorry.

The reason trickle (low flow) and shower (high flow) wet/dry filters are quite effective is due to this large range of heterotroph that work in cooperation with the obligate aerobic microorganisms. Surface area simply exponentially increases these populations due to the additional water flow.

This makes no sense to me. I don't think I've ever read any study that was remotely detailed enough to draw any conclusion like this. I would be interested in any references.

To add further validation on the claim of trickle tower effectiveness, in the waste treatment context, the idea was a spin off from the Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) except a different product was created for the trickle towers due to the excess materials available at the time, which are still used in the aquaculture industry, and, back in the day or possibly even still today, there were trickle towers used in the waste treatment industry that was 20 meters (65 feet) tall.

For anyone curious on the origins of the aquarium bio-wheels, these were built to be a small scale version of a RBC bio-filter, which is essentially a trickle wet/dry filter.

I'm not sure I would connect these as directly to the TT used in ponds. Obviously there are lots of similarities, but there are many differences. I mean you could say ammonia conversion in soil proves something about a TT too, but at some point different people are going to draw different lines. I could see maybe aquarium bio-wheels being pretty close. But a pond is a much dirtier environment, much different media, outside in the sun. My personal assumption is there's just too many differences. For example, if an aquarium bio-wheels was shown to convert X amount of ammonia for Y sq in of media I wouldn't want to use those same numbers to describe a pond TT.

For large aquaculture establisments, outside the context of the RBCs, I have not found a single commercial establishment that utilizes a wet/dry filter, that is establishments processing 25 tons of fish waste per year. These establishments often choose to use a type of quite extensive polygeyser bead filter, which the beads are nearly the size of snow flakes. However, these systems utilize an extensive automated particulate filtration all the way down to around 10~20 microns.

I don't understand this. RBC is only considered effective in large operations as these need a heavy load to work well. Particle removal is mechanical, entirely different from bio. Moving bed, TT and Shower filters are very common in fish farming, at least I seem to run into them a lot. Here's a pretty good PDF that talks about this

 

[crsublette]

For a proper article I'd have to find it a again and be more precise.

It would be quite interesting to read the context of the statement, "found 90% of the bacteria on the media was heterotroph, what we call "bad bacteria". Only 10% were ammonia converting kinds." This is actually a very broad statement and it is not this easy in microbiology.

I particularly read the dissertations and peer reviewed studies on Science Direct and the American Society for Microbiology.

In context of the image, my comments were, as found on post#22 in another thread, "Interesting thesis there by G.J.S. Thorn, that is explaining the diagram. He talks about how the biofilm helps to anchor the bacteria and the bacteria eventually grows its own biofilm to help attach more colonies so the bacteria does not remain free-floating in the water. He does not indicate this bio-film is killing particular bacteria."

In the context of this forum I think most readers prefer the term "bad bacteria".

Yeah, and I wish forum readers would stop calling them as "bad bacteria" since it only pertains to particular classifications of heterotrophs that solely rely on digesting complex organics.

The bio-film is a diverse matrix of many microorganisms and not all of them are bacteria and some of them are heterotrophs.

This makes no sense to me. I don't think I've ever read any study that was remotely detailed enough to draw any conclusion like this. I would be interested in any references.

Why would it not make sense?

Since the degassing abilities at low pHs is quite small, due to the low dominance of gaseous ammonium, then this would indicate there are other dimorphic microorganisms and even algaes present in the wet/dry filters responsible for considerable reduction in nitrate presence.

In the context of references of wet/dry hobby filter performance, I only have anecdotal testimonials that demonstrate this, such as birdman's new test tank testimonial, which is actually than what you have referenced.

I'm not sure I would connect these as directly to the TT used in ponds. Obviously there are lots of similarities, but there are many differences. I mean you could say ammonia conversion in soil proves something about a TT too, but at some point different people are going to draw different lines. I could see maybe aquarium bio-wheels being pretty close. But a pond is a much dirtier environment, much different media, outside in the sun. My personal assumption is there's just too many differences. For example, if an aquarium bio-wheels was shown to convert X amount of ammonia for Y sq in of media I wouldn't want to use those same numbers to describe a pond TT.

Of course, there will be many differences. However, the principle of RBCs, that is exposing the bio-film to a wet/dry environment and to allow the sloughing off of bio-film and debris, is no different than a TT. Scale and environmental exposure will impact performance and the mechanisms, but the principle still remains the same.

I don't understand this. RBC is only considered effective in large operations as these need a heavy load to work well. Particle removal is mechanical, entirely different from bio. Moving bed, TT and Shower filters are very common in fish farming, at least I seem to run into them a lot. Here's a pretty good PDF that talks about this

Actually, your PDF states, on page 23, " the biological filter material continuously rotates, and shares the same advantages as tricklingfilters. But the construction of 1 m3filter material is very expensive, so this type offilters is more suited to heavily loaded water. Many small aquaculture enterprises employed the RBC with very little success: [then a picture of a RBC is shown]"

Also, an RDF (rotating drum filter) is not the same as a RBC (rotating biological contactor). There is no particulate filtration in a RBC.

Here is a small scale hobby version of a RBC, from Aquatic Eco-Systems, for a small aquaculture tank.

With the proper plates, dependent on its SSA (static surface area, yes this still matters), a RBC can almost perform as good as other wet/dry filters.

Although, as the PDF explains, even though RBCs have the same advantages of TT, trickle towers are still better due to its ability to expel carbon dioxide.

 

[JohnHuff]

Here is a small scale hobby version of a RBC, from Aquatic Eco-Systems, for a small aquaculture tank.

Very interesting! After looking at that and other RBCs, I think I can make a mini-one out of K'NEX to put in my pond. But honestly, with the amount of space and effort, I don't see the advantage of this over K2 in the same sized container needed to hold the wheel.

Really nice website, by the way.

 

[crsublette]

Very interesting! After looking at that and other RBCs, I think I can make a mini-one out of K'NEX to put in my pond. But honestly, with the amount of space and effort, I don't see the advantage of this over K2 in the same sized container need to hold the wheel.

Yep, exactly.

Another problem with RBCs is the extra cost to integrate particulate filtration so that the RBC only processes particulate filtered water. This is where Trickling Towers have the edge over RBCs.

With TTs, integrating particulate filtration is much easier.

Personally, I prefer TTs over RBCs just as many others do as well.

 

[JohnHuff]

I think the only advantage is that it would be fun to build!

You could build the discs out of mats or just have a giant cylindrical sponge, and have the water fall on it like a giant water wheel. It would then pick up particulate matter too.

Thinking back a few days ago. For the ERIC system, instead of having rows of ericMats, would it be better off with rows of rotating ericCylinders.

 

[crsublette]

I think the only advantage is that it would be fun to build!

You could build the discs out of mats or just have a giant cylindrical sponge, and have the water fall on it like a giant water wheel. It would then pick up particulate matter too.

Thinking back a few days ago. For the ERIC system, instead of having rows of ericMats, would it be better off with rows of rotating ericCylinders.

Yep, there ya go again. Bottom half of the ERIC bio-filter could be the mats and top half could be RBCs and then sprinkle in some laterite baskets if wanting to utilize plants.

As an quick aside to describe the E.R.I.C. system (and a video of the ERIC) for those that do not know of it, the ERIC is actually the best "all in one", static, fully submerged media filtration system out there, but I am not an advocate of settlement chambers and static submerged media. There are people who attempted to use fluidized media, but it never worked out well due to the dimensions required for the system to be called an ERIC. Also, the ERIC, that is Endless River In Concrete, is required to be made in a river design that is encased in concrete, and the concrete adds significant thermal displacement benefits.

The ERIC would be an excellent application for RBCs (except I would still prefer a low head TT), due to the ERIC's elongated settlement chamber (SC). For anyone curious, ERIC's elongated SC is a requirement for the ERIC to work properly due to the SC's high sedimentation period, which allows most particulates to settle, that is if the particulate is heavy than water. Sedimentation is what allows a SC to work so well, but the typical aquatic hobbyist SC is often built just large enough, or small enough depending on perspective, so to only allow the sedimentation of primarily large particulates. The finer particulate filtration of sedimentation is also seen in aqua-ponic's deep water culture (DWC, also called Rafts) grow beds, except the raft's aeration often interferes with the sedimentation in localized areas.

For anyone curious how the RBCs turn, there is either a low amp crank motor or low pressure water gears. On my farm, back in the 1960s-1970s, field irrigation sprinklers commonly used water driven gear boxes. For a light weight built RBC, then only around 3~5% psi would be needed to turn the wheel, if that much depending on the size of the wheel.


However, again, I would much rather use a low head pump, that has around 3 foot head height, to operate a very short Trickle Tower rather than a RBC.

 

[crsublette]

Hey Waterbug,

I am not trying to argue with ya, just having a discussion, that is sharing perspectives, and I mostly agree with you.

Once your webpage is written with references that you speak of, then I look forward to read it so I can be corrected.

I am a huge fan of wet/dry filters and Trickle Towers is one of the cheapest, easiest to do, and easiest to beautify. There are negatives to wet/dry filters such as: 1) temperature volatility concerns; 2) potential for wind to dump debris in them; 3) additional head height costs; 4) significant humidity increase when used in an enclosed space; 5) noise concerns. Even with these negatives, I am still a big fan of them since I think these negatives can be easily remedied such as: 1) insulating cover around the wet/dry device; 2) place a cover around the device with holes at particular locations; 3) tough to avoid unless the elevation is changed; 4) exhaust fans if humidity is a concern; 5) tough to avoid except the cover will reduce much of the noise and Trickle Towers are not that noisy, much like the sound of a small creek, if that.

I think the best manufactured Trickle Tower are ZipGrow Towers plus allows the introduction of plants, but I can see how a variation of this product can be easily DIY'd if plants are not a desire.

 

[crsublette]

Going to do a quick copy/paste of post I did on another thread, post#5 in thread titled Skippy Bio-Filter.

Trickle Towers are the easiest to hide since they can be built in plain sight and be quite pleasant to look at. A simple decorative clay pot, filled with lava rock, then a diffusor plate on top with a fountain attachment so that it still looks like a fountain, except the water trickles down the lava rock inside the pot instead of outside of the pot. Drill a few holes in the pot so to allow good air circulation. This pot could be place inside the pond, to be like an island, or on the side of the pond to easily gravity flow back into the pond. A shower tower could even be built like this if the owner can find a pot big enough so to allow building shelves in it.

 

[Dave 54]

There are other varients on the TT one that I quite like the look of is the bio tower looking somewhat like a Christmas tree and looks to be made from Japmatting , it is made by design to increase he amount of oxygen this increase encourages the good bacteria , it is also designed to gas off pockets of carbon dioxide present in pond water
It is also designed to remove disolved organic Carbon in doing so ceate a much more enviromentally stress free zone which in the long trm helps us create better health
It is produced in the UK in the Isle of Whight
Though for the moment the name slips my mind there is also a trickle drum which has been around for the last few years .
One thing though with all the trickle systems be they manufactured or DIY just how much evapouration do people experiance at the height of summer, I mean we already loose quite a bit off the surface of the pond in summer so what is the total amount between the two ?
Speaking of DIY trickle towers my good friend Max made a very good one from the Bread bins that the baker delivers his loafs on in the morning

Dave

 

[JohnHuff]

I think the best manufactured Trickle Tower are ZipGrow Towers plus allows the introduction of plants, but I can see how a variation of this product can be easily DIY'd if plants are not a desire.

Interesting!!! Crusblette, you sure are a fount of knowledge!!!

Having looked at that website, I don't see why the same thing can't be done with 4" drainage pipes which would be probably 66% less expensive, with the added benefit that round pipes can be turned to face the Sun, all at once if necessary with a simple gear and pulley system. And automated with an iPhone app too!

On rumination, if people want to do something like that, I think I would use drain pipes like these:

You can lay it out in a space saving spiral or any shape you want and don't have to deal with hanging pipes or anything so complicated. Just drill a hole bunch of holes or just slice the whole pipe down the middle. Fill with rocks, gravel or foam material, etc. About $50 for 100 foot.

In fact, this would the cheapest wet/dry filter ever known to mankind. Just fill that thing 1/2 full with rocks and gravel, pump water in the top and out comes water biofiltered by 100 ft of media! Spiraled up, it wouldn't take up much more space than a large Skippy.