LaCl Reactor

[slief]

Here are a couple outside links to use of Lanthanum Chloride as it applies to our aquariums. These may be an interesting read for those considering the use of LaCl. This is NOT meant to be a discouragement. This is meant to provide additional information to those considering using it.

http://www.beananimal.com/articles/l...and-tangs.aspx

http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/cont...ling-phosphate

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by worm5406

It will throw off your timing.. but set it to 0:00/0:15/8:00

That is prob the perfect spot... I know we talked about making it all match up to an even minute.. but it really does not matter. The matchup just allowed you to know when it happened.

I was thinking about what you are suggesting Now that I understand how the doser works, I don't think that changing it will cause me any problems

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by worm5406

Humm... with these results it seems like you have found your desired range.

You are almost at 1 second with 34 wait. per your test results.

I wonder how that would actually do:

0:00/0:01/0:34

Am I understanding you correctly to dose for 1 second every 34 seconds?

[JSimpson]

Originally Posted by terri_ann

Am I understanding you correctly to dose for 1 second every 34 seconds?

I would not advise that. My Drew's Doser puts out a drop every two or three seconds, meaning 1 second dose time would usually not even drop once if only on for one second. I would assume he was speaking more the ratio of on time/off time as opposed to dosing for only a second at a time.

On a side note, I still believe that a lot of the variations you are seeing are a result of testing errors. Even using the Hanna ULR Phosphorous test, you are in the bottom 10% or so of the meter's range. My advice would be to take things slowly, and try to observe results over a period of weeks, not days, to get a better idea of your actual progress (or lack of). I would stay with the dosing schedule you are at now, which doesn't seem likely to precipitously drop phosphate levels, and see how things look in two or three weeks before deciding to change dosing rates.

Joe

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by insomniac2k2

Personally, I think you may be doing too many water changes. Not that they are a bad thing, but just about every time you posted a large fluxuation, it was immediately after a wc.

Do you have a demand for such frequent water changes? It seems that you are carbon dosing and using phosphate reduction mechanisms. Do your nitrates run high or something.

Just trying to get some insight.

I don't know Insomniac. I've just always done weekly WC's for years. I did quit running the GFO reactor when you suggested it I dose 25ml vinegar daily but not on WC day. I had a nitrate issue for about a year until I started carbon dosing. The nitrates run about 20ppm (API) I do have a heavy bioload and, feed my fish(once daily) and corals(once weekly) very well. I'm afraid if I don't do weekly WC's, that the nitrates will skyrocket. I "usually" feed the corals the night before the WC.....

[worm5406]

Yes I was talking about the ratio...

Once you know the exact ratio and the amount it removes you can adjust your parameters to compensate for too much or too little.

If a ratio of 1 to 30 drops it to quick and a 1 to 40 makes it rise then a 1 to 35 (or 33 in my calculations) would make it perfect.

A 15 second run (first number) would mean that the second number needs to mult by 15. This would produce 8m45s. That is with the previous assumption of 1 to 35.

A 1 to 33 would produce 8m15s.

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by slief

My lipstick on a pig comment was simply to imply that using LaCl or even GFO for that matter without addressing the source of the phosphate is not truly addressing the problem but rather taking a bandaid approach.

.....

Like I said, I realize you did your research but I contend that continual use of LaCl can be very dangerous, especially if you overdose and I am not suggesting that you are. I am however suggesting that it is not a solution to a phosphate problem but rather a means of eliminating it for a short term if you are not addressing the source of the phosphate. Thus my lipstick comment above. If you are addressing the source of the phosphate then ultimately there would be no need to continually use LaCl. I guess the same can be said for GFO too but unlike GFO, LaCl is potentially a lethal chemical with grave consequence if not used correctly.

My reason for even posting my previous comments is because this thread will certainly entice people with much less experience into going down a similar path and if they are not fully aware of the risks involved and proper application of LaCl in relation to water volume and precipitate removal, there are substantial risks to their tank and livestock. This is no different that the use of Ozone, vodka dosing etc. There are risks involved with any of them and the use of any of the above requires proper research.

So having said that, I am sorry if you found my post offensive. That was never my point. I guess I am just playing devils advocate and really wanting people (other than you) to do their due dillegence before going out and building an LaCl reactor and employing a chemical that they know little to nothing about and is known to be harmful to certain fish, especially if not used in very careful moderation.

I'll be very blunt here Slief. If reefers do not do their research before doing anything to their tanks, they are not "good" reefkeepers. I am fully aware of Gary's thread... I know why I have phosphate problems... I know the risks of LaCl, ozone, carbon dosing, GAC and GFO, et cetera... I even know the risk of my cancer returning! My tank only comes second to my family. So with all that said, I find it offensive that you are playing devil's advocate without fully reading this thread and knowing, excuse me, not knowing whether the participants here are educated enough in determining what they will or will not do with their tanks....Just sayin'

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by worm5406

Yes I was talking about the ratio...

Once you know the exact ratio and the amount it removes you can adjust your parameters to compensate for too much or too little.

If a ratio of 1 to 30 drops it to quick and a 1 to 40 makes it rise then a 1 to 35 (or 33 in my calculations) would make it perfect.

A 15 second run (first number) would mean that the second number needs to mult by 15. This would produce 8m45s. That is with the previous assumption of 1 to 35.

A 1 to 33 would produce 8m15s.

I'm sitting here Worm, LMFAO! tee hee I followed everything until "A 15 second run (first number) would mean that the second number needs to mult by 15. This would produce 8m45s. That is with the previous assumption of 1 to 35." So, you want me to dose the rate at 15 secs every 8 minutes, correct? I'll be right back, lol...time for a Margarita on the rocks!

[worm5406]

I guess what I was saying is based on a ratio and did not want to get it confused with minutes and seconds.

Normal ratio is 1:4 in connotation.

SO....

Running at at 00:15 then a 8:45 break creates a ratio close to 1:35 (1 sec of run with 35 sec off)

Making it run for 15 seconds at a clip would produce a off time of 8:45.

With that as a baseline you know that it will increase on your measurements.

running it at 0:15 / 7:15 makes it drop too quick.

So I just computed the ratio in excel and said to run it at 00:15 / 8:00.

Sorry for complicating it with out having a Corona for my self... LOL

"It's 5 o'clock somewhere" LOL

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by JSimpson

I would not advise that. My Drew's Doser puts out a drop every two or three seconds, meaning 1 second dose time would usually not even drop once if only on for one second. I would assume he was speaking more the ratio of on time/off time as opposed to dosing for only a second at a time.

On a side note, I still believe that a lot of the variations you are seeing are a result of testing errors. Even using the Hanna ULR Phosphorous test, you are in the bottom 10% or so of the meter's range. My advice would be to take things slowly, and try to observe results over a period of weeks, not days, to get a better idea of your actual progress (or lack of). I would stay with the dosing schedule you are at now, which doesn't seem likely to precipitously drop phosphate levels, and see how things look in two or three weeks before deciding to change dosing rates.

Joe

Thanks Joe I figured that the doser would have a hard time dosing 1 drop every +30 seconds I have tried my darn'est to take it slow I'm just so afraid of having unreacted LC get into the tank I just need to be confident that everything will be fine...easier said then done for me. I promise Joe, I will try to keep the dose from being constantly changed once we decide what to go with!

[terri_ann]

No need to apologize as math has never been my cup of tea! Excel, huh?! No wonder I get lost!!teehee Go ahead and have a Corona; my margarita is great! Darn router/wifi /whatever that black box is in the basement wouldn't let me access the Apex through my computer. Some day I'll have to tell you about my "luck" ! LOL!!!

It's working now so I will change the dose to 15 secs every 8 minutes :0) I promised Joe/JSimpson that I would try to go at least a week without changing it! I'm starting the countdown now! GO!!! lol

[terri_ann]

Done!! :0)

[slief]

Originally Posted by terri_ann

I'll be very blunt here Slief. If reefers do not do their research before doing anything to their tanks, they are not "good" reefkeepers. I am fully aware of Gary's thread... I know why I have phosphate problems... I know the risks of LaCl, ozone, carbon dosing, GAC and GFO, et cetera... I even know the risk of my cancer returning! My tank only comes second to my family. So with all that said, I find it offensive that you are playing devil's advocate without fully reading this thread and knowing, excuse me, not knowing whether the participants here are educated enough in determining what they will or will not do with their tanks....Just sayin'

Fair enough. My comments however were not directed at you or the OP. I know from reading the OP's posts here as well as other places in this forum that he infact did plenty of homework. I actually checked his profile and checked his post history to learn a bit about him and what might have inspired him to take this course of action. While I did not read every post in this thread, I did read enough by skimming through every page of it and wanted to share my concerns, some of which are in fact valid.

My posts were really directed at the thousands of other people on this forum who are new to this hobby and old alike who happen upon this thread and decide that building an LaCl reactor to continually dose LaCl might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for managing phosphates. That is where my concerns arrise because LaCl should not be taken lightly (as you seem to be aware) and phospate management in my experience comes from eliminating the source as best as possible so that it doesn't get into the tank.

Many people are lazy and don't always do their due dillegence. Just look at how often redundant threads are posted here in this forum when a simple seach can yeild a wealth of information on a subject that has been rehashed daily. Does that make them poor reefkeepers?? Not necessarily.

I felt it important to stress to those that don't do their homework (or maybe missed something) that LaCl can be dangerous. I honestly feel that LaCl is useful in reducing PO4 as I've used it successfully myself but in my opinion it should not be a solution for managing it long term by continual daily dosing, especially if one is not trying to eliminate the source of the PO4.

While I read a lot of good information in this thread and even like the OP's reactor design and his effort to include the skimmer in the percipitate removal process, the one thing I didn't see was much discussion of the risks involved in continual LaCl dosing. That happens to be a gray area as there have been no long term studies regarding potential damages that can be caused by it's continual use. There are however plenty of cases where fish and coral casualties may be attributed to improper use of the stuff.

Given that many people in this hobby are easily influenced by something they see or read and have a tendancy to be lazy and not do proper research, I felt that pointing out the fact that there are risks in LaCl use was worthy of my comments. Especially when it comes to continual daily use of it. Given that this is a discussion forum and I have some experience on the subject, I felt it important to weigh in.

So having said all of that, I am truley sorry to offend you or anybody else that has contributed to this thread. That was never my intent. I will now bow out of this thread with what ever grace I have left. I certainly didn't want to insult anybody who is actively involved in this solution and I truly hope it works out well for you guys in the long term. As such, I will follow along but keep my mouth shut or fingers away for the keyboard.

[terri_ann]

Okay Gentlemen, what are we going to do for the next week?! Kidding aside, I'm not going to test until Sunday...maybe even Monday :0) How about a picture?...

http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps95920cc5.jpg

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by slief

Fair enough. My comments however were not directed at you or the OP. I know from reading the OP's posts here as well as other places in this forum that he infact did plenty of homework. I actually checked his profile and checked his post history to learn a bit about him and what might have inspired him to take this course of action. While I did not read every post in this thread, I did read enough by skimming through every page of it and wanted to share my concerns, some of which are in fact valid.

My posts were really directed at the thousands of other people on this forum who are new to this hobby and old alike who happen upon this thread and decide that building an LaCl reactor to continually dose LaCl might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for managing phosphates. That is where my concerns arrise because LaCl should not be taken lightly (as you seem to be aware) and phospate management in my experience comes from eliminating the source as best as possible so that it doesn't get into the tank.

Many people are lazy and don't always do their due dillegence. Just look at how often redundant threads are posted here in this forum when a simple seach can yeild a wealth of information on a subject that has been rehashed daily. Does that make them poor reefkeepers?? Not necessarily.

I felt it important to stress to those that don't do their homework (or maybe missed something) that LaCl can be dangerous. I honestly feel that LaCl is useful in reducing PO4 as I've used it successfully myself but in my opinion it should not be a solution for managing it long term by continual daily dosing, especially if one is not trying to eliminate the source of the PO4.

While I read a lot of good information in this thread and even like the OP's reactor design and his effort to include the skimmer in the percipitate removal process, the one thing I didn't see was much discussion of the risks involved in continual LaCl dosing. That happens to be a gray area as there have been no long term studies regarding potential damages that can be caused by it's continual use. There are however plenty of cases where fish and coral casualties may be attributed to improper use of the stuff.

Given that many people in this hobby are easily influenced by something they see or read and have a tendancy to be lazy and not do proper research, I felt that pointing out the fact that there are risks in LaCl use was worthy of my comments. Especially when it comes to continual daily use of it. Given that this is a discussion forum and I have some experience on the subject, I felt it important to weigh in.

So having said all of that, I am truley sorry to offend you or anybody else that has contributed to this thread. That was never my intent. I will now bow out of this thread with what ever grace I have left. I certainly didn't want to insult anybody who is actively involved in this solution and I truly hope it works out well for you guys in the long term. As such, I will follow along but keep my mouth shut or fingers away for the keyboard.

Good enough Slief Yes people are lazy, especially many of the younger generation...did I just say that! Shame on me! Seriously, yes dosing LaCl is a pretty uncharted territory especially with home aquariums. It's unfortunate that we know some will jump feet first into something without doing their research and getting input from those whom are trusted and have first-hand experience. I guess just the nature of the beast! We too are hoping for the best with our endeavor at dosing LaCl using a reactor. FWIW, I have 5 micron socks and have one at the output which sits right in front of the skimmer Lastly, go ahead and use the keyboard if you are so inclined Slief

[slief]

How often are you guys changing your filter floss? Also, do you or have you measured the water volume output from your reactor immediately after changing your floss and again before you change your floss? I ask this for a reason. Since my last post, I went and read every post in this thread and it provoked some questions in my head.

Given LaCl's propensity to create large amounts of precipitate that quickly clogs filter socks, I'm wondering what impact the LaCl in the reactor has on restricting flow coming out of the reactor. It would be interesting to know and an easy way to test that would be to use a measuring cup that has Ml markings and time how long it takes to fill it to 500Ml both before and after your filter floss change.

If the precipitate is restricting flow over time at an increasing rate, that could explain why you are experiencing variances in your test results over the course of days. If the flow through the reactor is changing, then so is the contact time. Additionally, if the flow through the reactor is slowing down due to the precipitate, the amount of effluent from the reactor into the tank would slow down as well which in turn would mean that less PO4 polished water is being filtered into the tank. That could cause PO4 levels to rise. When they rise, the immediate reaction would be to increase the dosing when maybe changing the filter floss would reduce the PO4 simply due to the fact that more water from the reactor is being sent into the tank.

So having said that, how often are you guys changing your floss and are you measuring the amount of effluent to see if there is a trend in the flow rates through the reactor?

[terri_ann]

I can't answer those question Slief. I didn't measure the flow rate when I started because I'm not trying to restrict the flow...just have it go slow :0) I'm using an MJ 1200. I have it a little less than 1/2 open so maybe my flow is about 4-500gph going into the Jumbo BRS reactor, the "reaction" chamber :0) I use a 5 micron sediment filter in the last chamber before it flows into the 5 micron filter sock which is placed directly in front of my skimmer inlet....

[slief]

Originally Posted by terri_ann

I can't answer those question Slief. I didn't measure the flow rate when I started because I'm not trying to restrict the flow...just have it go slow :0) I'm using an MJ 1200. I have it a little less than 1/2 open so maybe my flow is about 4-500gph going into the Jumbo BRS reactor, the "reaction" chamber :0) I use a 5 micron sediment filter in the last chamber before it flows into the 5 micron filter sock which is placed directly in front of my skimmer inlet....

Your fluctuations in PO4 results were in part the reason I asked. My thinking was that flow rates could be changing as the percipitate builds up in the reactor which in turn could restrict flow through the reactor. The more percipitate in the reactor, the more impact it would in theory have on the head pressure on your MJ1200. As the flow slows, the rate at which you are putting treated water into your tank would slow which could result in slowly raising PO4 levels.

If you find a sweet spot for your dosing rate and the flow slows down after that, the existing sweet spot may need to be modified as a result of the flow change.

My thinking is along the lines of a calcium reactor and a common problem that can occur with them. You get it all setup and dialed in and down the line, the Ca effluent slowly clogs the effluent line changing the rate at which the effluent is distributed to the tank. Depending on the livestock and Ca consumption in the tank, the Ca levels in the tank could drop as a result of the reduced output from the reactor.

I would think that the results would be similar in that if you have a large amount of PO4 built up in your system and the output from your reactor slows down due to the percipitate restricting flow, you could see a slight daily rise in PO4 levels simply by virtue that the embedded PO4 in your rocks and sand is leaching out faster than your reactor is turning the tanks water over.

When you were seeing the slight rise and variences in your PO4 levels, the immediate tendency is to make an adjustment to the rate at which you administer the LaCl which makes perfect sense. I was wondering if some of the fluctiations you are seeing are more a result of the reactor slowing down which if true even to a minor degree it could very well have an impact on your PO4 test results. If that is the case, then maybe more frequent floss changes are needed to keep the results consistant.

You guys have delved into an area of this hobby that is pretty much unexplored and as such, there may still be more to learn when it comes to consistant results. I'm thinking that consistant flow rates through the reactor have to have an impact on the consistency of overall PO4 levels in the tank. Once dialed in, if the reactor slows down, PO4 levels should in theory go up even if it is a very slow increase.

I hope I am making sense as I am truley trying to help. I've got a bit of experience in building reactors myself and the flow rates out of the reactor would be the one other area that I would pay particular attention to with this endeavor. Given the nature of LaCl and it's ability to clog filter material in a hurry from the precipitate, I think it's something relevant to look at.

[terri_ann]

I believe I understand what you are saying Slief :0) Common sense would substantiate what you are saying I have checked the flow coming out and in to the filter sock and it 'appears' to be at the initial flow rate. The sediment filter is getting dirty/brown so it is catching the precipitate. As I'm positive that the sandbed and rock are holding PO, I feel that it will take a long time to leach out. I have considered removing the sandbed but I've done that over the past and just do not like the looks of it, unfortunately

I will continue to watch the flow coming out and will post if/when I notice a reduction :0) I will be testing later today and will report the result. I can't believe I made it without adjusting the dosage and testing since Friday!! lol Oh, Joe!! teehee :=0)

[terri_ann]

Tested about 5 o'clock tonight. YAY! I think! PO is at .0395720!! LOL Now what? Nitrates aren't too bad- 10ppm ... API- I know (:l LOL

[insomniac2k2]

If I were ever to get a reading that low, I would be cutting my dose down or stop dosing for 2 to 3 days. That's just too low for my blood.

[insomniac2k2]

At the moment, i am changing out my floss/carbon every 3 weeks or so. There is so much surface area in filter floss, compared to socks. And my opinion about flow differs to yours. I strongly believe that the more the floss clogs, the more efficient it becomes, in regards to capturing reacted precipitate. Granted flow becomes restricted, but as long as its not by huge numbers, I just can't see it. I have yet to do a scientific test on how much flow before and after, but I'd say that the eyeball test says that I'm losing about 20% or so of my flow. When I get some time after I get moved into my new house, I will do a volume test.

Something to note. I am not seeing large fluxuations in my levels like Terri is. My levels have been very consistent since my initial reduction and finding my dose sweet spot. I also just noticed that Terri's flow rate is really high. I believe she said she is near 400-500g an hour? That's really high if it were to compare to my flow rate of 5-20 gph (estimate). Can't say if her flow rate is good or bad, but my thoughts on this topic are that if rather go with very slow flow rates, and allow slower reaction period before it ultimately dumps into my skimmer. Granted there is lesser water volume, but this is why a scale my LaCl3 dose so low and frequent. Its basically like a controlled peristaltic drip.

In the future, I intend on doing many more experiments on flow rates, reaction times, etc. But for now, I am very content on how my setup is running.

Excuse my lack of detail. Typing on my phone is a bit painful.

Originally Posted by slief

Your fluctuations in PO4 results were in part the reason I asked. My thinking was that flow rates could be changing as the percipitate builds up in the reactor which in turn could restrict flow through the reactor. The more percipitate in the reactor, the more impact it would in theory have on the head pressure on your MJ1200. As the flow slows, the rate at which you are putting treated water into your tank would slow which could result in slowly raising PO4 levels.

If you find a sweet spot for your dosing rate and the flow slows down after that, the existing sweet spot may need to be modified as a result of the flow change.

My thinking is along the lines of a calcium reactor and a common problem that can occur with them. You get it all setup and dialed in and down the line, the Ca effluent slowly clogs the effluent line changing the rate at which the effluent is distributed to the tank. Depending on the livestock and Ca consumption in the tank, the Ca levels in the tank could drop as a result of the reduced output from the reactor.

I would think that the results would be similar in that if you have a large amount of PO4 built up in your system and the output from your reactor slows down due to the percipitate restricting flow, you could see a slight daily rise in PO4 levels simply by virtue that the embedded PO4 in your rocks and sand is leaching out faster than your reactor is turning the tanks water over.

When you were seeing the slight rise and variences in your PO4 levels, the immediate tendency is to make an adjustment to the rate at which you administer the LaCl which makes perfect sense. I was wondering if some of the fluctiations you are seeing are more a result of the reactor slowing down which if true even to a minor degree it could very well have an impact on your PO4 test results. If that is the case, then maybe more frequent floss changes are needed to keep the results consistant.

You guys have delved into an area of this hobby that is pretty much unexplored and as such, there may still be more to learn when it comes to consistant results. I'm thinking that consistant flow rates through the reactor have to have an impact on the consistency of overall PO4 levels in the tank. Once dialed in, if the reactor slows down, PO4 levels should in theory go up even if it is a very slow increase.

I hope I am making sense as I am truley trying to help. I've got a bit of experience in building reactors myself and the flow rates out of the reactor would be the one other area that I would pay particular attention to with this endeavor. Given the nature of LaCl and it's ability to clog filter material in a hurry from the precipitate, I think it's something relevant to look at.

[terri_ann]

Originally Posted by insomniac2k2

If I were ever to get a reading that low, I would be cutting my dose down or stop dosing for 2 to 3 days. That's just too low for my blood.

Yep, me too. It's off! I'm going to slow my flow way down too! Almost to a dribble... Is that about what yours is Insomniac?

Done! Will see what changing the flow does. Made me so nervous that I fed early for my routine. Think I will test again late this afternoon/early evening to see where the PO4 has gone...should go up with the coral feeding. This has been a challenge to say the least!

[slief]

Originally Posted by insomniac2k2

At the moment, i am changing out my floss/carbon every 3 weeks or so. There is so much surface area in filter floss, compared to socks. And my opinion about flow differs to yours. I strongly believe that the more the floss clogs, the more efficient it becomes, in regards to capturing reacted precipitate. Granted flow becomes restricted, but as long as its not by huge numbers, I just can't see it. I have yet to do a scientific test on how much flow before and after, but I'd say that the eyeball test says that I'm losing about 20% or so of my flow. When I get some time after I get moved into my new house, I will do a volume test.

Something to note. I am not seeing large fluxuations in my levels like Terri is. My levels have been very consistent since my initial reduction and finding my dose sweet spot. I also just noticed that Terri's flow rate is really high. I believe she said she is near 400-500g an hour? That's really high if it were to compare to my flow rate of 5-20 gph (estimate). Can't say if her flow rate is good or bad, but my thoughts on this topic are that if rather go with very slow flow rates, and allow slower reaction period before it ultimately dumps into my skimmer. Granted there is lesser water volume, but this is why a scale my LaCl3 dose so low and frequent. Its basically like a controlled peristaltic drip.

In the future, I intend on doing many more experiments on flow rates, reaction times, etc. But for now, I am very content on how my setup is running.

Excuse my lack of detail. Typing on my phone is a bit painful.

Not bad for having typed all that our on a phone! I was hoping you would chime in.

I actually think we are on the same page about flow rates. I think the lower flow rate is best. Especially given the diluted doses you are using, the lower flow rates allow for greater reaction time with the LaCl. That would also help to reduce precipitates from leaving the reactor.

I'm still a bit curious about flow reduction as the precipitate builds in the reactors over time. It would be interesting to add a pressure gauge like these ones to the reactor to see if it increases between floss changes. I've used them as an indicator on some of the reactors I have built. It's easy to measure flow with a dosing pump but a bit more difficult when you are getting into gallons per hour or minute as opposed to liters per hour or minute. I've found that a good pressure gauge can come in handy and serve as a good indicator for when it's time to change media.

It seems like this solution is working well for you guys.

[Philly guy]

I have been following along on this thread for a while and am in the process of collecting the parts to build my lacl reactor. I just want to make a comment on something that Terri ann said. She said that she is running a MJ 1200 at a little less than half way. That is no where near 4-500 gph. An MJ1200 puts out 1200 liters an hour at max. In gallons it is rated at 295 gph at 0 head loss. Her flow is probably less than 100 gph. That may still be a little on the high side but not alarmingly high.