Activated Carbon Use and SPS?

[sahin]

so you havent checked the articles.

these images are from one of the articles, where they conducted tests, and came up with the 2 variables I posted about above.
so why not you and Peter read them first before "tryng" to bash my opinion and calling it insane.

you can choose if you want to use GAC or not, I dont care one bit. I dont sell Gac, I dont mine for GAC ... but dont diss the scientific evidence just to support your opinion on a fish forum ... you really think drugs, alcohol and so many other industries would have used GAC if they didnt do any research on it ?

I checked out those articles as each was released. When I made my post earlier, it was at work uhoh2 and so didnt have the time to explain myself properly.

When I stated that we know yellowing compounds are removed, but we dont know much else of what is removed is because: the term DOC is used to described a bunch of substances which GAC is said to remove, however: as the article:http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1/ clearly states: The precise chemical species that GAC removes have not been determined. Rather, the catchall phrases "DOC" (dissolved organic carbon) and/or "marine humic/fulvic acids" are frequently employed to categorize the uncharacterizable (Holmes-Farley, 2004; Bingman, 1996; Rashid, 1985; Romankevich, 1984). In fact, both descriptors have little intrinsic meaning and give no insight into the actual chemicals involved".

Furthermore, have you read PART 2 of this other article you posted (http://www.fishchannel.com/saltwater-aquariums/aquarium-frontiers/reef-aquarium-granular-activated-carbon-2.aspx) , which states in the Conclusion in Part 2 that:"Granular activated carbon is a valuable tool for the reef hobbyist. It can play a significant role in maintaining a healthy reef or saltwater aquarium. The hobby's traditional approach to the use of carbon, however, has been misguided. Optimum use of carbon requires only periodic use. Slow circulation of water through small amounts of carbon will remove significant amounts of color. Passive use of carbon, as well as circulation through high-volume power filters should be avoided."

So, according to 2nd Part of one of the articles you post, Peter is VERY correct in the periodic use of the GAC in his tank. Whereas you run GAC continuously.

Anyway, the article titled: Granular Activated Carbon, Part 1: Modeling of Operational Parameters for Dissolved Organic Carbon Removal from Marine Aquaria (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1/) states: The use of granular activated carbon (GAC) for decolorizing marine aquarium water has had a long and successful history". Which I had stated can be seen to work.

The same article states further along "we chose our models for DOC by asking the following question: what are the likely types of components, at least as broad classes, in DOC, and what commercially available dye molecules might have similar chemical and/or structural characteristics to these components?"

The article further states: " The premise underlying this approach to model system selection is that if the chosen dyes share chemical/structural characteristics with some of the presumed DOC components, then perhaps their diffusion properties and chemical interactions with the chemically active sites in GAC might be similar to those of the actual DOC components." Again, there is a presumption made about what these DOC components could be and dyes are chosen based on either chemical or structural characteristics shared with some of the presumed DOC components...

The article continues on to categorise some of the possible DOC make up etc...and then explains why certains dyes were chosen etc...and ends somewhere around there.

I now include part 2 of the article which wasnt linked, which is titled: Granular Activated Carbon, Part 2: Modeling of Operational Parameters for Dissolved Organic Carbon Removal from Marine Aquaria(http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1)
This article talks about actual results...

I wont go into the details of the experimental model and skip straight to the juicy part )): "An interesting observation to emerge from these simulations is that, at least for the 100 gallon water volume/100 gm of HC2 case described by Table 5 and Figure 11, the GAC saturation times vary tremendously depending upon the clean/dirty state of the tank water. Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days."

So, at least in part for the above experimental model, the results indicate for us in practice, if we follow good water change practices and have high performing skimmers, GAC can possibly last a whole month. However, the model suggests that it is highly dependant on husbandry practices and hence GAC can also be depleted in a matter of days...which one can interpret as follows: If one is carrying out regular water changes and utilises a good skimmer and then utilises GAC for a few days at a time, the GAC used would have taken out the DOC and be depleted within a few days...

Moreover, the article goes on to state that: "a system with 150 gallons of total water volume that is adequately skimmed...an aquarist can conclude that a 100 gram charge of HC2, for example, should be replaced in approximately 29 days". Also, "an aquarist running an unskimmed...75 gallon tank...a 100 gm HC2 charge will become saturated with DOC's in approximately 4.8 days".

The article concludes: "Aquarists who choose to use granular activated carbon (GAC) to aid in water purification are faced with two over-arching questions: "How much GAC should I use?", and "When should I replace my GAC?" The answers depend on three aquarist input quantities: the amount of DOC present, the amount of GAC used, and the tank water volume. The latter two metrics are easy to come by, but quantifying the amount of DOC present must still await reliable assay kits".

And finishes with stating: "In the final analysis, this study presents results that are based on model systems and not real operational marine tanks. We have made a case for the extrapolation of these model system conclusions to marine aquariums, but ultimately each aquarist will have to find their own comfort level regarding the validity of this connection".

Hence I go back to what I said earlier in the post. Like with so many aspects of this hobby; there are so many different ways to get things done.

To conclude, the 2nd Part of the original FishChannel article that you linked concludes in Part 2 by stating that the best way to run GAC is to run it periodically.

Whereas the the other article concludes by stating that in the absence of reliable assay kits, an aquarist needs to make their judgment on GAC use.
So until we have a reliable way of measuring DOC, we are all guessing more or less...but IMO the experienced SPS reefkeeper will over time learn to judge their tank and will find what works best for their own tank.

Despite all this, I agree with Jdamon that this is not peer reviewed and if one reads the experimental design closely, it is based on presumptions (which may be scientifically sound), but it hasnt been peer reviewed, and as much isnt the absolute definitive answer to GAC use.

Allmost, I hope you understand that I am not arguing with you. Heck I know (and I might still have a PM or two) when I PM'd you for advice relating to Zeovit products. I value and respect everyones input.

Thanks for reading. :uhoh2:

 

[ChadRaay86]

Well, this looks like it got a little out of hand... Oh well, like I said before, gotta love the passion in this hobby, especially in the fuzzy sticks forums!

 

[Peter Eichler]

I checked out those articles as each was released. When I made my post earlier, it was at work uhoh2 and so didnt have the time to explain myself properly.

When I stated that we know yellowing compounds are removed, but we dont know much else of what is removed is because: the term DOC is used to described a bunch of substances which GAC is said to remove, however: as the article:http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1/ clearly states: The precise chemical species that GAC removes have not been determined. Rather, the catchall phrases "DOC" (dissolved organic carbon) and/or "marine humic/fulvic acids" are frequently employed to categorize the uncharacterizable (Holmes-Farley, 2004; Bingman, 1996; Rashid, 1985; Romankevich, 1984). In fact, both descriptors have little intrinsic meaning and give no insight into the actual chemicals involved".

Furthermore, have you read PART 2 of this other article you posted (http://www.fishchannel.com/saltwater-aquariums/aquarium-frontiers/reef-aquarium-granular-activated-carbon-2.aspx) , which states in the Conclusion in Part 2 that:"Granular activated carbon is a valuable tool for the reef hobbyist. It can play a significant role in maintaining a healthy reef or saltwater aquarium. The hobby’s traditional approach to the use of carbon, however, has been misguided. Optimum use of carbon requires only periodic use. Slow circulation of water through small amounts of carbon will remove significant amounts of color. Passive use of carbon, as well as circulation through high-volume power filters should be avoided."

So, according to 2nd Part of one of the articles you post, Peter is VERY correct in the periodic use of the GAC in his tank. Whereas you run GAC continuously.

Anyway, the article titled: Granular Activated Carbon, Part 1: Modeling of Operational Parameters for Dissolved Organic Carbon Removal from Marine Aquaria (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1/) states: The use of granular activated carbon (GAC) for decolorizing marine aquarium water has had a long and successful history". Which I had stated can be seen to work.

The same article states further along "we chose our models for DOC by asking the following question: what are the likely types of components, at least as broad classes, in DOC, and what commercially available dye molecules might have similar chemical and/or structural characteristics to these components?"

The article further states: " The premise underlying this approach to model system selection is that if the chosen dyes share chemical/structural characteristics with some of the presumed DOC components, then perhaps their diffusion properties and chemical interactions with the chemically active sites in GAC might be similar to those of the actual DOC components." Again, there is a presumption made about what these DOC components could be and dyes are chosen based on either chemical or structural characteristics shared with some of the presumed DOC components...

The article continues on to categorise some of the possible DOC make up etc...and then explains why certains dyes were chosen etc...and ends somewhere around there.

I now include part 2 of the article which wasnt linked, which is titled: Granular Activated Carbon, Part 2: Modeling of Operational Parameters for Dissolved Organic Carbon Removal from Marine Aquaria(http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1)
This article talks about actual results...

I wont go into the details of the experimental model and skip straight to the juicy part )): "An interesting observation to emerge from these simulations is that, at least for the 100 gallon water volume/100 gm of HC2 case described by Table 5 and Figure 11, the GAC saturation times vary tremendously depending upon the clean/dirty state of the tank water. Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days."

So, at least in part for the above experimental model, the results indicate for us in practice, if we follow good water change practices and have high performing skimmers, GAC can possibly last a whole month. However, the model suggests that it is highly dependant on husbandry practices and hence GAC can also be depleted in a matter of days...which one can interpret as follows: If one is carrying out regular water changes and utilises a good skimmer and then utilises GAC for a few days at a time, the GAC used would have taken out the DOC and be depleted within a few days...

Moreover, the article goes on to state that: "a system with 150 gallons of total water volume that is adequately skimmed...an aquarist can conclude that a 100 gram charge of HC2, for example, should be replaced in approximately 29 days". Also, "an aquarist running an unskimmed...75 gallon tank...a 100 gm HC2 charge will become saturated with DOC's in approximately 4.8 days".

The article concludes: "Aquarists who choose to use granular activated carbon (GAC) to aid in water purification are faced with two over-arching questions: "How much GAC should I use?", and "When should I replace my GAC?" The answers depend on three aquarist input quantities: the amount of DOC present, the amount of GAC used, and the tank water volume. The latter two metrics are easy to come by, but quantifying the amount of DOC present must still await reliable assay kits".

And finishes with stating: "In the final analysis, this study presents results that are based on model systems and not real operational marine tanks. We have made a case for the extrapolation of these model system conclusions to marine aquariums, but ultimately each aquarist will have to find their own comfort level regarding the validity of this connection".

Hence I go back to what I said earlier in the post. Like with so many aspects of this hobby; there are so many different ways to get things done.

To conclude, the 2nd Part of the original FishChannel article that you linked concludes in Part 2 by stating that the best way to run GAC is to run it periodically.

Whereas the the other article concludes by stating that in the absence of reliable assay kits, an aquarist needs to make their judgment on GAC use.
So until we have a reliable way of measuring DOC, we are all guessing more or less...but IMO the experienced SPS reefkeeper will over time learn to judge their tank and will find what works best for their own tank.

Despite all this, I agree with Jdamon that this is not peer reviewed and if one reads the experimental design closely, it is based on presumptions (which may be scientifically sound), but it hasnt been peer reviewed, and as much isnt the absolute definitive answer to GAC use.

Allmost, I hope you understand that I am not arguing with you. Heck I know (and I might still have a PM or two) when I PM'd you for advice relating to Zeovit products. I value and respect everyones input.

Thanks for reading. :uhoh2:

Sahin, you're a bigger and far more patient man than I...

 

[Peter Eichler]

LOL Einstein himself could conduct experiments and some of u would even diss that to support your OWN OPINION lol

I think I do alot of experiments, more than any one that has posted on this thread, I have 7 tanks going at the moment

lastly, if you actually took the time to read the article, you will see what it is about ... it is NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT JDAMON should use GAC or not. its about the rate at which GAC works at, and difference between the brands see your mistake now ? its not about how it will work in your tank, it is not about the GAC's effect on corals, it is not about need to run GAC or not, it is about the GAC itself, what it is, what it does, how well it does it

I take it that you are against GAC in SPS tanks ?

one of the most useless discussions I have had on this board so far.

At no point do I get the feeling Jdamon is against GAC in SPS tanks. Nor do I believe for one second you're doing any actual scientific experiments in your 7 aquariums... I've played around with my tanks a lot throughout the years, I've had more aquariums at one time than I care to admit, I used to do extensive testing for my fish food brand. However, none of what I've done throughout the years can be called an actual experiment, and all of the opinions I have from my years of 'experimenting' are based on anecdotal evidence.

Also, I wasn't calling you insane, but the assertion that one should run GAC at all times for the sake of stability is a little insane to me. Your articles don't support that assertion in any way, nor many of the other things you imply they draw conclusions on within this thread.

One of the problems here, and why I feel many of your threads get debated heavily, isn't that others aren't reading the articles that you often cite, it's that we don't come to the same conclusions from those articles that you do, nor do we hold them with the same level of regard that you do.

Furthermore, I feel you come to many false conclusions on these forums and pass them off as "science" or "fact" simply because you've linked to an article you once read. "Science" doesn't work that way, and there is very little actual science going on in this hobby. That includes in most of the articles that are written within the hobby. Someone calling both of our assertions in this thread (and just about everything else in this hobby) anecdotal is perfectly valid and warranted.

You often turn these debates into something emotional very quickly. I've seen it happen plenty with and without me involved in a thread, so I don't think I'm the common factor. I appreciate that you're passionate about these topics, but I feel your posts are often clouded by your passion and emotion rather than being guided by logic and reason. It's up to you if you would like to take that constructively or not, but I assure you that is how it's intended.

 

[Dapg8gt]

Wow =(

I think the saying "there's More than one way to get the job done" should have been taken into thought here instead of turning a good debate into a unwarranted (by my reading of the responses at least) self proclaimed personal attack that sidetracked the entire thread to the point that it was childish . Life is made up of people who think for themselves, you can't expect people to listen to you if you get mad/offended everytime they don't agree . I agree with Peter about this not being a one time thing.

I have ran carbon on and off for probably 14 years in reef and FW tanks since I was 8. My personal opinion is your tank can live with it or without it.

You can't tell me your tank will crash if you don't use it or your tank will crash with it used correctly. There is almost always a risk to do damage by overdoing anything In a reef tank especially GAC /GFO.

Imo taking it slow and tweaking it based on results in YOUR situation imo is the best solution regardless of what anybody recommends or swears by.. Article or not.

To the op I think your current plan is fine I would just be cautious if you decide to switch to something like rox . 08 or equivalent. The amount you need of rox vs standard carbon is a drastic change that will have negative impact on your tank if ignored.

 

[mos90]

i have had good luck using 2 cups of brs lignite carbon run passively replaced every 4 weeks on my 300g. it is about 1/2 the recommended dose.





"There is almost always a risk to do damage by overdoing anything In a reef tank especially GAC /GFO" i agree with this 100%.

 

[Yodeling]

In my experience there's really no prescriptive way for that works for everyone. I have 2 tanks right now. My 120 is fed heavily and runs a big skimmer, GAC, GFO, and UV 24/7. My 28g is fed only twice a day and runs skimmerless, with no GFO or carbon, and no WCs. Both tanks can grow SPS just fine, and neither has any algae or other issues. Both tanks are tuned, via trial/error, to their own optimum conditions and I wouldn't change a THING!

My point is, there's really no right way to run a tank. What works for one tank may not work for another. There are many factors that influence the ecosystem. But I still enjoy reading other people's experiences.

P.S. Also, IMHO conditions change over time. So it never hurts to experiment.

 

[tdb320reef]

Sahin, you're a bigger and far more patient man than I...

Wow great write up. I appreciate sharing and taking the time to write that up. It is very informative and have often wondered carbons value.

I personally think running it as needed is the best method but never know when it is needed.

However it does have benefits of removing yellow water and other smells. I can always tell when the carbon is saturated as you can smell the tank when you walk in the house.

Both points are very valid. I have decided to use 1/3 of the calculated amount on BRS website for Rox .08 and run passively contentiously and have had very good success.

Tom

 

[Reefvet]

....there is very little actual science going on in this hobby. That includes in most of the articles that are written within the hobby. Someone calling both of our assertions in this thread (and just about everything else in this hobby) anecdotal is perfectly valid and warranted.

That's the truest statement in this entire thread.

What is happening in this hobby is many different approaches prove successful and the only thing that really demonstrates is the wide tolerance of conditions that corals and fish will live in, perhaps even thrive in.

Now as far as actual science, not limited to the hobby, but research about coral and it's survival in the mess we've made of the oceans. I can point you to articles about research that proves the reefs are doomed and will never recover. I can also point you to articles based on research that demonstrates that corals are adapting and recovering in areas it was thought would never recover.

How about the research that concludes that corals grow during the day or the articles that conclude they grow at night. Take your pick, they're both available and based on recent research.

How about the acropora colonies created at the Horniman museum by cementing frags together rather that waiting 2 years for them to grow. They spawned in captivity, just like naturally grown colonies. Huh ? That's unnatural, but it's true.

 

[Reefvet]

My point is, there's really no right way to run a tank. What works for one tank may not work for another. There are many factors that influence the ecosystem. But I still enjoy reading other people's experiences.

That's why I'm here. I've been doing this for over 40 years and I still am learning. I also don't need to be right about everything. Once you adopt that stance it becomes possible to learn something new.