Activated Carbon: Yea or nay? Why?

Activated Carbon: Yea or nay? Why?

  • Yes, all the time.

    Votes: 340 70.0%
  • No, never.

    Votes: 35 7.2%
  • I take it online / offline as needed.

    Votes: 111 22.8%

  • Total voters
    486
Randy, what is the best canister to use for running AC?

I don't which is best, but I use a Magnum (450?) that I won at a MACNA years ago.

sponge, Seachem MatrixCarbon, and maybe Seachem Matrix

The matrix carbon is a good material.

What sort of sponge. For particulates?

Yes, a sponge for particulates. I have a diamond goby that kicks up tons of little bits. The particle filter doesn't need to be a sponge, it just needs to be able to filter any type of particulate matter. What's better, a thick sponge or a micron sock type of thing? I think the Magnums like yours have micron filters?

MatrixCarbon seems like good stuff, and the BRS carbon seems like it's pretty good too. Is there an "it" carbon?
 
Those are fine carbon choices. Last I compared, ROX carbon from BRS was better than Black Diamond, but enough more in cost to offset the advantage (IMO) and I stuck with the cheaper stuff, using more. :)
 
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oVpRGzerJFI&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oVpRGzerJFI&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Wow, incredible video from BRS with some scientific evidence for the AC argument. Also presents good evidence that their ROX carbon is awesome!
 
Last edited:
Thats fairly damn impressive.

I think the next thing everyone, includeing me would like to know, is what specefifcations should we be looking for when purchaseing an activated carbon.

I know of several important factors such as pore size (and percentage of that particular pore size), iodine number, particle size, hardness value, manufacturing process (washed with phosphoric acid etc) are some of the more important aspects to know about when chooseing an activated carbon.

Along with what raw material it is manufactured from that would be the best for our purposes (bituminous coal, peat, lignite etc) , a list of the ranges of particular specifications above (plus any extra factors) would be very helpful to most people to help them to choose the best product.

Anyone an expert in Activated carbon types and how they work?

MavG
 
I went a long time without running it in a nano cube, but recently switched over when I had some post cycle cloudiness when I upgraded to a 90G. I added a media bag full of it and within 12 hours the water was nearly crystal again. That experience led me back to keeping it as a regular media in my tank. I'm now 24/7 with it.
 
currently using BRS ROX carbon.. its kick arse..

-run all the time
-makes water not smelly and clear
-filters out the nuking by corals
 
Thats fairly damn impressive.

I think the next thing everyone, includeing me would like to know, is what specefifcations should we be looking for when purchaseing an activated carbon.

I know of several important factors such as pore size (and percentage of that particular pore size), iodine number, particle size, hardness value, manufacturing process (washed with phosphoric acid etc) are some of the more important aspects to know about when chooseing an activated carbon.

Along with what raw material it is manufactured from that would be the best for our purposes (bituminous coal, peat, lignite etc) , a list of the ranges of particular specifications above (plus any extra factors) would be very helpful to most people to help them to choose the best product.

Anyone an expert in Activated carbon types and how they work?

MavG

BUMP, can any offer any expertise?
 
I have just stated using it in the last month or so but I am still trying to decide whether I want to use just a nylon bag or the extra footprint and electricity of a reactor.
 
I started to use carbon about three months ago and after a few days, I noticed how bright my tank looked. I thought it was my halide until I realized that it was the carbon doing it's thing. Impressive...I run it 24 hours in a MR-1 from Next Reef. Great media reactor if anyone is looking for one.
 
I'm pretty new to the salt water thing and only have a small 14G nano. No skimmer. All in one built on overflow with 4 back chambers.

Since day 1 I ran some generic carbon packs I was given with the tank stuff, made the water crystal clear.

Just recently realized I forgot to switch out the carbon pack since then (been about 4 weeks, maybe 5ish) and took it out after a water change and didn't have another ready right away to pop in.

I'm already seeing a difference in the water clarity and even the smell and its only been a few days. Now I only have a few corals at this point, 2 fish, a porcelain crab and pistol shrimp, and the typical array of snails and hermits, but it sure seems to me that my tank was generally happier and cleaner with it running.
 
I would kind of think that those of you that have used carbon right from the start, you don't qualify. In other words, you have nothing to compare it to. It's not a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but I think the odds might be swayed in the favor of a security blanket.
 
Re: Activated Carbon: Yea or nay? Why?

I'm on 2 weeks of carbon after 4 months off. My skimmer is only pulling out about 1/3 the amount of skimmate it was before. In my opinion, that's hard evidence that the carbon is reducing organic material in the water.

Also I started running a sponge filter to remove particulate matter in the water, which may skew the outcome a bit.
 
Assuming GAC is removing the smell, the yellowing, the organics, etc, taking this "dirty" water out of the tank and then replacing it with freshly made saltwater is pretty much the same thing I guess. That bucket of freshly made saltwater is as pure as it gets though. I know what I'm getting through water changes. No worries about what it might leach, what "good" stuff it might remove along with the bad, no HLLE speculation, nothing. To be honest with you, I really don't think anybody knows for certain how long carbon lasts. Just as an example, let's say you replace your carbon every 2 weeks. Well, after five days in the smelly yellow tank water it has exhausted itself, it's done. If you weren't seeing anything out of the ordinary when it was time to change it out 14 days later, you have pretty much been going without carbon for the last 9 days. This type of thing happens all the time. Lets face it, GAC could fall off the face of the earth and we still get by. Water changes, no so much.

Happy reefing.:)

I'm sorta with you in that in 15yrs of keeping saltwater I have yet to notice any visable or hobby grade testable subjective/objective difference with or without it. water doesn't look any clearer. water doesn't test any better. no livestock looks any better or worse. that said I am running it currently HOPING it may be having some effects on more than meets the eyes. for example perhaps there's a line of water clarity not visable to me but noticeable to coral photosynthesis. this would perhaps likely be no more than the equivalent of a couple months of bulb wear at best (something else I wouldn't notice). Perhaps it pulls a few more organics out simular to a moderate skimmer upgrade. people talk all the time about upgraded skimmers pulling more crud but lets be real even though its working better, 98% of the time unless they had undersized garbage before there is no visable/measurable benefit in the increased productivity. even though I too feels its completely unneccessary (some might say the same about skimming ect) I am confident its doing SOMETHING wether its worth my effort to use it or not. If it were expensive or hard to apply I wouldn't bother but as cheap as it is I'll never go broke or miss any meals due to a cup or two of carbon every few weeks.
 
I use carbon 24/7. I use the bottom 4 inches from a Walmart basket filled with carbon in bags. I use excess pump capacity and flow water over it. The basket is suspended about an inch above the water surface in my 180g sump. I change the carbon once a month and rinse it out every 5-7 days.
 
I have it in a reactor. Its costs like 50 bucks with the reactor and pump so I just put it on in the begining.
 
Given the recent studies I've read regarding skimmer performance and how even the best remove only a fraction (20-30%) of total DOC (dissolved organic carbon) link, I've started using GAC (granular activated carbon) again after not using it for 2 years. Skimmers only remove components that have distinct hydrophilic regions with hydrophobic areas as well (think of lipids and their polar heads with nonpolar tails). Kind of makes me feel stupid for letting hobby knowledge trump my biochemistry knowledge for the past couple years! :hammer:

The use of Disodium fluorescein in this study link is pretty interesting and you can see how the rates vary based on initial DOC concentration, tank volume, and the # of grams of GAC used. While I do question some of the fluorescein drop, due to peroxyl radicals decaying the fluroescein over time (part of my graduate work), the levels of ferric and ferrous iron in our tanks should never be high enough to fuel the Fenton reaction leading to a high level of peroxyl radical formation. Or at least we should hope not!

The other things interesting from that study are how little GAC is needed to achieve t90 (90% removal of DOC). Assuming a well-skimmed tank has around 1ppm DOC according to their work, 1 gram per gallon of water will last you approximately 30 days before saturation.

They did show how saturated GAC does release compounds very quickly back into solution (assuming equilibrium is reached, or [DOC]carbon is higher than [DOC]water). So swapping it out sooner would not hurt given how cheap it is.

In addition, their work showed Hydrocarbon2 from Two Little Fishes was outperformed by Black Diamond from Marineland (as far as the rate of removal "k" was concerned and final [DOC]).

I found it all to be extremely interesting since it is very rare that I actually see studies in reefkeeping that go through the trouble to properly set up and report data.
 
Given the recent studies I've read regarding skimmer performance and how even the best remove only a fraction (20-30%) of total DOC (dissolved organic carbon) link, I've started using GAC (granular activated carbon) again

Although there's no equivalent study as to the percentage typically removed by GAC. I do not believe the model using an easily bound dye is at all comparable to a real experiment measuring DOC.

Skimmers only remove components that have distinct hydrophilic regions with hydrophobic areas as well (think of lipids and their polar heads with n

The same could be said of GAC: it only remove organics with some hydrophobic portions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top