Boomer..Two Carbon Quesions

[Boomer]

Well, BRS got almost all their info, for the GAC's they are selling, by reading my posts here on RC No, it is not as good as TFG but more than likely **may be be better than BD. Some sellers are now looking for larger grain GAC with less dust, as it is more user friendly, less costly, not that it is better. It is fine to use but if it were me for a bitum GAC it would be TFG. It does have a rather high M # for a Bitum, which is a big plus. Usually most are in the mid 200's.




I need to fix this, so one doe not get confused


The M # also tells us what the PA (Pore Volume )

It is actually its Molasses Decolorization Index/Efficiency %

Meaning, ruffly, a 90 % means about 0.90 ml / g

 

[Billybeau1]

Well reading that last page was an experience.

Hi Boomer. I thought you just bought a new keyboard. :lolspin:

:wave:

 

[Boomer]

It looks like it was lemon keyboard. Maybe I should give on on keyboards and tape a Popsicle stick to my missing finger :lol:

 

[kyley]

Hey Boomer, sorry to bring this thread back again - but it's a good one with a lot of helpful info. I was just wondering if you or anyone else has tested different types of carbon (ROX, Lignite, SeaChem Matrix, etc.) for phosphate? I know you recommend ROX, like Lignite and Matrix, etc. - but how are they in terms of adding phosphates to the water? Thanks,
--Kyle

 

[Boomer]

Yes those you have listed have been tested and show "zero" PO4. However, all GAC has some PO4. Some of the poor grades do show PO4. It is rather easy to see it or not. Take a small vial and put in some of the PO4 reagent. Then add a few grains of GAC. Swirl for a couple of min and notice and color change to blue. Blue is an indication of PO4 and the bluer it is the more there is. Any PO4 leached out of any of these and many others is so small that by the time you get to dilution factors for a tank it is like 0.0001 ppm. GAC is rarely an issue on leaching PO4 of those we use but Coconut GAC is another issue. It is that can of food and not GAC

 

[ncny21802]

Boomer-

I've been following this thread and currently use GFO and ROX carbon in the same reactor (BRS). They have it set up as GFO underneath the carbon and just enough flow to have it tumbling. I am going to start running purigen as well and will mix it with the GFO. From what I read you said to have the carbon on the bottom and the GFO/Purigen on top? Or did I read that wrong? ALso, can you overdose carbon and GFO? If you use more then indicated are you just wasting the product or can you do harm to your tank?

 

[rs1831]

reeflady

In my single media reactor (TLF Phosban Reactor) in my 65 gallon, would it be best to use:
1. BRS ROX (I guess it's not that expensive), maybe Lignite) - how does Matrix measure up?
2. BRS GFO?
3. Purigen at the top (or you think it's not even beneficial to use when I have the ROX / Lignite?)

Can the ROX and BRS GFO be used in the reactor at a relatively high flow?

No, reactors are suppose to have low flow. You do not want the flow to high. The grains should hardly be moving at all

The thing I liked about SeaGel is it supposedly will be okay with a higher flow in the reactor (not turning to dust). Isn't that the problem with GFO? Would the BRS High Capacity GFO be best to run in my reactor with the ROX?

Any GFO is fine. What I would do is to put or mix the GFO with the Purigen as GFO needs "spacers" to keep if form turning into wad of packed GFO. Many use some GAC with the GFO as a spacer. So, Water Influent===>GAC ===>GFO & Purigen===> Effluent to tank.The SeaChem Matrix is a great carbon for reactors but is more expensive than ROX itself

Hello,

I just want to make sure that I have this correct. I can mix carbon and gfo in one reactor? Is there a benefit to using 2 reactors? I have a 75 gallon tank and I've been using rox and gfo in different tlf's reactors. Do you add another sponge to separate them? What does purigen add to this set up? I've been having some phosphate problems so would that speed up how often I need to change out the media? For a 75 gallon tank how much would you use of each? Sorry for all the questions!

Thank you!

 

[kyley]

Hi All,
Boomer, thanks for setting my mind at ease with the Phosphate concern. I'm interested to hear your responses to others' questions here too - great information! One additional one from me - you said Matrix is great for reactors - but you like ROX better. Would you prefer Matrix in the reactor - or should I go ahead and use the ROX in it?

Roland, I'm currently using SeaGel (SeaChem's Matrix Carbon and PhosGuard) plus Purigen in my single reactor. I'd been using 250 mL of SeaGel (which is half of each of those components) in my 65 gallon and 65 mL of Purigen (both based on the bottle's recommendations), but some have recommended more (500 mL of SeaGel and 200 mL of Purigen). So I'm curious on this question too. BTW, my Purigen is in the reactor, but since it's so tiny I have it in a filter bag inside the reactor).

I have the same question about how often to change the media. The SeaGel bottle says every 3 months (6 months on Purigen) - but some recommend changing it once a month (including Boomer a few posts back). Boomer, why so much more often than the manufacturer's recommendation? Doing that once a month is a lot of work (not to mention more cost)! Take care,
--Kyle

 

[tmz]

I've used matrix and rox in a reactor. Both work well. The rox is firm does not grind down and has virtually no dust. I have little calcium carbonate precipitation and/or bacterial mulm in the system so the smaller size pellets don't clog.

I keep the carbon and gfo separate as change out times for the gfo vary depending on the amount of phosphate in the tank. FWIW I change the rox 1x every 5 or 6 weeks and the gfo 1x every 3 weeks or so.

 

[rs1831]

Hi All,
Boomer, thanks for setting my mind at ease with the Phosphate concern. I'm interested to hear your responses to others' questions here too - great information! One additional one from me - you said Matrix is great for reactors - but you like ROX better. Would you prefer Matrix in the reactor - or should I go ahead and use the ROX in it?

Roland, I'm currently using SeaGel (SeaChem's Matrix Carbon and PhosGuard) plus Purigen in my single reactor. I'd been using 250 mL of SeaGel (which is half of each of those components) in my 65 gallon and 65 mL of Purigen (both based on the bottle's recommendations), but some have recommended more (500 mL of SeaGel and 200 mL of Purigen). So I'm curious on this question too. BTW, my Purigen is in the reactor, but since it's so tiny I have it in a filter bag inside the reactor).

I have the same question about how often to change the media. The SeaGel bottle says every 3 months (6 months on Purigen) - but some recommend changing it once a month (including Boomer a few posts back). Boomer, why so much more often than the manufacturer's recommendation? Doing that once a month is a lot of work (not to mention more cost)! Take care,
--Kyle

Thanks for the info. Why do you have to use a bag for the purigen? If the flow is so low that its barely moving wouldn't that prevent it from being pushed out of the reactor?

thanks.

 

[Boomer]

Kyle


You will see some past articles on GAC where they want you to change GAC ever week or less. If you look at dye adsorption cures, the adsorption rate takes a big dive in the first 24 hrs or so. If you let any of these go to long, ~ 1 month, they go biological and loose their effect. I have also been working with Ken Feldman on GAC and his data also shows about 1/m on GAC. I have also talked to GAC tech that keep tanks and they also concur 1/ m. You have to remember these are all pours media and molecules will plug them up in time, as they are also acting as a mechanical filters. If you want to go with Purigen 1/ 3 m fine but IMHO that is way to long. Purigen is different than GAC, as there are no tests on it and no adsorption rates to go by like GAC.

Matrix. I like it in a reactor for 3 reason. It has better fluid dynamic properties, as it is round and there will be less channeling and chimney effect. It has good data numbers. And lastly is also hard. However, if you looked at the price list I gave it is not worth it, as it is way more cost wise than ROX and has a lower adoption rate than ROX. Its better fluid Dynamics will not make up for that. I never worked out the cost of Matrix until a guy PM me about it and was floored at the cost. Also, Matrix is more user friendly. Many have complained about using ROX in reactors. Most just solve this by using a mess screen so the ROX needles can not get through.



rs1831 and Kyle

I have no clue why BRS has it set up that way they do but it is *** backwards. Why ? GAC is most both a chemical and mechanical sieve. It is the GAC that will do most of the filtering over GFO or Purigen in removing particulate and large molecules, as the pores are larger. So, ask yourselves the question, why on earth would one want to plug up the Purigen or GFO first, especially the GFO, which is suppose to be removing PO4, not particles or large organic molecules. You will kill that GFO's pore and surface area rather quickly.

Water should flow through GAC---> Purigen---> GFO

Lets put this in more Dick & Jane terms. You want to filter some water using screens.

BRS says

Water-->1 in Screen --> 2 inch screen --> 3 inch screen

Now, does that make any sense to you



I say

Water-->3 in Screen --> 2 inch screen --> 1 inch screen

Now, doesn't that make much more common sense ?



Your GFO and Purigen also cost more than GAC, so why kill them first ?? They are also more selective, so again, why kill them first.


It is best to keep all 3 separate if one can. However, it is also best to put some granular media in with the GFO, such as a spoon full of GAC mixed with it. This greatly helps stop the GFO from clumping and turning hard as the GFO needs some void space and it lasts a little longer this way.

Some also like to mix these. If that is ones cup of tea fine but it is not the way it should be done for max efficiency for of any of them, as their adsorption rates are not the same. Andy filtration expert will tell you not to mix different mess media or adsorption rate media together, as it is self defeating.

Doing that once a month is a lot of work

That is not much work at all and is what most do and some do it every two weeks and even some every week, as the adsorption rates of fresh media are so much better.

 

[rs1831]

So if I have the option to use 2 reactors that would be the way to go? I have them daisy chained together. I figure if I do gac in the first reactor then gfo and Purigen in the second reactor. Should I still put a little gac in the second reactor or is the Purigen enough to separate the gfo? What would be some of the negatives of using too much gac?

Thanks for the info!

 

[kyley]

Thanks for all the great info Boomer! I'm about to order ROX and probably HC GFO (still using my PhosGuard and not sure about that change) - the high capacity GFO from BRS is pricey (but takes less)! I'll go ahead and start replacing GAC and GFO (or PhosGuard) once a month - guess it's not too bad / pricey to do after thinking it through. Purigen I'll push to 3 months.

Is GFO supposed to tumble in the reactor? If so, would that be too much flow for ROX (or Matrix) carbon (when run in the same reactor)? If I run both in the same reactor, should I tumble or no (keep the grains steady)?

Roland was asking how much you'd use of each - ROX / HC GFO in a reactor - the BRS site calculator says ~125 mL of each for them - would you go by their calculator? Thanks,
--Kyle

 

[Boomer]

rs

The neg side of GAC or GFO is using too much at start or a big increase from that is used or switching from a poor grade to a good grade and using the same amount. If corals are moved or subjected to a High Nutrient Systems to a Low Nutrient System to soon or vise-verse they often expell the zoo's and bleach out. They need to get use to lowering of levels or rising of levels. Meaning, if one never has used GFO, use 1/2 - 1/4 of what is recommended and the same for GAC. Then slowly raise the amount over say 2 -3 months.

I think the Purigen *may be enough to sep the GFO. Try and see how it works.

I figure if I do gac in the first reactor then gfo and Purigen in the second reactor.[b/]

Sounds good.

Kyle

Neither is suppose to tumble. They should appear as barely moving. These types of media are not suppose to be fluidized. BRS uses waaaay to much GFO, cut that about to at least 2/3. For ROX, 1/3 cup / 50 gals, also based on known data from Ken. Make sure you read my reply to rs above on this post.

 

[rs1831]

Thanks Boomer!

 

[kyley]

Yep, thanks Boomer! Take care,
--Kyle

 

[tozzi]

rs

If corals are moved or subjected to a High Nutrient Systems to a Low Nutrient System to soon or vise-verse they often expell the zoo's and bleach out..

Say you get a coral from someone with a low nutrient system ( zeo ) and you put it in your tank that is a normal ( high nutrient ) system. Is there any procedure for this? Or is it hit or miss, cross your fingers?

 

[kyley]

Hey Boomer, one note in your last post brought up a minor question for me (similar to tozzi's above)... You said to start with a smaller amount of GAC at first - would that still apply when I've been using PhosGuard? Since they're both meant to do the same thing and I've been using PhosGuard, I wasn't sure if I should start with a small amount or the regular amount. Take care,
--Kyle

 

[Boomer]

You bet

 

[kyley]

Hey Boomer and others, have you had any experience with PÛRA PhosLock compared to GFO?

Comparing to products such as PhosBan and Rowaphos, PŪRA PhosLock is 10% more effective than PhosBan and 3.0% more effective than Rowaphos in removing phosphate from fresh and saltwater. It seems that all three brands perform very similarly in removing phosphate, but this is not the entire picture.

Large quantities of free iron in aquariums are known to cause permanent damage to fish gills. PhosLock is much harder and far less prone to disintegration in high flows compared to the other brands.

Over 72 hrs of use one gram of PhosLock releases less than 0.02 mg of iron comparing to 3.7 mg per gram of Rowaphos and 98.8 mg per gram of PhosBan. That is 185 times less than Rowaphos and 4940 times less than PhosBan.

Recently appearing on the pet markets granulated and palletized medias based on Bayoxide E33 product are about 14% less effective in removing phosphate and release 270 mg of iron per gram of media – that is staggering 13500 times more than PhosLock.

Sounds interesting, looks like it compares well to Phosguard and such, but not sure about other GFO (or what was left out of the discussion)... Take care,
--Kyle