jason2459
Well-known member
You still are missing the point and your entire argument has yet to be proven.There are antiskale filters made from ortophosphates not only polyphosphates.
calcium vs GFO binding phosphates
- Thread starter 2smokes
- Start date
- Status
You are ignoring the point I've been making. Phosphate will not bind to calcium in saltwater to any significant degree. Some will adsorb onto live rock, but not enough to prevent phosphate problems in a lot of tanks.There are antiskale filters made from ortophosphates not only polyphosphates.
2smokes
In Memoriam
This is not about ,,exporting,, the phosphates.If you want to export the phosphates that are in the rock then you have to take the rocks out and throw them.There are 2 sources of phosphates in aquarium-1-from the food and fish poo that can be reduced by biological filtration,bacteria or plants and also by chemical filtration by using GFO or aluminum oxide phospate binder.The phosphates from feeding arent a big problem in any aquarium,they cause verry litle cyano or algae bloom.-2-phosphates from the rock and sand that are in big enough quantity to cause cyano and algae blooms.These are inorganic phosphates,can not be ,,exported,, and only calcium can cover the rocks from leaching them as i described .The calcium rock we use, has lots of phosphates in it but not from dead organisms as people think.Anybody who puts new freshly washed sand or acid washed rock thats baked in the owen into a reef aquarium will introduce a lot of phosphates in the aquarium.The phosphates from the rock arent a problem if they arent availavable when they get covered by calcium.
jason2459
Well-known member
I would rather like to see your references showing calcium hydroxide binding phosphates better then GFO and at least on par with Lanthanum Chloride.
That is your argument or have you conceded that GFO is more efficient in our reeftanks?
2smokes
In Memoriam
I allready demonstrated myself (no neeed for links to anything) why calcium is more efficient than GFO.Conclusion is this.Altough GFO will reduce the phosphates that are in the water column verry fast,it will not reduce the phosphates that are in the rocks therefore making GFO a verry inefficient way to the biggest phosphate problem in a reef aquarium-phosphate leaching rocks and sand.Il not comment anymore on this subject as i explained it too manny times and ive busted everything about phosphates allready.Im not trying to convince anybody that my theory is good,i just exposed it and i am myself convinced that this is how things are in the natural reefs and in aquariums with the phosphates.This is the type of forum that even the GFO inventor would agree.
jason2459
Well-known member
So far you've only demonstrated [removed] a lack of understanding.
Last edited by a moderator:
kingston.buck
New member
How have you busted something with out proof? It's like me saying well vodka dosing is the best way to remove phosphates because it causes bacteria to grow on the rock and they consume it before it enters the water column. But if I can't prove it with any data or studies like say a tank that is ran with vodka and a tank with out and constant monitoring of phosphates how do you expect us to take it seriously?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
2smokes
In Memoriam
Proof is the phosphate filter that draws calcium(and also iron like the GFO).Its not a scientific approach to demonstrate with the use of somme filter how the phosphates bind to calcium and at what rate.But its a better explanation for the aquarists to understand the binding of the phosphates by using the filter example than to give complicated chemistry lessons and formulas.We arent all great chemists like Randy Holmes Farley to understand complicated chemistry formulas.At least myself,altough i have a diploma to work in the laboratory and on the field making experiments and using machines to test the air ,water and soil, i dont consider myself a chemist and i prefer the plumber type of explanation by using the phosphate filter as an example.This is what my plumber diploma says i am able to do.Its in romanian language but i post it.And the arrogance was just sarcasm because im aware of my bad skills of writing and explaining something in english laguage.
jason2459
Well-known member
The phosphate filter (which it wasn't filtering phosphates) example was not applicable to calcium hydroxide binding phosphates directly more efficiently than GFO or useful for our tanks.
That snip-it tells us nothing and gives nothing to prove your point.
From google translate
- Collection, preservation and transport of samples of water, air and soil in Verdera perform chemical analyzes Microbiological;
- Selecting the method for analysis and execution of chemical analyzes, physical, chemical and microbiological
- Operation utensils, equipment and laboratory facilities needed to perform physical-chemical analyzes Microbiological chemistry;
- Calculation and results of chemical analyzes, physical, chemical and microbiological
That snip-it tells us nothing and gives nothing to prove your point.
From google translate
- Collection, preservation and transport of samples of water, air and soil in Verdera perform chemical analyzes Microbiological;
- Selecting the method for analysis and execution of chemical analyzes, physical, chemical and microbiological
- Operation utensils, equipment and laboratory facilities needed to perform physical-chemical analyzes Microbiological chemistry;
- Calculation and results of chemical analyzes, physical, chemical and microbiological
2smokes
In Memoriam
Altough GFO will reduce the phosphates that are in the water column verry fast,it will not reduce the phosphates that are in the rocks therefore making GFO a very inefficient way to the biggest phosphate problem in a reef aquarium-phosphate leaching rocks and sand.Il not comment anymore on this subject as i explained it too manny times and ive busted everything about phosphates allready
That makes no sense ; it's just not cogent and is feckless and illogical,IMO.
Live rock and coral sand substrate are mostly calcium carbonate btw . Adding calcium results in more calcium carbonate, essentially more of the substance of which the reef rock and sand are made .
Calcium binds with carbonate biotically as calcifying organisms use it for skeletal mass, or; it forms abiotically as when in excess as it falls out of solution. Typically the carbonate in tank water ranges from 125ppm/7dkh to 183pppm 11dkh. So; calcium has plenty of partners available without resorting to PO4 --- which is typically present at less than 1/000th the carbonate concentration( say 0.1 PO4 --- to 125 ppm carbonate for example).Some small amounts of PO4 may bind to calcium or calcium carbonate, just as some PO4 binds to rock and substrate surfaces and will leach back later just as it does from the older rock and substrate. The leaching can be stopped by keeping the PO4 levles in water column low as equilibrium will be reached over time .Phosphate removers such as gfo and other binders or biological export methods like enhanced heterotrophic bacterial activity coupled with skimming do reduce the PO4 level in the water column and ultimately the surface of the rock and substrate.
The vague citations in the posts supporting your position are really not on point for a reef tank though the applications may be fine for waste water treatment which is a different game entirely; adding excessive calcium to a living reef tank can do harm.
PS: Sorry Jon, I posted this before I realiazed you were closing the thread.
That makes no sense ; it's just not cogent and is feckless and illogical,IMO.
Live rock and coral sand substrate are mostly calcium carbonate btw . Adding calcium results in more calcium carbonate, essentially more of the substance of which the reef rock and sand are made .
Calcium binds with carbonate biotically as calcifying organisms use it for skeletal mass, or; it forms abiotically as when in excess as it falls out of solution. Typically the carbonate in tank water ranges from 125ppm/7dkh to 183pppm 11dkh. So; calcium has plenty of partners available without resorting to PO4 --- which is typically present at less than 1/000th the carbonate concentration( say 0.1 PO4 --- to 125 ppm carbonate for example).Some small amounts of PO4 may bind to calcium or calcium carbonate, just as some PO4 binds to rock and substrate surfaces and will leach back later just as it does from the older rock and substrate. The leaching can be stopped by keeping the PO4 levles in water column low as equilibrium will be reached over time .Phosphate removers such as gfo and other binders or biological export methods like enhanced heterotrophic bacterial activity coupled with skimming do reduce the PO4 level in the water column and ultimately the surface of the rock and substrate.
The vague citations in the posts supporting your position are really not on point for a reef tank though the applications may be fine for waste water treatment which is a different game entirely; adding excessive calcium to a living reef tank can do harm.
PS: Sorry Jon, I posted this before I realiazed you were closing the thread.
Last edited:
- Status