Carbon Confusion
- Thread starter krzyphsygy
- Start date
dailydriven911
Member
I'm using elos carbon in my reactor and noticed quite a difference compared to kent carbon. I love it!
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
There were some lengthy discussion in the chem forum. The GFO is certainly a better alternative compared to the aluminum based products.
GFO can cause precipitation of carbonates in the medium and in the aquarium (on pumps shafts, etc). It also releases soluble iron into the system. There are also credible reports of tissue bleaching and damage to corals. I think Randy Holmes Farley had an informative article in Reefkeeping. Check there and the chem forum for more.
GFO can cause precipitation of carbonates in the medium and in the aquarium (on pumps shafts, etc). It also releases soluble iron into the system. There are also credible reports of tissue bleaching and damage to corals. I think Randy Holmes Farley had an informative article in Reefkeeping. Check there and the chem forum for more.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Your welcome. I have about 3 pounds of the stuff... but have not used it. It came from twopartsulution.com in a group buy.
Hi Folks, I will try to make this as quick as possible but if more details is needed just fire away. My disclaimer is that I am not a chemist and I am only adding another perspective to on phosphate content of a particular Carbon. Two Part Solutions ROX 8.0 GAC. Also, I am limited to only using a Salfiert PO4 Test Kit which may not detect certain phosphates therefore I don't claim these results to be conclusive or conclude 100% certainty in the outcomes. I do however believe I now a a certain comfort level that this particular carbon is safe to use in my system. Finally this test was limited to only detecting phosphates and not the amount of organics or non-organics which can be removed from the system or the sorpability of media.
Now for the pics, logic and methodology used......
Here is the ROX 8.0 it its well package container:
This is to give a visual on the smallness of the pellet shaped carbon and a standard wood tooth pick is used for scale:
Now the math...well based on a wide variety of suggested GAC amounts to use I decided to try and scale the experiment based on what we may actually use in our tanks. So based on a very high usage rate of 2 cups per 55 Gallons I need to scale this to experimental form which resulted in using 1.73 ml of carbon within 750 ml of ROD H2O.
Below is a picture of the my filtration system and TDS status monitor. You will notice the output is at "0" ppm...a good thing.
Below is the test kit used and the two containers (both filled at 750 ml) I used to test the carbon in. The reason for using two was I actually took two samples. One sample was not washed and the other washed. The results showed no level of significance between the two however I personally prefer to wash carbon before entering the display environment.
The next couple of pictures show the actually test conducted. After letting the carbon sit for 24 hours I tested both samples. Hopefully you can see that the first image below there is no visible sign of phosphates. The second picture goes a step further and employees a quick test read about in Reef Volume 3 which states to actually drop the carbon into the testing solution and if PO4 is there it will actually start changing the solution to blue. I took this picture after letting the carbon sit in the solution for over one hour with again no trace of phosphates.
My own conclusion based on these results is that ROX 8.0 is safe to use in my reef environment with minimal concern of any leakage of phosphates. I hope you found this interesting and please do not hesitate to question the logic, methodology, or results.
Happy reefing.....and btw...my wife thinks I have officially lost it
Now for the pics, logic and methodology used......
Here is the ROX 8.0 it its well package container:
This is to give a visual on the smallness of the pellet shaped carbon and a standard wood tooth pick is used for scale:
Now the math...well based on a wide variety of suggested GAC amounts to use I decided to try and scale the experiment based on what we may actually use in our tanks. So based on a very high usage rate of 2 cups per 55 Gallons I need to scale this to experimental form which resulted in using 1.73 ml of carbon within 750 ml of ROD H2O.
Below is a picture of the my filtration system and TDS status monitor. You will notice the output is at "0" ppm...a good thing.
Below is the test kit used and the two containers (both filled at 750 ml) I used to test the carbon in. The reason for using two was I actually took two samples. One sample was not washed and the other washed. The results showed no level of significance between the two however I personally prefer to wash carbon before entering the display environment.
The next couple of pictures show the actually test conducted. After letting the carbon sit for 24 hours I tested both samples. Hopefully you can see that the first image below there is no visible sign of phosphates. The second picture goes a step further and employees a quick test read about in Reef Volume 3 which states to actually drop the carbon into the testing solution and if PO4 is there it will actually start changing the solution to blue. I took this picture after letting the carbon sit in the solution for over one hour with again no trace of phosphates.
My own conclusion based on these results is that ROX 8.0 is safe to use in my reef environment with minimal concern of any leakage of phosphates. I hope you found this interesting and please do not hesitate to question the logic, methodology, or results.
Happy reefing.....and btw...my wife thinks I have officially lost it
Snarkys
.Registered Member
I have to agree, the dilution factor here is considerable.
quote from the test
The carbons that preformed the worst had 1ppm. this would be pretty troubling if you filled your tank up with 17% carbon. however no one does that . That would be like dumping over three 5 gallon buckets of carbon in your 100 gallon tank. The 1ppm reading quickly becomes pretty meaningless. All of today's aquarium carbons seem to perform very well in regards to phosphate. When judging a carbon I think aquarists are better served by focusing on the carbons ability to clarify water by removing color, pollutants and medications.
Another thing the test doesn't really address is you may have to use 4 times as much of one brand to achieve the same results as another brand so even if brand "Z" has half the phosphate of brand "Y"you are actually adding twice as much phosphate to achieve the same results with brand Z. Richard Harker's article shows many carbons that you really would need over 4 times as much to achieve the same color removal results http://www.pets-warehouse.com/carbon.htm
IMHO if you are having phosphate issues the first place to look is frequency and type of foods you feed.
Last edited:
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
While I agree...
Phosphate is cummulative if you are doing nothing to remove it. So adding a product (carbon for example) with Phosphate in it, adn doing so on a regular basis, is not helping the matter.
Phosphate is cummulative if you are doing nothing to remove it. So adding a product (carbon for example) with Phosphate in it, adn doing so on a regular basis, is not helping the matter.
Snarkys
.Registered Member
True enough but how long do you think it would take for someone to use 17 gallons (272 cups) of carbon on a 100 gallon system ? If they used two full cups a month (which is a lot) of the worst performing carbon in the test it would take over 10 years reach 1ppm . This is without factoring in water changes. With water changes factored in I don't think it would hit 1ppm in your lifetime.
Tests like this are wise to do and a fun aspect of the hobby. They should be encouraged but it would be nice to see the results reflect something close to the effect it will have on the average tank. At first glance the 1ppm in this test kinda sends out a scare to the average Joe that doesn't represent real world results.
For me personally, phosphate content in any of the carbons mentioned would not be the motivating factor for my purchase, I focus on how well the carbon performs at removing color and pollutants so I can use substantially less carbon.
Last edited:
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I do agree... Perspective is always a good thing.
I just don't like to add to a problem if I can help it
I just don't like to add to a problem if I can help it
That's what encourage me to do this test was to mimic, as close to possible, what we would actually use in our tanks. I think the litmus test is to drop a few pieces of carbon in the PO4 test solution and if nothing shows up as nothing did show up with the Rox 8.0 Carbon then I am confident that I am not contributing to a phosphate problem no matter how small.
I also agree that we need look absorption capacity but to tell you the truth I am not sure a hobbyist like myself is qualified to do this type of test and potentially give a product a good or bad rap without having the proper credentials to do such testing. That's why we are truly lucky to have folks like Randy lend his wealth of knowledge to our passion.
Lastly, each and every tank is unique from the sand we use to the fish we keep ; from the equipment we use to the food we feed our little friends. I think that the best we can do is observe our own tanks, adjust as necessary and find a formula that preserves a little piece of the ocean in our living rooms.
Again, it was a fun exercise and when I have a chance to contribute a little of my own experiences with folks on RC I feel like I can give back a little to the knowledge folks at RC have given me. The one thing I will not tolerate is marketing hype. There is no place for this in a forum like RC were folks are susceptible to bad information and bad advice.
If a company sells a good product that works as published, stands behind their product and ultimately works with the customer to meet their needs then I am a proponent.
As I will continue to purchase from TPS because I have experienced nothing less then the above.
I obviously veered from the content of the thread so I will now ....hush my fingers.
