Matrix (and siporax) questions, to keep from derailing Sahin's thread.....

[Ontheway]

In addition to above, non-piled siporax may easily trap air bubbles which in turn may interfere with Anaerob processes.

 

[sahin]

Thank you for your detail answer. Obviously I interested for the second way of denitrification, through anaerobic heterotrophic bacteria. If it is difficult and with big variation the denitrrification with siropax, do you thing that rdsb is a much better and safer method to go?


Sahin I will be very interested to explain your current set up , volume of siporax, placement, flow etc. You compare it with live rock, but I would like to replace with siporax my rdsb. Have you ever use rdsb to achieve denitrification?


The main reason I interested for siporax is this awesome tank http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1744289&highlight=siporax, where he had replaced the buckets of DSB with siporax. But today I red that in his newer tank http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2389675 , he returned to rdsb! So I am now even more confused......

I think there is a photo of my sump in my build thread somewhere.

I can explain my setup; my sump is 3 compartments; 1 has the skimmer, 2 has the siporax and 3 has the return pump.

The Siporax is still in the bag it can in. I added a bit more I found stashed in my cupboard; thats in another little meshbag. I dont have the time nor inclination to line them up.

Every few months I will take out the bags (reducing exposure to air as much as possible) and swish strongly in old tank water. At some point I will probably add a new bag and throw the oldest bag away after the new bag has seeded for a month.

With respect to Siporax v RDSB; I presume both work very well; though the Siporax would be much simpler to implement.

No one can say for sure which works better; how would you even quantify which works better? Since they are two different things, how would you grade which is the better performer? Based on weight of each? - See what I am getting at?

I would just setup Siporax or Seachem Matrix.

 

[Mael]

Interesting anecdotal evidence guys, thanks. It doesn't make sense to me though. [emoji38] You guys are indirectly suggesting that your piles of Siporax are anaerobic and cleaning (aerating) them does not harm these bacteria. Hmm...maybe I'm over thinking it.

I'd be interested to hear what reefvet says on the subject since he's experimented with Siporax quite a but it seems.

Yes, using a reactor allows a person to reduce flow enough to achieve an anaerobic environment easily.

The theory is that the quick cleaning does not expose the inner pores to air, generally you only have the bag or container out of the water for 1-2 seconds before dipping it in a bucket shaking it and then returning it to the origin. the 1-2 seconds it is out of the water is not enough time for the water to drain out of those tiny micropores inside the matrix/siporax so the anaerobic isn't actually exposed to air. That's how it was explained to me anyway.

 

[nemodan]

The theory is that the quick cleaning does not expose the inner pores to air, generally you only have the bag or container out of the water for 1-2 seconds before dipping it in a bucket shaking it and then returning it to the origin. the 1-2 seconds it is out of the water is not enough time for the water to drain out of those tiny micropores inside the matrix/siporax so the anaerobic isn't actually exposed to air. That's how it was explained to me anyway.

Perfectly explained !!!

Moreover, all these questions about flow. Only the external layer if Matrix/siporax get the flow we want. Then there is a degree to the inside and who knows what is the flow in the inner mass of these compounds when they are in a bag or box. So I have my media reactors pumps at max and never cared about the "ideal Flow".

This is very simple.

Has anyone discussed all these when doing the landscape of the tank ? Where do I place this rock ? Will be the flow enought for this rock ? If I take the rock to clean it do I kill the Bacterias ? ( unless you let it outside the water for a while). When we get a live rock from the LFS we just bring it in a bag with a little, if at all, amount of water. The bacteria will not die if the surface is not dry.

Same when adding gravel to the sump to in crease the biological filtration. We just toss the small stones where we can.

Just place your Matrix/Siporax in the best place you can based on your setup and that's it. There are great ideas on this thread on setups for siporax and Matrix use.

My opinion after using Matrix for almost a year now.

Cheers !!

 

[Ontheway]

I think there is a photo of my sump in my build thread somewhere.

I can explain my setup; my sump is 3 compartments; 1 has the skimmer, 2 has the siporax and 3 has the return pump.

The Siporax is still in the bag it can in. I added a bit more I found stashed in my cupboard; thats in another little meshbag. I dont have the time nor inclination to line them up.

Every few months I will take out the bags (reducing exposure to air as much as possible) and swish strongly in old tank water. At some point I will probably add a new bag and throw the oldest bag away after the new bag has seeded for a month.

With respect to Siporax v RDSB; I presume both work very well; though the Siporax would be much simpler to implement.

No one can say for sure which works better; how would you even quantify which works better? Since they are two different things, how would you grade which is the better performer? Based on weight of each? - See what I am getting at?

I would just setup Siporax or Seachem Matrix.

Şahin how many liters of siporax you have in use?

 

[Reefvet]

I'd be interested to hear what reefvet says on the subject since he's experimented with Siporax quite a but it seems.

Hi Myka,

Got your PM. I'll see if I can help clarify some things here. This thread was actually started after I took Sahin's tank thread off topic by pointing out that his success was IMO largely supported by his use of Siporax.

I've done research in commercial aquaculture for over 30 years. Due to the nature of my work (NDA) I can only offer basic information. Companies use my services to develop new products in lighting and filtration for both closed and open ocean systems.

Everything I do is with NSW filtered to 20 microns and deep well cold stored before use so that no change is made to the basic chemistry.

I tested Sera's Siporax when it was introduced to the market years ago. A number of similar products have followed from other manufacturers and I have tested them all.

As someone referenced in a previous post most of these are manufactured by Sintering. Siporax is the most porous of the cylindrical media while Eheim and Fluval's are the least based on my testing. Matrix would be my choice if I couldn't obtain Siporax.

Siporax can have up to 30 times the capacity of live rock to support beneficial bacteria facilitating denitrification. It works best in relatively low flow where it will not be covered in detritus.

Stacking it in a closed chamber can improve it's effectiveness to some degree because it will keep the surface from being obstructed through a more uniform flow. This is how I run it on closed systems, after a skimmer.

More is not better if it's not getting sufficient water movement over the surface. Placing it in low flow areas of a sump can form a counter productive detritus trap.

A well known European manufacture sells their sumps with Siporax stacked. See the attached photo.

 

[DiscusHeckel]

You provided clear guidance to us about the flow rates in a fluidised reactor. Do you have similar guidance to offer us in a sump situation? How much water throughput is optimum for siporax please if you have data available to you?

Thank you.

 

[gregkn73]

You provided clear guidance to us about the flow rates in a fluidised reactor.

Thank you.

I try to find the optimum flow through a reactor and I could't. Just an advice at sahin's thread, of 100g/h , but for what dimensions of reactor and for what media? Siporax or matrix?

So as I can understand the best usage of siporax or matrix, is through a reactor, and since I can make one by acrylic, I am thinking to supply water through a power filter , where I can place some filter floss to avoid accumulation of detritus inside the reactor. But I still can not find the answer what flow of filter should I choose, for better denitrification rates for a 10*10*50cm reactor filled with matrix?

 

[naterealbig]

Extrapolating the data that reefvet provided after running his tests on Matrix, it follows that different flow rates are required for different diameter reactors. Here is the extrapolated data, converted into bottom line flow rates. Keep in mind, his tests were completed on only 1L of media, so larger volumes of media may require higher flow rates. I think this is a very good starting point however.

4" diameter reactor: 44.44 gph

6" diameter reactor: 100 gph

8" diameter reactor: 178 gph

10" diameter reactor: 278 gph

I try to find the optimum flow through a reactor and I could't. Just an advice at sahin's thread, of 100g/h , but for what dimensions of reactor and for what media? Siporax or matrix?

So as I can understand the best usage of siporax or matrix, is through a reactor, and since I can make one by acrylic, I am thinking to supply water through a power filter , where I can place some filter floss to avoid accumulation of detritus inside the reactor. But I still can not find the answer what flow of filter should I choose, for better denitrification rates for a 10*10*50cm reactor filled with matrix?

Using the same extrapolation technique from the reactor flow calculations as above:

You would need 1000gph (3785 l/hr) flow through your sump as an "optimal" flow rate for the media. This is of course, is assuming that the media spans the entire cross-sectional area of the sump.

 

[.Chris.]

I use my 3L of matrix in a 4" reactor fed by a 400l/h pump and all else being equal and unchanged my nitrates dropped precipitously over the course of 4 weeks. I did a No3 test (red Sea) and got a result of 16ppm. Then 4 weeks later did a test using both RS and Salifert and got 0.2-0.25. This is after absolutely no effect on Nitrate for 2 months. So it took a total of 3 months before I saw change.

 

[Myka]

Hi Myka,

Got your PM. I'll see if I can help clarify some things here.

Thank you for your reply reefvet.

What do you think about disturbing the media to clean it?

I'm thinking a pile of unstacked Siporax in a crate as many have shown here in photos will collect detritus badly. These guys are then going to disturb the media when they clean it and areas of the pile that were anaerobic will become aerobic and vice versa. This to me seems like it could be an Ammonia spike waiting to happen. I could see Siporax causing more harm than good in the long run if it's used all willy nilly. Maybe I'm being too nit picky - I'm just concerned for the users.

 

[Reefvet]

You provided clear guidance to us about the flow rates in a fluidised reactor. Do you have similar guidance to offer us in a sump situation? How much water throughput is optimum for siporax please if you have data available to you?

I built reactors that were 6" in diameter with length/height determined by the volume of the media, Siporax being contained in a larger reactor than one for a comparable amount of Matrix for example. The reason was to lesson the various fluid dynamics that can take place from not completely filling the reactor. The dynamics within the media were vastly different because the Siporax was stacked and Matrix can't be.

I found Siporax most effective, under my lab conditions, in a reactor with a minimum flow rate of 100.9 gph. This achieved the ideal dwell time, velocity is actually the correct term to use but try to calculate velocity without the instruments in a lab and you're going to go crazy. Regulate the flow by a gate valve and measure the effectiveness of the media and you'll find my number is a good starting point. If you push too much water over the media you're just not optimizing it. It'll work but you won't know if you have too much or too little media relative to your bioload.

This isn't rocket science. I leave that work to the guys across campus with the tinfoil hats.

 

[Myka]

This isn't rocket science. I leave that work to the guys across campus with the tinfoil hats.

[emoji38]


I'm going to put 1L Siporax into a TLF 150 reactor and put an MJ400 on it. I'll see how that goes. I don't have any PO4 or NO3 to get rid of though.

 

[Reefvet]

Using the same extrapolation technique from the reactor flow calculations as above:

You would need 1000gph (3785 l/hr) flow through your sump as an "optimal" flow rate for the media. This is of course, is assuming that the media spans the entire cross-sectional area of the sump.

Which you will never achieve because of the boundary effects that occur as you near the edges of the sump and water level raises because it's not a closed chamber. You are also suggesting that you'd have a completely linear input of water across the media, that's not going to happen either unless you construct a very large manifold that would be as wide and tall as the entry point of the sump.

To optimize this stuff you need a reactor. To use it effectively without one just takes a little more trial and error. Both are fun if you're a hobbyist, IMO.

 

[Reefvet]

I use my 3L of matrix in a 4" reactor fed by a 400l/h pump and all else being equal and unchanged my nitrates dropped precipitously over the course of 4 weeks. I did a No3 test (red Sea) and got a result of 16ppm. Then 4 weeks later did a test using both RS and Salifert and got 0.2-0.25. This is after absolutely no effect on Nitrate for 2 months. So it took a total of 3 months before I saw change.

VERY typical numbers. Siporax and Matrix are very porous media and Matrix is slower to colonize but either will take a good 90 days to really be effective.

 

[Reefvet]

Thank you for your reply reefvet.
What do you think about disturbing the media to clean it?

Sorry, I'm replying to these out of order. I'm writing while I wait for 18k gallons of NSW to fill a tank here in the lab and I skipped down the page by accident, missing this question. When I'm moving that much water I like to keep any eye on it :eek2:

My preference is to just shake the media or stir it up if it's not in a reactor, never taking it out of the water. Siporax and all the media work fine without being neatly stacked or having perfectly even water movement but I do suggest that they always be used after a filter sock /sponge and skimmer.

 

[naterealbig]

Which you will never achieve because of the boundary effects that occur as you near the edges of the sump and water level raises because it's not a closed chamber. You are also suggesting that you'd have a completely linear input of water across the media, that's not going to happen either unless you construct a very large manifold that would be as wide and tall as the entry point of the sump.

To optimize this stuff you need a reactor. To use it effectively without one just takes a little more trial and error. Both are fun if you're a hobbyist, IMO.

You win! I will leave any further input and estimation to the pros.

 

[.Chris.]

VERY typical numbers. Siporax and Matrix are very porous media and Matrix is slower to colonize but either will take a good 90 days to really be effective.

Yeah, I was concerned when I saw zero, and I mean ZERO, change in parameters for the first 6-8 weeks. But it cost me absolutely nothing to continue running it, as it is zero maintenance and takes up no room at all. Glad I stuck it out.

 

[Reefvet]

You win! I will leave any further input and estimation to the pros.

This is not a competition. It's not about winning We're hobbyists sharing information and your contributions have been appreciated. The problem is mother nature doesn't follow simple math. :facepalm:

 

[Ontheway]

This is not a competition. It's not about winning We're hobbyists sharing information and your contributions have been appreciated. The problem is mother nature doesn't follow simple math. :facepalm:

Reefvet, as we know, bacteria will need a carbon source both in sump and reactor method, and in this case, this is obtained from circulating aquarium water. Should we think about effects of feeding frequency and content on providing the carbon type they need?
Wondering if this method work equally well on lightly fed tanks?