Pelletized vs particle GFO?

[bored4long]

OK, so I assumed that the particle (non-pelletized) GFO was best to use when using a Phosban reactor. But Andrew from 2PartSolution has recommended the pelletized instead.

Here is our conversation:

Andrew: We have plenty of
the palletized version which will actually perform better for the same
price.
Mark: I will be using the GFO in a TwoLittleFishies Phosban Reactor 150. I believe most of the other club members that will be sharing this order will be doing the same thing (or in a Kent reactor). Are you saying the pelletized version will perform as well or better in this application, or just in a media bag? If the pelletized version works well in a reactor, should the flow be the same as used with the smaller form? And can it be 'fluidized' as the smaller form?
Andrewelletized GFO features some advantages over the granular form. The pellets are harder and lose less material into the water. They also contain more iron and will remove more phosphate by volume. It will outperform the granular in both applications and we recommend it especially when being used in a media bag because it is harder. The pellets have better flow through and can be fluidized like the granular version.

I did some additional searching online and found use of both versions in reactors, but no definitive answer as to which is best. Those that did use pelletized GFO in a reactor said the greatest benefit is particles of the GFO will escape into the water column when not using the pelletized version.

The outcome of this discussion will determine what we order. The other benefit of ordering the pelletized is that those that do not wish to use a reactor can still order some and use in a media bag.

So, what do you think? Will pelletized GFO work equally well or better in a reactor or is it best to stick with the finer GFO?

Thanks in advance for your input!

 

[Justin74]

Not being able to debate if there indeed is actually more iron in the pellet, and on theory alone granular is indeed better. Based on the theory of surface area alone. The surface area each granule contain and the amount of granules that it would take to equal the size of the pellet(albeit much smaller than a carbon pellet) makes the granule have more advantage in coming contact with phosphate. Same principal with carbon, filter media and bio balls.

Though pellets would be much cleaner to handle especially when used with a media bag. The major apprehension I have in terms of superiority of one over the other is also within your guy's conversation "We have plenty of the pelletized version..." but not GFO? GFO is sold out because it is a tried and true media. While the other may be just as good or better I think those that chose it would be "pioneering" as there isnt much feedback it seems.

More definitive answers could be found in the chem forum Im sure.

-Justin

 

[bored4long]

My thoughts mirror yours, Justin. I'll post a similar thread in the chem forum and see what if I can get any useful info. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[jtarmitage]

I don't know, but if you've got a company selling both for the same price, and his recommendation is to go with pellets, that should mean something. Personally, I like the pellets much better in terms of ease of dealing with when changing, and the fact that they don't end up in my tank like the granular does. Just my opinion though.

 

[bladeruner143]

LOL, well, I'm assuming you guys are going to guess which one I will vote for . . . PELLET!!! But it is going to cause a huge problem with the order, I am ok with the granular I guess

 

[funman1]

I REALLY like the granular..
just my .02

 

[kdblove_99]

I think granular also. especially for reactors, but thats all i have ever used

 

[kdblove_99]

Also on that note i an very willing to try the pellets. So which ever is going to be easier .

I also posted in the lighting, misc section. so far just 1 response

The granular has a tendency to cake. When that happens the water will just flow through a small path it cuts in it and essentially end up wasting a lot of media as it is not doing its job. The pellets will not accept as high a flow through them as the granular will.

My opinion is the pellets are slightly better.

 

[Nu2SW]

Could you get pellets and crush them to make them smaller..... Just an Idea...

 

[bored4long]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11046200#post11046200 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nu2SW
Could you get pellets and crush them to make them smaller..... Just an Idea...

Probably, but it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Davey: I have also read that is a downside of the granular (finer) form. I wonder if caking is a problem if the correct flow is use so it is fluidized/boiling.

Here are the two responses I've received to the question on the chem forum:
1: I have used both in a reactor, and prefer the pellet shaped media over the granular media. From looking at it (not exactly a scientific analysis), it seems the pellet shaped media tends to fluidize much better. I really don't notice much of a difference as far as actual performance goes; they seem to be similar.

2:The version with more surface area is likely to work better. I don't know of any data on GFO effectiveness, though. I wouldn't assume that pelletized or granular is the critical characteristic.

 

[MrMikeB]

I too have done a lot of geeking out on the subject. The pellets provide incredible amounts of surface area, but of course cannot rival that of the granular given the same mass simply due to physics. The real key difference in my opinion is how you plan to use it. The pellets offer versatility in that you can use them in media chambers or media bags as they are less likely to flow particles into your system. The pellets will also help keep 'gaps' in between the media to continue to allow water to flow, whereas the granular is much more likely to cake up (especially when not in reactor chamber).