Phosban/Carbon in the same reactor?

FishGuy5

New member
Anyone running Phosban and Carbon in the same reactor? I remember reading a thread about it, but I can't locate it. I want to see what people think about it. I know one of the "cons" is that you have to replace the media quicker if you run both in the same cannister. Going to start running Phosban in the tank this weekend. Thanks for the help!
 
The problem is that the carbon will be used up much faster than the GFO, so then you have this useless carbon all mixed in with GFO that's still working and no way to change the carbon..

That's the only "Con" I know of..
 
To look at it more scientifically, what in the GFO is absorbed by the carbon?

Running carbon after GFO may not be the best idea, and running it before the GFO will make it more difficult to replace.

Maybe running it before the GFO won't require changing it more frequently than the GFO?
 
I'm running 50/50 in mine, but it's only been less than a month so I can't give pro's or con's...
Sponge-phosban-sponge-carbon-sponge... I figured I can remove the top sponge and replace just the carbon every service...and the phosban every second or third... : )
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11856926#post11856926 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by petes97
What in the GFO is absorbed by the carbon?

Nothing, GFO removes things from the water, not add them.
So anything that is coming off the GFO, should be absorbed.

JMT's
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11857018#post11857018 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by funman1
Nothing, GFO removes things from the water, not add them.
So anything that is coming off the GFO, should be absorbed.

In the spirit of scientific debate, why then does running GFO and carbon in the same reactor use up the carbon faster?
 
It's not the fact that running them together uses carbon faster, it's the fact that carbon absorbs so many additional things that it is exhausted faster than GFO is. It will be exhausted at the same rate whether run in the same container or a seperate one.
 
Wow.....all of you are super smart!!! Feel like I'm in a university science class!! Should I do it or not? I'm not in the position to purchase another reactor right now. So the choices are: 1) 1/2 of each in the reactor, or 2) Phosban in the reactor and carbon in a bag.

Thanks for the help and suggestions!

John
 
Worse case scenario it will cost you a fresh batch of filter media...
Do you have an already existing problem you are trying to correct, or just using as preventative maintainance?
 
Last edited:
On my 60g, I was running both in the same container. The small amounts of GFO you are wasting are not very significant. When I get the 250g set up, I will run 2 seperately as I don't want to blow through the GFO on that size tank.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11857212#post11857212 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jtarmitage
It's not the fact that running them together uses carbon faster, it's the fact that carbon absorbs so many additional things that it is exhausted faster than GFO is. It will be exhausted at the same rate whether run in the same container or a seperate one.

This is what I was wondering. After reading a few articles on GFO, it sounds like a good solution (if you're going to run both in the same reactor) is to run a lessor quantity of GFO and change at the prescribed frequency required by the carbon.
 
I've never seen any proof that Carbon will get used up faster with GFO.

Now granted I admit I have never researched it, but never come across any documentation in my travels either...
 
I run it together. To me its a good thing the carbon gets used up faster. I don't like running carbon at all times b/c the zoas/palys may suffer.
 
Very slight algae proble. I've just heard that it is good to run in the reef. Probably more for maintenance than anything else.
 
The meetings are the best place to pick up some of the bulk items really cheap. I saw GFO, Carbon, and some other illicit white powders being conspicuously swapped around. ;)
 
Back
Top