Phosphate Remover

[jdieck]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10970437#post10970437 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dzhuo
jdieck,
i did notice the media bag traps some debris but the bag is 250micron which is too large to polish the water. anyway, do you think the debris trapping will be a problem? would it affect the p04 absortion? should i replace the media often in this case?

thx!

Should not be a problem.

 

[ct_vol]

Are most of you all running the phosphate removers through media reactors, or just filter socks???

 

[DJ44]

Phoslock

 

[BraenDead]

I'm running through a phosphate reactor (TLF Phosban Reactor).

Bob

 

[Rickyrooz1]

Warner Marine Phosar

 

[Horace]

I actually think 90% of you have no idea how well your product works .

To say your product is the best w/out actually conducting thorough testing is pretty ignorant IMHO. I have a feeling that most of these products are the same exact product, or very close to it with minor variations. I highly doubt any of you are noticing REAL differences in color or any other thing in your tank. Unless your using a Hanna on a regular basis, I really dont think you can say how good your product is, and that is only if you have used several diff kinds, and have kept your feeding schedules and bioload the exact same during that time.

 

[jdieck]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10989954#post10989954 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
I actually think 90% of you have no idea how well your product works .

To say your product is the best w/out actually conducting thorough testing is pretty ignorant IMHO. I have a feeling that most of these products are the same exact product, or very close to it with minor variations. I highly doubt any of you are noticing REAL differences in color or any other thing in your tank. Unless your using a Hanna on a regular basis, I really dont think you can say how good your product is, and that is only if you have used several diff kinds, and have kept your feeding schedules and bioload the exact same during that time.

Those who know me already also know that I do not often recommend any products or equipment and even at times I have reserved my own opinion when requested to do so but if I do make a recommendation you can count on the fact that I have done more than the usual to prove it to myself.
I ran comparison tests for 8 months between Rowaphos, Phosban and Warner's PHOsR with some test ran in parallel. These included not only adsorption capacity short term and over the long run but also ovbservations on the critter reactions to large overdosing, the tendency to clumping and the easyness of rinsing. I went as far as purchasing the necessary NIST reference solution, calibrated flasks, burettes and measuring cylinders to insure identical sampling as well as the high purity acid solution for cleaning all lab testing equipment to prevent cross contamination and also evaluated the testing deviations of the colorimeter .
Why did I tested only those three? Besides the increased cost of running more tests. I really only intended to use either one of those three which struck me the ones produced by what IMO are quality vendors.
Why not cheaper unbranded products? I have had some unpleasent surprises in the past that make me very cautious. Even with products I know the original source is the same I have seen my fair share of cross contamination in packaging and handling of the original product to keep me away from unbranded materials, not to mention the need to keep track of the original manufacturer's change of specifications without much notice.
So I think so far you can count me on your remaining 10%.

 

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10993850#post10993850 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdieck
These included not only adsorption capacity short term and over the long run but also ovbservations on the critter reactions to large overdosing

How does the Warner Marine PHOsR compare to the older Fe oxide products like phoban and rowa when it comes to problems with Acropora and other similar stonies? I know lots of people, including myself, had STN and RTN issues with the older types when they came out.
thanks, Chris

 

[Rickyrooz1]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10989954#post10989954 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
I actually think 90% of you have no idea how well your product works .

To say your product is the best w/out actually conducting thorough testing is pretty ignorant IMHO. I have a feeling that most of these products are the same exact product, or very close to it with minor variations. I highly doubt any of you are noticing REAL differences in color or any other thing in your tank. Unless your using a Hanna on a regular basis, I really dont think you can say how good your product is, and that is only if you have used several diff kinds, and have kept your feeding schedules and bioload the exact same during that time.

Based on your previous posts in this forum it doesn't sound like you know too much about your product and other brands other than how good or bad the tank looks from using the media. I use the ROWA Merck Phosphate Test Kit and since I started using my Warner Marine Phosar in my AquaC XP Plus reactor I saw my levels drop in a week from 0.30 to 0.035 ppm.

 

[jdieck]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10993976#post10993976 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
How does the Warner Marine PHOsR compare to the older Fe oxide products like phoban and rowa when it comes to problems with Acropora and other similar stonies? I know lots of people, including myself, had STN and RTN issues with the older types when they came out.
thanks, Chris

Although I noticed temporary polyp contraction with Phosban and Rowa when newly replenished, I was not really able to replicate either STN or RTN even at 4 times the recommended dosage. My thinking is that given the tendency of Rowa and Phosban to have more fine particles even after rinsing , that the polyps temporarily contract to avoid those particles floating in the water column until they settle or the skimmer skims them out.
Why I could not replicate the RTN or STN, the only explanation I can find is that I started the tests with a relatively low phosphate level of around 1 ppm which may be interpreted that a potential cause for the RTN or STN is not really caused by a chemical released by the media (like iron) but rather by the sudden reduction in phosphate level down from a relatively high concentration.

 

[bbehring]

I use Pura complete. Run in a phos ban reactor. I cleanse the media out 1x every 3 weeks. And then change out completely at the 3 to 4 month mark depending on my P04. Works great for me.

 

[recreative]

phosphate control?

phosphate control?

hey there -

good poll thread . . .

i just strarted to use this product: liquid phosphate control.

http://www.bluelifeusa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=BLU&Product_Code=00135

read some good reviews and didnt feel like running a reactor at the moment, and dont run socks.

curious if there are any users out there?

thanks.
David

 

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10994630#post10994630 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdieck
Although I noticed temporary polyp contraction with Phosban and Rowa when newly replenished, I was not really able to replicate either STN or RTN even at 4 times the recommended dosage. My thinking is that given the tendency of Rowa and Phosban to have more fine particles even after rinsing , that the polyps temporarily contract to avoid those particles floating in the water column until they settle or the skimmer skims them out.
Why I could not replicate the RTN or STN, the only explanation I can find is that I started the tests with a relatively low phosphate level of around 1 ppm which may be interpreted that a potential cause for the RTN or STN is not really caused by a chemical released by the media (like iron) but rather by the sudden reduction in phosphate level down from a relatively high concentration.

That's very interestiing. I had always assumed the addition of iron was what caused the problems. Not the sudden reduction of phosphate or even alk. Thanks for the reply.

Chris

 

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10994293#post10994293 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rickyrooz1
Based on your previous posts in this forum it doesn't sound like you know too much about your product and other brands other than how good or bad the tank looks from using the media. I use the ROWA Merck Phosphate Test Kit and since I started using my Warner Marine Phosar in my AquaC XP Plus reactor I saw my levels drop in a week from 0.30 to 0.035 ppm.

Did I ever make any claim that my product is better than another?? Did I ever say that I did thorough testing? No, I did not.

My point is, I think most of the people's opinions in this thread are merely repeating something they read in another thread somewhere. Without actual lab equipment, its impossible to say that your phosphate remover is better than another. Point in case, you have a Merck test kit, which are not even close to accurate enough to give you real test data to base your judgement upon. About all a kit can tell you is that your levels dropped. They are not even close to accurate enough to give you a real reading for comparison. Also who is to say that by putting a different product in there that you would not have seen the same thing?

All Im saying is there is alot of bandwagon riding that goes on in this hobby w/out actual proof or any test data whatsoever.

To the guy above who did some actual lab comparisons, he is DEF in the 10%, probably more like the .05%.

 

[Rickyrooz1]

This was from a post on the Best PO4 test kits.

"Fishfreak218,

If you go with the colorometer, definitely go with the low range.

I have both the Hanna Colorometer and the DD Merck kit. On the occasions that I have run them at the same time they always have given me the same reading.

You can't go wrong with either of them.

The colorometer is nicer because you don't have to guess at the shade of yellow that the water is. As far kits go where you have to match up the color with your eye, the DD Merck one is pretty easy to do.

Don"

 

[Horace]

Sorry Ricky, but I have a very hard time believing this to be true. Given the inaccuracy of all the other kits avail, what makes the Merck so much better? Some will tell you that a hanna really isnt even that accurate. What would be the point of buying a colometer if a cheap kit is just as accurate? I think you had better consult an actual chemist before making the judgment that your kit is accurate....

Regardless of that, even if your kit is accurate, that doesnt mean that you wouldnt have got the same results using a different product.

 

[DocG]

Hi Horace,

I am the guy that Ricky is quoting. I also chimed in on page one of this thread.

While I am certainly not in the 0.05% area that jdieck is in, I am hopefully in the 10% area.

My method is pretty simple, I have used several phosphate removing products and three different test kits (Merck, Hanna colorometer, Salifert). I have used all three tests together several times at several different phosphate levels (ranging from 0.01 to 0.08). I stopped using Salifert after a little while because it was too difficult for me to read. I did the other two tests together approximately 10-15 times over the range of readings and found that they correlated pretty well.

While I have a good undergraduate Chemistry background, I have in no way shape or form tried to understand the chemistry behind the test kits to the level that I would have any useful opinion as to the accuracy of any of the tests (including Hanna).

What makes Merck better then Salifert (the only other test kit I have used recently) is that it is much, much, much easier to read then the Salifert. The Salifert may very well be completely accurate but it is too hard for me to read.

As far as the comparisons between the phosphate removers, the only one that was able to lower my phosphates below 0.03 was the PHOSaR HC. It has been consistently at 0.01 since I started using it and hasn't changed yet. That may not be a completely accurate number due to test kit and/or operator error, but it seems to me that the trend is there.

The other thing about the PHOSaR that I like is that the phosphate numbers dropped and stayed there. With the other phosphate removers 0.03 was the lowest it would reach, but the phosphate levels would bounce around between 0.03 and 0.06.

 

[j.prostrata]

With the HC how much are you guys running per gallon? Still holding true 1 gallon/1 gram ratio?

 

[trueperc]

I am about to recieve a rather strange phos remover, its expensive but its rechargible or so they say its coming with a phos reactor kit that I am buying so I thought I would give it a try. The product is from Polyp Lap and its called Opti-Phos
Heres the link

http://www.polyplab.com/optiphos.html

Here's the features from their site

• Uniform spherical beads for maximal contact time and constant flow rate
• No "grinding" of media when used in fluidized bed filters
• Most cost effective media - Can be regenerated 4-5 times
• Absorbs Phosphates, Silicates and dissolve organics
• Does not release phosphates once bound to bead


Size: 300 mL - Treats 150G of aquarium water per recharge.

 

[jdieck]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10999082#post10999082 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by j.prostrata
With the HC how much are you guys running per gallon? Still holding true 1 gallon/1 gram ratio?

You can use one third or one gram per three gallons of aquarium water.