Zeolite rocks

[The Saltman]

Randy,

As you are probably familiar with the use of zeovit, you know that part of the process in this method is using zeolite rocks in a media reactor. So people here on rc are using seachems matrix rocks http://www.petstore.com/ps_viewitem.aspx?idproduct=SC3171&child=SC3175

instead of having to constantly replace zeolite rocks. There seems to be an argument that you don't get an ion exchange using these rocks(matrix). But people say you will still achieve your goal in the end of running an ultra low nutrient system. I guess my question is, are the zeolite rocks just quicker and more efficient at housing bacteria to consume ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, etc? One advantage of using matrix rocks is they claim they never need replacing, so there is a big cost savings there. Do you see the matrix rocks achieving the same results as zeolite rocks even if the process is slower or less efficient over a matter of time?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't believe the ion exchange part can be important. I expect it is just a place for bacteria to grow. Would Seachem matrix be similar? I don't know.

How often do you replace them now? It may be the replacement is part of the nutrient export system, by exporting the whole bacteria on the media. If that is important, then replacement is still necessary regardless of the substrate.

 

[The Saltman]

Zeo is doing the same thing, just more aggressively.

Zeovit is a group of zeolites that were chosen for their ammonium absorbing properties in saltwater.

These Zeolites trap ammonium molecules in their pores. This rapidly drops the amount of ammonium in the tank.

"This is why its so aggressive." it short circuits the ammonium cycle that occurs in none zeo tanks.
But thats not the end of the story. After the ammonium gets trapped. Bacteria(Aerobic) feed on the ammonium and reduce it to nitrite. we all know this cycle .. the difference is .. on the inside of the zeolite lives the denitrifiers So the food "nitrate" is brought right to their doorstep. So once the ammonium molecule has been removed by the bacteria, another takes it place and the process repeats itself. But eventually all the pores get blocked and the zeolite can no longer trap ammonium molecules.

Its time to replace it.

With matrix, the story is slightly different. The pore size is perfect for the group of bacteria we want to house. It doesn't trap ammonium its just a really big housing project for bacteria
Its has a tremendous surface area for bacteria to live on and more importantly live in. The difference with this vs zeo is the bacteria have to grab the ammonium as it passes by.. so its not as aggressive as zeo.

Think of matrix as a deep sand bed. The surface houses aerobic bacteria while the inner portion houses the denitrifiers.
So why not just use a deep sandbed? Sandbeds get dirty and cant be cleaned without killing the denitrifiers. Matrix can be cleaned just like zeovit. So no worries that your deep sand bed will go toxic on you.

Now the best part of this is the carbon dosing. Without the carbon dosing, zeovit and matrix wouldn't be able to do what they do. Its the carbon that lets the denitrifiers do their job so well.

This is how a fed denitrifying coil works, except, you dont put the carbon in the coil water it goes directly into the tank water.

 

[The Saltman]

That last post is actually an excerpt from a thread I read on here earlier. Does this sound right to you?

 

[Boomer]

Saltman

There seems to be an argument that you don't get an ion exchange using these rocks(matrix). But people say you will still achieve your goal in the end of running an ultra low nutrient system. I guess my question is, are the zeolite rocks just quicker and more efficient at housing bacteria to consume ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, etc?

I covered that in detail here long ago and agree with your idea and brought up that other media i.e., GAC, Matix (IIRC) could also work or maybe other types of porous media. It is NOT an ammonia thing which is so much BS IMHO. It is the place where the bacteria want live and it is a preferred attachment thing and has little if anything to do with ammonia. Bacteria do have a preference for surfaces to grow on.

On the ammonia thing, ask yourself the question, as I did on those posts, why would a bacteria prefer to remove ammonia from a zeolite when it can remove if from the water column with less enery used. It is more on the order that nitrifying bacteria colonize the zeo or rock. They convert ammonia to nitrite and pass it on to the next inner layer of nitrite reduction bacteria who them pass it on to Nitrate reduction or denitrifying bacteria. It is something we call " proximity association" and is common in the bacterial world in sediments.

In time the bacterial film on the zeo's/rocks get to thickened with nitrifying bacteria /bio-films and the conversion process is slowed down. It is this reason IMHO for cleaning the film off the rock, which is then filtered out and or used as a foods source for corals.

Finally, the real nonsense about the Zeo claim. How does a bacteria remove or get to a ammonia ion in a zeolite in the first place. They claim the bacteria live in the pores of the rock. That is a good trick as the actual "true" zeolite pores that would up take the ammonia are to small for *ANY* bacteria to even think about getting into. On my post my reference was, "Can you stick a watermelon up your butt if it is well lubed ? In zeolites bacteria can only live in what we call the "void fraction", which are openings like mini-caves or channels. So, big deal, they still can not get at the ammonia in the ion exchange pores which are 10x times to small. But yes they could pick up some ammoina in those void fractions where the ammonia was more at the surface of those inner void fraction walls.

They claim that they need to clean off the bioflim of the zeolite on a regular bases. They do not replace it accept periodically.. OK, they can NEVER clean off all the biofilm or bacteria coating of the Zeo or those in the void space. So, logic tells you how does the ammonia get into the pores when they are all plugged.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That last post is actually an excerpt from a thread I read on here earlier. Does this sound right to you?

Parts of it are likely true, but as Boomer mentions, not the ammonia binding part.

 

[The Saltman]

Good stuff Boomer, makes sense. One reefer mentions that he just rinses the rocks once a month(matrix rocks). Does this sound like a good practice when I use these rocks?

 

[Boomer]

I would look more at once every two weeks. A month is a long time.

 

[The Saltman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13662202#post13662202 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
I would look more at once every two weeks. A month is a long time.

k, thanks

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Finally, the real nonsense about the Zeo claim. How does a bacteria remove or get to a ammonia ion in a zeolite in the first place. They claim the bacteria live in the pores of the rock.

I won't even give the theory that much credit. It makes no sense whatsoever at the molecular level.

If any ammonia binds to a zeolite, then the concentration locally in the water near the zeolite is depleted in ammonia, at least for some time until it is replace by more ammonia that drifts in from the water column. Once it drifts back in, the concentration is the same as it was in the absence of any zeolite. Even 1 nanometer from the zeolite surface, the ammonia concentration is not a single teeny tiny bit higher than the bulk water, so here is no more available ammonia then without a zeolite.

It is the concentration of ammonia in the water that the bacteria can sense, and take up either passively by diffusion of NH3 across the cell membrane, or actively by some sort of active transport protein. In both cases, the ammonia must move to the bacteria surface. It is ridiculous to think that bacteria would push their cell membranes back and forth over the zeolite surface trying to collect ammonia that is bound to it, rubbing across it like a bear rubs its back on a tree.

 

[Boomer]

:rollface: :rollface: :rollface:

That will be our two analogies then

1. Watermelon

2. Bears butt

 

[muzz]

It seems like you are saying zeolites are a bunch of bs? If that is so, then why do so many seem to have success with either zeovit,ultralith, or whatever form of zeolite system?

Seachem has run some tests on matrix, and here is what they said when I asked them if the product could replace zeolites, or if it was similiar. First is my question to them and then their reply:

Is Matrix a zeolite? It sound slike it performs the same functions as zeolites do. I am currently running a zeolite system, and wondered if there is a difference between products? I ask because you say the matrix does nto need to be replaced, just rinsed. Where as zeolites get "cleaned" daily, and have to be replaced every 6 to 8 weeks. Is there any information on what exactly the Matrix material is?
Thanks,


reply:
"Thank you for your question. Matrix is not a zeolite. Actually, zeolite should be classified as a chemical type of filtration rather than biological. Zeolites are ion-exchangers and most that are used in aquariums absorb ammonia and kick off sodium. This type of filtration can be quite good in certain freshwater aquariums, but not very effective in saltwater environments. The reason for this is because zeolites typically have a high affinity for calcium and cause depletion of calcium with little impact on ammonia. Also, zeolites do not have any impact on nitrates other than the possible growth of anaerobic bacteria on the actual media. Zeolites do have some biological filtration to them because they are microporous. This allows for growth of some bacteria on them which will of course help with ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate. However, if you are taking the zeolite out every couple of months, you are negating this effect. Matrix is not ionically charged and is purely a biological media. This is the reason why it does not need to be replaced. It only needs to be rinsed occasionally due to the buildup of slime that is naturally produced by bacteria. Unfortunately, I cannot divulge exactly what Matrix is as that is proprietary information."

SO it seems that the two materials are completely different and can not be interchanged. For what its worth........

 

[Boomer]

It seems like you are saying zeolites are a bunch of bs? If that is so, then why do so many seem to have success with either zeovit,ultralith, or whatever form of zeolite system?

Go back an re-read my post. I did not say they where BS I said what they **claim** is BS. Zeolites are fine to use in such systems. And I have said so on many Zeovit threads here and elsewhere. But they are not going to BS me into thinking only a Zeolite media will work.

The Zeo people have ZERO data of what they claim takes place. I'm not arguing the Zeovit system does not work, it does but not as they claim. All data on the ion exchanger properties, in regards to seawater, atests to that. I also never said Matrix was a Zeolite. It all revolves around the best attachment site for the bacteria. Zeolties make a nice attachment site as might other porous media, such as Matrix.

Finally, Zeolties are not new the the reef hobby. They have been around for 20 years. Ever hear of Thiel X-Nitrate, Kent Nitrate Sponge or SeaChem de-Nitrate ? These are all Clinoptilolite Zeolites, just like the Zeovit Zeolite is a Clinoptilolite Zeolite. What are they used for ? To reduce Nitrates, as they house denitrifying bacteria, in time, just like Zeovit does.

Then Zeovit system is not run by any normal means. They add allot of sups to their tanks and strip the Zeolites of the bacterial mulm, most of what ends up getting feed to the corals. Corals in nature eat lots of bacteria. And the bacterial count in normal reef tank is nowhere near the count it is on a reef. And the same can be said of the bacterial count on the corals of reef vs normal tank. It is on the order of 100 x less bacteria in a normal reef tank.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree. Many things work for reasons other than what some people may think the mechanism of action is. That said, there may be important differences between different media use for this purpose. I just do not believe that the important difference can be ammonia binding.

SO it seems that the two materials are completely different and can not be interchanged. For what its worth........

Well, of course the can be at least particle interchanged for some purposes, like being a solid substrate for bacteria.

I have no idea if they can be exchanged or not in this use, but I'll give an analogy from my line of work. Suppose you have two different pain medications. On a molecular level, and on a mechanism of action level one could correctly say that are not interchangeable. But from an overall patient perspective, the pain goes away with each. In that sense, they are exactly interchangeable. It all depends on what level you ask the question.

Ever hear of Thiel X-Nitrate

I still have some old bags of X-nitrate and X-silicate. maybe they will have antique value soon.

 

[Genetics]

Just curious but has anyone ever taken fresh saltwater, added NH4Ac or some other ammonium salt and then measured to determine if zeolites possess the ability to absorb ammonia?

Not that bacteria can utilize it but if that were true, then potassium defficiencies could be explained.

 

[Boomer]

Yes Gen, it has been done on seawater and it does remove some ammonia. The amount removed was about the same as it was for activated carbon


In vitro Comparison of Zeolite (Clinoptilolite)
and Activated Carbon
as Ammonia Absorbants in Fish Culture
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/naga/Naga24-1&2/pdf/aquabyte 4.pdf

Not that bacteria can utilize it but if that were true, then potassium defficiencies could be explained.

How could that be ? The exchange is K+ for NH4+. It would reduce K deficiencies by releasing more K+ .

Clino is (Na,K,Ca)2-3Al3(Al,Si)2Si13O36·12(H2O)....( there are other Clino ver.)

The NH4- will kick out the K+ and replace it with NH4+. This is why these are so common and work so good in FW. However, in seawater there is so much K+ it is almost as if the K+ in seawater will just kick the ammonia out and take its place, going in circles. That is the issue in seawater all the ions that will compete for ion exchange. The other kick out ion for K+ is Ca++. These are the same things used in water softeners. Any of these zeolites used in this hobby are nothing more than water softener zeo or Kitty litter or old fashion floor dry zeo's. They "were" all the same. Today what is used is artificial zeo's for kitty litter and water softeners. And you do not see much floor dry anymore made of zeo's, most is diatoms or ground up corn cobs, which have a much greater capacity for oil adsorption.

 

[urville]

What kills me about this system, other than boomers awesome watermelon analogy, is that these bacteria have evolved to live on reefs for thousands of years. So essentially if you want to get technical, Calcified skeletons of corals, or as it's often sold, live rock, would be the only real media specifically designed to work with this bacteria, in fact, the bacteria are specifically deisgned by nature to work with the rock.

People are spending all this money on this system and I know tons of people doing this with a couple of handfuls of good chaeto in a sump and plenty of live rock. They run unreadable on everything. I've also read some suspicious information about level of Alkalinity and having a super narrow window of error on that level.

Sorry... ranted a bit. It just sounds like any good porous material used to create biological filtering to me, only it's super expensive compared, and requires the usage of many other special products...

 

[kaskiles]

Do you have to remove these zeolite filters from the system, and put them in a 'cooking' system? I'm just wondering if the area inside the zeolite, where the denitrifying bacteria live, because clogged up with biomass and denitrifying activity is reduced?

 

[Genetics]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13667358#post13667358 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer

How could that be ? The exchange is K+ for NH4+. It would reduce K deficiencies by releasing more K+ .

Clino is (Na,K,Ca)2-3Al3(Al,Si)2Si13O36·12(H2O)....( there are other Clino ver.)

I was under the impression that zeolite rocks are a composition of many different zeolites. If they are all clino then yes you are right that K will not be decreased.

 

[Boomer]

Gen it is my understanding they use like 3 zeo's in the actual ZeoVIT System. IIRC they all claim to be Clino. There are like 4-5 varities of Clino. We would need to do an XRD to see what they REALLY are Some guys only use 1 zeo. I think that is what Claude does from Fauna Marin.

Kask

Do you have to remove these zeolite filters from the system, and put them in a 'cooking' system? I'm just wondering if the area inside the zeolite, where the denitrifying bacteria live, because clogged up with biomass and denitrifying activity is reduced?

They replace them once in awhile . Usually they just clean the zeo-rocks once a week IIRC. Yes, it may be that denitri.. does slow down. But I think the real key is feeding the bacteria from the rocks to the corals. I know if they do not do this the corals start to no look so good.