FWIW, I run my in the top compartment of a Fluval Canister Filter. I intentionally use the small 205 unit with Carbon in 2 chambers and the NJRC GB Phosban clone in the 3rd stuffed inside a 100 Micron sock. The effective pump throughtput is around 60-70 gpm GPM. Since everthing is packed in the canister, there is no tumbling effect happening. Change the carbon ever 2 weeks, the phosban every 4. Seem to work well for me. I don't have a Hanna, but Salifert and API all show nothing on PO4 tests.
-
Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.
Phosban Reactors/Phosban
- Thread starter Phyl
- Start date
Phyl
Ok, I soaked carbon in my source water for a few minutes and then used that water to test for PO4. The result was a PO4 reading of .03. I'll leave it sit overnight and test again tomorrow.
This test has been done many time over the ye rs and there are even articles out on such tests. I can post them if you like. One of the flaws of such tests is that they do not rinse the GAC first. GAC should aways be rinsed well, not just to remove dust but to neutralize the pH and remove trapped gases. Many GAC are acidic to alkaline depending on their process procedures. Usually when well rinse most of the so called PO4 is reduce substansually. GAC does not continuously leach PO4 and any amount that may enter a tank is so small that it is meaningless. It just appears than many want to blame, so to speak, GAC for their issues when it come to PO4 or trace removal. Randy will tell you the same thing.
If one wants to blame something for Trace Element removal the finger needs to be pointed at a skimmer and not GAC. A skimmer remvoes more TE than anything. And the amount of TE that GAC removes is insignificant. There is also no data, that I have seen on GAC removing such TE. The only place you see this claim is in this hobby, as a remark by someone in this hobby with nothing to back it up.
A lot of what GAC does is dependant on the selection of GAC. Most in this hobby are only fair grades/ par a "couple" i.e., Matrix, Hydrocarbon, GAC from thefiltergus, Warner HC GAC( not out yet) and the GAC that for the last 15 years I have been tyring to get someone to sell ( two finally are) American Norit ROX .8. Those that have tried the ROX are amazed, it is as if the tank has been running on heavy ozone the water is so clear. It is the best GAC for tanks by far par PAC
The link you posted is a new and intersing product for PO4 and I would like to see some tests on it. The best PO4 remover to date is Warner Marine PhoSAR HC, which has a much greater active surface area and pore structure than others for PO4 removal. In almost all such adsorbers the removal rate is a function of the total active surface area, which in time, reaches equilibrium with the water. This is why removers seem to work for awhile and then seem to stop working. For example, x-brand PO4 remover is used and the PO4 is .3 and in a short time, usually like 48 hrs, it has dropped to .15. That is if for that batch of PO4 remover, it can not remove anymore to any degree, as it has reached equilibrium with the water. They both have a .15 ppm concentration so to speak. To continue the drop in PO4 you need to add fresh media, where the media now has 0 ppm and the water has .15 ppm and the cycle starts all over and follows the same rules.
Carlo
Yes there are for sure a number of synthetic poly's that do well on removing organics and act somewhat like a skimmer. That is why you often see the result of such media slowing down a skimmer. However, with that said, they are still incapable of performing various tasks that GAC does. They are more of a sup to GAC. If one chooses to use either by itself or in combination is a personeel choice. You most also remember that GAC is a molecular sieve and more so than most synthetics.
similar type product would be PÛRA NitrateLock which of course is a selective ion exchange resin that can be regenerated made for Nitrate removal
This is pretty much a line of their BS. I talked to them a MACNA as did Habib. We more or less had them spinning on how it works according to their claim. Habib has been looking for such a product for over 10 years, as have I and there is not such ion-exchange resin that can do this in seawater. What is even funnier is their claim to recharge it with bleach, much of what gets converted to a chloride ion, which is also their claim, as the exchange for the NO3 is chloride. How does that happen when seawater, which by iself has 19,000 ppm chloride ? Ion exchange resins do much of nothing in seawater.
They said go to their website they have proof. Been there done that and there is no such thing. There is no data, as they claim, from the University of Wisconsin, showing any NO3 removal with this product. Many comapies in the past have claimed the same thing and all is based on FW, another issue.
Although bleach is used on other synthetic media, like SeaChem, this is a whole different issues, as organics have no ionic exchange and are being "burnt" / oxidized out to the media. On another note, Amquel Plus claims to be able to remove NO3. Well, if you measure the NO3 before and after, YUP the NO3 has dropped so it must work. NOPE, the product interferes with the test reagents and kills the nitrate reading for the test kit.
Ok, I soaked carbon in my source water for a few minutes and then used that water to test for PO4. The result was a PO4 reading of .03. I'll leave it sit overnight and test again tomorrow.
This test has been done many time over the ye rs and there are even articles out on such tests. I can post them if you like. One of the flaws of such tests is that they do not rinse the GAC first. GAC should aways be rinsed well, not just to remove dust but to neutralize the pH and remove trapped gases. Many GAC are acidic to alkaline depending on their process procedures. Usually when well rinse most of the so called PO4 is reduce substansually. GAC does not continuously leach PO4 and any amount that may enter a tank is so small that it is meaningless. It just appears than many want to blame, so to speak, GAC for their issues when it come to PO4 or trace removal. Randy will tell you the same thing.
If one wants to blame something for Trace Element removal the finger needs to be pointed at a skimmer and not GAC. A skimmer remvoes more TE than anything. And the amount of TE that GAC removes is insignificant. There is also no data, that I have seen on GAC removing such TE. The only place you see this claim is in this hobby, as a remark by someone in this hobby with nothing to back it up.
A lot of what GAC does is dependant on the selection of GAC. Most in this hobby are only fair grades/ par a "couple" i.e., Matrix, Hydrocarbon, GAC from thefiltergus, Warner HC GAC( not out yet) and the GAC that for the last 15 years I have been tyring to get someone to sell ( two finally are) American Norit ROX .8. Those that have tried the ROX are amazed, it is as if the tank has been running on heavy ozone the water is so clear. It is the best GAC for tanks by far par PAC
The link you posted is a new and intersing product for PO4 and I would like to see some tests on it. The best PO4 remover to date is Warner Marine PhoSAR HC, which has a much greater active surface area and pore structure than others for PO4 removal. In almost all such adsorbers the removal rate is a function of the total active surface area, which in time, reaches equilibrium with the water. This is why removers seem to work for awhile and then seem to stop working. For example, x-brand PO4 remover is used and the PO4 is .3 and in a short time, usually like 48 hrs, it has dropped to .15. That is if for that batch of PO4 remover, it can not remove anymore to any degree, as it has reached equilibrium with the water. They both have a .15 ppm concentration so to speak. To continue the drop in PO4 you need to add fresh media, where the media now has 0 ppm and the water has .15 ppm and the cycle starts all over and follows the same rules.
Carlo
Yes there are for sure a number of synthetic poly's that do well on removing organics and act somewhat like a skimmer. That is why you often see the result of such media slowing down a skimmer. However, with that said, they are still incapable of performing various tasks that GAC does. They are more of a sup to GAC. If one chooses to use either by itself or in combination is a personeel choice. You most also remember that GAC is a molecular sieve and more so than most synthetics.
similar type product would be PÛRA NitrateLock which of course is a selective ion exchange resin that can be regenerated made for Nitrate removal
This is pretty much a line of their BS. I talked to them a MACNA as did Habib. We more or less had them spinning on how it works according to their claim. Habib has been looking for such a product for over 10 years, as have I and there is not such ion-exchange resin that can do this in seawater. What is even funnier is their claim to recharge it with bleach, much of what gets converted to a chloride ion, which is also their claim, as the exchange for the NO3 is chloride. How does that happen when seawater, which by iself has 19,000 ppm chloride ? Ion exchange resins do much of nothing in seawater.
They said go to their website they have proof. Been there done that and there is no such thing. There is no data, as they claim, from the University of Wisconsin, showing any NO3 removal with this product. Many comapies in the past have claimed the same thing and all is based on FW, another issue.
Although bleach is used on other synthetic media, like SeaChem, this is a whole different issues, as organics have no ionic exchange and are being "burnt" / oxidized out to the media. On another note, Amquel Plus claims to be able to remove NO3. Well, if you measure the NO3 before and after, YUP the NO3 has dropped so it must work. NOPE, the product interferes with the test reagents and kills the nitrate reading for the test kit.
Boomer take a couple pieces of carbon from your system that's been running for a few days and try the test tube test. It should be well flushed by then and you'll typically still see it leaching phosphates.
With that said I'm not so sure it's really a bad thing. All living things NEED phosphates and when you run some type of phosphate absorbing material you can get down to low over time. The little bit of leaching from the carbon might be a good thing if you look at it from that perspective. Things aren't always as they seem.
I would beg to differ on the fact that carbon pulls trace elements out of the water. You can test this easily by setting up an empty 10 gallon tank and running carbon on it. Test some of the levels in a couple of days. Check iodine, iron, copper and other metals.
I'd agree with you on ROX carbon. I saw one of your posts on RC about it and ordered some to try. Great stuff but still not as good as chemi-pure but it's in a different league.
No question that the synthetic poly's aren't the same as carbon. They are better and/or worse depending on what you want to remove from the water. My particular use is focused on nitrogen based waste and organics which it excels at. Setup in a reactor with carbon following it would polish the water really well and extend the carbon considerably too. The only issue is you'd have to remove the carbon when you recharge the polys but that's not a big deal.
I haven't tried the NitrateLock stuff myself. It was only a reference to similar type things. Come to think of it I do have a jar unopened sitting on the shelf I could try and see how well it works. I myself don't see how it can work in salt water as the regeneration process uses a brine solution (not bleach as you mentioned). This actually makes it even worse then you mentioned because it's salt.
Amquel Plus works differently. It doesn't actually remove them but detoxifies ammonia, nitrite, nitrate as well as break up chlorine molecules. Randy talks about Hydroxymethanesulfonate (Amquel) a bit in the following thread http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1024153&highlight=amquel+and+prime
Here's another link explaining it better http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1107997&highlight=amquel+and+prime. The affects of Hydroxymethanesulfonate and how it works are pretty well known. I wouldn't say it interferes with the test kit per say but you need to use a nessler type kit and you'll be fine. Here nor there, I don't want to get to far off topic.
Carlo
With that said I'm not so sure it's really a bad thing. All living things NEED phosphates and when you run some type of phosphate absorbing material you can get down to low over time. The little bit of leaching from the carbon might be a good thing if you look at it from that perspective. Things aren't always as they seem.
I would beg to differ on the fact that carbon pulls trace elements out of the water. You can test this easily by setting up an empty 10 gallon tank and running carbon on it. Test some of the levels in a couple of days. Check iodine, iron, copper and other metals.
I'd agree with you on ROX carbon. I saw one of your posts on RC about it and ordered some to try. Great stuff but still not as good as chemi-pure but it's in a different league.
No question that the synthetic poly's aren't the same as carbon. They are better and/or worse depending on what you want to remove from the water. My particular use is focused on nitrogen based waste and organics which it excels at. Setup in a reactor with carbon following it would polish the water really well and extend the carbon considerably too. The only issue is you'd have to remove the carbon when you recharge the polys but that's not a big deal.
I haven't tried the NitrateLock stuff myself. It was only a reference to similar type things. Come to think of it I do have a jar unopened sitting on the shelf I could try and see how well it works. I myself don't see how it can work in salt water as the regeneration process uses a brine solution (not bleach as you mentioned). This actually makes it even worse then you mentioned because it's salt.
Amquel Plus works differently. It doesn't actually remove them but detoxifies ammonia, nitrite, nitrate as well as break up chlorine molecules. Randy talks about Hydroxymethanesulfonate (Amquel) a bit in the following thread http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1024153&highlight=amquel+and+prime
Here's another link explaining it better http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1107997&highlight=amquel+and+prime. The affects of Hydroxymethanesulfonate and how it works are pretty well known. I wouldn't say it interferes with the test kit per say but you need to use a nessler type kit and you'll be fine. Here nor there, I don't want to get to far off topic.
Carlo
All GAC leaches PO4 to some degree you can not get away from. It is part of the raw material. The impact on the tank is meaningless, some leach more some leach less. It depends on "who's GAC you are using. And some "show" no PO4 leaching. I have have run test on about 50 different kinds of GAC years ago. Even some of the articles show zero PO4 from x, y or z GAC when tested. Foods add more by the 10 x than any GAC, to include fish wastes.
I would beg to differ on the fact that carbon pulls trace elements out of the water. You can test this easily by setting up an empty 10 gallon tank and running carbon on it. Test some of the levels in a couple of days. Check iodine, iron, copper and other metals.
So does your skimmer. Of course it removes such thing as Fe and Cu, it is suppose to and is one of the major uses of GAC in other industry's and even your RO/DI carbon block. Who wants cooper, chromium, lead, zinc, etc. in their tank. Just look at the very high elevated levels in seasalt mixes. Required sup's can be easily added if needed and is a poor argument for GAC and Randy has also as said as such. He uses GAC 24/7 and suggests everyone should, as do I or or Julian. But like many things in this hobby it is a choice. And as I said "And the amount of TE that GAC removes is insignificant" Fe in seawater is ~.002 ppm, Cu .0001 ppm and T-Iodine .06 ppm. And GAC does not remvoe things to zero just like most adsorption media.
As far as Iodine goes yes but animals and plants do not use iodine but Iodate/iodide in seawater. There may be some Iodate removal but does much of nothing for Iodide, just like Bromide or Chloride. And what test kit tests those TE levels down to the levels found in seawater or those actually needed. And most of those heavy metals removed by GAC are ones you want removed. GAC's advantages far out weighs it disadvantage. Many products added to a tanks have some disadvantage.
Amquel Plus works differently. It doesn't actually remove them but detoxifies ammonia, nitrite, nitrate as well as break up chlorine molecules. Randy talks about Hydroxymethanesulfonate (Amquel) a bit in the following thread http://reefcentral.....................
I helped Randy a lot with those articles on Chlorine and Ammonia and many of his ref came from me, to include me getting him in contact with Dr. John F. Kuhns. That post written by Randy was from ref I gave him. The same are in the Chloramine articles. I'm the one that first showed him the chem of Amquel.
I did not say Amquel, which is in that article or on Randy's post. I said Amquel Plus (Amquel +), which is a recent new product. Amquel Plus claims to actually remove Nitrate. It was during a phone conversation I had with Dr . Kuhns who told me the new Amquel Plus can not remove NO3. It just masks the test kit and ICP test prove that, the NO3 still there. I have posted many times on Amquel on the chem forum and its use and often recommend it.
Nowhere in Randy's words does he say it removes Nitrate or does anything for NO3-. He never even brings it up at all. And nowhere in either of those threads does anyone claim that it does remvoe NO3-. It is brought up because it SAYS so on the bottle. In other talks with SeaChem chemists they said the ability to actually do anything for Nitrate removal is almost not worthy talking about. Such products can tie up only very small tads of NO3- and their product Prime is similar with the same claims.
I myself don't see how it can work in salt water as the regeneration process uses a brine solution (not bleach as you mentioned[/b[
Yes my mistake it is the SeaChem that uses bleach for their hyper.
I would beg to differ on the fact that carbon pulls trace elements out of the water. You can test this easily by setting up an empty 10 gallon tank and running carbon on it. Test some of the levels in a couple of days. Check iodine, iron, copper and other metals.
So does your skimmer. Of course it removes such thing as Fe and Cu, it is suppose to and is one of the major uses of GAC in other industry's and even your RO/DI carbon block. Who wants cooper, chromium, lead, zinc, etc. in their tank. Just look at the very high elevated levels in seasalt mixes. Required sup's can be easily added if needed and is a poor argument for GAC and Randy has also as said as such. He uses GAC 24/7 and suggests everyone should, as do I or or Julian. But like many things in this hobby it is a choice. And as I said "And the amount of TE that GAC removes is insignificant" Fe in seawater is ~.002 ppm, Cu .0001 ppm and T-Iodine .06 ppm. And GAC does not remvoe things to zero just like most adsorption media.
As far as Iodine goes yes but animals and plants do not use iodine but Iodate/iodide in seawater. There may be some Iodate removal but does much of nothing for Iodide, just like Bromide or Chloride. And what test kit tests those TE levels down to the levels found in seawater or those actually needed. And most of those heavy metals removed by GAC are ones you want removed. GAC's advantages far out weighs it disadvantage. Many products added to a tanks have some disadvantage.
Amquel Plus works differently. It doesn't actually remove them but detoxifies ammonia, nitrite, nitrate as well as break up chlorine molecules. Randy talks about Hydroxymethanesulfonate (Amquel) a bit in the following thread http://reefcentral.....................
I helped Randy a lot with those articles on Chlorine and Ammonia and many of his ref came from me, to include me getting him in contact with Dr. John F. Kuhns. That post written by Randy was from ref I gave him. The same are in the Chloramine articles. I'm the one that first showed him the chem of Amquel.
I did not say Amquel, which is in that article or on Randy's post. I said Amquel Plus (Amquel +), which is a recent new product. Amquel Plus claims to actually remove Nitrate. It was during a phone conversation I had with Dr . Kuhns who told me the new Amquel Plus can not remove NO3. It just masks the test kit and ICP test prove that, the NO3 still there. I have posted many times on Amquel on the chem forum and its use and often recommend it.
Nowhere in Randy's words does he say it removes Nitrate or does anything for NO3-. He never even brings it up at all. And nowhere in either of those threads does anyone claim that it does remvoe NO3-. It is brought up because it SAYS so on the bottle. In other talks with SeaChem chemists they said the ability to actually do anything for Nitrate removal is almost not worthy talking about. Such products can tie up only very small tads of NO3- and their product Prime is similar with the same claims.
I myself don't see how it can work in salt water as the regeneration process uses a brine solution (not bleach as you mentioned[/b[
Yes my mistake it is the SeaChem that uses bleach for their hyper.
I agree with most everything you said above boomer. The only points I "may" have an issue with are purely opinion type matters. They would be:
The amount of PO4 leached from carbons and the impact on the tank. I think it's really more then you think for the average carbons people use. I test things like this a lot on a pretty ongoing basis. Anybody can pretty much see the levels of PO4 by setting up an empty 10 gallon tank with absolutely nothing in it but salt water and carbon stuffed in a HOB type filter or reactor. Let it run for a week or two while monitoring the PO4. It gets higher and higher. It leaches enough to keep many GFOs from getting the results to zero. Again add GFO (or similar) to the test above and measure it for yourself. But again this may not be a bad thing all by itself as we need a certain low level of PO4 for living things.
I agree carbon will remove those trace items. That's why I mentioned it. Maybe we are getting to technical with each other on the "carbon doesn't remove trace elements" since it surely does. The question really is a matter of what trace elements it removes and is that good or bad. I think for people running smaller amounts changed out more frequently the issue of trace element depletion is even less an issue then the person who fills up a reactor and only changes it monthly but I haven't tested this theory and it could be wrong. I also agree the skimmer will remove some trace elements also. Some the same trace elements as carbon and different ones too.
Just for the record Boomer, I've never said using GAC is bad. I'm not a "purest" that dislikes the use of GAC. It's just not my preference anymore for polishing the water and organic removal. Because there are differences in what GAC does compared to the synthetic polys, I've always ran it from time to time, just not 24/7. I typically use it when ever I've added new salt water to the system specifically to remove some of the heavy metals.
I agree on the Iodine and it's related parts in seawater. I didn't get into the iodate/iodide or other forms since I knew or thought you would know I was referring to them as a whole. I've never really tried to figure out how much carbon does pull these elements from the water, nor have I really ever tried to find research on it. I'm not really sure it's even important to know because the levels change so fast (usually being depleted) in the typical tank that the amount affected by carbon is probably meaningless as a whole.
Amquel Plus - Oh I see what you are saying now, I missed that "actually remove Nitrate" part. Hmm, that seems like quite a stretch in marketing to me. I think I'd have to take issue with that too. That would probably be one of the greatest/usefull products ever for aquariums if it were true! Any threads on that anywhere? I'd love to read the circle/spin talk from them trying to defend this marketing hype.
Carlo
The amount of PO4 leached from carbons and the impact on the tank. I think it's really more then you think for the average carbons people use. I test things like this a lot on a pretty ongoing basis. Anybody can pretty much see the levels of PO4 by setting up an empty 10 gallon tank with absolutely nothing in it but salt water and carbon stuffed in a HOB type filter or reactor. Let it run for a week or two while monitoring the PO4. It gets higher and higher. It leaches enough to keep many GFOs from getting the results to zero. Again add GFO (or similar) to the test above and measure it for yourself. But again this may not be a bad thing all by itself as we need a certain low level of PO4 for living things.
I agree carbon will remove those trace items. That's why I mentioned it. Maybe we are getting to technical with each other on the "carbon doesn't remove trace elements" since it surely does. The question really is a matter of what trace elements it removes and is that good or bad. I think for people running smaller amounts changed out more frequently the issue of trace element depletion is even less an issue then the person who fills up a reactor and only changes it monthly but I haven't tested this theory and it could be wrong. I also agree the skimmer will remove some trace elements also. Some the same trace elements as carbon and different ones too.
Just for the record Boomer, I've never said using GAC is bad. I'm not a "purest" that dislikes the use of GAC. It's just not my preference anymore for polishing the water and organic removal. Because there are differences in what GAC does compared to the synthetic polys, I've always ran it from time to time, just not 24/7. I typically use it when ever I've added new salt water to the system specifically to remove some of the heavy metals.
I agree on the Iodine and it's related parts in seawater. I didn't get into the iodate/iodide or other forms since I knew or thought you would know I was referring to them as a whole. I've never really tried to figure out how much carbon does pull these elements from the water, nor have I really ever tried to find research on it. I'm not really sure it's even important to know because the levels change so fast (usually being depleted) in the typical tank that the amount affected by carbon is probably meaningless as a whole.
Amquel Plus - Oh I see what you are saying now, I missed that "actually remove Nitrate" part. Hmm, that seems like quite a stretch in marketing to me. I think I'd have to take issue with that too.
That would probably be one of the greatest/usefull products ever for aquariums if it were true! Any threads on that anywhere? I'd love to read the circle/spin talk from them trying to defend this marketing hype. Carlo
Carlo said:
I know that above is your opinion, but I have to interject just a bit here.
Your testing methodology doesn't corellate to the real world. Many times you state to setup a 10 gallon tank with nothing in it to perform certain tests. Any result you get in those tests are suspect. Why, because there is nothing else in the water to do an interaction with whatever you are testing for. We don't run empty tanks, and I don't know too many people with 10 gallon reefs. Volume, dilution, turnover, fish load, air, water quality, co2, carbon, phosban, etc.. all are inter-reacting with each other for a result.
So what you see as a result test in an empty 10 gallon tank can not *usually* be quantified to be true in a large tank with all the above factors mixed in.
Remember, statistics lie.
I'm not sure I follow you Phil on this logic. Why would you want to add something to the water supply that could potentially alter the results of PO4 buildup you are trying to test? If you add anything besides water you have the potential to skew the results. Take a look at the way Harker (from Ozone thread) performed his test on the carbon. Only difference is he started with water high in tannic acid and ran the carbon to see how much was pulled out of the water in 24 hours. All my suggested "test" would show is that the phosphates in the water continue to climb until it peaks and that level is higher then most people think. This "test" would be even better then his in a way since you would be using 10 gallons of water and not 4 liters (about a gallon).
BTW, you could do the same type of tests using a reactor instead of a HOB filter which would probably be even better.
Carlo
BTW, you could do the same type of tests using a reactor instead of a HOB filter which would probably be even better.
Carlo
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong about this carbon issue, all I can contribute are my results. Tuesday night I checked my PO4 reactor output. I got a reading of 0.07 and my display read 0.23. Last night, my display read 0.30. I took the carbon bag out of my sump. I tested my PO4 just now in the display and it reads 0.09. A huge drop. Could my previous display readings be off? Maybe. All I know is within 24 hours of removing the carbon, I got a significant drop in my display PO4. Tonight I'm going to check the reactor output again to see where that's at.
Was this the club carbon or another brand? It would be very interesting to see what happened upon putting a fresh bag of carbon into the sump. I find it extraudinary that you'd see such a drop after so little time after having removed passive carbon from your system. We use a carbon "reactor" to drive our water through the carbon and we also use, what seems by industry standards to be, a lot.
When was the last time you fed prior to yesterday's testing? When did you feed prior to the day before's testing? I'm just looking for all of the variables that might be coming into play.
When was the last time you fed prior to yesterday's testing? When did you feed prior to the day before's testing? I'm just looking for all of the variables that might be coming into play.
Carlo
As I allude to the type of GAC is a choice. The same can be said for its application. Some use and some do not. Some use 24/7 and others do not and some use not passively while others due it actively and the same can be said for the amount to be used. I might add there has been recently another test on GAC by Steve Pro and a couple of unrinsed sample PO4 tests showed 0 ppm PO4. And Steve's PO4 readings are similar to other PO4 readings from other tests.
Activated Carbon and Phosphates
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_4/V4I2/carbon/carbon_comparisons.htm
Harker overall rating for GAC was this and Lignite is by far the best choice, with the Matrix right in there and one of my most recommend GAC's, a Bitum. Its good performance is because it is really SAC, while others are GAC. Harker also did "Iodine", readings and found almost no impact. More on Harker on the other thread on Ozone
Why would you want to add something to the water supply that could potentially alter the results of PO4 buildup you are trying to test?
Because that is the real world for us And on a 10 gal tank one would want to know how much GAC was added and was it well rinsed or not before the test and what kind of GAC is it, to include is it aid washed or not. All GAC is not a like by a long shot. A issue for some GAC's, especially those that often tested higher in PO4 is that they are not Steam Activation, Chemically Activation, with Phosphoric Acid. This is were people get confused with the term Acid washed and acid washing uses Nitric Acid, not Phosphoric acid
pgrodemer
Remember, statistics lie.
Well said they often do in the real world.
{Edited to fix pic - JohnS_323}
As I allude to the type of GAC is a choice. The same can be said for its application. Some use and some do not. Some use 24/7 and others do not and some use not passively while others due it actively and the same can be said for the amount to be used. I might add there has been recently another test on GAC by Steve Pro and a couple of unrinsed sample PO4 tests showed 0 ppm PO4. And Steve's PO4 readings are similar to other PO4 readings from other tests.
Activated Carbon and Phosphates
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_4/V4I2/carbon/carbon_comparisons.htm
Harker overall rating for GAC was this and Lignite is by far the best choice, with the Matrix right in there and one of my most recommend GAC's, a Bitum. Its good performance is because it is really SAC, while others are GAC. Harker also did "Iodine", readings and found almost no impact. More on Harker on the other thread on Ozone
Why would you want to add something to the water supply that could potentially alter the results of PO4 buildup you are trying to test?
Because that is the real world for us
And on a 10 gal tank one would want to know how much GAC was added and was it well rinsed or not before the test and what kind of GAC is it, to include is it aid washed or not. All GAC is not a like by a long shot. A issue for some GAC's, especially those that often tested higher in PO4 is that they are not Steam Activation, Chemically Activation, with Phosphoric Acid. This is were people get confused with the term Acid washed and acid washing uses Nitric Acid, not Phosphoric acidpgrodemer
Remember, statistics lie.
Well said they often do in the real world.
{Edited to fix pic - JohnS_323}
Yes it was.Phyl said:
Before yesterday's testing, I fed thawed mysis shrimp on Sunday.Phyl said:
Well, if I was sticking to my usual schedule (sometimes I forget), I probably fed on Thursday, 9/27. I usually feed every 3rd day. Oh and BTW, proir to this afternoon's test I fed cyclopeeze last night.Phyl said:
As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm going to test the reactor effluent tonight. After this afternoon's display reading, I'll probably check the display again.
Boomer said:Carlo
As I allude to the type of GAC is a choice. The same can be said for its application. Some use and some do not. Some use 24/7 and others do not and some use not passively while others due it actively and the same can be said for the amount to be used. I might add there has been recently another test on GAC by Steve Pro and a couple of unrinsed sample PO4 tests showed 0 ppm PO4. And Steve's PO4 readings are similar to other PO4 readings from other tests.
Activated Carbon and Phosphates
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_4/V4I2/carbon/carbon_comparisons.htm
Harker overall rating for GAC was this and Lignite is by far the best choice, with the Matrix right in there and one of my most recommend GAC's, a Bitum. Its good performance is because it is really SAC, while others are GAC. Harker also did "Iodine", readings and found almost no impact. More on Harker on the other thread on Ozone
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b294/mantisfreak/carbon1.jpg[/b]
[/quote]
We got the same thing going in two thread so I covered this in the other thread since it's the same thing.
[quote]
[b]Why would you want to add something to the water supply that could potentially alter the results of PO4 buildup you are trying to test? [/b]
Because that is the real world for us :) And on a 10 gal tank one would want to know how much GAC was added and was it well rinsed or not before the test and what kind of GAC is it, to include is it aid washed or not. All GAC is not a like by a long shot. A issue for some GAC's, especially those that often tested higher in PO4 is that they are not Steam Activation, Chemically Activation, with Phosphoric Acid. This is were people get confused with the term Acid washed and acid washing uses Nitric Acid, not Phosphoric acid
[/quote]
I TOTALLY disagree. The test isn't supposed to be "real world". It's supposed to be isolated and without outside interference. If you want to see how much phosphates are leached out of the carbon you use then run it the same way (passive, HOB, canister) in a test environment where you can accurately measure the phosphates. Of course you should rinse it first just like you would before using it on your tank. I'd also suggest scaling back the amount you test with in direct proportion to the amount you use on your tank. For example if you use 500 grams on a 100 gallon system then scale back the test amount to 50 grams. This will show you pretty accurately how much leaching you will get over time in the same proportions to your main system.
While you can certainly do what NEWSALT did and measure directly in the tank after removing it (true test) it doesn't take into considering foods, animals using the phosphates, etc. By using an isolated tank as I suggested you take these obstacles out of the picture and you get a clear picture of how much phosphate is leached from the carbon over a period of time that you can test.
[quote]
pgrodemer
[b]Remember, statistics lie. [/b]
Well said they often do in the real world.
[/quote]
Statistics don't lie. Only the "creator" of the statistics does the lying by skewing the results. Don't blame statistics on that. :)
Carlo
Phyl said:
You probably have a higher flow going through your carbon then you do your GFO correct?
If you were to run them in series the GFO will suck up the leach from the carbon plus some and your overall tank value would drop.
Just for kicks can you remove your carbon for a couple of days and see where the tank value goes to? Since you have a whole lot of gallons it will probably take longer to see the results then it did on NEWSALT's system.
Carlo