# What filter media is best?



## Timon Vogelaar

Hi all,

I have the Tetra EX 800 plus
Some specifications here;

Suitable aquarium size: 100 - 300 l 
Water flow: 790 l/h 
External size: 21.2 x 21.2 x 41.2 cm (L x W x H) 
Maximum pump height: 1.3m 
Filter capacity: 6.6l
Filter chambers (number): 4 
Pipe internal diameter: 12mm 
Power consumption: 10.5 Watt
Here a picture of the filtermedia inside;



 
From bottom to top;
1. Ceramic Filter Rings & Biological Filter Sponge
2. Bio Filter Balls 
3. Biological Filter Sponge
4. Filter Floss Pads & Biological Filter Sponge (Normaly this tray has carbon in it wich i dont use!)


I have looked in filter media from Seachem and ADA bio rio and i believe i can easily improve my filtration.

_*Can you please advice me how i can improve my filtermedia by switching the media in with something better? 
Which changes would you make in my situation?
*_
(p.s. for more info about my setup you can look in my journal. Link is in my signature)


----------



## Manuel Arias

Hi Timon,

Well, a simple question with very difficult answer because this depends of many factors, between others that media should change depending on the stage of your tank, but this is not always the case. At the end each person comes out with something different, so reality is that most filtering strategies will work.

But in planted tanks, there are some general assumptions or conventions that are a good guideline:

-Degradation of organic matter shall be as fast as possible.
-We do not want to lose microelements or trace elements due to filtering.
-We want to have filter media well oxygenated to avoid anoxia.
-We target  a crystal-clear water.

Considering that:

1. It is good to maximize the filter stages in which the nitrifying and heterotrophic bacteria can grow. This usually means to have a very porous filter media. In my point of view, the stuff from Seachem for that is the best one. I would have two of three of these baskets filled with it.

2.You do not need so many sponges. They are good to trap coarse pieces of organic matter but they get clogged within the time, substantially reducing waster flow (and hence, oxygen flow). They are good as a pre-filter stage. I would keep only two of those ones with finer gaps, getting rid of the rest.

3. Careful with active carbon. It add phosphates, which is not an issue "per se" as in planted aquariums is a nutrient, but the annoying capability is that they affect to microlements, especially iron. The use of active carbon is only recommeneded for new tanks in which some premium soil has been added with excess of microelements and ammonium (e.g. ADA soils) and just for a couple of weeks.

4. Bioballs are rubbish (in my point of view). I would get rid of them, and perhaps use porous media, as proposed above.

5. Filter floss pads are useful, as they can retain thinner particles than the sponges. As they are thinner, they also have less effect in water flow when they get clogged. They need to be, maintained in  regular basis, however.

So considering the filter you have:

Top basket: Filter floss pad and bio-sponges but the ones with the thin gaps.

Medium basket #1: Porous media.

Medium basket #2: Porous media.

Bottom basket: Porous media.

If you need to use active carbon, you can replace the medium basket #1 with it.

That would be my strategy. But as said, this is not the only solution (and probably others will give you different approaches). Hope this help, though.

Cheers,
Manuel


----------



## DavidW

Best filter media I've used is Biohome it supports aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, but any sintered glass based filter media will do e.g. Eheim Substrate Pro. I'm using the Biohome in my sump and it's taken the nitrate level down from 40mg/l to 5mg/l.


----------



## Manuel Arias

DavidW said:


> Best filter media I've used is Biohome it supports aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, but any sintered glass based filter media will do e.g. Eheim Substrate Pro. I'm using the Biohome in my sump and it's taken the nitrate level down from 40mg/l to 5mg/l.



BioHome uses a denitrification strategy. Besides the fact that you do not want to your nitrates disappearing from water in planted tanks, denitrification is carried out by anaerobic bacteria, which means it can only happen with practically no oxygen, and it is also quite dependant of water flow, what makes it not easy to use in all the filters. For a sump can be OK, but not for a canister filter, as this case. Location of the Biohome in the filter then becomes rather important. Additionally, under anaerobic activity not only denitrification happens, but also formation of H2S and CH4. In both cases, these substances are quite toxic for aquatic life. In general terms this is not a problem, so far you do not disturb the filter or having any issue with the pump. However, if for any reason a mess happens, the media is stirred and that water goes to the tank...well.

I have read about the product in the past, and to be honest, I do not think is good for planted tanks, apart of implying an unwanted risks of toxicity. Considering that more conventional approaches work as good as this and with less a risk, I do not recommend its use. However, I recognize that can be interesting for people knowing what they do, and especially using sumps, as canister filters tend to get clogged easily and then requiring more maintenance (and then more risk).

Cheers,
Manuel


----------



## zozo

I think in terms of what is the best, if you leave the mechanical such as sponges and filter cotton part a side and emidiately jump to the biological part.  Then we might say in general consensus it would be the media providing the most surface area per volume.. And with regular media of differnet types usualy offered in the lfs it is often hard to say when you look at it from the outside which one has more to offer then the other. But can it be beter than sufficient?

Anyway there are a few very good explanatory videos about filtration on youtube from "Pondguru" and he has some very educative videos to show. I have no personal experience with a product he calls one of the best biomedias know as Biohome filtermedia. I believe it is not for sale in the Netherlands, don't know never saw it in any lfs and never bothered to order it, but it had me a little curious maybe one day i might.

But when it comes to surface erae as far as i know nothing can beat a fluidized sand bed filter. I have one in use in my low tech.. I used it for severla months in my high tech as well.

I didn't realy notice any difference or major improvements, nor anything negative when i stoped using it.. There was nothing happening telling me obviously it is so much better. Thus for my self i came to the conclussion i said above.. Can it be better than sufficient?

Ps, i see now some cross posting occured about Biohome..


----------



## zozo

We might add to the story  in a way people tend to think there is a major difference in mechanical and bio media.. As you might think a sponge and cotton is mechanical and some other alien substance is biological.. But a sponge or cotton can be as biolocical as any other media as soon as it starts to colonize a bacterial population it becomes both, mechanical as well as biological. Many of us probably all especialy the older genration started out with such a silly air driven in tank corner filter filled with cotton only.. Believe it or not, these silly things are very sufficient biofilters much more sufficient than a closed cannister just because they are air driven and very wel oxygenated.

Only thin is the biological part has to start up from scratch again every time it is cleaned out.. But in a well matured tank where the substrate takes a large chunck of this biopart as well a small tank can take that without any problems. I ran fish tanks for years with those silly things.

At the time my 45 liter high tech tank is running on a sponge cannister only.. (No hate emails please.. ) It contains no alien biomedia. It's the same story, if the substrate is mature enough the tank can take it and doesn't feel it if the filter is cleaned out partialy and needs to recolonize a little bit.. This goes rather faster than one would think. I experience absolutely no negative effect with not using other biomedia then sponges. The sponges are biomedia as well.. And it is sufficient..  (Sorry.. correction CAN be sufficient.)


----------



## DavidW

Manuel Arias said:


> I do not think is good for planted tanks, apart of implying an unwanted risks of toxicity.


Humm, my tank is a fully planted discus tank and the plants are growing really well and the discus are very happy. As for toxicity biohome is sintered glass which is the same as eheim substrate pro which is used in canister filter. I use eheim substrate pro in a canister filter on my smaller tank and have done for 3 years and have never had any issues with toxicity and I clean that filter quite regularly. I also have shrimp living in my sump quite happily. In my experience I've never had any toxicity issues with sintered glass as a filter media and never had any issues with plants not growing well others might have but for me it's the best filter media I've used.



zozo said:


> Anyway there are a few very good explanatory videos about filtration on youtube from "Pondguru" and he has some very educative videos to show. I have no personal experience with a product he calls one of the best biomedias know as Biohome filtermedia.


He's a very helpful guy I've spoken in depth with him about biohome before I purchased the product, I was sceptical at first but after seeing it in action I'm really impressed. He also told me the smaller version can be used in canister filters.


----------



## Manuel Arias

DavidW said:


> umm, my tank is a fully planted discus tank and the plants are growing really well and the discus are very happy.



Yes, of course. As many things, there is a difference between particular cases and general terms. In particular can go pretty well, and the product is good, do not take me wrong. As you well say, it is quite the same thing, being just a variety of sintered glass, so essentially pretty similar to any other sinteresed glass product for filter media.

Nonetheless, there is a difference: Eheim does not state their product removes nitrates by denitrification. This always happens in all the tanks, but the amount in which this happens is really minor and usually plants are the main reason of low nitrates levels, plus water changes of course: https://www.eheim.com/en_GB/products/filter-media/biological/substratpro
However, if they are pretty the same, why Biohome makes a totally different statement? http://www.tarkusaqualife.com/products/treatments/bio-home/ I doubt EHEIM would ignore a denitrifying activity in their filter media, unless it is happening but they consider is not significant (which is quite probably the truth of it). But then, if the product is the same material...why?

This leads to two possible situations:

1. Biohome are telling the truth, in which case, anoxia will generate too H2S and CH4. One thing goes with the other and that is well-settled knowledge. Obviously, H2S and CH4 will not last for long as there are other bacteria in the biofilms that use them when oxygen is available, but that is why I say is a bit risky under some situations. This would match the observations and would also match with the statement of Biohome requiring a good water flow, so to keep in bay the problem. In fact, have been reported that with the wrong flow rate, some problems can raise with it: http://www.fishlore.com/fishforum/m...opics/142845-new-bio-media-after-1-month.html

2. Biohome is making a bit of hype about its capability of removing nitrates by denitrification.

That is why I name it "risky". It works, that is for sure, but stops working if gets clogged or water flow is not high enough, and under some situations can produce toxic elements (not the material itself, but some of the anaerobic groups of bacteria growing in it). No other brands have copied it, so there must be some reason for that. Other filter media have also the same problems, but the requirements of maintenance and water flow are minor and the possibilities of this happening are minor. So yes, good stuff but in my point of view, not ideal for the general user. 

Cheers,
Manuel


----------



## DavidW

Manuel Arias said:


> Yes, of course. As many things, there is a difference between particular cases and general terms. In particular can go pretty well, and the product is good, do not take me wrong. As you well say, it is quite the same thing, being just a variety of sintered glass, so essentially pretty similar to any other sinteresed glass product for filter media.
> 
> Nonetheless, there is a difference: Eheim does not state their product removes nitrates by denitrification. This always happens in all the tanks, but the amount in which this happens is really minor and usually plants are the main reason of low nitrates levels, plus water changes of course: https://www.eheim.com/en_GB/products/filter-media/biological/substratpro
> However, if they are pretty the same, why Biohome makes a totally different statement? http://www.tarkusaqualife.com/products/treatments/bio-home/ I doubt EHEIM would ignore a denitrifying activity in their filter media, unless it is happening but they consider is not significant (which is quite probably the truth of it). But then, if the product is the same material...why?
> 
> This leads to two possible situations:
> 
> 1. Biohome are telling the truth, in which case, anoxia will generate too H2S and CH4. One thing goes with the other and that is well-settled knowledge. Obviously, H2S and CH4 will not last for long as there are other bacteria in the biofilms that use them when oxygen is available, but that is why I say is a bit risky under some situations. This would match the observations and would also match with the statement of Biohome requiring a good water flow, so to keep in bay the problem. In fact, have been reported that with the wrong flow rate, some problems can raise with it: http://www.fishlore.com/fishforum/m...opics/142845-new-bio-media-after-1-month.html
> 
> 2. Biohome is making a bit of hype about its capability of removing nitrates by denitrification.
> 
> That is why I name it "risky". It works, that is for sure, but stops working if gets clogged or water flow is not high enough, and under some situations can produce toxic elements (not the material itself, but some of the anaerobic groups of bacteria growing in it). No other brands have copied it, so there must be some reason for that. Other filter media have also the same problems, but the requirements of maintenance and water flow are minor and the possibilities of this happening are minor. So yes, good stuff but in my point of view, not ideal for the general user.
> 
> Cheers,
> Manuel



I generally take what companies state to sell products with a pinch of salt . I think probably the company that produce biohome are making a sales pitch to try and make there product stand out from the crowd. 

What brought it to my attention was that it was made of sintered glass which I have used for a long time and have always had great results with. 

So for me there were 2 reasons to try biohome the first one was it contains an added minerals that feed the bacteria and create a good environment for them (more sales talk but at least the science behind this seem ok), the second was the size of the biohome which made it easy to removal for cleaning, trying to remove 5kg of eheim substrate pro would have been a nightmare and cost a fortune!

Thanks for the education on the who nitrate process i've learned something new


----------



## Manuel Arias

Just to support a bit more the statements, I have looked for old information I got about the topic.

This is a pellet of Biohome, a mature one, splitted in a section:



 
The structure is as expected in any kind of media/sediment in which anaerobiosis takes place:

From outer part to inner part, the amount of oxygen reduces, This also changes the REDOX potential what alloews the reduction of several substances. The red layer, full of oxygen has its colour from nitrifying bacteria and heterotrophic bacteria. They need oxygen and then they reduce its availability for further use deeper in the pellet. The next layer, which is light brown, contains the denitrifying bacteria. They can reduce the nitrates to nitrogen gas, which leaves the warer. The next white layer is where Manganese reduces from Mn3+ to Mn2+ due to the reduction of the REDOX potential. The next layer is black and it is where iron reduces from Fe(3+) to Fe(2+). The reason why is black the layer is because iron reacts with H2S generated in the inner core, and FeS (iron sulfur) is not soluble in water and precipitates into a black mineral (commonly known as pyrite). Below it, it is a thin layer (yellowish) where reduction of SO4(2-) into H2S can happen by another type of bacteria. The H2S leaving that layer is the one which reacts with Fe(2+) generating the black stuff. And below this one, is a grey/brown area, in which the REDOX potential is low enough to produce methane. Methane, however, tends to react easily with oxygen, so unless production is large enough, it tends to be contained within the anoxic layer. 

The image comes from filterpro.co.uk: http://filterpro.co.uk/ekmps/shops/filterpro/resources/Design/biohome-maxi-ultimate-2-copy.jpg

This schema is then basically this one:



 

So all the elements are there. Biohome they say that "normal sediment properties do not apply" but..what else are they going to say if they sell the product? The images are clear enough, and also matches the need of high water flows. The thickness of these layers and positions will depend on the availability of oxygen. As the pellet is so dense, penetration of oxygen is rather limited. Only a part of it has in fact aerobic organisms. If you reduce the flow, the capability of oxygen to go deeper reduces even more, what causes the H2S and CH4 layers getting closer to the surface. If, for any reason, you do not perform the right maintenance, spaces between pellets will get clogged, and the anaerobic area will extend even outside the pellets. In such situation, perturbating the media (not talking about cleaning, just perturbation) can produce H2S going to water, which explains the toxicity I was referring to. Yes, I know: Probability is not high, unless you really neglect the filter, but it can happen. This is less likely to happen with other media.

So my point is: why using something that have some risks when there is other stuff that works just fine with such a hassle? On the other side, if properly used, it can help to reduce nitrates and also water changes. However. there are other reasons for water changes than NO3-, especially following EI method, so at the end, most people have to do the same routine anyway.

Obviously, this is just a comment from my side. Everyone is open to decide what they want to use, and many Biohome users are very happy with it. 

Cheers,
Manuel


----------



## Timon Vogelaar

Manuel, zozo DavidW, first of all thank you very much for taking time writing!

My filter has four trays and if i understand you correctly it is best to;
- Fill one tray with filter-floss and bio sponges; For small and bigger floating particles (and as zozo said; bacteria also colonizes in there)
- Trow out the bio balls, ceramic rings and other bio sponges
- Then there three trays left which i could fill with "porous media"

Well, Manual did a great job adding knowledge too this thread which made it harder for me to just choose which product is "the best" to use.
I need to read up on these things a bit more before i can say something useful about it. 

I've heard from someone who went to the Nature Aquarium Store in Tokyo that all of ADA's filters are mostly filled with just Bio Rio.
At least i can draw a conclusion is that pumice is a good option (from ADA or Seachem, maybe others there too).


----------



## Manuel Arias

Timon Vogelaar said:


> My filter has four trays and if i understand you correctly it is best to;
> - Fill one tray with filter-floss and bio sponges; For small and bigger floating particles (and as zozo said; bacteria also colonizes in there)
> - Trow out the bio balls, ceramic rings and other bio sponges
> - Then there three trays left which i could fill with "porous media"



That's totally right. I think we agree in the setup, and Marcel did a good job summarizing it up.



Timon Vogelaar said:


> Well, Manual did a great job adding knowledge too this thread which made it harder for me to just choose which product is "the best" to use.
> I need to read up on these things a bit more before i can say something useful about it.



Sorry about that. I have a personal crusade to provide scientific background supporting the statements. I learn in the process and no few times makes me change my mind about something I believed working in a way but was not. Anyway, it does not matter too much for your question, and it is relevant to other topic. 



Timon Vogelaar said:


> I've heard from someone who went to the Nature Aquarium Store in Tokyo that all of ADA's filters are mostly filled with just Bio Rio.
> At least i can draw a conclusion is that pumice is a good option (from ADA or Seachem, maybe others there too).



Yes, ADA recommends to employ only Bio Rio. They also produce filters with huge volume, so they think that large amounts of pumite are better than anything else. And I tend to coincide with them. However, I think that a pre-filtering is good to remove large particles and have better water, besides reducing the clogging of the media.

Cheers and sorry for the "scientific stuff"!

Manuel


----------



## Timon Vogelaar

Besides everything that is already said i would still love to here more! ;
_*Can you please advice me how i can improve my filtermedia by switching the media in with something better? 
Which changes would you make in my situation?*_


----------



## zozo

Yes Timon it always was and maybe always will be a bit, no longer see the wood for the trees, issue with all the different medias around and ways people apply them. And the stories told there after why it is used like that. They all will have a true side to the story and many are also a bit overrated.. There are so many ways to sufficiently filter an aquarium or pond with so many different materials and techniques it is already a painstacking job to sum it all up in a list and even more difficult to say what is the best.

I've been doing aquariums and ponds for the biggest part of my live starting at age 7 till today. And used about anything availble i could get my hands on and already made quite a few DIY filter systems.. Still i can not say what is the best to use in the way i used it.

The best answer i can give you is just read all information and deside for your self what makes most sence to you and give it a go..

There are things to take in consideration when installing a filter and this is bioload of the aquarium.. Higher bioload needs bigger and better filtration..
In this consideration are the differences between good and bad..

If the above filter is for the tank in the journal i think it will do the job.. And if it does, what more or any different would you add to make it even better and in which way is it better if it already does everything it needs to do without any problems?

Manual summed it all up pretty clear.. The best is simply a filter media which doesn't clog, so it keeps a good flow and is easy to clean..

As i told above, my high tech runs on sponges only already for months.. And i started with sponge and bioballs (the ones with the little sponges inside) then matured the tank, tossed the bioballs and installed a sand filter. Could see nor measure any difference for months.. Tossed the sand filter and never did put biomedia back.. Never noticed nor measured any difference again but more flow in the tank (which was the main reason for tossing the sand filter  ).

That's all i can say, for this particular tank.. And you don't hear me say only sponges are the best.. I lately heard some people in a podcast say toss all the sponges and fill the whole darn thing with biomedia and swear by it.  Well if it works, lets shake ratlte and roll, why not. But it wont make beer come out the filter outlet, unfortunately it stays water..


----------



## Daveslaney

Bioholme is a ceramic media?Heated to high temps. Not glass so the sructure of the media is totally different.


----------



## Timon Vogelaar

Daveslaney said:


> Bioholme is a ceramic media?Heated to high temps. Not glass so the sructure of the media is totally different.



What do you mean exactly?


----------



## Daveslaney

Biiholme is a ceramic heated to high temps that gives it a structure much like foam.
So it gives it a much larger surface area for bacterial colonisation  than pourous glass meda.


----------



## Manisha

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00317650/ bargain, if your interested in using pumice  The cost of building a wet/dry sump to use it, I however, may not be ...


----------



## DavidW

Manuel Arias said:


> This is less likely to happen with other media.


This would happen with any sintered glass media. I would be interested to know how old the biohome in the picture is, all sintered glass media should be replaced after a certain time, eheim recommend replacing the substrate pro after 1 year most like for the reasons you mentioned above and other filter media such as ceramic noodles and rings should be replaced about every 6 months and filter foam every month (well thats what the manufactures say )



Daveslaney said:


> Bioholme is a ceramic media?Heated to high temps. Not glass so the sructure of the media is totally different.


this is what the website says - 'Biohome is known as a 'SINTERED GLASS' media as it is mostly constructed from special sand. This material is colonised much faster than 'CERAMIC' media which is made from clay.'

All I know is it's doing a brilliant job in my sump


----------



## Daveslaney

I use it in my canister filters too.Does a great job.
Any pourous media will reduce nitrate to a degree due to anearobic activity in the pores of the media.The way i understand it this nitrate is converted into soluble nitrogen that is easily obsorbed by plants?


----------



## zozo

DavidW said:


> 'SINTERED GLASS'



Biohome is sintered glass, i missed? That somwhere before and have something else, but the same.. Tho not in a smooth saugage..

A lfs i come, sells this stuff as a pond filter medium in nameless bags rather cheap, i have it also in my sump and the helophyte filter in the garden pond. It definitely is frit. 

After some research i found the manufacturer Unigeni Minerals and the stuff is called Unigrog. 

I have the Unigrog 10



 

Both filters run like a charm on it, plants grow very well on it.. I have no idea what you guys pay for Biohome but this stuff is darn cheap and same stuff.

They have a rather wide range of granular filtermedia for water treatment. No idea about if their products go international, no international website.

Also used in other industries called Frit  e.g. laboratories.. (we call it commonly Glassfoam) And because it is used in different applications it comes in these industries in standarized porosity and sizes.. Then you know what you are ordering or filtering with if you like it like that. 
http://adamschittenden.com/frit_porosities_and_sizes.html


----------



## Nelson

I've not tried it,but there's also Alfagrog.Looks very much like UniGrog.
http://www.alfagrog.com/

Pumice,
http://www.kaizenbonsai.com/coarse-pumice-bonsai-soil-cactus-soil-alpine-soil


----------



## zozo

Nelson said:


> I've not tried it,but there's also Alfagrog.Looks very much like UniGrog.
> http://www.alfagrog.com/



Yup likely the very same stuff.. They also said to me unigrog can be used as substrate, but feeling it i wont let my school of cory's loos on that, it will probably cut more off than only the wiskers. But as base substrate it definitely is great stuff, in my pond filter basket all plants grow very good on it. I think this stuff can well be considered as a very good substrate for elevated ereas or just a base for planted eareas but well capped if loaches are kept.. I found it last year for the first time and dumped it in the sump, this year in the ponds filter basket. But not yet in a tank..  I have to go and see, if i remeber correctly but bought 1 litre bag for € 1.50,- he packet those himself to get the best price of course. Next time have to ask for the big bag price.


----------



## DavidW

I did look into alfa grog but the report I read said it needed changing quite often because it would get clogged up with dead bacteria, but given the price I may look at this again if / when I need to change the biohome. Alfagrog is nearly a 3rd of the price


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





DavidW said:


> I did look into alfa grog but the report I read said it needed changing quite often because it would get clogged up with dead bacteria


 I've never used <"Biohome">, but I'm sure it is just as good as <"alfagrog, pumice, eheim "cocopops"> etc. 

Having used it for a while I really like the Kalnes type K1 media (bought as generic "floating cell media"), partially because it is self cleaning. If someone else is paying I'll have "Substrat pro", but it really doesn't matter. 

If you keep all the filter material aerobic it has the ability to deal with large bioloads, oxygen is really the key.  If you have high flow through the filter the water remains oxygenated and you never get thick biofilms, or the type of zonation that "Manuel Arias" describes, develop.  

If you have <"plants efficient nitrification is an asset">, so if you can find filter types described as "nitrate factories" that is an advantage. 

The late <"Bob Marklew, Pleco breeder extraordinaire">, an engineer and extremely meticulous man was an alfagrog user, so I don't think there is much wrong with it.

cheers Darrel


----------



## PARAGUAY

Trying different things my 2000 ex it came with no sponges but a thin layer of  what appears to be filter wool pad in the four baskets ceramic noodle above in two followed by plastic bio balls in third tray above the pad,final tray of the activated carbon supplied above the pad. I tried loads of combinations since including nitrate removal media and also purigen in place of the carbon in the fourth basket and 2 sponges in the first basket.I have removed 50% of ceramic noodles every 6 months, not sure if I could leave these longer.?Stuart Thraves uses Alfagrog as substrate for plants in his "Setting Up A Freshwater Aquarium" book with stunning results


----------



## DavidW

dw1305 said:


> K1 media


Great media for fast ammonia removal and I love the way it tumbles when it's matured


----------



## zozo

DavidW said:


> Great media for fast ammonia removal and I love the way it tumbles when it's matured



Yes it's intriguing and fun to watch in a sump..  But the constant airpump running drove me nuts in the living room.. Might have bought the wrong one, but i doubt if there are any realy silent..


----------



## Timon Vogelaar

I'll try to sum some things up;

- When it comes to "porous" media there are different type of it. Some i got to know thanks to you:

Pumice, mineral, lava ect; ADA's Bio Rio, Seachem Matrix, Unigrog, Eheim Lav and casual lava stone
Plastic                              ; K1 media, Bio Balls, Sponges
Sintered Glass                 ; Biohome, Eheim Substrat and substrat Pro, Sera Siporax
Ceramic                           ; Noodles, Alfagrog, Eheim Biomech
Synthetic material            ; Seachem Purigen
Some things for me to consider:
- Sintered glass has probably the biggest surface area which makes possible to attach lots of bacteria. I do not like it i have to have to change it every half year.
- K1 is mainly used in sumps where air is flowing trough. I can't provide that.
- Manuals heads up on eventual risks of toxicity when using sintered glass.
- Also tempted to use pumice from ADA or Seachem. I've read that when you look with a microscope there is a big difference between regular pumice and pumice that ADA or Seachem use. So it's not "just" pumice that the brands sell. And your able to just rinse to clean and reuse.
- Seachem Purigen looks like something good to add since it is very unique.

Questions;
- Since i have no clue about most things Manual explained i wondered if people on UKAPS agree with his statements? Making products from sintered glass less attractive.
- Which media does not clog up?
- Any other kinds of porous media that have good value and should be on the list above?


----------



## Manuel Arias

Daveslaney said:


> I use it in my canister filters too.Does a great job.
> Any pourous media will reduce nitrate to a degree due to anearobic activity in the pores of the media.The way i understand it this nitrate is converted into soluble nitrogen that is easily obsorbed by plants?



You are right. Any media able to support a bacterial colony in the way I showed will have a certain degree if denitrification. The process becomes NO3- into N2. This can happen by absorption of protons, or by reduction through ammonium. Nitrogen in from of N2 is an inert gas, not able to react with anything in the aquarium and as an ideal gas, any excess of concentration is released to the air. It basically disappear from the tank. Some bacteria are able to use N2 to generate ammonia by using protons in water, inverting the process. However, this is a process that requires some specific conditions. In water, this process can be done by some bacteria/algae, like cyanobacteria.

The reason why we say Biohome is sinteresed glass is because it what says in the description of the product (first sentence of this link): http://www.tarkusaqualife.com/products/treatments/bio-home/

Cheers,
Manuel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Timon Vogelaar said:


> Sintered glass has probably the biggest surface area which makes possible to attach lots of bacteria. I do not like it i have to have to change it every half year.


It is all smoke and mirrors. 

You never have to throw it away, you can just rinse it and carry on for ever. If you are worried about the deeper micro-pores being blocked you can microwave it. 

I've actually got sponges that are 10 years old and still OK. 





Timon Vogelaar said:


> K1 is mainly used in sumps where air is flowing trough. I can't provide that.


 It is fine in a canister filter, if you contain it.





Timon Vogelaar said:


> Manuals heads up on eventual risks of toxicity when using sintered glass.


 It just isn't true. If you supply sufficient oxygen it is never going to develop the zonation you would see in a <"Winogradsky column">   (in Manuel Arias's schematic).





The real danger with all canister filters is that the media becomes de-oxygenated and then ammonia levels rise, causing lower oxygen levels, causing higher ammonia levels, causing lower dissolved oxygen levels _ad infinitum_ in a positive feedback loop. 

In a non-planted system biological filtration in a canister filter is always <"single point of failure">, and this is exacerbated by trying to have simultaneous aerobic nitrification and anaerobic denitrification in the same filter.  

I like any mechanical filtration to be in an (easy clean) pre-filter and I don't want anything (like floss or fine (PPI30) sponge) in the filter.

You can achieve nitrification and denitrification in the substrate or by using a HMF, or trickle filter, mainly because they have access to oxygen from the tank water and air, but a canister filter doesn't. A finite amount of oxygen enters the canister, and it can't be replenished once it is in the filter.  

A lot of people don't understand this, or why oxygen is so important. About ten years ago I wrote <"aeration and dissolved oxygen..">, largely based upon my experience working on the biological re-mediation of  landfill leachate, and I would say that it has stood the test of time remarkably well.





Timon Vogelaar said:


> I've read that when you look with a microscope there is a big difference between regular pumice and pumice that ADA or Seachem use. So it's not "just" pumice that the brands sell. And your able to just rinse to clean and reuse.


There are <"pumices with lots of different chemical composition">, it depends upon the geology of the volcano they were ejected from. 

However I would be surprised if any commercially exploited sources of pumice aren't derived from rhyolite (you only get huge volcanic explosions from silica rich magma), and you only get commercially exploitable deposits of pumice from huge explosions where the pumice has ended up in a lake or sea (on land large deposits will form welded Tuffs under their own weight).

You can re-use pumice, in fact you can treat pumice exactly like a sintered glass media, because they are basically the same thing. Are ADA's or Seachem's pumices better than horticultural pumice in use? I don't know, but I would be very surprised if they are.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

Purigen is quite pricy and doesn't last for ever, at one point it is done.. At least it was in my case, nice to give it a try but not again if there aint a good reason for it.
I tried to use to get the tanins from the wood out of the water, now i have about 5 kilo of mopani in the tank, didn't pre soak it and it is almost after a year still leaching. That wood is very agressive when it comes to leaching color. Can't say if the purigen helped so much but it was always coffee brown withing a few weeks, cleaned it about 4 or 5 times and it is about done taking up it seems.. I not spending more money on that part, eventualy it will clean out with water changes too. For the rest i personaly see no advantage in this stuffs other alledged properties over the cost of it.



Timon Vogelaar said:


> - Since i have no clue about most things Manual explained i wondered if people on UKAPS agree with his statements?


Haha what a question, you're probably the first one ver asked it.. You make me laugh, but in a good way..  yes there are few very scientific edducated people around here on UKAPS, Manuel and Darrel are only 2 of them and there is nothing much to disagree upon the knoweldge they share other then a little bit of nitpicking sometimes occurs. But that's more sport among acquaintances than disagreement.  Anyway you can take for granted they know what they are talking about.



Timon Vogelaar said:


> - Which media does not clog up?


That's the downfall of all canister filters, they are a closed system and no matter what you put in eventuely they all will clog up if not cleaned (enough) and then start to gass out into the water column and can be dangerous. So it all comes down to husbandry and how often and how good you clean your filter. When it comes to media it's in the porosity, the smaller the void the sooner it can clog, but if you wait long enoug everything gets cloged. That's all i can say about it, it never occured in one of my filters as far as i could determine. But in general my tanks are beter cleaned than my kitchen and have a strict cleaning schedule and never skip a session.. I guess it takes someone very lazzy or just not knowing when and what to clean to make a canister filter gass out. Even biomedia can be rinsed off once in a while, it is common sense to see when this is necessary. In an open biological filter, this aint such a big issue becuase the filter gasses out in the atmosphere.

But since you are so fanatic about filtering you might like this too..  and this will never clog.
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/fluidized-or-moving-bed-filters.38719/#post-435598
But also contains a small risk of gassing out into the water column as explained above. If these chances are high or slim i guess also comes down again to overall husbandry. In a nutshell, get sloppy get gassed.


----------



## hard determinist

Timon Vogelaar said:


> Also tempted to use pumice from ADA or Seachem. I've read that when you look with a microscope there is a big difference between regular pumice and pumice that ADA or Seachem use. So it's not "just" pumice that the brands sell. And your able to just rinse to clean and reuse.


It can be of interest for you to read through the following thread on TPT.net: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1045898-matrix-without-seachem.html.
The user tested the Seachem Matrix vs. Pumice for nitrification capacity. There is probably a lot of interesting data for your filter media consideration (as far as _nitrification_ is concerned).


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 
I have no knowledge of where Seachem get their pumice from, but the deposit worked by <"Hess Pumice Products"> in Idaho looks very interesting.



 

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

dw1305 said:


> looks very interesting.


Indeed and a funny note to the history..



> In 1958, a local farmer, frustrated by his inability to grow anything in the thin soil over what is now the Wright’s Creek Area pumice mine, leased the ground to Marion Hess, who ripped up the white volcanic rock and sold the crushed pumice to a building block manufacturer in Salt Lake City. From those humble beginnings, the now carefully refined, pure and white pumice from the Hess mine is in demand by industry worldwide.


And then the poor frustrated farmer pulled out his hairs..


----------



## DavidW

I think Darrel and Marcel, have summed this up brilliantly, all porous media will eventually get blocked without proper maintenance. Any dangers that may occur with certain media and toxicity is all down to how you maintain your filter and media. I don't believe there is a filter media out there that you can buy and then never have to do any maintenance to nor filter for that mater although a moving bed comes quite close. Everyone will have there own preference and swear by it.

In my canister on my smaller tank I have foam then ceramic noodles then eheim substrate pro then several more foam layer, and this has worked well for me for years. I do maintain the filter every 3 months by rinsing each media basket in  a bucket of aquarium water to get rid of any surface much and I also rinse the sponges until they aren't dirty anymore. My tank parameters are always solid and the water is crystal clear so I wouldn't change this setup because it works for that tank.

In my sump I have a lot of mechanical filtration before it gets to the biohome which will help prevent clogging, it is also at the bottom of a trickle tower so will say well oxygenated. As long as I clean it periodically it should last years. The guys on the cichlid forums have been using biohome for a while now and only have good things to say about it. So far the results im getting are excellent so I will be keeping my sump setup as it is.

I'm no where near as knowledgable as other forum member like Manuel about the nitrification process, all I know is what works for my tanks and what keeps my fish and plants happy


----------



## Daveslaney

Its the method as well as the media that helps too a wet dry /trickle tower in a sump will outperform submerged media ten fold due to the degassing effect using this method. Denitrification will still happen in the pores of the media and every thing is gassed of into the air.

So no danger of any toxic effects.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





DavidW said:


> In my canister on my smaller tank I have foam then ceramic noodles then eheim substrate pro then several more foam layer, and this has worked well for me for years. I do maintain the filter every 3 months by rinsing each media basket in a bucket of aquarium water to get rid of any surface much and I also rinse the sponges until they aren't dirty anymore. My tank parameters are always solid and the water is crystal clear so I wouldn't change this setup because it works for that tank.


 If it works, don't change it. There isn't just one method that works.

It isn't a very exciting, but I like a risk management strategy for biological filtration. The major reason for this is that if things go wrong you can rapidly end up with a low dissolved oxygen levels and that is a certain killer.

If you can build in spare filtration capacity, try and avoid single points of failure you can reduce the probability of an event happening. 

We have a great advantage in that we all have planted tanks, and plants are the most important single factor that increases biological filtration capacity and resilience.





DavidW said:


> The guys on the cichlid forums have been using biohome for a while now and only have good things to say about it. So far the results im getting are excellent so I will be keeping my sump setup as it is.


As a long time cichlid keeper, I think if this discussion had been on a cichlid keeping forum things could have <"spiralled out of control by now">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Nelson

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,It is all smoke and mirrors.
> 
> You never have to throw it away, you can just rinse it and carry on for ever. If you are worried about the deeper micro-pores being blocked you can microwave it.


I'm using some noodles that are about eight years old .After reading this thread,was going to bin them.
Never thought of nuking them in the microwave though .


----------



## zozo

Nelson said:


> Never thought of nuking them in the microwave though .



I once needed, wel thought i needed to clean my ceramic rings because the submersed canister they where in (in the pond) was cracked and bypassed the prefilter when i noticed the water and also the ceramic rings where coffee brown and slimey all over.. I rinsed them and left them in clean water for days till the water stayed clean, but still they where coffee brown. Then i boiled them for a while and still a lot of gunk came out. And was left with camou rings..
Also never thought of the microwave (dry heat)  to open them up again. But what i saw comming out after boiling, i guess that's not a bad idea prior to the microwave.


----------



## Daveslaney

I had a 6000 gal koi pond. Filtered by 2 double showers with 100 kg of bacteria house media in each shower. The watwr was fed to the showers straight from the 2 bottom drains no pre filters the flow rate was around 11000 gals per hour over the showers. Ran it like this for around 3 years before moved house. The nitrates in the pond ran at near zero. The water was clear enough to see to the bottom of the pond 6ft deep.
Never had to clean the media once in the 3 years.


----------



## DavidW

dw1305 said:


> As a long time cichlid keeper, I think if this discussion had been on a cichlid keeping forum things could have <"spiralled out of control by now">.


I take it there are differing opinions on the cichlid forum , when I was doing my original research the posts that were coming up in google were all really favorable which is one of the main reason I went for it. My discus can be quite messy so I figured if the stuff works for larger cichlids it would work for my discus and so far the results have been great.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Nelson said:


> Never thought of nuking them in the microwave though


 I've never tried this. I got it as a <"method from another forum">, and I've seen it mentioned a few times now so I assume it works OK.

We used to use sintered glass filters (I think these were borosilicate glass) a bit when we did the waste water work and when they were really gunky we used to autoclave them, so pressure cooking might work.


Daveslaney said:


> Filtered by 2 double showers with 100 kg of bacteria house media in each shower. The watwr was fed to the showers straight from the 2 bottom drains no pre filters the flow rate was around 11000 gals per hour over the showers. Ran it like this for around 3 years before moved house. The nitrates in the pond ran at near zero. The water was clear enough to see to the bottom of the pond 6ft deep. Never had to clean the media once in the 3 years.


Wet and dry trickle filters, like your shower filter, are the <"Rolls-Royce of microbiological filters">.

Because you have a shallow film of moving water they have a huge gas exchange area, and within the deeper media you are likely to get denitrication.

These filters will never become totally anaerobic, because they have access to atmospheric gases, allowing out-gassing of CO2 (and N2), and a continual supply of oxygen along the concentration gradient from the air into the water film. 

Combine a trickle filter with plants and you have a system which is even better. These are called <"vertical flow constructed wetlands">

cheers Darrel


----------



## Manisha

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,  I've never used <"Biohome">, but I'm sure it is just as good as <"alfagrog, pumice, eheim "cocopops"> etc.
> 
> Having used it for a while I really like the Kalnes type K1 media (bought as generic "floating cell media"), partially because it is self cleaning. If someone else is paying I'll have "Substrat pro", but it really doesn't matter.
> 
> If you keep all the filter material aerobic it has the ability to deal with large bioloads, oxygen is really the key.  If you have high flow through the filter the water remains oxygenated and you never get thick biofilms, or the type of zonation that "Manuel Arias" describes, develop.
> 
> If you have <"plants efficient nitrification is an asset">, so if you can find filter types described as "nitrate factories" that is an advantage.
> 
> The late <"Bob Marklew, Pleco breeder extraordinaire">, an engineer and extremely meticulous man was an alfagrog user, so I don't think there is much wrong with it.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Sorry to derail this very interesting thread...Darrel if you'd like, I have some substrat pro unused in original bag if you'd like for spare floaters if you've any?


----------



## Timon Vogelaar

Manisha said:


> Sorry to derail this very interesting thread...Darrel if you'd like, I have some substrat pro unused in original bag if you'd like for spare floaters if you've any?



Haha, nice one


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Manisha said:


> Darrel if you'd like, I have some substrat pro unused in original bag if you'd like for spare floaters if you've any?


I nearly always have spare floaters, PM me with your address and what you might like.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Timon Vogelaar

Well, after some more researching; 
- Correct me if i am wrong but after reading this thread again i believe that both Manuel and Darrel are pointing out the danger of getting your canister without or too little oxygenated water. 
- Correct me again if i am wrong; My plants are assimilating so hard that my tank looks like a bubble bath. So my conclusion is that it is almost impossible not getting enough oxygen in my canister. 
- In a non planted tank this risk becomes higher.

I ended up with Sera Siporax 1L and Eheim Substrat Pro 1L.
My canister buildup wil be like;
Basket 1; Medium sponge with fine wool mat
Basket 2; Siporax
Basket 3; Siporax & Substrat
Basket 4; Substrat

Sera states to have 270 m2 of surface area with 1L and i chose those because of the 15mm sized rings which are less likely to mess up my flow.
Eheim states to have 450 m2 of surface area with 1L. This looks like a commonly known product from a renowned company which sells quality products that has proven themselves to be good.

I want to thank all of you for your useful information, unvarnished opinions and the chitchat


----------



## gareth777

so glad this thread was created as im at the point of changing the media for my filter also the whole threads been very useful


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





Timon Vogelaar said:


> Darrel are pointing out the danger of getting your canister without or too little oxygenated water


Yes that is the principal worry for me. 





Timon Vogelaar said:


> My plants are assimilating so hard that my tank looks like a bubble bath. So my conclusion is that it is almost impossible not getting enough oxygen in my canister. - In a non planted tank this risk becomes higher.


 Much more of a risk if you don't have plants, but still a slight possibility in a planted tank, towards the end of the night (when plants are part of the bioload), if the filter becomes clogged and flow slows. 





Timon Vogelaar said:


> Basket 1; Medium sponge with fine wool mat


That should be fine. I don't have any <"filter wool in the filter">, but I have a <"sponge pre-filter on the intake for mechanical filtration">. 

cheers Darrel


----------

