• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Use of Activated Carbon, Purigen, etc.

Well, when I attempted using H2O2 I went into unexplored territory. My thought went in the way that 'why should I use potentially dangerous chlorine-containing oxidizer instead of residue-free hydrogen peroxide?' As for Seachem, they're businessmen, and not particularly honest, in my eyes. So, if they argue against H2O2, I hardly care.
Anyway, I'm using diluted H2O2 for several years already, regenerated my sacks of Purigen many times, and they still apparently work as new. I didn't perform any scientific analysis, though.
One more thing: It often takes several days until Purigen gets white again. Maybe bleach works faster, I don't know.
 
Hi all,
Anyway, I'm using diluted H2O2 for several years already, regenerated my sacks of Purigen many times, and they still apparently work as new.
I mean they don't have any vested interest in any regenerating product so why would they explicitly reject Hydrogen Peroxide as an alternative?
I don't think they do explicitly reject using H2O2, I actually think we might be back with Seachem and their <"very careful use of wording">.
We can only be certain that hypochlorite bleach will be both effective at regenerating the Purigen and removable by Prime.
The emphatic "No" is what you see, but it is qualified by "........ we can only be certain", and that is their get-out clause.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
Well, when I attempted using H2O2 I went into unexplored territory. My thought went in the way that 'why should I use potentially dangerous chlorine-containing oxidizer instead of residue-free hydrogen peroxide?' As for Seachem, they're businessmen, and not particularly honest, in my eyes. So, if they argue against H2O2, I hardly care.
Anyway, I'm using diluted H2O2 for several years already, regenerated my sacks of Purigen many times, and they still apparently work as new. I didn't perform any scientific analysis, though.
One more thing: It often takes several days until Purigen gets white again. Maybe bleach works faster, I don't know.
And you never see any broken beads or some dust after using H2O2?
 
And you never see any broken beads or some dust after using H2O2?
No. The bag remains full, and I've never noticed any pollution in the liquid in which I soak Purigen. If I had, I'd attribute it to the oxidized pollutants rather than to Purigen damage. Anyway, the water remains clear.
 
Have a wee look on my journal buddy. I brought a rather large bag home from work with me.
Is it this?
 
I have my doubt that Seachem produces the product called Purigen themselves... They most likely have a contract with the producer to sell under a so-called different brand/trade name.

Here is one of the leading companies trading in Filter resins and there are quite a few.
If you go by the colour Tan it could be this or that..?

Whatever it is, it obviously has its raw ingredients that could be this or that too for example a mineral bound with a resin and then heated to get a porous end product.
You could compare it with Alfagrog - Frit - Sintered glass or Porous glass all 4 about the same that is a powdered mineral (among other silica) backed at high temperature (below its melting point) called the Sol-Gel process which results in a porous glass pebble which is a perfect plant and filter media. Now when is a substance Gel and when is it Resin? Both could be the very same thing and in a sense, Alfagrog could be named a resin product too it's a matter of commercial interpretation. So what's in the name, pottery has different product names but al all comes down to a certain type of clay that becomes some different product, such as after a backing process White clay becomes Porcelain/China. And what is clay? To powder ground mineral mixed with water...

The same happens with Osmocote® fertilizer, which is the registered product name... But there are many other brands selling Osmocote® under their own name without the need of mentioning it's actually Osmocote. I have no idea what these legal contracts/licenses or business deals are called. But it happens all over the place.
 
I have my doubt that Seachem produces the product called Purigen themselves... They most likely have a contract with the producer to sell under a so-called different brand/trade name.
My bet would be on a company like this. Sadly they’re not likely to sell to the public.
 
I'm happy to put in a big order with our raw material supplier if people are wanting to save alot of money. At less than 13 pound for 5 litres...... No profit just donations. They manufacture this themselves.
It is not produced by a certain brand, they researched and found a product, tried it and gave it a fancy description. How they can say it can remove LARGE organic particles I don't know,especially given the bead size. It's not acrylic though.
The reason it gives a final polished look is it takes in the very minute organic particles that pass through floss carbon etc.
There are lots of other fairly similar looking products on the raw supply sites but the majority work slightly different and need salt solutions to restore it.
 
Is it this?
No that's a different product
Is it this?
No its not the polysorb or any of their stuff, but if you were to look at any of their products, the 'closest' to purigen abd it's properties would be the macronet resin mn200 mn202
 
Hi all,
I have my doubt that Seachem produces the product called Purigen themselves... They most likely have a contract with the producer to sell under a so-called different brand/trade name.
This is what <"Aquarium Science"> says, I'm not a chemist so I can't vouch for the veracity of it:
...... As a chemist well versed in polymer chemistry, based on the fact that the material swells in water and based on the decomposition products listed in the MSDS (no nitrogen compounds and no sulfur compounds), Purigen is simply a hydrophilic carboxylated acrylate polymer structure which gives a “macro-porous” surface for beneficial bacteria to colonize. ...........

There are no special properties which such a plastic would have. It categorically is not an “organic scavenging resin”. The hydrophilic carboxylated acrylate chemistry is used in making baby diapers. This would appear to simply be one of the plastic resin bead feed stocks for making baby diapers.......
I don't know if that would contradict? Its ability to <"filter out tannic substances and dyes">.

cheers Darrel
 
Hi all,

This is what <"Aquarium Science"> says, I'm not a chemist so I can't vouch for the veracity of it:

I don't know if that would contradict? Its ability to <"filter out tannic substances and dyes">.

cheers Darrel
Thanks for that Darrel. It seems Purigen is no better than carbon for removing tannins that colour the water?
I gave up on the idea of using it not only because of the cost but also pouring bleach down the drain after recharging it.
It seemed to me rather daft to use it in a fish tank then pouring products down the drain that can harm wild fish.

If an alternative product is available at a reasonable cost that doesn’t require bleach then I’d be interested.
As a matter of interest I buy 12% H2O2 anyway if that can be used?
 
This is what <"Aquarium Science"> says, I'm not a chemist so I can't vouch for the veracity of it:
I wonder who stands behind 'Aquarium Science'. I know something about home experiments. They are rather costly, and above all, time consuming. I wonder who could possibly perform so many tests as an amateur? True, the author does not insist to be an amateur. If he/she is a pro, then crucial question arises: who pays for that?
It routinely attacks all commercial products. In that, I may agree in many instances, but again - doing tests which prove anything is difficult, expensive, and usually takes much more time than one can imagine. In short, I'm pretty suspicious about this 'Aquarium Science'.
 
Back
Top