Aquaforest Activated Carbon

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

In your opinion randy, do you think the rox.08 is a better carbon that what chemipure blue or reef spec carbon by red sea uses?

I have no idea. I like ROX, and would generally prefer acid washed carbon to nonacid washed, but other than that, I've not seen good comparative data.

 

[DSC reef]

I have no idea. I like ROX, and would generally prefer acid washed carbon to nonacid washed, but other than that, I've not seen good comparative data.

Thanks randy

 

[TbyZ]

NEAL MEGONNELL, CALGON CARBON CORP
JUN 17, 2002
THE GREAT ACTIVATED CARBON DILEMMA

Fresno Discovers Big Difference Between Reagglomerated Carbon and Direct Activated Carbons

Drinking water treatment professionals have long held fast
to the belief that granular activated carbon (GAC) based on bituminous coal
provides the best performance for their demanding application. That’s
why, when an article in 1999 cited evidence that a lignite-based GAC
outperformed a bituminous-based carbon, industry experts were surprised and
more than a bit skeptical.



The results of the study published in the article detailed
how the Fresno Sole Source Aquifer in California selected lignite-based carbon
after reviewing a manufacturer’s comparison test. It offered evidence
that lignite-based GAC treated 35 percent more water than the bituminous GAC
before reaching saturation. Furthermore, the test showed that lignite GAC had a
30 percent longer life than bituminous GAC.



“The study clearly was misleading,” says Andy
McClure, marketing manager for Calgon Carbon Corp. “The data were 100
percent correct, but what the report didn’t say was that the study
compared lignite-based carbon with bituminous-based carbon that was produced
offshore through a direct activation process. That’s a totally different
product than the reagglomerated bituminous coal-based carbon most water
treatment professionals use.”

https://www.wwdmag.com/carbon/great-activated-carbon-dilemma

Now the aboves not specifically targeting salt water, but its the first thing I came across, at 1:15 in the morning, to make my point.
I had previously found other articles that do specifically attribute differences in efficiencies between different types of coal used for activated carbon for salt water, (i have deleted them unfortunately) & I will try to find them again after a good night sleep.

Perhaps Aquaforest knows which type of coal their extruded activated carbon is produced from?

 

[TbyZ]

https://www.jurassiccarbon.com/pages/activated-carbon

1. Bituminous Coal based activated carbon

The bituminous coal based activated carbon has highly developed porous structure and large specific surface, large micropore volume, high hardness, wear and impact resistance and easy regeneration. It has high capacity on the adsorption of organic solutes, free chlorine and harmfull gas in air.


2. Lignite coal based activated carbon

The carbon made from lignite tend to have a large pore diameter with a higher total pore volume (higher molasses number) that makes better suited for the removal of large color body molecules (removal of large molecular weight from chemical compound) from liquids and the removal of sulphur (Hydrogen Sulfide) from vapors. The carbon gives you greater adsorption capacity, high ignition temperature, lower iodine number plus lower density. Lignite based activated carbon is macroporous. It has 20% more total pore volume than bituminous based coal carbon.


3. Anthratics Coal Based Activated Carbon

Pallet activated carbon can be supplied from the range of 0.8mm till 4.0mm in diameters. This series carbon is made of high standard “Taixi” anthracite, processed through grinding, mixture, extrusion, carbonization and steam activation etc. Due to the high mechanical hardness, highly developed porous structure and huge specific surface area, its can be widely used in both of gas-phase and fluid-phase purification and absorption, catalyst carrier, poison proof and security protection.


good night

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I really don't understand how or why or want to focus on the type of coal it comes from rather than the specifications of surface area available for different types of molecules to absorb. The activation process and subsequent processing is a huge factor in determining the characteristics of GAC. The stuff you post simply comments on some particular brands of specific materials and what they make from it.

In your second post and link, I can't even tell which one you'd prefer for an aquarium application. They all sound good, as one would expect from a company commenting on their own products. They probably would all work fine. One needs to look deeper to make product choices.

This is what the link says:

1. Bituminous Coal based activated carbon

• Coal based activated carbon for water purification
  

2. Lignite coal based activated carbon
suited for the removal of large color body molecules (removal of large molecular weight from chemical compound) from liquids

3. Anthratics Coal Based Activated Carbon

• can be widely used in both of gas-phase and fluid-phase purification and absorption,

 

[120reefkeeper]

Well it looks to me that this has been answered pretty well. Anything more would just be drama for drama sake.

 

[TbyZ]

Well it looks to me that this has been answered pretty well..

Is that right 120? AF hasn't answered my question yet. I know, finally, that they use carbon, but what kind of carbon? Basic question I believe, & it does make a big difference, particularly when specific sized molecules are being targeted. Check out the BRSTV video I posted 120.

Anything more would just be drama for drama sake.

The "drama" could have ended at post # 3. If AF answered, for example, that their source material was toe nail clippings, I would has said thanks and researched it. End or story.

 

[TbyZ]

I really don't understand how or why or want to focus on the type of coal it comes from rather than the specifications of surface area available for different types of molecules to absorb. The activation process and subsequent processing is a huge factor in determining the characteristics of GAC. The stuff you post simply comments on some particular brands of specific materials and what they make from it.

In your second post and link, I can't even tell which one you'd prefer for an aquarium application. They all sound good, as one would expect from a company commenting on their own products. They probably would all work fine. One needs to look deeper to make product choices.

This is what the link says:

1. Bituminous Coal based activated carbon

• Coal based activated carbon for water purification

2. Lignite coal based activated carbon
suited for the removal of large color body molecules (removal of large molecular weight from chemical compound) from liquids

3. Anthratics Coal Based Activated Carbon

• can be widely used in both of gas-phase and fluid-phase purification and absorption,

The BRSTV video explains clearly why I asked the very simple & straight forward question "Hello Aquaforest; Can you tell me what source material is your carbon is made from"

“Today on BRSTV we’re going to show you why all these tiny little black rocks just aren’t the same.”

Regarding bituminous coal based activated carbon and Lignite coal based activated carbon, Ryan says -


“They all have very different pore structures and will work absolutely differently in the aquarium.”

“Each source materials pore network has unique properties that are ideal for different contaminants.”


“you want to select a carbon known for having a pore structure similar in size to the molecules your trying to remove. “


“For instance; carbon made from bituminous coal has a network full of very small pores.”

“Carbon produced from lignite has a very large average pore size. If we were trying to remove a small molecule like chlorine bituminous would be a good choice.
However, in the actual aquarium where trying remove much larger organic compounds and color pigments, so the larger pore network found in lignite carbon will perform much better.”


“So let’s talk about which one you should choose, and the answer is – any of them will likely work, but what you really want to know is which one is the best available, or which one is simply the best value.”

So Randy, perhaps now you can understand why I asked this very simple & straight forward question? I want to be confident the carbon I use is the most suitable, & therefore the most effective I can get, and not just some unsuitable junk I wouldn't bother using.

 

[120reefkeeper]

Is that right 120? AF hasn't answered my question yet. I know, finally, that they use carbon, but what kind of carbon? Basic question I believe, & it does make a big difference, particularly when specific sized molecules are being targeted. Check out the BRSTV video I posted 120.


The "drama" could have ended at post # 3. If AF answered, for example, that their source material was toe nail clippings, I would has said thanks and researched it. End or story.

Sorry if I came across as crass. I just know it works well for me.

 

[TbyZ]

Sorry if I came across as crass. I just know it works well for me.

No need to apoligise 120. It just seems to me that there's the suggestion I'm being pedantic & petty & I feel that I have to defend my reasons for asking a supplier a very basic question about one of their products.

I like AF. I use their Components 1 2 & 3 - components Strong - mix my own. Amino Mix & coral food.
But I won't use their activated carbon because I can only come to the conclusion that its bituminous coal based activated carbon & I won't use it.

 

[120reefkeeper]

No need to apoligise 120. It just seems to me that there's the suggestion I'm being pedantic & petty & I feel that I have to defend my reasons for asking a supplier a very basic question about one of their products.

I like AF. I use their Components 1 2 & 3 - components Strong - mix my own. Amino Mix & coral food.
But I won't use their activated carbon because I can only come to the conclusion that its bituminous coal based activated carbon & I won't use it.

What carbon do you use now?

 

[DSC reef]

I noticed the aquaforest carbon are very large pellets. I tried it but didnt notice anything special or negative. I get a lot less dust with the red sea reef spec carbon and chemipure blue. I dont know what is a better product but they've been working fine for me. I've never thought about looking into what type of carbon until this thread.

 

[TbyZ]

What carbon do you use now?

Aquamaxx ROX 0.8

I have to mail order it. The LFS sells AF products, that's why I wanted to investigate their carbon.

 

[TbyZ]

I noticed the aquaforest carbon are very large pellets. I tried it but didnt notice anything special or negative. I get a lot less dust with the red sea reef spec carbon and chemipure blue. I dont know what is a better product but they've been working fine for me. I've never thought about looking into what type of carbon until this thread.

 

[Anirban]

I dont think AF carbon is rox 0.8. As far I know there are 3 companies who sell it. Aquamaxx, vertex and BRS or may be some other whom I dont know. They are costlier than other available carbon but more aggressive in nature. I used to use BRS one but eventually moved from it due to its aggressive nature and also I don't use it continuously. So, if you want a rox grade one dont wonder just stay with it.

 

[TbyZ]

I dont think AF carbon is rox 0.8.

No, I'm sure it isn't. But lignite carbon is very good too.

 

[Anirban]

No, I'm sure it isn't. But lignite carbon is very good too.

In that case stay with what you are using now.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

So Randy, perhaps now you can understand why I asked this very simple & straight forward question? I want to be confident the carbon I use is the most suitable, & therefore the most effective I can get, and not just some unsuitable junk I wouldn't bother using.

I understand why you asked, based on Ryan's broad generalizations, but I would suggest that it would be better to ask for and/or look for actual data on actual products, rather than generalizations based on only one aspect of a product.

 

[TbyZ]

but I would suggest that it would be better to ask for and/or look for actual data on actual products, rather than generalizations based on only one aspect of a product.

I suggest you read post # 1

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I suggest you read post # 1

Fair enough.

I'd suggest asking for methylene blue number or molasass number, and ignore iodine number since it will make your less preferred small pore material (like the bituminous coal sourced GAC) look very good since it is very small.