what does gfo, and carbon do?

[DeadheadSC]

I lost two different kinds of tangs to what I believe to be secondary infections caused by erosion. I attacked the problem from several angles, so I can't say that it was carbon for sure. I am sure that I no longer run carbon and that the remaining fish have now fully recovered. GFO works, but, without addressing nitrates, you may be spinning your wheels with regard to nutrient levels.

 

[leemajors]

interesting

thinking about buying a gfo reactor:xd: good knowledge.......

 

[CastAway]

I would think that the right carbon, properly rinsed, would be an essential in a reef tank. Most information I read associate the dust from cheap carbons with HLLE, not the carbon scrubbing process itself. The higher end carbons are purported not to leach p04. Again, when one contemplates the chemical output of the organisms kept, carbon just seems to be an essential. For me, it's the idea of dosing and the use of carbon that seem counter intuitive, or self defeating.

 

[Alabamareef]

Sorry to hear about your loss. I have a 180 gallon with several tangs and have never had an issue and running carbon 24/7. I have read about this happening. I do a good flush when I change the media and it runs through a filter sock before it gets into the tank.

I lost two different kinds of tangs to what I believe to be secondary infections caused by erosion. I attacked the problem from several angles, so I can't say that it was carbon for sure. I am sure that I no longer run carbon and that the remaining fish have now fully recovered. GFO works, but, without addressing nitrates, you may be spinning your wheels with regard to nutrient levels.

 

[big ole blue]

I would think that the right carbon, properly rinsed, would be an essential in a reef tank. Most information I read associate the dust from cheap carbons with HLLE, not the carbon scrubbing process itself. The higher end carbons are purported not to leach p04. Again, when one contemplates the chemical output of the organisms kept, carbon just seems to be an essential. For me, it's the idea of dosing and the use of carbon that seem counter intuitive, or self defeating.

So if running carbon reactor "depletes dosing", to which types of dosing are you referring too? If I set up a kalkwasser drip would the carbon defeat the task? What about alkalinity levels and magnesium levels?

 

[CastAway]

I would think carbon would remove some of the trace elements commonly dosed, Iron, Iodine, maybe even magnesium. Not sure about Calcium or Kalk. We'll see if an expert chimes in....

 

[FlyinBryan]

Carbon dosing helps the protein skimmer be more efficient. It binds to the po4 and nitrates, PS pulls them out. I use it on my 30 and it works flawlessly. I dont run gfo/carbon because i dose carbon. Doesnt pull out minor or trace elements at all. I run gfo/carbon on my 150 and it works awesome! I also run cheatto/coulorpa algae as well. Carbon also helps keep water nice clear, kind of buff's it out if you will.
Guys that run really heavy sps tanks will carbon dose but wont run carbon reactors. They do use biopellets as well. I did alot of research on this. I run po4 around .02-.04 for clams and lps. The small amt of sps i do have grow just fine.

 

[CastAway]

I dont run gfo/carbon because i dose carbon.

Bryan, not to hijack the thread, but could you explain how dosing carbon, vinegar or vodka I assume, eliminates the need for using granular carbon. Does the increased bacteria in the water column reduce more than po4 and no3?

 

[NeveSSL]

Activated carbon removes dissolved compounds, and that's probably all. From Tom Murphy:

There has been a great debate for years on whether one can/should run activated carbon in a reef tank. The anti-carbon argument takes the position that carbon removes beneficial material that coral and other inverts consume. I have never heard a convincing explanation of what this supposed food consists of or what it does for these organisms. Carbon is used to remove dissolved organic compounds from the water. The effect of DOCs could be to merely cause the water to take on a yellowish appearance they can consist of complex organic toxins produced by the creatures in the tank. Dissolved substances are not directly absorbed by higher animals and are mainly consumed by bacteria and algae. Coral, anemones and similar critters don’t directly consume dissolved organic materials. The zooxanthellae in corals don’t benefit much from dissolved organics as they get their nutrients directly from the coral and the uptake is extremely fast. It is highly unlikely that running carbon 24/7 removes any material that is essential to the livestock in a tank. Carbon improves water quality and reduces bioload on the tank, so I would say to go ahead and use it.

Source: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2009-04/newbie/index.php

Brandon

 

[DeadheadSC]

I totally agree on the ability of granular/pelletized carbon to pretty much eliminate any yellowing in your water. I've found that using r/o di and keeping a regular water change/ maintenance schedule is the best recipe for clarity. I ran gfo for about a year and it does get the job done. I've been trying the Red Sea liquid for a few weeks, and I have to say that this product seems to do an outstanding job of lowering nitrates and phosphates. These are definitely the lowest nutrient levels I've seen and it appears to be fairly easy to tune in those levels once you've reached your desired parameters. The explanation provided by the user guide provided in their product and their test kits it's some of the best I've seen as a consumer.
I have run pellets in the past and I will warn you guys that if your nitrates are elevated, you need to be very careful and conservative when dosing carbon. I speak from experience. Having your wife walk in on a crashing tank smile your at work outs not great for your tank or your marriage. Try starting with half of what they recommend and work your way up. I know this it's a little off topic, but since dosing came up...

 

[Reefing Madness]

Bryan, not to hijack the thread, but could you explain how dosing carbon, vinegar or vodka I assume, eliminates the need for using granular carbon. Does the increased bacteria in the water column reduce more than po4 and no3?

It doesn't do anything for water clearity. it just removes Nitrates for the most part, and very little phosphate as a secondary.

 

[Reefing Madness]

Carbon dosing helps the protein skimmer be more efficient. It binds to the po4 and nitrates, PS pulls them out. I use it on my 30 and it works flawlessly. I dont run gfo/carbon because i dose carbon. Doesnt pull out minor or trace elements at all. I run gfo/carbon on my 150 and it works awesome! I also run cheatto/coulorpa algae as well. Carbon also helps keep water nice clear, kind of buff's it out if you will.
Guys that run really heavy sps tanks will carbon dose but wont run carbon reactors. They do use biopellets as well. I did alot of research on this. I run po4 around .02-.04 for clams and lps. The small amt of sps i do have grow just fine.

The protein skimmer is removing the dead bacteria that comes from them eating out the nitrates in the tank. Thats why it needs to be in perfect condition, or the water quality will really go to pot.

 

[ajones2n]

So now how does carbon dosing have different effects from running carbon in a reactor. Wouldn't you be incorporating carbon either way? So would the effects not be the same?

Sorry I've read the thread over several times. I'm still getting my feet wet so just trying to wrap my head around things.

 

[NeveSSL]

Carbon dosing is 1000% different from running activated carbon in a reactor. Carbon dosing is adding carbon to a tank for bacteria to grow and multiply by and then you skim them out. Carbon can be dosed via several different media, including vinegar, vodka, and bio pellets run in a reactor.

Activated carbon has tons and tons of tiny holes in it that absorb dissolved organics in your water, therefore making it clearer.

There's a lot more to both of these subjects, but I think that's a fair overview.

Brandon

 

[CastAway]

Yes, two entirely different things. This happens a lot actually; say the word "carbon" and threads about one topic or the other can get confused.

My own kindergarten understanding is that carbon dosing is adding a form of carbon (vinegar, vodka or sugar) to feed and increase the numbers of no3 and po4 eating bacteria. Bio-pellets in a reactor are simply a solid form of the same chemicals. The increased number of bacteria, full of ingested no3 and po4, get skimmed out thus reducing the amount of available no3 and po4. In fact, if you don't skim it out, or you don't have a very effective skimmer, the bacteria die and the no3 and po4 are released right back into the tank. So, it's not as much carbon dosing making skimming more efficient as it is dosing making nutrient export more efficient, if you have a good skimmer. In the case of vinegar, I know the carbon is in the form of acetate, and that is the extent of my chemical understanding.

When it comes to using granulated activated carbon, and as others have already said, this is just filtering at the molecular level i.e. taking bad stuff out, not adding any form of carbon in. Although it is referred to as "chemical" filtration, I think of it as mechanical filtration actually, as it simply traps the right sized molecules indiscriminately, good and bad.

Again, in my ignorance, using granulated carbon is a little different than using GFO. The carbon granules act like a sieve or strainer, catching chemicals indiscriminately, whereas GFO is more like a magnet perhaps, attracting and capturing phosphate in particular.

 

[ajones2n]

So what I'm taking away from this is carbon dosing in whatever form is simply a fertilizer for the bacteria to make your skimmer operate more efficiently. Granular carbon is simply a filter.

Now GFO does what again? Takes out phosphates?

 

[CastAway]

Exactly. Granular Ferric Oxide (GFO) is a "binder". It works at the ionic level, with positively and negatively charged ions, removing phosphate like a magnet. The use of GFO does affect other parameters though, and one should be aware of those before just starting to use it.

 

[Sman]

Wow great thread . learned a lot.

 

[big ole blue]

Pros and Cons of GFO and Activated Carbon

Exactly. Granular Ferric Oxide (GFO) is a "binder". It works at the ionic level, with positively and negatively charged ions, removing phosphate like a magnet. The use of GFO does affect other parameters though, and one should be aware of those before just starting to use it.

Could you elaborate on the other parameters that are affected by GFO?

Also, to my assumption, Using activated Carbon the same way one would in a freshwater system (Media Sock/Filter Cartridge) would be beneficial in the aspect of removing dissolved organics? Isn't that the same effect one would get from a quality skimmer? That being asked, Is Activated carbon a waste of time and maybe even an increased risk if one ... skips a few steps on their cleaning cycle?

 

[CastAway]

Although I think there is some debate on why, I read that using GFO can lower alkalinity and subsequently pH. I've read that one should ramp into GFO slowly, using far less than what may be prescribed by vendors or manufacturers, so that there are no sudden swings, and one can adjust the balance gradually. Great question on what a skimmer might remove compared to what carbon might remove. All I know is that skimmers remove surfactants, things that might form a film on the water surface of a tiny bubble, or on the surface of the tank for that matter, thus the word "skimmer". While activated carbon works on absorption and adsorption, by physically trapping molecules based on size, and, attracting molecules of a certain charge, respectfully. Do they remove the same things? I'm sure they do. But, will one remove something the other wont, or better? IDK. I personally am not convinced yet, but it seems a lot of people do say activated carbon is a waste. One of the things I love about this hobby, a little subjectivity. Every system is truly unique.