What goes first? Purigen or Chemi-pure?

What goes first in order of filtration in an AIO?

  • Purigen

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Chemi-pure

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • Doesn't matter.

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • Don't use those... (Give your suggestions in the comments)

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17

Daniel@R2R

Living the Reef Life
View Badges
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
38,516
Reaction score
67,449
Location
Fontana, California
What state or country do you live in
California
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Setting up an AIO. Planning to use purigen and Chemi-pure (and seachem matrix) for filtration in my sump compartments. So...which one would you put first (in order of flow through)? Purigen? Or Chemi-pure?
 
Last edited:
Why not both?....not exactly sure how these 2 media's would react together
I'm currently planning to use both. I'm wondering which one should go first in flow through order. I edited the original post to try to make that more clear. :-)
 
I read once that the water should flow through purigen right before going back into tank so I have mine filter floss, chemipure elite, marine pure and the the purigen between that chamber and the return pump chamber.
 
Why would you run purigen and chemipure? My chemipure has purigen in it already?
 
The small white beads you see in chemipure are purigen. Purigen lasts a lot longer than carbon (the other part of chemipure) so maybe set it up so the chemipure is easier to reach? Having it go first will also further extend the life of the purigen.
 
Why would you run purigen and chemipure? My chemipure has purigen in it already?

The small white beads you see in chemipure are purigen. Purigen lasts a lot longer than carbon (the other part of chemipure) so maybe set it up so the chemipure is easier to reach? Having it go first will also further extend the life of the purigen.
Purigen is already in the Chemi-pure... Well, shucks! I didn't know that. LOL The suggestion to have Chemi-pure first based on rate of exhaustion makes sense.
 
I'm currently planning to use both. I'm wondering which one should go first in flow through order. I edited the original post to try to make that more clear. :-)
I would use floss than purging than chem pure if now than the bag may clog up making it hard for the other two to work
 
My purigen lasts about 2 months before I need to pull it and regenerate it. I change carbon every 2 weeks. I never could understand chemipure blue as you are wasting money throwing out every 2 weeks when the carbon is spent and the purigen is just getting started.
 
The small white beads you see in chemipure are purigen. Purigen lasts a lot longer than carbon (the other part of chemipure) so maybe set it up so the chemipure is easier to reach? Having it go first will also further extend the life of the purigen.

Why do you think that material is identical to Purigen? I don’t think the exact composition of either one is publicly known, and the functional claims are very different.
 
Last edited:
While we are on the topic of Chemi Pure, let's get a cynical laugh at their claims:


"Chemi-pure can be used with all water types as a chemical absorption filter, ion generator, and exchange unit to positively keep pH at a perfect and constant level. ...................

Chemi-pure does not remove trace elements and is the only filter medium which aids in the natural balance of positive and negative charges, with an emphasis on the beneficial negative ion. "

It keeps pH perfect and constant, balances ions (nature does that just fine) and it focuses on the beneficial "negative ion".

Love those negative ions. Wish there were more of them and fewer of those nasty positive ones.
 
Why do you think that material is identical to Purigen? I don’t think the exact composition of either one is publicly known, and the functional claims are very different.
My understanding is that they are two synthetic resins both used to adsorb organic compounds and similar enough in form and function to be considered the same thing. Just passing on the information that I have found helpful. Purigen is easily more cost effective, so it’s good to know that it serves the same purpose effectively.
 
My understanding is that they are two synthetic resins both used to adsorb organic compounds and similar enough in form and function to be considered the same thing. Just passing on the information that I have found helpful. Purigen is easily more cost effective, so it’s good to know that it serves the same purpose effectively.

You literally said they are the same, but there is no reason to think that. The claims for what they do are very different. I think they are very different polymers. One is highly charged (Chemi pure) or it couldn’t claim ion exchange. Purigen does not make any claims about ions.

I do believe the only thing both usefully do in seawater is bind organics, but that does not make them the same. GAC also does that, but few would claim Purigen and GAC are the same.
 
My understanding, it depends which cemipure you use. Chemipure blue has purigen. The others don’t.

And the basis of that claim is what?
 
Why would you run purigen and chemipure? My chemipure has purigen in it already?

Really? Why do you think that?

Can no one making such a clear and strong claim provide any evidence?
 
You literally said they are the same, but there is no reason to think that. The claims for what they do are very different. I think they are very different polymers. One is highly charged (Chemi pure) or it couldn’t claim ion exchange. Purigen does not make any claims about ions.

I do believe the only thing both usefully do in seawater is bind organics, but that does not make them the same. GAC also does that, but few would claim Purigen and GAC are the same.
They both do basically the same thing. Using both might not be a big difference over just one of them. But IMO, order doesn’t matter.
 
Really? Why do you think that?

Can no one making such a clear and strong claim provide any evidence?
It has an organics scavenging resin according to chemipure which to me is essentially the same compound as purigen. They make slight tweaks to it I'm sure to avoid patent infringement but it's like buying branded pharmaceutical or generic. Same deal in the end only price affects your decision.
 
You guys have jumped from two entirely different manufacturer descriptions to you think they do the same thing to they ARE the same thing.

I think maybe you folks are not aware of the vast world of different polymers and what they would do in seawater.

I’ve spent more than 30 years designing and synthesizing polymers to bind specific organic and inorganic chemicals. I have personally synthesized hundreds if not thousands of different polymers. Teams I have led have synthesized thousands to tens of thousands of different polymers. I have designed them to bind sodium or potassium or phosphate or ammonia or iron or bile salts or fat or clostridium difficult toxin or lps toxin or lipase or amylase, and on and on.

They are all different. Positively charged, negatively charged, zwitterions, uncharged, hydrophilic, hydrophobic, specific binding moieties, different molecular weights and pore sizes, various combinations of these properties, and on and on. When placed into seawater, they will do different things.

For you guys to claim without any evidence that two polymers that make totally different and no overlapping claims of functionality to be the same is stretching credulity.

yes, they will both bind organics. Probably different subsets of the organics and inorganics in reef tanks, with different potency at doing so.

that last statement is what I suggest you tell people when comparing them, not that they are the same.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%

New Posts

Back
Top