Carbon rotation

[Bradley Crocker]

I'm sure this has been asked, but if you search for carbon....yeah...almost every post says something about it.

First, does anyone else rotate carbon/gfo? I have a reactor running 24/7, but I also have a bag of 2:1 carbon/gfo in my sump. Every 2 weeks, new stuff in the reactor, the reactor stuff goes in the bag, and the stuff in the bag goes bye bye.

Ive read you should rotate carbon (Fenner), but nothing about doing so with a reactor in the mix. The idea is that carbon is most effective after a certain amount of time, more so than when it's new.

My primary question: Should I be putting new carbon in my reactor and used in the bag, or vice versa? Or am I just wasting my time?

Also, my reactor (BRS deluxe reactor) is quite a bit larger than I need it. Can I use more than I normally need in order to keep the sponges in place? Can I run this increased amount for longer? If not, do you think the canister from the mini will fit the cap on the deluxe?

FYI, I only rotate my gfo because I premix it with my carbon. I don't think it needs to be rotated. Although it does last way longer than carbon, so maybe it's doing some good.

Anyway....thanks! And as always, I appreciate all your help and input.

 

[Triggreef]

I run each separate in its own reactor and dump when i feel they're exhausted.

I have been trying to run gfo and some other type of po4 media every other time. Only due to gfo leaving iron and aluminum based products leaving aluminum, and both picking up the other.

But to answer your question, your probably wasting your time, maybe even having a negative impact because carbon will release the stuff it cleans up when you disturb it. Also within a couple weeks, it's probably 95 percent exhausted at the rate that manufactures recommend.

 

[wpeterson]

Carbon is used as a filter material because of it's fine pore structure which binds/filters DOM and other chemicals/fine particulates in the water column.

Like any filter media - it becomes clogged as it's used and should be replaced (just like your filter socks, but with much smaller pores).

Carbon is much more effective in a media reactor, because water is forced through a column of carbon filter material, increasing contact and allowing a portion of tank water to be fully exposed end to end. Using a bag in your sump will be much less effective.

The rate at which activated carbon becomes clogged/less effective varies based on how much you use, the geometry of your reactor, and how much flow you're putting through it. However, most folks find 3-5 weeks is a normal lifespan in most reef tanks. I replace mine every month or so, but I can also observe how clogged the reactor is by judging the effluent/flow through the reactor.

 

[Bradley Crocker]

Thanks guys! I'll just run the reactor.

What other po4 media do you use? Can I just mix them with my carbon like I do with gfo? I'd get another reactor, but my sump and cabinet are about out of real estate.

 

[Triggreef]

I'm not a fan of mixing media just because they exhaust at different rates. Also carbon isn't advised to tumble, while gfo is.

 

[Bradley Crocker]

I'm not a fan of mixing media just because they exhaust at different rates. Also carbon isn't advised to tumble, while gfo is.

I'd much rather have two reactors, but space is limited so I mix the two. They don't tumble though. The only reason gfo needs to tumble is so it doesn't solidify.

I definitely hear you on the different usable durations the two possess. Carbon only lasts a fraction as long as the gfo, and the stuff can start to get expensive.

 

[Bradley Crocker]

Would it be possible to plumb two reactors together in parallel? If I use the BRS minis, I think I could mount one above the other, but they'd have to share the same inlet from my manifold.

 

[TbyZ]

Ive read you should rotate carbon (Fenner)

Do you have a link to that pls

 

[Bradley Crocker]

Do you have a link to that pls

A couple. This one seems like a decent article, but I haven't read it all the way through yet. http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_7/volume_7_1/carbon.html

And this one I have read, but it's not the one I was initially thinking of. http://www.wetwebmedia.com/chemFiltrMar.htm

They both actually refer to the bacterial populations being affected by its removal.

 

[TbyZ]

A couple. This one seems like a decent article, but I haven't read it all the way through yet. http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_7/volume_7_1/carbon.html

And this one I have read, but it's not the one I was initially thinking of. http://www.wetwebmedia.com/chemFiltrMar.htm

They both actually refer to the bacterial populations being affected by its removal.

Thanks.

Here a some other articles you may be interested in -

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1
&
http://www.hallman.org/filter/gac.html

 

[Bradley Crocker]

Thanks.

Here a some other articles you may be interested in -

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1
&
http://www.hallman.org/filter/gac.html

Looks like I have some reading to do! Thanks!

I like how the first article points out the contradictions between research studies. Like one says use with 4gph flow, and another says 100s gph. Change every week, to change every 4-6 weeks, etc. No wonder so many reefers can't see eye to eye!