this is probably a dumb question but im curious

[aussiejohnny]

since doing my reef tank ive been using gfo and purigen ,,,good combination actually .. but i wondered should i also use carbon in my reef tank or does gfo /purigen do the same thing ..also forgive the curiousity but what would be the effect if you used gfo in fresh water tank..

 

[Evil1]

I run all 3 in my tank. GFO to keep phosphates in check, Carbon & purigen to remove impurities. Yes you can use GFO in freshwater tanks. Like in a reef tank just test phosphates weekly to make sure you don’t bottom out

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

GFO and the use of (Purigen and GAC) are largely unrelated, binding mostly different things.

Purigen and GAC bind a more similar set of organic materials, but not identical. I use Rox 0.8 to bind organics since I'm not a fan of supporting Seachem, but Purigen is also a reasonable way to bind organics.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I use Rox 0.8 to bind organics since I'm not a fan of supporting Seachem

Are you running it in a filter bag or using some other method?

I may switch back. I was using the ChemiPure bulk pack of individual bags because it was convenient to rinse quickly and toss in the sump without loading bags or a reactor. I am not convinced that there is enough GFO in the product to matter or that the carbon is high quality.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Are you running it in a filter bag or using some other method?

I may switch back. I was using the ChemiPure bulk pack of individual bags because it was convenient to rinse quickly and toss in the sump without loading bags or a reactor. I am not convinced that there is enough GFO in the product to matter or that the carbon is high quality.

I'm using it two ways, Both in bags.

One is on the outlet of my Tunze skimmer, which has a media bag designed for it, although i think most of the water doesn't pass through it.

The second is in a cheap mesh bag from amazon in a DIY GAC holder made from stuff I had around (a salt bucket, a yogurt container, some fittings, and a take off from my return pump:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/randys-tank-and-learn-thread.1103636/page-151#post-14335047

 

[BryanM]

Are you running it in a filter bag or using some other method?

I may switch back. I was using the ChemiPure bulk pack of individual bags because it was convenient to rinse quickly and toss in the sump without loading bags or a reactor. I am not convinced that there is enough GFO in the product to matter or that the carbon is high quality.

I run Rox 0.8 in a BRS reactor.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I run Rox 0.8 in a BRS reactor.

Thanks Bryan!

I am bag or bust.

I will never again deal with another "reactor" for consumables. I loathed the process and the mess. The methodology boils down to: if I can't toss it in a bag in the sump, I am not using it.

 

[BryanM]

Thanks Bryan!

I am bag or bust.

I will never again deal with another "reactor" for consumables. I loathed the process and the mess. The methodology boils down to: if I can't toss it in a bag in the sump, I am not using it.

If I was an experimenter I'd try and devise a way to test the effectiveness of both methods.

I don't really like the reactor process, but in my head I feel its far more effective, which is the only reason I run them(One for carbon, the other GFO). If someone has done this and knows they are close in effectiveness I'd gladly remove both reactors :)

 

[Skippy The Meh]

GFO and the use of (Purigen and GAC) are largely unrelated, binding mostly different things.

Purigen and GAC bind a more similar set of organic materials, but not identical. I use Rox 0.8 to bind organics since I'm not a fan of supporting Seachem, but Purigen is also a reasonable way to bind organics.

Just curious as to why you dont like seachem?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Just curious as to why you dont like seachem?

Let me count the ways. lol

First, all of this is my personal opinion.

I do not respect them ethically or scientifically.

They push products that do not appear to work as claimed. Prime is an example. Very extensive testing by people here show no useful effect on ammonia, even when tested in a way that Seachem claims would show the effects

They push products that cannot work as claimed, and even when that fact is provided to them, they do not accept the simple chemistry. Aquavitro balance is an example. It is a hydroxide additive, yet they ludicrously claim it does not change alkalinity. Brightwell made a similar claim, but retracted it when confronted with the data and/or a request they test for themselves. Seachem simply disagrees with simple facts.

They fought me tooth and nail about Phosguard releasing aluminum back in the days before icp was widely available. They tout a study showing it does not release aluminum by using a method that by their own numbers could not have detected the levels I reported. Now everyone can see for themselves whether aluminum rises with Phosguard in their own tanks.

 

[Skippy The Meh]

Just curious as to why you dont like seachem?

Let me count the ways. lol

First, all of this is my personal opinion.

I do not respect them ethically or scientifically.

They push products that do not appear to work as claimed. Prime is an example. Very extensive testing by people here show no useful effect on ammonia, even when tested in a way that Seachem claims would show the effects

They push products that cannot work as claimed, and even when that fact is provided to them, they do not accept the simple chemistry. Aquavitro balance is an example. It is a hydroxide additive, yet they ludicrously claim it does not change alkalinity.

They fought me tooth and nail about Phosguard releasing aluminum back in the days before icp was widely available. They tout a study showing it does not release aluminum by using a method that by their own numbers could not have detected the levels I reported. Now everyone can see for themselves whether aluminum rises with Phosguard in their own tanks.

Interesting, i havnt used many of their products, however i picked up a cheap bottle of their phyto from a lfs bc i ran out of algae barn and forgot to order. Its the only phyto ive ever used that says it doesn’t need refrigeration. This has me curious to know whats actually in it..

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don't know anything about the product, but would hazard a guess that it is not juts "phytoplankton" but rather some blend of phyto and preservatives. So not live or dead whole phyto cells, but a milkshake.

The "keep refrigerated" products are typically either still alive or at least what's left of the living phyto that has not broken down.

 

[vetteguy53081]

I use one or the other , not both. Ferris oxide is strong and I avoid it unless absolutely needed. I find it better than purigen and for use, I often use a carbon reactor

 

[aussiejohnny]

I run all 3 in my tank. GFO to keep phosphates in check, Carbon & purigen to remove impurities. Yes you can use GFO in freshwater tanks. Like in a reef tank just test phosphates weekly to make sure you don’t bottom out

so could gfo be a replacement for carbon? in freshwater ..my thinking is that it would remove food for plants but what would be the effect on fish and quality of water ...levels of nitrate phosphate etc...not as critical in a freshwater tank..but a positive or negative effect?

 

[aussiejohnny]

Are you running it in a filter bag or using some other method?

I may switch back. I was using the ChemiPure bulk pack of individual bags because it was convenient to rinse quickly and toss in the sump without loading bags or a reactor. I am not convinced that there is enough GFO in the product to matter or that the carbon is high quality.

outside filter bagged gfo and bagged purigen..just fits

 

[Staghorn]

Let me count the ways. lol

First, all of this is my personal opinion.

I do not respect them ethically or scientifically.

They push products that do not appear to work as claimed. Prime is an example. Very extensive testing by people here show no useful effect on ammonia, even when tested in a way that Seachem claims would show the effects

They push products that cannot work as claimed, and even when that fact is provided to them, they do not accept the simple chemistry. Aquavitro balance is an example. It is a hydroxide additive, yet they ludicrously claim it does not change alkalinity. Brightwell made a similar claim, but retracted it when confronted with the data and/or a request they test for themselves. Seachem simply disagrees with simple facts.

They fought me tooth and nail about Phosguard releasing aluminum back in the days before icp was widely available. They tout a study showing it does not release aluminum by using a method that by their own numbers could not have detected the levels I reported. Now everyone can see for themselves whether aluminum rises with Phosguard in their own tanks.

Wow, first time hearing this about Prime. I always expected it to work as advertised, Especially since so many people breeding fish swear bye it. It would be good if we could do more research on allot of these products and create a database of the findings.

 

[strich]

They push products that do not appear to work as claimed. Prime is an example. Very extensive testing by people here show no useful effect on ammonia, even when tested in a way that Seachem claims would show the effects

Wait what! It is practically a part of the hobby down here in Australia - Everyone I've spoken to said prime prime prime when discussing the tank move I did. And the guy I bought the tank off had like 4 bloody litres of the stuff.

Would definitely like to know more!

 

[Evil1]

so could gfo be a replacement for carbon? in freshwater ..my thinking is that it would remove food for plants but what would be the effect on fish and quality of water ...levels of nitrate phosphate etc...not as critical in a freshwater tank..but a positive or negative effect?

As mentioned above, each does its own thing for removing impurities (some overlap). I wouldn’t replace carbon with GFO I would run both removing the GFO when phosphate is at desired parameters and adding it back when phosphate starts to rise above desired levels.

 

[Euphylliaphyle]

I have had decent luck using 1/2 the prescribed amounts for my tank of both Rox 0.8 and RowaPhos (using 0.2 ppm as my target PO₄ per this calculator) as required. I change the carbon when I see the water yellowing a bit (I tape up a piece of white paper on the other side of the tank and view it through the width of the tank). I change the RowaPhos when my PO₄ gets to 0.30 ppm on my Hanna ULR PO₄ Checker.
I run both in mesh bags in my cannister filter. Once in there, I let the Rox 0.8 ride until replacement is required, and the RowaPhos I leave in even if exhausted. If my PO₄ should hit 0.06 ppm, then I would remove the RowaPhos only, but that hasn't happened yet. I have never bottomed out. Leaving the bags in limits the number of times I need to break the seal on the cannister filter and reduces maintenence time.

 

[Privateye]

There's some overlap regarding the things removed by GAC and Purigen. I generally favor Purigen for long-term use.

Continuous use of GAC has been shown to induce Lateral Line Erosion (LLE) in tangs and angelfish. I'm not sure whether a link has been drawn between it and Hole in the Head (HITH) disease in freshwater (common in oscars) but I wonder if there is one.

I just use GAC for specific needs, and remove it when my needs are met.