wet/dry filter add-on

[cichlids-are-cool!]

Hi,
I am about to start my DIY wet/dry filter project and I was wondering if it would be beneficial to add a section of media after the bio-balls i.e. black diamond charcoal.
Just a thought I had and I wasn't sure if it would improve or hinder the performance of the filter. Just wanted to get some opinions. Thanks.

[Doc_Polit]

Just a thought....

I'm just completing the planning stage of my DIY sump.

Bio-balls tend to be a nitrate factory after time (although I plan to use them, too).

To offset this I plan to use a tray of Ehfisubtrat (by Eheim) under my bio-tower. This has to be submerged like in Eheim canisters, but I believe it will keep nitrates to a minimum, just the same.

Any thoughts??

Doc :cool:

[Heyguy74]

Hey cichlids-are-cool!,

There's no need to put the carbon in there. If you want to add some substrate try some lava rock or if your looking to keep the PH on the high side try some crushed coral. You can always add some carbon in a media bag. this way you can remove it easily.

Doc_Polit,
The Ehfisubtrat doesn't have to be submerged. I have the 2329 Wet/Dry and all the media is Ehfisubtrat . This is exposed to air when the filter empties itself. As far as the nitrates go , they're a normal part of the cycle. Theres really nothing you can do about nitrates other tahn regular water changes.

[Glaive]

I wonder why any one would honestly bother with anything but lava rock for thier biomedia?

[jf2381]

Originally posted by Doc_Polit

Bio-balls tend to be a nitrate factory after time (although I plan to use them, too).
Doc :cool:

I see this topic on the reef site that I frequent all the time.

IHMO. I would prefer that the bioballs change ammonia and nitrites to nitrates at a faster rate becuase nitrates are less toxic than the first two. It's only going to produce nitrates if you have ammonia and nitrites, so it's not going to make them on it's own. Just my opinion.

Like hey_guy said you don't have to make a chamber, you could just add it to a sock or bag when you need it. Beisides you don't want to make it permanent or hard to change becuase charcoal stops working after a while. I don't use charcoal in my tanks, only after I medicate.

[RustyNut]

The heck with Bio-balls!!! Pot-scrubbers are the way to go!!! I am sold!!!!

I don't know why people on this board are against carbon... it has so many good uses even in small amounts.... And its potential negatives (leeching stuff back into the water) only happens after long periods... Which shouldn't happen.

I use about 1 teaspoon of carbon for every 10 gallons of water rounded up... I change it every other water change.... I use the Aquarium Pharmaceuticals Professional or Research grade stuff.... I buy the economy size jar and it lasts me about a year or so....

Every decent home water filter I've ever seen uses carbon and it works at removing all sorts of things... I do think that the industry overuses carbon.... especially in HOBs but the cost is negligable if used "right" and there is really only advantages to its use...

To answer your question directly.... It can't hurt, and the bio-bags make changing it easy. I'd use it!

Now Ammo-Carb is a product I dislike.... it steals food from your bio-filter.... doesn't remove staining/odors/solids and isn't very effective for its cost. (plus the carbon in it is low grade)

The money you save on Bio-balls can be put to use buying 10years worth of top-grade carbon!

[Glaive]

I am against carbon due to it being an extra unecessary cost in my own tanks.

I keep a little around incase I ever have to use a nasty medication.

[chc]

Cichlids-Are-Cool: I don't use carbon in wet/dry applications in an effort to protect the return pump from sucking in loose materials. Also, I can put Poly Filter in the drip plate (no need to reach in the sump). I prefer PolyFilter all around too -- all the benefits of carbon in a more manageable form (pads) and without the possibility of leaching, etc. Still, I don't use chemical media much (primarily medicine removal like Glaive said).

Glaive, bio-balls and similar materials (cut straws, shotgun shells, plastic army men, etc.) are self cleaning. Porous material (lava rock, scrubber pads, etc.) must be cleaned over time as it clogs eventually (granted, that may take a very long time). Bio-balls also afford much more efficient degassing and oxygen exchange (the key design feature of wet/dry filters) due to their design which creates turbulence. Lava and other materials tend to pack, slime over, and create channels through the media.

Doc_Polit: As far as bio-balls being nitrate creators.......... the same is true with all freshwater filtration methods commonly in use. Without the benefits of live rock as in SW fish keeping, and without the ability to easily create stable and sage anaerobic areas in which nitrates can be further broken down, FW fish keepers must handle nitrates chiefly through water changes. That's actually a good thing though. It's cheaper and maintains trace elements, etc.

JF2381: Your "opinion," as you put it, is right on the money....... and fact!

[Glaive]

Wasn't aware of the slime problem with lava rock. I've been running some in all my filters for a while now. Would you consider ceramic rings the same way? I haven't rinsed teh ones in my fluval since I set it up some two years ago.

I guess a wet dry sump could be different though I would imagine that if there was little to no light then even the brown diatoms <I think that's what it is> wouldn't build up. Will have to put it to the test myself some time to see what results I get.

[chc]

Just to be clear, I'm talking only about wet/dry applications. Any media in a submerged application would face similar long term problems. Sometimes you'll hear about people using bio-balls in a canister or something similar like the bio-balls are magic filters or something. In that submerged environment, they are actually just about the worst media possible (take up lots of space with comparably little surface area). Lava and other porous materials are much superior to bio-balls in canisters.

The "magic" of bio-balls is their ability to facilitate oxygen exchange and thus make the beneficial bacteria more efficient in breaking down waste.

The need for cleaning lava rock could take a very long time if there is sufficient prefiltering of particulate waste. It can be used in a wet/dry with good results, but on average it would take a larger amount of rock to do the same job of a lesser amount of bio-balls.

I agree about light in sumps. Unless, of course, you are actually cultivating algae or something similar. Even then, I have seen sumps where the bio-chambers are "blacked out" so that the light in other chambers cannot encourage algae growth in the wrong bio-chamber. Probably just splitting hairs for the most part though...

[Glaive]

Okay I understand the gas exchange part though I personally feel I would still go with lavarock over the bioballs especially when crushed. Guess it comes down to how the sump would be designed in the first place.

I would think lots of "green" algae in a refugium type environment would be good myself, not to mention a dense cluster of plants. I know somewhere I have a list of the top nitrate reducing aquaria plants.

I think as far as blacking out the bio chamber I would be with you on teh splitting hairs, I'd take a bit more light for being able to see in there and have a visual on potential bad signs.


joke:
Though if people were really serious about surface area and light elimination surely they would resin sand to the inside of thier bio chamber. ;)


Though now you've got my mind going on maximizing the surface area of a wet dry for both bacteria and gas exchange....

[chc]

Originally posted by Glaive

Though now you've got my mind going on maximizing the surface area of a wet dry for both bacteria and gas exchange....

That's the point of wet/dry filters. You don't need as much surface area since the media is so efficient. Not harm done, just not necessary as you cannot have more bacteria than a given bioload will support -- room to grow I guess though!

Incidentally, fluidized bed filters are the other side of the spectrum...... almost entirely. The have a massive surface area (grains of sand), don't do well at degassing, and actually strip the water of oxygen. Still (assuming you have supplemental aeration), you can have a very small filter that actually is comprised of a very large surface area (individual sand grains) onto which a fairly inefficient bacteria can colonize in such mind boggling numbers that it all ends up working well.
(stops for a breath)

Wet/dry filters on the other hand have much less surface area, but take up more room, add oxygen to the water, and are colonized by a comparatively small amount of exceptionally efficient bacteria.......

(another breath)

........ generating similar results compared to the FB filter. But they are more stable during power outages, etc.

(Millions of ways to do it right!)

[Glaive]

Good read chc I for one appreciate it. I was not aware of how close to anaerobic fbfs were, though it makes sense. Also explains why I have seen people introduce bublers to fbfs.

I wonder if it would ever be worth having an fbf inline behind a wet dry? Maybe for explosive bioload situations.

[chc]

If you have a battery backup or a generator guaranteeing no loss of power, FBF's are indeed great for varying bioloads. Lots of importers, hatcheries, etc. use them since they work so well in spite of the additional of often large numbers of fish to a given system. The only real drawbacks are the power and oxygen things (which can both be designed out of the equation).

[RustyNut]

With FBF's is it that the power loss causes the sand to fall out of fluidization and kills the bacteria, or that they don't restart properly?

I've got both battery backup and a generator... I guess and FBF isn't out of the question. :D

[Glaive]

First one rusty.