TLF Phosban + Carbon

[JHopkins]

Got my order in today...and will be hooking up my (2) Two Little Fishes phosban reactors...one running phosban and one running carbon (using a Maxi 600 to feed both inline). Probably a silly question but...is it best to go "Pump>Phos>Carbon>Return" or "Pump>Carbon>Phos>Return" ?

TIA!

[Txmeta_b]

I don't have either but from what I read,some carbon brands can leech phosphate so it'd be adequate to run phosban last.
Also,you'll get cleaner water ( less organic compounds = better adsoprtion) to the phosban reactor,which could increase its efficiency.

[ryancaudill]

Run phos 2nd. But you dont need to worry about most carbons leeching po4.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1415770

[JHopkins]

Thanks Tx and Ryan.

Phos will go in last. =)

[burton14e7]

I run phos last as well

[BFG]

I'd always thought that running the phos absorbing media 1st as this will remove most of the phosphate and the carbon will remove the remaining phosphate as well as the other stuff in the water.

[Txmeta_b]

adsorption is pretty much a function of concentration of the solute.

If you have two materials with different efficiencies(phosban and carbon),you will find that it's overall more efficient to run the least efficient one since it will be exposed to the highest concentration.

The effluent(outlet stream with a lower phosphate concentration) will then be exposed to the second,more efficient which will then drop the concentration much lower.

Add that to the fact that you'll have a better adsorption with cleaner water(less DOCs) and it's better to run phosban second.

[pammy]

And what is the concensus on running both carbon and phosban in the same TLF reactor? I know that carbon will be exhausted quicker, but I only run the carbon for 3 days a month anyway, and run the phosban continuously, 24x7. I change the phosban every other moth, so if the carbon exhausts much quicker, that wouldn't be an issue to me. Could I run the carbon at the bottom of the reactor with the phosban on top? I don't have room to add a second TLF reactor in my sump, and right now, I put the carbon in a filter bag attached to the output of my output from my skimmer for 3 days a month, so the carbon is really only being run passively the way I have it set up now, and I'd think it would be better to at least have it at the bottom of my reactor with the phosban on top.
Thanks, Pam

[Txmeta_b]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12943878#post12943878 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pammy
And what is the concensus
It's the internet.There's nothing consensual about it ;)

I think you'd be fine running both materials in a single RX as long as you keep them separated with an intermediate perforated membrane or something like that.

[Luiz Seadorf]

Pump>Carbon>Phos>Return
But there is a problem :
Phos requires less flow than carbon. A maxi 600 is Ok for carbon but is a lot of flow for Phosban.

[Paul_PSU]

I run GFO last. I have them on one pump also. You can have the flow through the carbon slower but can't have the flow through the GFO too fast. You just want the GFO to lightly tumble. If you buy TLF reactors, they come with a ball valve. I have a Quit One 1200 (296gph) running both of mine.

[pammy]

LOL Txmeta_b. Would a spare round foam filter to separate the two types of media work? (I know they sell spare foam filters that come in the TLF reactor, so I was thinking about one of those. Thanks, Pam



[B]It's the internet.There's nothing consensual about it ;)

I think you'd be fine running both materials in a single RX as long as you keep them separated with an intermediate perforated membrane or something like that.

[JHopkins]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12944516#post12944516 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Luiz Seadorf
Pump>Carbon>Phos>Return
But there is a problem :
Phos requires less flow than carbon. A maxi 600 is Ok for carbon but is a lot of flow for Phosban.

Agreed Luiz.

I am currently configured:

Maxi600>valve>carbon>valve>phos>return

I can choke input into the phos...but the maxi gets kinda rattley (have about 17" of head in case someone is interested). Had I to do it over again...it would have been a 400.

Remarkable difference in water clarity in just a couple of days...I attribute this to the carbon. My phos readings havent really budged...but I have algae so I KNOW its there. Will see how the phosban goes given more time.

[Jefe12234]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12944516#post12944516 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Luiz Seadorf
Pump>Carbon>Phos>Return
But there is a problem :
Phos requires less flow than carbon. A maxi 600 is Ok for carbon but is a lot of flow for Phosban.

It is a common misconception that carbon needs higher flowrates. Studies have shown that carbon is most efficient at very low flowrates. A study mentioned in the following article recommends circulating no more than one tank volume through the carbon per day. Of course such little flow will not fluidize media in a reactor, so I would compromise and use just enough flow to fluidize both medias.

http://www.pets-warehouse.com/carbon.htm

[Paul_PSU]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12945417#post12945417 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jefe12234
It is a common misconception that carbon needs higher flowrates. Studies have shown that carbon is most efficient at very low flowrates. A study mentioned in the following article recommends circulating no more than one tank volume through the carbon per day. Of course such little flow will not fluidize media in a reactor, so I would compromise and use just enough flow to fluidize both medias.

http://www.pets-warehouse.com/carbon.htm

Jefe - You gotta make another post quick and change that number!!

sorry just a little superstitious...:D

[scott11]

I am setting up 2 reactors (carbon, and gfo). What do I need to do before running them on my tank? Rinse the material? Use salt or fresh water? RO?

[JHopkins]

Scott I would DEFINETLY run some water through it! I did a 5g water change...then used that water and pumped it through my TLF rig. There was a scary amount of dust and gunk that passed.

You wont need 5 gallons to clear it...but I DO think it was about 1g to get it clear.

[Jefe12234]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12945439#post12945439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul_PSU
Jefe - You gotta make another post quick and change that number!!

sorry just a little superstitious...:D

Ha, I noticed that too! All better now.

scott11, I fill a container with RO/DI water, set the pump in it, and run that through the reactor and down the drain until it runs clear. It shouldn't take a whole lot. The leftover water in the reactor can go in the tank since it's pure water.

[OliverM3]

I makeup a bucket of fresh salt mix and overfill the sump then just pump out the reactors in to a bucket till I reach my sumps normal level.
Clean the media and like a mini water change :)

Also I run the phosban first in the chain of the two reactors just because I want the second reactor to catch any phosban that exits the reactor.
I'm really surprised how much Phosban I find in the carbon reactor even though I run very little flow.
Also they both exit in to a filter sock.
I don't want any of that stuff exiting in to my tank.

[Paul_PSU]

I just run the output into a bucket also until clear. Usually takes about 1 gal.

OliverM3, You shouldn't have any of the GFO leaving the reactor. Do you have the filter pads in the reactor?

[ryancaudill]

What is the consensus on what pump to run two reactors. MJ 400 or 600. It sounds like the 600 is too much according to jhopkins and the flow is reduce at the 2nd GFO reactor. Does anyone running a 400 have a problem with not enough flow to get the media in both reactors movin.

[scott11]

I have an extra mj900- can I just run that with it valved back? Also, I was going to run them on my refugium, does that defeat the purpose or having macros in there? I was going to do it since that is where i have the most room under the stand.

[Paul_PSU]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12948105#post12948105 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scott11
I have an extra mj900- can I just run that with it valved back? Also, I was going to run them on my refugium, does that defeat the purpose or having marco in there? I was going to do it since that is where i have the most room under the stand.

900 should work good for two reactors. It's rated at 230gph. I use a QO1200 that is rated at 296gph and I throttle it back some. Mine are hanging on the outside of my sump. the feed pump sits with the skimmer and then empties in the return. I don't have enough room in my return section for the feed pump.

[TracyZeuner]

I have the same setup, I just tee off the pump and use 2 valves. That way I can reduse the amount of flow that goes into the the GFO chamber and still get good flow in the carbon chamber

[cthedaytrader]

I used to run carbon and Phosban in the same reactor, and switched to two reactors running inline.

the problems are if Phosban runs with too much flow it can begin to grind and leave the reactor. So you want a lower flow in the reactor to prevent this.

Carbon can handle the higher flow and I have always read you want a higher flow through carbon in order to fluidize it but not as much with the phosban.

I run the caron first dialed down with the ball valve, then into my phosban reactor. I love it set up in two reactors now, its much easier to change the medias when I want and I believe they are working better already. Plus I wont have to waste phosban when I change my carbon more often.

[Jefe12234]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12945417#post12945417 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jefe12234
It is a common misconception that carbon needs higher flowrates. Studies have shown that carbon is most efficient at very low flowrates. A study mentioned in the following article recommends circulating no more than one tank volume through the carbon per day. Of course such little flow will not fluidize media in a reactor, so I would compromise and use just enough flow to fluidize both medias.

http://www.pets-warehouse.com/carbon.htm

I'm quoting myself here. Carbon really does not need any more flow than GFO. Now if you want to run them separately in order to change them out at different intervals, that's a valid reason. But you could also just change the proportions so that they get used up equally. This is what I plan on doing for my next media change.

[ryancaudill]

What pump do you run Jefe

[Jefe12234]

I use a mini-jet 404 for a single reactor. I have to dial it back some, but have never tried it on two reactors so I don't know if it would still be enough.

[OliverM3]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12947229#post12947229 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul_PSU
I just run the output into a bucket also until clear. Usually takes about 1 gal.

OliverM3, You shouldn't have any of the GFO leavinng the reactor. Do you have the filter pads in the reactor?

Yup I use the sponges for the reactor.
Some GFO is bound to leave the reactor maybe not a lot but there is some dust regardless of how well you wash it or how slow your flow is.

[JHopkins]

I replaced my 600 with a 400 last night.

As I said previously I was able to slow the flow in the GFO reactor using the TLF valve...but the 600 got a lil loud when I cut the flow back where it needed to be. With the 400 I am still choking the flow to the GFO reactor a 'wee bit' (technical term)...but the pump is quieter.

My setup is in the living room next to my couch...so...noise is a concern of mine. The 600 was just fine...but when throttled back was a lot louder than the 400 running less restricted. I have ample flow with both reactors inline.

[Paul_PSU]

yep I agree. I took the previous post to mean that you had granules leaving the reactor. I always get some sediment/dust in the return chamber of my sump where it empties. my GFO barely tumbles, so that is kept to a minimum.

[OliverM3]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12951255#post12951255 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul_PSU
yep I agree. I took the previous post to mean that you had granules leaving the reactor. I always get some sediment/dust in the return chamber of my sump where it empties. my GFO barely tumbles, so that is kept to a minimum.

Yeah that's the only reason I run it first in the chain it's easier for me to empty that dust out of the carbon reactor then a sump cleaning which I sometimes neglect :)

[psteeleb]

invest in a 1/2" tee and two 1/2" valves and run the reactors independent of each other on one pump. You will likely want to have different flow rates and you certainly don't need to change the GFO as often as the carbon.

there is a picture of my reactor set up on my build log. I built a mini mainfold for 3 of the TLF reactors.

[ryancaudill]

Where is your build log thread psteeleb.

[psteeleb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12952202#post12952202 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ryancaudill
Where is your build log thread psteeleb.

sorry, here
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1320654&perpage=25&pagenumber=16

I can't view pictures from work but I think there is a couple pictures of my reactors on this page. If not, there are some earlier in the thread.