Quote:
Originally Posted by KingTriton1
That is correct. I'm not saying that it isn't effective in a reactor by any means.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingTriton1
Sort of. I think the only way the denitrification is becoming present is by using the matrix pond which is much larger than the matrix. This allows a further distance between the surface of the media to its core compared to the regular matrix. I don't think the reactors flow is really the driving factor causing the denitrification process to occur (given that you don't blast the media with to much flow) as much as it is the size in the media that the reactor is using.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pstank1
Reefvet actually tested matrix as well as siporax and a few others. He mentioned that the pond matrix version is not what you want. If you dig through the last 3 or 4 pages of Sahin's tank thread, he goes into more detail there.
|
This.
I'm fairly certain that reefvet completed these tests in a laboratory environment with sophisticated equipment. He didn't just bring home some media and plop it in the tank. The denitrification that is occurring is unquestionably a direct factor of the flow within a reactor.
To those that don't run their media in a reactor; it's not necessary. You will however yield increased efficiency (denitrification per specified volume of media), along with more consistent results.
Additionally, the ability for these types of media to sustain a relevant amount of denitrifying bacteria is dependent on pore size, not depth of the pores. This is where Matrix and Siporax excel; because they have chosen a product with the correct pore size, they don't need extra pore depth to compensate (something that is necessary for denitrification within live rock). Pond Matrix and Matrix are the same material, just different sizes. The most you could argue is that you have fewer pores per total volume of Pond Matrix than Matrix. Directly from SeaChem's site:
Generally, with very large pore diameters, we have smaller specific surface area, so that is not good. This generally rules out pores above 10 microns in diameter......