Matrix (and siporax) questions, to keep from derailing Sahin's thread..... - Page 4

Giovanni · 10/01/2015, 02:10 PM

Just to add to power failure discussion. Correct me if I am wrong but what we really want to grow is anaerobic bacteria. Limiting the water flow, thus O2 to the matrix in a reactor is to help promote anaerobic bacteria. Along that line of thought, if the power goes out, no water flow would only mean less O2 which for anaerobic bacteria is good. The only problem would be the anaerobic bacteria would not be getting fed, which they can tolerate for quite some time.

KingTriton1 · 10/01/2015, 02:25 PM

Nitrifying and denitrifying Bacteria will both remain on the media. Matrix pond is used as denitrification source, however denitrification only pertains to the inner core of the media. All along the surface will remain active with aerobic bacteria. The fact that a pump is even used means it will create an environental in which aerobic bacteria thrive in.

Giovanni · 10/01/2015, 02:39 PM

From Seachems website...

"Matrix™ may be placed in any kind of filter, and is particularly effective in a canister filter.

KingTriton1 · 10/01/2015, 02:56 PM

That is correct. I'm not saying that it isn't effective in a reactor by any means.

Mael · 10/01/2015, 03:28 PM

ok maybe Im missing something, if it is effective in a reactor as others have shown, and the reactor doesnt empty during a power outage, the matrix would be in the same conditions during a power outtage in the reactor as it would if placed/hung in the sump correct? It would still be submersed in water with no flow in both cases. I do see there may be an advantage to sump use over reactor in an outtage simply due to the increased water volume in the sump may be able to provide the aerobic bacteria with o2 longer than in the small space of the reactor.

KingTriton1 · 10/01/2015, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mael

ok maybe Im missing something, if it is effective in a reactor as others have shown, and the reactor doesnt empty during a power outage, the matrix would be in the same conditions during a power outtage in the reactor as it would if placed/hung in the sump correct? It would still be submersed in water with no flow in both cases. I do see there may be an advantage to sump use over reactor in an outtage simply due to the increased water volume in the sump may be able to provide the aerobic bacteria with o2 longer than in the small space of the reactor.

I think you pretty much summed it all up. I have less rock in my display so part of my matrix is being used to utilize the beneficial aerobic bacteria. The question that I have is if all the nitrifying bacteria does die within the reactor what effect will it have on the denitrifying bacteria within the reactor or main tank (if given that you have a substantial amount of nitrifying bacteria present). If given it does affect the life of the denitrifying bacteria and you carbon dose then I see a potential problem. I'm no expert here just giving some thoughts.

KingTriton1 · 10/01/2015, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giovanni

Limiting the water flow, thus O2 to the matrix in a reactor is to help promote anaerobic bacteria..

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.

KingTriton1 · 10/01/2015, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mael

Not sure why having the bag in direct line of water flow would cause anh increase in nitrates.

I view my drain water as waste water. Given the porousness of the media I think it would be better having a filter sock and skimmer absorb some of that waste to reduce the amount that may be absorbed by your matrix. I'm not saying your nitrates are going to be through the roof. I just think down the road you may have a hard time trying to maintain a very low nitrate level. If carbon dosing is taken into account than I cannot comment as I don't really know.

pstank1 · 10/01/2015, 06:19 PM

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.

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.

KingTriton1 · 10/01/2015, 07:26 PM

Interesting.. I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the info.

Mael · 10/01/2015, 07:33 PM

from what i heard the pond matrix is a different material than matrix and de*nitrate(which I believe are just different sizes of the same material?)

The drain sediment does make sense, I think my saving grace is the constant flow doesnt allow anything to settle in the matrix, it settles only in 2 corners of that chamber, but it may be getting some finer particles into the matrix from that initial blast of water...I might move it to the third chamber.

I like all the different input in this thread, makes you rethink ideas and methods of your own and possibly improve.

KingTriton1 · 10/01/2015, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mael

from what i heard the pond matrix is a different material than matrix and de*nitrate(which I believe are just different sizes of the same material?)

I have both Matrix and Matrix Pond and can't tell any difference between the two other than the size. I'd be surprise to see this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mael

I like all the different input in this thread, makes you rethink ideas and methods of your own and possibly improve.

Exactly

naterealbig · 10/01/2015, 10:08 PM

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.

naterealbig · 10/01/2015, 10:19 PM

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......

KingTriton1 · 10/02/2015, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naterealbig

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).

Good information here. I believe this is where the clarification was needed on my end. (viewing the media as if it were operating as same way as live rock)

marinelife · 10/03/2015, 06:13 PM

Anyone have the link to the ebay seller that ships to the US for the siporax 25mm Pond version?

nemodan · 10/03/2015, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marinelife

Anyone have the link to the ebay seller that ships to the US for the siporax 25mm Pond version?

You can buy it in AMAZON:
http://www.amazon.com/Siporax-Aquari...60_SR92%2C160_

PS: Sorry, I just saw you wrote "pond version". This one is for reef tanks. I am not sure of the differences with the pond version. Size ?

nemodan · 10/03/2015, 08:22 PM

My MATRIX in a HOB refugiun that is hanging in the back of my "20G refugium full of macros".

Matrix in a recently made DIY media reactor:

marinelife · 10/03/2015, 08:23 PM

Pond version is longer. Both would work but the pond would be better. My LFS can get it but he is not ordering for a while.
http://www.sera-usa.com/us/products/...ond-25-mm.html

DiscusHeckel · 10/04/2015, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marinelife

Pond version is longer. Both would work but the pond would be better. My LFS can get it but he is not ordering for a while.
http://www.sera-usa.com/us/products/...ond-25-mm.html

Why would the pond version be better?

Thanks

Giovanni · 10/04/2015, 12:35 PM

I can pick up the 15mm stuff for about $10 a Liter shipped to my door, but I have to buy 50L. Anyone want to split some with me?

rodneyri · 10/05/2015, 01:15 AM

Jumping on the boat, been looking into it for a while just ordered 10l of Siporax so cant wait to try it.

naterealbig · 10/05/2015, 10:49 PM

For those interested in efficacy and pricing: Reefvet said that through his tests that (if I recall correctly) Siporax has approximately 25x the anaerobic area of live rock. A close second was the Matrix, at approximately 20x the area. I mention this, because I just purchased 5 gallons of Matrix through Amazon for $100 with free shipping. That's 5x less than Siporax, so much more anaerobic bacteria growth per $.

I will say that the Matrix is irregularly shaped and smaller than Siporax, and cannot be utilized with egg crate alone. Another layer will have to be used in conjunction; perhaps the plastic material used for stitching with yarn (unsure the name). This or a reactor (which I'm inclined to use), which may negate the cost savings of the Matrix.

Just some thoughts....

M007 · 10/06/2015, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naterealbig

I will say that the Matrix is irregularly shaped and smaller than Siporax, and cannot be utilized with egg crate alone. Another layer will have to be used in conjunction; perhaps the plastic material used for stitching with yarn (unsure the name). This or a reactor (which I'm inclined to use), which may negate the cost savings of the Matrix..

Exactly what made the Siporax more appealing to me. I find reactors always accumulate debris which requires removal and disassembly to clean. Since most of the filth ends up on the bottom of the reactor all the media needs to come out for a proper cleaning. The egg crate box, on the other hand, can be kept clean simply by moving the media by hand and letting the water flow move accumulated debris back on its way. Just a theory at the moment as I just built and installed my box and Siporax on Sunday

nemodan · 10/06/2015, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M007

Exactly what made the Siporax more appealing to me. I find reactors always accumulate debris which requires removal and disassembly to clean. Since most of the filth ends up on the bottom of the reactor all the media needs to come out for a proper cleaning. The egg crate box, on the other hand, can be kept clean simply by moving the media by hand and letting the water flow move accumulated debris back on its way. Just a theory at the moment as I just built and installed my box and Siporax on Sunday

You can use media bags to have your Matrix on it. See posting # 93 and this picture.

Matrix is in 4 media bags. The floor is black egg crate

When you want to clean it just take out the media bags, wash them is salt water and return it back.

10/01/2015, 02:10 PM	#76
Giovanni AKA Flippa Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: KY Posts: 2,207 Blog Entries: 8	Just to add to power failure discussion. Correct me if I am wrong but what we really want to grow is anaerobic bacteria. Limiting the water flow, thus O2 to the matrix in a reactor is to help promote anaerobic bacteria. Along that line of thought, if the power goes out, no water flow would only mean less O2 which for anaerobic bacteria is good. The only problem would be the anaerobic bacteria would not be getting fed, which they can tolerate for quite some time. __________________ Giovanni Most of My Money I Spent On Whiskey, Women and Reefing, The Rest I Just Waisted! Current Tank Info: 180 Mixed Reef

10/01/2015, 02:39 PM	#78
Giovanni AKA Flippa Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: KY Posts: 2,207 Blog Entries: 8	From Seachems website... "Matrix™ may be placed in any kind of filter, and is particularly effective in a canister filter. __________________ Giovanni Most of My Money I Spent On Whiskey, Women and Reefing, The Rest I Just Waisted! Current Tank Info: 180 Mixed Reef

10/03/2015, 06:13 PM	#91
marinelife Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Union, Ohio, USA Posts: 6,590	Anyone have the link to the ebay seller that ships to the US for the siporax 25mm Pond version? __________________ I'm a SaltGeek are You? All LED since 2010. Current Tank Info: 375 Gallon Reef with siporax, all LED lighting, and Red Dragon 3 and Abyzz A200 on 2 closed loops.

10/03/2015, 08:23 PM	#94
marinelife Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Union, Ohio, USA Posts: 6,590	Pond version is longer. Both would work but the pond would be better. My LFS can get it but he is not ordering for a while. http://www.sera-usa.com/us/products/...ond-25-mm.html __________________ I'm a SaltGeek are You? All LED since 2010. Current Tank Info: 375 Gallon Reef with siporax, all LED lighting, and Red Dragon 3 and Abyzz A200 on 2 closed loops.

10/04/2015, 12:35 PM	#96
Giovanni AKA Flippa Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: KY Posts: 2,207 Blog Entries: 8	I can pick up the 15mm stuff for about $10 a Liter shipped to my door, but I have to buy 50L. Anyone want to split some with me? __________________ Giovanni Most of My Money I Spent On Whiskey, Women and Reefing, The Rest I Just Waisted! Current Tank Info: 180 Mixed Reef

10/01/2015, 02:25 PM	#77
KingTriton1 Moved On Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 642	Nitrifying and denitrifying Bacteria will both remain on the media. Matrix pond is used as denitrification source, however denitrification only pertains to the inner core of the media. All along the surface will remain active with aerobic bacteria. The fact that a pump is even used means it will create an environental in which aerobic bacteria thrive in.

10/01/2015, 02:56 PM	#79
KingTriton1 Moved On Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 642	That is correct. I'm not saying that it isn't effective in a reactor by any means.

10/01/2015, 03:28 PM	#80
Mael Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Phoenix Posts: 1,351	ok maybe Im missing something, if it is effective in a reactor as others have shown, and the reactor doesnt empty during a power outage, the matrix would be in the same conditions during a power outtage in the reactor as it would if placed/hung in the sump correct? It would still be submersed in water with no flow in both cases. I do see there may be an advantage to sump use over reactor in an outtage simply due to the increased water volume in the sump may be able to provide the aerobic bacteria with o2 longer than in the small space of the reactor.

10/01/2015, 07:26 PM	#85
KingTriton1 Moved On Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 642	Interesting.. I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the info.

10/01/2015, 07:33 PM	#86
Mael Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Phoenix Posts: 1,351	from what i heard the pond matrix is a different material than matrix and de*nitrate(which I believe are just different sizes of the same material?) The drain sediment does make sense, I think my saving grace is the constant flow doesnt allow anything to settle in the matrix, it settles only in 2 corners of that chamber, but it may be getting some finer particles into the matrix from that initial blast of water...I might move it to the third chamber. I like all the different input in this thread, makes you rethink ideas and methods of your own and possibly improve.

10/03/2015, 08:22 PM	#93
nemodan Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Westford, MA Posts: 1,063	My MATRIX in a HOB refugiun that is hanging in the back of my "20G refugium full of macros". Matrix in a recently made DIY media reactor:

10/05/2015, 01:15 AM	#97
rodneyri Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 822	Jumping on the boat, been looking into it for a while just ordered 10l of Siporax so cant wait to try it. __________________ Too poor starphire - 7ft Reef - Profilux 3 - GHL Doser 2 - Bubble King - RD3 Speedy - Vortech QD40 - Radion G4 Pro -P̵a̵c̵ ̵S̵u̵n̵ ̵

10/05/2015, 10:49 PM	#98
naterealbig Premium Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 2,252	For those interested in efficacy and pricing: Reefvet said that through his tests that (if I recall correctly) Siporax has approximately 25x the anaerobic area of live rock. A close second was the Matrix, at approximately 20x the area. I mention this, because I just purchased 5 gallons of Matrix through Amazon for $100 with free shipping. That's 5x less than Siporax, so much more anaerobic bacteria growth per $. I will say that the Matrix is irregularly shaped and smaller than Siporax, and cannot be utilized with egg crate alone. Another layer will have to be used in conjunction; perhaps the plastic material used for stitching with yarn (unsure the name). This or a reactor (which I'm inclined to use), which may negate the cost savings of the Matrix. Just some thoughts.... __________________ My skimmate has notes of saffron, and a hint of lilac.