Boomer..Two Carbon Quesions

[Craig Lambert]

TLF Hydrocarbon, Black Diamond, or Seachem Matrix?

In its own phosban reactor, or in-sump mesh bag?

Thanks!

[Boomer]

Either way is fine. I think in a reactor the matrix would be better as it is round. I would go for than one. TLF and Matrix are much better grades of GAC than BD.

[Craig Lambert]

Thanks!

[borcu]

generally for activated carbons: phosban reactor or in-sump mesh bag?
which one and why?

and why is matrix better in reactor? what determines this?

thanks.

[Boomer]

It is better to have a harder and round GAC ( better fluid dynamics) for a reactor, such as Matrix, not that you have to use it.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Of course, TLF and Seachem carbons cost quite a bit more.

If you can use twice as much of a carbon that costs half as much (or 4x that costs a fourth), and attain the same results, then I’d argue that one isn't any better than the other.

It's like a calcium additive being twice as concentrated and costing twice as much. Is that an advantage?

[Billybeau1]

I'm staying out of this one.

However, I personally do like Matrix and Rox 0.8

[Billybeau1]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

It's like a calcium additive being twice as concentrated and costing twice as much. Is that an advantage?

Not necessarily true buddy.

Reef Advantage Calcium is $6.99 for 250 grams. It also contains magnesium, strontium, sodium, potassium and other salts. So how much calcium is really in there ?

Kent's Turbo calcium is $17.50 for 800 grams and is all calcium.

Many calcium supplements contain other ingredients and can get real costly for someone with a big tank.

[borcu]

is it about lifespan? we can filter much water by tlf maybe but can we use much more if in-sump mesh bag? isnt using tlf only about aggresive filtering? or is it about getting best performance from gac? (btw i m using Two Little Fishies carbon asking for only gac knowledge )

[Boomer]

You forgot about the extra things that cheaper GAC adds to the water, like Ash and other soluble products, often see on GAC data sheets. Cheap GAC also produces more dust that have been shown recetnly to be a key in FHLLE, more than likely from plugging up the Neruomast of the Lateral Complex. I see it no different than you do not want one to use w or x calcium additive, as it has to much of y and z in it or a salt mix IMHO, poor or cheap GAC is no different than a cheap or poor sup additive or a bad salt mix. However, granted like other things, some GAC is very expensive and Matirx being the most expensive in this hobby. In recent times I have not been a fan of BD, like I use to be, not that is "bad" to use. And when you have to use 2x , 3x etc., you are going to need a bigger "thing" to put it in or more of them or change it much more often. But it still all a choice.



edit

Billy

I see you beat me to the punch Kind'a slow today on the keep board.


Borcu

TLF is a very good GAC and one of the best

[sjm817]

And where does BRS bulk Lignite GAC rate on the Boomer scale these days? Better than BD?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Boomer:

I'm certainly interested in comparisons of GAC that go beyond organic binding capacity to released impurities or dust. I'd just never seen such data anywhere, and I wouldn't want to assume it is related to binding capacity comparisons.

So capacity aside, which carbons do you think are better and why?

[Boomer]

ROX is the purest along with thefilteguys, BRS Ligntie and TLF is next, Elos is also really good but they are NUTS what they want for it, ROX is cheaper.

I'll see if I can find you that link on recent controlled lab studies on what causes FHLLE. It is not final as much is still in the works, where more testing is needed but marine fish tested for sure had negative affects. Many people and public aquarium people have seen this with GAC dust on certain fish===> Laterial Line Erosion. I use to be a big time non-believer in this but not any more. Tony Frakes has alway told me this was so when he ran AS.

One of the issue is usually only higher grade GAC give you "Randy" concerned data, like Ash and other solubles and pH. Almost all GAC companies start to drop "Boomer & "Randy" data as the GAC goes into cheaper grades etc, you loose things like Molasses #, Ash, Iron, etc.. None in this hobby, other than Matrix, BRS Lignite and ROX give this data. All of them or most of them, do not want you to know how they compare to each other. I have data for thefilterguys, TLF and BD but can not give it out. As I said I would not, when it was given to me for Ken's current GAC studies. Data for BRS ROX and Liginte is not an issue as they got it from reading my post here and will admit to that, as somebody asked them

Scott

BRS Lignite is by far better than BD

[Boomer]

Randy you have already seen this or is it you did not read it "else" where

Dr. Andy Stamper:

A couple of observations on this complex issue.
We are currently putting the finishing touches on a manuscript describing the dynamics of HLLES in ocean surgeons housed in water polished with carbon. We are aiming for the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health.

• Ed Noga’s group has proposed to talk about a HLLES as a depigmentation clinical sign instead of a syndrome…Corrales, J; Ullal, A; Noga, EJ Lateral line depigmentation (LLD) in channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque). Journal of Fish Diseases. Volume 32 Issue 8, Pages 705 – 712.

• It is important to note there are possibly two phenomenon happening which are being labeled HLLES.

o One phenomenon affects the lateral line which takes two forms.

o One affects the neuromasts within the lateral line-has been documented with heavy metal toxicity.

o One causes an erosive “dermatitis” also known as Chronic Erosive Dermatopathy. We have found this version with the use of activated carbon and ozone.

 Baily, J E, Bretherton, M J, Gavine, FM, Ferguson, HW, and Turnbull, JF. 2005. The pathology of chronic erosive dermatopathy in Murray cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii (Mitchell) Journal of Fish Diseases 2005, 28, 3–12.
 The second phenomenon is known as “epithelial thinning” which is caused by high levels of cortisol…ie stress (multifactorial). Ed Noga’s group describes this in…Udomkusonsri, P., E.J. Noga and N. Monteiro-Riviere. 2004. Pathogenesis of the Acute Ulceration Response (AUR) in hybrid striped bass. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 61:199-213.

• Telling the difference….
o HLLES-Erosion starts at the pores and increases until they coalesce and the erosions blend to make a bigger ulcer.

o Thinning happens over a larger generalized area. Where the epithelium starts to become transparent and eventually thins to a point where an erosion takes place eventually resulting in an ulcer.

• We don’t know why the epithelial thinning and HLLES has a higher affinity for the facial region. We do know there is a significantly higher population of goblet cells within the facial and lateral line regions of ocean surgeons. We are currently looking at mitochondrial populations of the cells in these regions to see if they have a higher energy need and may be more susceptible to electron disruptions.

• Current controlled experiments using ocean surgeons:
o Coconut carbon has been repeatedly used at different main stream and side stream experiments. It causes very predictable HLLES in full stream as well as side stream which keeps the TOC below 0.5 ppm. Very little HLLES develops in the same side stream experiment where the flow is reduced allowing a 1.0 ppm TOC.
o HLLES develops in fish housed in water exposed to ozone but ORP of the environmental water at around 320 mV (no net oxidants compared to control systems).
o There have been two vitamin deletion studies with controls (Vit A and C) performed by the University of Florida. Vitamin A was negative. Vitamin C was equivocal and needs to be rerun.
o In-line UV did not cause it.
o In-line foam fractionation did not cause it but this experiment needs to be rerun.
o Metals-Application of carbon had no significant manipulation of metal concentration. No significant difference in aquarium tanks that had HLLES verses ones that did not.

HOWEVER…on open question is the speciation of metals available to the fish…One thing in common with ozone and carbon is the manipulation of DOCs. Carbon absorbing it until it the carbon is saturated and ozone chewing it up into smaller molecules. Is it possible that metals may be more toxic in these environment (i.e. toxic enough for these cells but not being overtly toxic) because they are not bound by the DOCs. This is a very complex question and is cost prohibitive to investigate.

• Carbon Dust-Our later carbon studies had 1 micro filters in-line (post carbon). Histopath did not show any carbon particles within the tissues. Another thought is there are plenty of silicates (diatoms) in the water which would be more affective source of irritants. Carbon dust would provide a large surface area for absorption but I am not convinced it acts as and irritant.

• Weight of fish per gallon…a ratio of 2.4 grams of fish/gallon (when the fish reach 30 grams and start to show breeding colors we average 6 fish/75 gallons) seem to keep most of the social stress at bay. We controlled for social structure to make sure this was not causing any HLLES signs.

• Healing of lesions during these experiments…Most of these experiments are a yes/no question. If using controls you can tell if a variable is causing the syndrome early in the HLLES process. At least in ocean surgeons, if you stop the experiment just when you start seeing HLLES and you do not have any complicating issues, the lesions heal fairly quickly so the euthanasia question should be need to be performed.

M. Andrew Stamper D.V.M., Dipl. A.C.Z.M.
Research Biologist/Clinical Veterinarian
Disney's Animal Programs and Environmental Initiatives
Walt Disney World Resorts

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, I did see that and I stopped my ozone as an experiment because of it.

But I was not able to translate the comments there into any useful action on the brand of carbon to use.

[Boomer]

But I was not able to translate the comments there into any useful action on the brand of carbon to use

I was

CC GAC is very low in dust and hard compared to something like BD, which makes BD a poorer choice of GAC over other GAC that have lower dust. The downside of CC GAC is that it is a poor choice for us, as the pores are way to small and almost all CC is very high in PO4. As one approaches the original material the Ash, contaminates and PO4 increase, except that which is acid washed. So, if we look at two bitum's, GAC like the TFG vs BD, the TFG is a much better choice in having less dust and contaminates. Then ask yourself the question " would any hospital use BD for dialysis" The answer would be a flat no way BD has to much dust, is not acid washed, water rinsed or pH neural and has higher contaminants. TFG GAC is used in dialyzes, it is a medial grad GAC used for that very purpose. ROX, TFG, TLF and BRS Lignite area all acid washed. Acid washing, removes Ash and contaminates. BD is not acid washed. So, we are back to square one, choosing a lower grade Ca++ sup with more contaminates vs higher grade with less contaminates. Which one would Randy use GAC is no different. We want a purer grade and at the same time these purer grades, that I listed above, are more adsorbent. As far as any potential dust goes, for ANY GAC, we can just use a post GAC micro filter. Then, how come is it that anybody that has used ROX or TFG will not go back to their old GAC choice. Reason, they almost could not believe the difference in water clarity and the price was worth it. If the theory holds water of, "just use more of it", then why don't companies that do water or liquid filtration just use "more of it" That way GAC companies could all just make one kind of GAC.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks, Boomer.

What do you think rinsing the GAC before use accomplishes with respect to dust and ash, etc. We don't get to rinse most other additives.

As a related question, if my goal is to clear yellow water while minimizing risk of HLLE, which would you pick, and if you had some BD around, would you wash it well, or just toss it, considering HLLE as the main concern?

[Boomer]

We don't get to rinse most other additives.

That was kinda a good come back


The rising is to flush out as best one can PO4, which you can even measure with at test kit, dust and any trapped gasses. It will no do much at all for ash. Some GAC when rinsed takes forever TGF and ROX requires no rinsing at all but I still say rinse all or any GAC for *maybe any trapped gases and to get it well wetted and any dust it * may have, even though it *seems dust free. I call it being safe. And as far as FW washing goes we do not really know what it will do other than the above. You could always acid wash your BD with HCl to lower ash and other contaminates. The HCl "eats" stuff right out of the GAC and gives a better GAC. I wish BD was acid washed but it is not. *If it was the dust and ash would be very low. And then use a 1 micro post GAC filter for any dust that was not washed out.or any potential future dust. Some GAC are acid washed with Nitric Acid and most hobby people, other than you, would never be able to get their hands on any, without the FBI pounding on their door

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, thanks again.

For acid washing, what sort of pH are we talking about?

[Boomer]

1

In acid washing there is usually a column tank of GAC and a tank of in coming acid solution, where HCl is added as needed to maintain a pH of 1 in the GAC column. Usually, the acid soltuion enters near the bottom and is then aloud to over flow in the GAC column, where it is returned back to that acid tank. When done by the pro's the activity of the GAC increases ~50 %. Time is ~ 30 min at 25 C. The acid washing opens the pores more, giving a better pore structure, removes most of the ash and Phosphate. The acid washed GAC is then neutralized or water rinsed to remove any dust, etc., and give a neural pH of 7.

Edit

And or a 2% HNO3 solution.

[SPStoner]

Boomer- I know better than to question your expertise, but can you tell me where you got your BD data? (by PM if necessary) I fear it may not be current.


Tony

[Boomer]

PM Tony buddy

[SPStoner]

Boomer has the current info ( I should have known)



Thanks, my friend. PM replied to.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks, Boomer. I see no reason to not do my own acid rinsing of GAC, since I rinse it anyway. Acid is cheap.

[Boomer]

Cool Randy and just try not to burn yourself Let me know how it works.