More about filter media surface area - are they what they seem to be ?
 

A page from Seachem. (though is commercial itself)

Contains a laboratory study paper on comparison of Effective filter media surface area of Matrix, Eheim Substrate Pro and JBL MicroMec.

i do respect Seachem as a company and what they put up. Most importantly, they put up solid laboratory data for all , including competitors to see.

I have been using substrate and substrate pro after they launched it since 2001. Bought 12L of Matrix after reading this article. Keen to try it out.

some quotes :

"Seachem Laboratories sells Matrix, a natural porous stone, as a biological filter medium. Two competitors, Eheim (Substrat Pro) and JBL (MicroMec) are advertising their own biological filter media (in both cases, sintered glass) and are claiming larger specific surface areas than our claim for Matrix."

"...But we can go too far in the other direction. If we have a very large number of very, very small pores, then our specific surface area number will be phenomenal, but the medium will not work very well as a biological medium. This is due to physical limitations, specifically too small a volume to support bacterial growth, and the decreasing efficiency of fluid transport (necessary to carry nutrients to the bacteria and waste away from the bacteria) with very small pore sizes. (Small pores still play important roles in physical and chemical processes, such as adsorption.)..."

"....Matrix™ provides both external and internal macroporous surface area. These macropores are ideally sized for the support of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. This allows Matrix™, unlike other forms of biomedia, to remove nitrate along with ammonia and nitrite, simultaneously and in the same filter.
......" *Depending on flow rate*

"BET surface area measurements indicate that Matrix contains nearly 10 times the specific surface area of Substrat Pro, and more than 20 times the specific surface area of MicroMec. Practically all the specific surface area of both Substrat Pro and MicroMec are in the range of pore diameters to be biologically useful, while some of the surface area of Matrix is in pores that are reserved for physical and chemical processes, not biological processes. Estimates from two different pore geometries indicate that Matrix contains between 4 to 4 1⁄2 times the biologically active surface area of Substrat Pro, and between 8 to 9 times the biologically active surface area of MicroMec."


here is the paper , for your own judgement.
http://www.seachem.com/support/SpecificSurface.pdf

The research paper reveals impressive details about active surface areas of media.
Thanks bro shedding some light about this.
Worth to give a try.

Thanks John. Good stuff.

not paid by Seachem for this of course.

But i think by the evidences it provide, it is a solid product.

they are available in 4L buckets and the price is not more expensive than Substrate Pro.

I have been using Matrix for over 4 years now and have found it to be one of the best and most reliable biological filter media on today market, Closely followed by Bakki :D

So guys, armed with this information is there possibility in actually determining the optimum size of our bio filter? I'll be very surprise if such that you would actually require a 2 feet sump rather than a 4 feet or more version.

Why not send this to Eheim and see what they say about the research... : )

I am pretty sure Eheim should already have known about this since they are in competition :)

This paper is out in the open. It is not some sneaky claim, so Eheim can only respond with a better product and then prove it with a creditable report and evidence . Such info is good for consumers like us esp when we are paying premium prices for such products .

One interesting thing abt the Matrix is that it creates a condition where both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria can be housed. Aerobic resides near the outer surface while anaerobic resides in the core . Flowrate definitely will affect the proportions of both types. So far when we talk abt the popular brands like substrate pro, biohome , BH, mr aqua etc we focus only on the aerobic part.

More info on the website suggests that the Matrix is suitable for both submerged and wet/dry situations .

How is matrix compared to biohome?

As in 1kg compare with 1kg?

Yes, would like to find out about this too...

From what i have gathered from what Biohome has put up so far, it seems to be at best in the league of eheim substrate pro. That is the best case scenario, only provided if what they claimed so far is true.

Biohome is made of the same material as eheim substrate pro (sintered glass)

however, it claims to be able to house both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria like the Matrix.

Very useful information.. Can I find out where to get Matrix ? My LFS does not carry. Would appreciate if someone can PM me the price. Thanks.

To obtain Anaerobic filtration using Matrix, you need a slow flow rate. Then the Aerobic nitrifying bacteria colony on the outer shell of media will absorb Oxygen from water flowing around them and Anaerobic will get no Oxygen at the deeper inside media. This will result to Achieve Nitrification and Denitrification at the same media. So for high effieciency denitrification you must provide more Matrix media and slow flow rate. Also Seachem Denitratex is a very good media designed for more dentrification than nitrification resulting low or zero Nitrate in out flow. This will be a very interesting DIY project for anyone who worry about high NitrAte levels.

Can explain how slow is slow?

Bro Framejumbo, just to add,
Seachem Denitratex also has flow rate requirement. ie cannot be too fast too.

I was thinking of this idea:
(1) eheim has this "Prefilter" series. They are essentially the shells of 2213,2215 and 2217 without the motor. inlet and outlet tubes fittings etc are exactly the same.
(2) i intend to put one at the last compartment of my sump and fill it up with Seachem Denitratex
(3) use a low powered pump, something in range of 200L/H to connect to the inlet side. this will provide the flow into the canister.
(4) outlet side just point it right at the sump main return pump.

so in effect, it is a filter within a filter, and i can attain denitrification without compromising the flow rate of the main filtration system.

quite a luxurious idea but i think i will give it a try some day.

bro itchy, quoting from Seachem :

(1) denitrate™ is an economical, natural, porous material with a pore distribution and geometry that promotes both aerobic nitrification within the first few millimeters of depth and anaerobic denitrification at the core. The material has a high surface area and supports a high density of bacteria. Although de nitrate™ has capacity to trap nitrate, this, as with other nitrate retaining materials, such as certain zeolites and synthetic resins, is quite limited and the primary mechanism of nitrate removal is anaerobic.

(2) “Live” rocks or reef rocks remove nitrate by anaerobic denitrification. de nitrate™ removes nitrate by the same process. Efficiency is magnified several folds by forcing the water to filter through the porous de nitrate™. As with reef rock, anaerobic conditions are achieved by the porosity and the depletion of oxygen by the aerobic process at the surface. Excessive flow rates should, therefore, be avoided, as they may impede development of an adequate anaerobic environment to support denitrifying bacteria.
de nitrate™ is also an excellent media for aerobic nitrification and it makes an ideal biological filter in drip trays, canister filters, sumps, or even box filters. At high flow rates (greater than 100 US gallons per hour), it will function solely as an aerobic filter. At slow flow rates (less than 50 US gallons per hour), it will function as both an aerobic filter and an anaerobic denitrifying filter.

(3) For best results, de*nitrate™ should be placed to assure the flow of water through it, such as in a canister filter, chemical filtration module, or box filter. Flow rate should not exceed 200 L (50 gallons*) per hour. If higher flow rates are unavoidable, use Matrix™ or Pond Matrix™. It is best to rinse off dust before use. Once de*nitrate™ has been in use for several days, nitrate concentrations should start to fall and level off gradually at a concentration of about 4–5 mg/L as nitrate. As long as nitrate concentrations remain under control, the product is not exhausted. Each 500 mL of de*nitrate™ treats about 100–200 L (25–50 gallons*), depending on initial nitrate concentration and the current biological load. Enough should be used to remove nitrate at a rate at least as fast as the rate of formation. If very high nitrates are initially present, they should be brought down to less than 20 mg/L with water changes.

This is good bro. but as I know the prefilter has very small volume after you remove the yellow filter cartridge as below pic. Also if the prefilter sits in sump and the flow is limited to the water disbursed from inlet. So must pay attention to the flow.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-M.../prefilter.png

No not this one. It is full sized 2217 canister without motor . I bought one from petmart . Its called " eheim classic prefilter 600" . Exactly same body as 2217

Haha it is called dummy canister bro. Then it is good. The thinner diameter the better. Restrict you powerhead flow by reducing the hose diameter. Then get the right flow rate about 110 l/h. Best to test which maximum flow rate that can give the lowest NitrAte level. This way you will not replenish all the Oxygen content in water flow through Dummy canister. If you have sufficient meters, yo can see that outlet got low Oxygen ppm than inlet.

And when u restrict the flow, remember to put ball valve or whatever valve in outlet. Not the inlet side. Powerhead impeller will have minimum effect by doing that.

Are you refering to this one. I saw it at eheim japan website.

http://www.eheim.jp/pdf/subfilter_set_2213,2215.pdf

http://www.eheim.jp/pdf/sub-filter_4type_manual.pdf

Yes yes thats the one .

Oops its sub filter not prefilter