|
|
23-02-2012, 09:53 AM | #1 |
Arofanatic
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 167
|
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 |
23-02-2012, 01:55 PM | #2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
The research paper reveals impressive details about active surface areas of media.
Thanks bro shedding some light about this. Worth to give a try. |
23-02-2012, 02:36 PM | #3 |
Arofanatic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 150
|
Thanks John. Good stuff.
|
23-02-2012, 05:15 PM | #4 |
Arofanatic
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 167
|
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. |
23-02-2012, 05:30 PM | #5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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
|
23-02-2012, 06:19 PM | #6 |
Arofanatic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 150
|
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.
|
24-02-2012, 07:31 PM | #7 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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.
|
24-02-2012, 08:00 PM | #8 | |
Endangered Dragon
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,159
|
Quote:
|
|
24-02-2012, 08:41 PM | #9 |
Arofanatic
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 167
|
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. |
24-02-2012, 11:24 PM | #10 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|