Activated Carbon

[milesmiles902]

Hello everyone!

 

I was just wondering what your opinions are about Activated Carbon. Recently, I have been doing about 1/2 cup carbon per 50 gallons. I heard the length in which it last is only a couple days, but I want to hear your opinions. How long do you think it lasts? Along with, how much do you use?

Edited December 9, 2015 by milesmiles902

[Mandinga]

I run carbon passively(not in a reactor)...I change it after about a month, but I definitely don't run it all the time...

 

Be very careful on the brand selection, there have been brands in the past like Kent that have nuked hundreds of tanks due to contamination. The ESV brand is what I use with no ill effects. I used to get the Woody Special from Seahorse back in the day, stuff worked great, and was el cheapo.

 

I believe Kent has made the correction, FWIW.

[Blue Z Reef]

I use it in a BRS dual reactor with a little phosban. Usually about 2ish cups in my 210 gal (medium-heavily stocked) and change roughly every 4 weeks. I rely on my fuge to take care of any slack as it depletes.

 

And despite what some people probably think, I use Petco pellet carbon. Never had an issue for several years. Sizzles like crazy after initial rinse and I like the pellet size for use in a reactor without sponges.

[milesmiles902]

I have been using MarineLand passively off and on for about 3 weeks now. Usually once, maybe twice a week. I notice that on my smaller tank it has the potential of lowering the pH a bit, but not on my main tank, where I use less per volume.

 

What can be tested to check if the activated carbon is bad? I know with phosban or GFO, you just test when the phosphates go up. Although, you can't really do that with activated carbon.

[pledosophy]

I would be concerned if running carbon passively means placing it in a filter bag in your sump IME. 

 

The problem with carbon and why many hobbyists went to reactors that uses sponges is because the "dust" or small particulates that break off of the carbon over time have been shown to get trapped in the gills of many fish. This creates a respiration problem that has been linked to many fish diseases. This is also true of other products like GFO, Chemipure-Elite, etc. IME they really are much safer when used with a nice little sponge intended to block those particulates from entering your display. 

 

That said. I do have a carbon reactor setup on my tank, but it is not running. I only see the need to run carbon if I notice a problem By having it setup and ready to go at the flip of a switch, if I do see that problem them I am prepared. 

When I was keeping leather corals with SPS I found running carbon continously at about a cup a week in a 320g system did a good job with negating the chemical warfare released between the animals. 

Hope that helps. 

[Mandinga]

 

 

I put my carbon in a fine micron bag, and then it goes into the filter sock...double your protection.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Mandinga

[Blue Z Reef]

I guess I should have also stated that my dual reactor drain goes into my filter sock to avoid any particles getting into the system.

[badxgillen]

My opinion is if you could add less and change it more frequently that would be great... But what I really do, is like many, change it out once a month and rinse it every week to remove accumulated detritus. I also adjust the amount of carbon going in to each system as there are varying bioloads and amounts organics to be removed. And I am not a reactor kinda guy hence the rinsing of the media.

[pledosophy]

My opinion is if you could add less and change it more frequently that would be great... But what I really do, is like many, change it out once a month and rinse it every week to remove accumulated detritus. I also adjust the amount of carbon going in to each system as there are varying bioloads and amounts organics to be removed. And I am not a reactor kinda guy hence the rinsing of the media.

You really should do more then just rinse it. That will not be enough over time. 

 

The peer reviewed study was published back in 11' in the North American Journal of Aquaculture. The study was conducted by Jay Hemdal. There have been other studies before and after. Noga references it, Dr.Belli references it in the book Working Notes. 

 

It's funny to me it took so long to get funding for scientific research with control groups to be conducted, published, and peer reviewed as Leng Sy was stating the correlation back in the 80's. People used to send Sy Large expensive Angel fish to put his Ecosystem tanks as his tanks would cure the fish of HLLE. I remember being in his shop once with several 3-4k Angels he had been sent to cure in the 90's.

 

Sy's systems did not use carbon as he was using taxifloria to remove waste/toxins from the system. 

 

If you have ever seen slides from fish necropsy from tanks with carbon, that dust gets under their gills and causes problems. You can see it in the tissue of some of the fish as well, depending on the species. 

 

Ancedotal reports from specific types of GFO are actually much worse than carbon, no research study that I have been privy to has addressed that yet. However Boyd (Chemi Pure guy) does not recommend Chemi Pure Elite be used in tanks with certain types of fish based on their testing. He doesn't recommend it, but he does make the product. 

 

We don't have to guess anymore, or give opinions on certain things. They are studied, researched, tested, published, peer reviewed, proven. The information is made public. While 10-15 years ago there was a lot of guess work in this hobby, much of that has been removed now. Carbon is one of those things. 

[Mandinga]

the sponges that come with the tlf reactors are extremely porous...much more porous than a micron bag and filter sock...which is why i disconnected all of my reactors because too much dust and particles were entering the system. Many times i tested the output by running 5+ gallons into a separate bucket off the reactor, and little particles would frequently show up...passive carbon in a filter sock seemed to have far less escaping particles because water is not being pushed through every particulate of carbon.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Mandinga

[badxgillen]

I am just saying what I do in response to the original posts question. I throw a bag of carbon in a filter sock and when it is time to rinse the sock the carbon gets a rinse as well. I use about half the amount that he does with a half a cup going into a 100 gallons. I have many corals that benefit from the use of carbon and I have noticed a direct correlation of tank appearance when the carbon is removed for any lengthy period of time. My tanks get more pros from using carbon than cons I feel. I have read the article on carbon fines and LLE & gills with tangs being one of the susceptible. Removing the fines, if and when using carbon,should be extracted to the best of ones abilities and I am glad it was mentioned. 

 

I also agree with what everyone is saying, I suppose I should have changed the word opinion to Suggestion and then maybe my post would have been seen in a different light. Anyhow, if you want to chat more about things you are welcome to stop by sometimes Miles, I love chatting reef.

[TheClark]

Ah, my poor tangs(yellow, clown, hipp, naso)!  

 

Going on three years with constant carbon use and thankfully no HLLE!  I wonder if it is because the particles settle out at one end of the 55 gallon sump?  Maybe it is not making it into the tank.

 

I will probably add a filter sock at this point though, good discussion.

[pledosophy]

the sponges that come with the tlf reactors are extremely porous...much more porous than a micron bag and filter sock...which is why i disconnected all of my reactors because too much dust and particles were entering the system. Many times i tested the output by running 5+ gallons into a separate bucket off the reactor, and little particles would frequently show up...passive carbon in a filter sock seemed to have far less escaping particles because water is not being pushed through every particulate of carbon.

Oh ya, I agree not all sponges are created equal. 

 

Just speculating if your using a micron bag small enough to catch the particles your what like under 5? If the inlets are that small how much water is actually moving into and out of that bag? We know water takes the path of least resistance so I wonder how much is actually moving through the bag passively. Take into account the clogging of particles I wonder what the diminishing return is. I would guess not much water moves through the bag, but I don't really know. 

Compare that to a reactor where a couple hundred gallons or more is pumped through hourly.

 

I wonder that the difference actually is in effectiveness of the different methods. While the PH.D guys talk about carbon dust attaching to fish etc, I can't find mention of the size on a second read through. I don't know if a 10 micron filter sock would be enough to stop the dust or it would fly through like a pea through a hula hoop. I really don't know. Maybe a 1 micron sock is to big. 

 

I'm curious now. 

 

If the filter sock is sufficient to stop the particle dust from entering the system then I would guess Bill has the best of both worlds in getting the carbon to have hundreds of GPH pass through it while still having the benefit of the filtration so the dust does not enter the display. 

 

I'll ask a couple of the homies about it and report back. 

[Mandinga]

I put the micron bag in the overflow filter sock, so there is alot of surface agitation, but it's impossible to know how effective the carbon actually is. Escaping dust to me is more of a risk than the carbon not working as well to remove impurities. Its kind of a danged if u do danged if i don't situation i suppose.

[numb-n-stingy]

I use a half cup of BRS ROX Carbon mixed with a 1/4 cup of gfo. I run it through a mini reactor and change media once every two weeks. This is in a Red Sea reefer 250.

[milesmiles902]

Wow! That sure was a lot of replies.

 

I also agree with what everyone is saying, I suppose I should have changed the word opinion to Suggestion and then maybe my post would have been seen in a different light. Anyhow, if you want to chat more about things you are welcome to stop by sometimes Miles, I love chatting reef.

Right on. Yeah, I am always down to chat about some corals. Appreciate the support.

 

You really should do more then just rinse it. That will not be enough over time. 

 

The peer reviewed study was published back in 11' in the North American Journal of Aquaculture. The study was conducted by Jay Hemdal. There have been other studies before and after. Noga references it, Dr.Belli references it in the book Working Notes. 

 

It's funny to me it took so long to get funding for scientific research with control groups to be conducted, published, and peer reviewed as Leng Sy was stating the correlation back in the 80's. People used to send Sy Large expensive Angel fish to put his Ecosystem tanks as his tanks would cure the fish of HLLE. I remember being in his shop once with several 3-4k Angels he had been sent to cure in the 90's.

 

Sy's systems did not use carbon as he was using taxifloria to remove waste/toxins from the system. 

 

If you have ever seen slides from fish necropsy from tanks with carbon, that dust gets under their gills and causes problems. You can see it in the tissue of some of the fish as well, depending on the species. 

 

Ancedotal reports from specific types of GFO are actually much worse than carbon, no research study that I have been privy to has addressed that yet. However Boyd (Chemi Pure guy) does not recommend Chemi Pure Elite be used in tanks with certain types of fish based on their testing. He doesn't recommend it, but he does make the product. 

 

We don't have to guess anymore, or give opinions on certain things. They are studied, researched, tested, published, peer reviewed, proven. The information is made public. While 10-15 years ago there was a lot of guess work in this hobby, much of that has been removed now. Carbon is one of those things. 

 

You know, for me it is really hard to compare studies for reefs to my aquarium. Each tank is different, and has many differing/unique variables. I imagine if you repeat the same study, with the same tank, you'll arrive at the same answer. Although, I think it is difficult to compare different closed systems. Sy uses a lot of mud instead of carbon, who is to say that it wasn't the mud and not the lack of carbon. It makes it challenging.

 

It sure seems like that each person uses carbon differently, but in the end everyone does use it. I really think it is required to make a tank look and run better, but it really depends on the tank. I think if you were doing a slow flow over a mesh bag of carbon youll be fine. Look at the pore size of filter bags for mechanical filters. They are mighty big, compared to a micron mesh bag. 

[Zwickm]

Brs ROX .8 is great! No dust and extremely effective. I use it in a reactor. Watch the brs carbon test videos.

[milesmiles902]

I'll check it out. Thanks!

[pledosophy]

 

You know, for me it is really hard to compare studies for reefs to my aquarium. Each tank is different, and has many differing/unique variables. I imagine if you repeat the same study, with the same tank, you'll arrive at the same answer. Although, I think it is difficult to compare different closed systems. Sy uses a lot of mud instead of carbon, who is to say that it wasn't the mud and not the lack of carbon. It makes it challenging. 

 

It sure seems like that each person uses carbon differently, but in the end everyone does use it. I really think it is required to make a tank look and run better, but it really depends on the tank. I think if you were doing a slow flow over a mesh bag of carbon youll be fine. Look at the pore size of filter bags for mechanical filters. They are mighty big, compared to a micron mesh bag. 

 

I think Leng Sy would want you to believe that it is the Miracle Mud for sure. Part of that might be right that with good filtration and more nutrition (assuming the mud is being used as a refugium to grow various size of pods and shrimp like Leng does) that it will put the fish on the road to recovery. BUT also removing the source of irritation which many believe to be the carbon, is also going to help that road to recovery. Leng doesn't run carbon on his systems, or at least he didn't back when I hung out at his shop, he might have changed in the last 12 years since we used to chat frequently. 

 

There are several examples of necropsy being performed on fish from systems that use carbon that show that the carbon fines can end up lodged in the fishes gills and under the fishes scales which cause irritation resulting in other complications. That is known pretty well accepted. Some of the more responsible manufacturers like Byod's will even warn against using some of their products with certain species of fish. 

 

While a micron bag might be the solution over say a mesh bag, without knowing the size of the carbon "fines" or dust particles that really is an assumption. While it may be an accurate one, it also may not be. Just because there are carbon fines stuck to the bag does not mean that thousands of other fines entered the system. If the fine size is .1 micron and your using a 1 micron bag then there is still ample room for them to enter the aquarium and affect the fish. I had been looking for an answer to the size of a carbon fine but have not been able to find it anywhere. 

 

I did find a video put out by BRS that showed the difference between using carbon in a reactor and using it with passive flow through a mesh bag clearing a test tank with a known containment and while the reactor was faster the mesh bag did catch up pretty quickly and did just as good of a job clearing the system. Since most of us would use a bag for a couple days and not a couple hours it seems from the results of their video that a passive mesh bag compared to a reactor does not have that significant of difference, although they do warn that for prolonged use the carbon can "clump" making it less effective. 

 

Currently I do have carbon on "stand by" if an emergency arises,(the same way I have Diamox, Praziquentinal, and Triple Sulpha) but it is not something I have used in over a year now. 

 

JMO

[goldenbasketreef]

Passive carbon usage is very inefficient because a lot of the carbon absorption only happened in the top part of media bags.

A lot of water bounce over and didn't get filter. Depending on the way you place it, the carbon bag will get dirty overnight making it less water to pass though.

 

Micron filter and carbon reactor is the best way to utilize carbon filtration. Free floating particulate matter water will pass through reactor and passing all the surface

area of carbon without restriction. Change the carbon often because carbon will release back what it absorbs when the pores fill up.

 

In any case whatever work the best for your application don't change. You alone that knows well how your aquarium system works.

One way of doing thing will not necessary applicable for your system so improvise.

[The ReefBox]

Passive carbon usage is very inefficient because a lot of the carbon absorption only happened in the top part of media bags.

A lot of water bounce over and didn't get filter. Depending on the way you place it, the carbon bag will get dirty overnight making it less water to pass though.

 

Micron filter and carbon reactor is the best way to utilize carbon filtration. Free floating particulate matter water will pass through reactor and passing all the surface

area of carbon without restriction. Change the carbon often because carbon will release back what it absorbs when the pores fill up.

 

In any case whatever work the best for your application don't change. You alone that knows well how your aquarium system works.

One way of doing thing will not necessary applicable for your system so improvise.

 

 

Rudy I think your last statement puts it very well. I love reef discussion and agree there are lots of ways to skin a cat and what works for some doesn't necessarily work for all

[pledosophy]

Passive carbon usage is very inefficient because a lot of the carbon absorption only happened in the top part of media bags.

A lot of water bounce over and didn't get filter. Depending on the way you place it, the carbon bag will get dirty overnight making it less water to pass though.

I always thought this too, but after watching a video of someone actually testing it, I found out that what I thought was true was wrong.  The reactor and passive bag don't have to much of a difference, just a couple of hours or so if I remember right. Although the test did not go for days, as it only took the carbon hours to clear the containment. 

[milesmiles902]

I always thought this too, but after watching a video of someone actually testing it, I found out that what I thought was true was wrong.  The reactor and passive bag don't have to much of a difference, just a couple of hours or so if I remember right. Although the test did not go for days, as it only took the carbon hours to clear the containment. 

 

Could you link the video?

 

The craziest thing I find about activated carbon is that quite a lot of aquarist use it, but we still have nothing to test for. For either life-time of the carbon, or quantity to add.. It is has always been a rule of thumb and probably always will be. It's hilarious. Guess that is the beauty of the hobby. Sometimes you just know what's best. As goldenbasketreef said.

 

Is there alternatives to activated carbon?

[badxgillen]

My corals can tell when the carbon is exhausted so I go by that test...Until there is one for allelopathic terpinoid saturation.

Organic scavenger resins can be used but they can be costly and their efficiency is questionable. 

 

I am always up for seeing more information on the subject so thanks to all who have chimed in so far.

[pledosophy]

Could you link the video?

 

 

 

I mean you have to consider the source a little bit since they are trying to sell you something. I think it is at about the 5 minute mark they show their experiment.