activated carbon

[bennylax3]

How long is it good for?

[TKOS]

As something that removes chemicals from the water, probably 3-4 days at max. As a place for bacteria to grow, forever.

I have never used it in my tanks except to remove old medications. I use sponges and just rinse them out when I change my water. Costs a lot less money.

[aquariumfishguy]

3-4 days? Hmmm thats debatable. Even the most skeptical of all skeptics have said it lasts as a chemical media for 2+ weeks. I would say 3-4 weeks personally, but that JMO.

The bigger point, is that carbon is generally not needed unless you have a medication, severe smell, or dye to remove. I (personally) haven't used carbon in years.

Links to Carbon Related Topics

Carbon - Q & A (http://www.care4fish.com/carbon)

General Carbon Information (http://www.hallman.org/filter/carbon.html)

[125gJoe]

At best, one month..

[snakeskinner]

I've had my penguin/emporer cartridges for a few months and have just been cleaning off the pad when I do waterchanges. Most medications say to remove the filter cartridges. Am I wasting my time doing this? I'd rather leave the cartridges in so they can do their jobs. I have been removing them because it appears they would remove the medication from the water it was filtering but if the carbon has lost it's ability to work, I'd rather leave them in. thanks, Kyle

[TKOS]

Chances are that the carbon will do nothing to the meds if it is spent. However, carbon in theory can loose its bonds with toxic substances if another substance comes along that has stronger bonding potential. And meds genrally present strong bonding potential.

I said chances are that this will not happen but this is another reason I do not bother running carbon in any of my tanks. I replaced all of those catridges with sponges cut to fit.

[Hound]

Carbon lifespan depends upon quality, but 2-6 weeks is about the correct range. I have to say I don't think its wise to keep used up carbon in your filtration system, but I'd kinda like to see some filters have the option of buying media without carbon.

[Karlsbad]

So what about it releasing toxins when its spent? After you rinse it once its spent is it safe then?

[blitzen25bm]

carbon does not leech out whatever it has absorbed after any length of time.

[DLeung10]

If the tap water doesn't taste good for human consumption, would it be safe to say carbon should be used for the fish tank ?

[TKOS]

Like I said it is unlikely that it will give up any toxins but it can. It won't leech out though, it will only happen if something with stronger bonding potential comes along. Though the paper isn't realeased yet, it has been shown by people I work with in for carbon filtered masks. Funny thing is that water has a stronger bonding potential for carbon than acetone does. Don't use your filter maks in damp conditions!

[125gJoe]

I quoted this for quick reading.. The site is "resoasis.com" ....

>>Carbon

What does filter carbon do? Carbon has the ability to "catch" certain chemicals that occur in water (or air, for that matter) by "adsorption". In aquariums, carbon's chief role is to tie up the chemicals that cause discoloration and odors, which are then removed from the system periodically as the carbon is discarded.

Are some carbons better than others? Yes, some filter carbons (the coarse, shiny black stuff) are no more than anthracite coal, and have very limited adsorptive properties. Other carbons are "activated", meaning they were exposed to extreme heat and/or steam to increase their effectiveness. These dull, lighter, carbons may have hundreds of times the capacity of standard coal.

Should everyone use the highest quality carbon? Probably not. Many hobbyists use low to medium grades of carbon, but either use it in large quantities or change it often. Others have high-flow filters that can grind the softer, high quality carbons to dust, which is then blown into the aquarium. On the other hand, some filters hold only small amounts of carbon, so better grades should be used.

Do carbons get full? Yes, eventually the filter carbon has bonded all the chemicals that it can handle. How long that takes depends on the quality and quantity of carbon, the load of fish waste, and several lesser factors. If the aquarium water is taking on an odor or is yellowing, the carbon is full.

Can carbon be re-activated? In a word, no. Heating carbon in a household oven might reclaim a tiny fraction of carbon's power, but probably not enough to pay for the fuel to heat it. It is best to discard used carbon.

How often should carbon be changed? Once carbon is full, it served very little purpose in the aquarium. (It does become a site for good bacteria to colonize and break down ammonia and nitrite, but there's generally no shortage of such sites elsewhere.) Furthermore, some of the compounds adsorbed by the carbon will eventually break down and be released into the aquarium. Carbon should certainly be changed when colors or odors in the water indicate that it has become exhausted.<<

[aquariumfishguy]

You know, at this point there are a few people who claim that carbon doesn't release any toxins into the water, but many still stand by the origional (and founded) claims. There is evidence to support both arguments, but I find that its more a theory (an unproven, yet educated idea) than anything else.

Regardless, both sides of this "debate" (for lack of better words) will tell you that carbon looses it's effectiveness after a short time, and both sides will openly admit that carbon isn't really needed. Sure, there are some reasons for carbon usage but it would be hard to list many for a cycled, established tank.

[RTR]

C'mon AFG, materials which have been "broken down" or digested by bacteria/infusoria/fungi are no longer the original material, therefore the original material is not released in the commonly understood sense of the term. Materials which have had their proteins consumed at the unattached ends, or some sugars lopped off or cyclic compounds opened up are unlikely to cause the same issues as the original material, and whatever the original was, the result of breakdown is raw material incorporated onto whatever microbe was eating on it. That is a far strech from release. No relationship at all. Tilting at windmills IMHO.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by aquariumfishguy
theory (an unproven, yet educated idea)

I suggest you look up the definition of theory. ;)

[aquariumfishguy]

Hell, I'm no scientist but if you're not happy with my definition, I'll go to some well known "dictionary" sites for the technicle term...:rolleyes:

theory

"Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory."

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

"an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "true in fact and theory" "
------------------------------------------------------------

...those statements are pretty much saying the same thing as something, which may have many facts backed behind it but isn't proven.

[Hound]

Funny how a simple question can spawn so much fuss.

[aquariumfishguy]

lmao...yes it is isn't it. I mean, sure there are some bright people here but do we really need to resort to telling people you "suggest you look up a word" in the dictionary? How dorky.

Opps, JMO. :p :D

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by Hound
Funny how a simple question can spawn so much fuss. Stick around! :D :laugh: :D