Just curious as to what the difference is between a normal filter and a wet/dry filter. Can you also tell me which is more beneficial to an aquarium and what the advantages/disadvantages are.
Thanks,
Ray
Thanks,
Ray
Filter types wet/dry vs regular
- Thread starter bobo2770
- Start date
A wet / dry filter refers to biological filtration. The most recognizable wet / dry filter is the bio-wheel found on Marineland products such as Emporer and Penguin HOB powerfilters. Another larger version of wet / dry filtration is using bio-material (bioballs and such) and trickling water over them before the water is pumped back into the aquarium. Since the bio-material isn't completly submerged all the time it has greater access to oxygen and should grow larger colonies of bacteria.
I sorta believe that with the exception of the HOB bio-wheel filters most wet / dry setups are for large aquariums as there are plenty of options for tanks of up to 100g that aren't wet / dry filters. That is to say that at 100g there are several cannister filters around that you could use as a stand alone or as the main filter in a two filter setup.
Now then, if your tank is 100g or less and not drilled I'd say you don't really need a wet / dry type filter unless you go the bio-wheel route. If your tank is say 75g or larger and drilled then by all means go the wet / dry filter route or more basically speaking use a sump aquarium as a filter.
Quick edit:
wet / dry filters can support large masses of bacteria, but depending upon how its set up can be weak as far as mechanical filtration is concerned.
I sorta believe that with the exception of the HOB bio-wheel filters most wet / dry setups are for large aquariums as there are plenty of options for tanks of up to 100g that aren't wet / dry filters. That is to say that at 100g there are several cannister filters around that you could use as a stand alone or as the main filter in a two filter setup.
Now then, if your tank is 100g or less and not drilled I'd say you don't really need a wet / dry type filter unless you go the bio-wheel route. If your tank is say 75g or larger and drilled then by all means go the wet / dry filter route or more basically speaking use a sump aquarium as a filter.
Quick edit:
wet / dry filters can support large masses of bacteria, but depending upon how its set up can be weak as far as mechanical filtration is concerned.
wet dry salt to FW?
I just picked up a wet/dry filter cheap at a garage sale that had been used for saltwater. I'm wondering if I ought to use it on the 110 gallon cichlid tank instead of the two Eheim filters. Or I could sell it. Opinions?
I just picked up a wet/dry filter cheap at a garage sale that had been used for saltwater. I'm wondering if I ought to use it on the 110 gallon cichlid tank instead of the two Eheim filters. Or I could sell it. Opinions?
anonapersona
IMO wet dry's are the king for bio-fitration. the three major drawbacks to wet dry systems is usually the up front cost, the fact that they aren't best (easy to maintain) mechanical filter out of the box, and if you inject CO2 they will gas it off very quickly. Since you already own it, if you don't have plants and you have good mechanical filtration, I would definately try it out. I don't know that I would sell the eheim's, or even quit using both of them, If it were me I would try out the wet dry with one Eheim and see how you like it for a couple of months, then you can decide what to change after you see how maintenance/ filtration goes. If you have plants and are adding CO2 I would reccomend selling the wet dry and sticking with the canisters.
JMHO HTH
IMO wet dry's are the king for bio-fitration. the three major drawbacks to wet dry systems is usually the up front cost, the fact that they aren't best (easy to maintain) mechanical filter out of the box, and if you inject CO2 they will gas it off very quickly. Since you already own it, if you don't have plants and you have good mechanical filtration, I would definately try it out. I don't know that I would sell the eheim's, or even quit using both of them, If it were me I would try out the wet dry with one Eheim and see how you like it for a couple of months, then you can decide what to change after you see how maintenance/ filtration goes. If you have plants and are adding CO2 I would reccomend selling the wet dry and sticking with the canisters.
JMHO HTH
the wet dry filter is a great filter. It lets you put all your equipment in one small out of site spot. I have a wet dry filter since my tank is salt water (soon to be fresh water). it let me put my heater and any other equipment into it istead of the tank. As far as tanks needing to be drilled, you can buy an overflow box instead of drilling. I dont know if nitrate and nitrites play into fresh water but if they do then a wet dry filter will build high nitrites.
stephen
stephen
Nitrates reflect the bioload on the tank, period.
Any ammonia generated in an unplanted FW tank will be converted to nitrate via nitite, just as it would in a SW w/o live rock/DSB/plenum/algae filter or refugium.
W/D filters may well compete with some of the alternate pathways for nitrogenous waste in SW, but in unplanted FW the nitrification bacteria are the only game in town. A W/D cannot produce more nitrate-nitrogen than the tank itself generates ammonia-nitrogen, whether FW or SW. Spontaneous generation is out.
SW folks discriminate against W/D because they (with justification) prefer the alternate pathways for ammonia. Those pathways are a bit more difficult to arrange in FW and seldom used.
Planted FW tanks actually do out-compete the bacterial nitrification process IME. I suspect that a 24/7 lighted refugium in SW would do the same (and I'm setting up some trials of FW 24/7 lighted refugia). Both those alternate nitrogen pathways involve ion transport rather than diffusion (as in DSP, live rock, or plenum denitrification), so have a bit of an advantage.
Any ammonia generated in an unplanted FW tank will be converted to nitrate via nitite, just as it would in a SW w/o live rock/DSB/plenum/algae filter or refugium.
W/D filters may well compete with some of the alternate pathways for nitrogenous waste in SW, but in unplanted FW the nitrification bacteria are the only game in town. A W/D cannot produce more nitrate-nitrogen than the tank itself generates ammonia-nitrogen, whether FW or SW. Spontaneous generation is out.
SW folks discriminate against W/D because they (with justification) prefer the alternate pathways for ammonia. Those pathways are a bit more difficult to arrange in FW and seldom used.
Planted FW tanks actually do out-compete the bacterial nitrification process IME. I suspect that a 24/7 lighted refugium in SW would do the same (and I'm setting up some trials of FW 24/7 lighted refugia). Both those alternate nitrogen pathways involve ion transport rather than diffusion (as in DSP, live rock, or plenum denitrification), so have a bit of an advantage.