Of chlorine, chloramine, carbon and zeolite.

First.. Where is the evidence that ammonia detoxifiers such as Prime DON'T make the chemically bound ammonia available to the biofilter? It states directly on the Seachem website that it DOES detoxify while the bound ammonia remains available to the biofilter. Don't you think, that if that was the truth, in such a popular hobby and a lawsuit-happy America, that someone would have called them out on blatant false advertisement?

It works, and it works well, and I will not stop using it in emergency situations. It is already known that ammonia detoxifiers don't remove the ammonia, meaning it will still show up on an ammonia test. As far as I'm concerned.. that is NOT a "false positive", because the ammonia is still in the water, it is just chemically bound and detoxified.

Also, I've never heard of a bacteria that could take an inorganic chemical such as chloramine, separate it on a molecular level, and then consume the resulting chlorine molecules, but not the ammonia molecules?

Last.. Zeolite is technically an "artificial" means for removing ammonia. How is using zeolite to remove ammonia any different from consistently using a water conditioner? At least Prime leaves the bound ammonia available to the bacterial biofilter. Zeolite completely removes it, which causes TRUE starvation of the bacteria, and promoting the very situation that water conditioners in this thread are being accused of.
 
It most certainly does.

Rbishop said:
Carbon does not regenerate by it self...take a few hundred degrees of temp to free up the bond...Prime is much easier..
Click to expand...

You are speaking of thermic regeneration, a process not easily adapted to the home aquarium, nor cost effective. There are a few different methods of regenerating carbon, the net has them all.

The net has patents and pages dealing with biological regeneration, many.

I understand that most will not be aware of this, biological regeneration of carbon filters, it certainly does not help to sell carbon. But, home aquarium keepers have been aware of this for over a century.

Usually, the units have to be removed from service to be biologically reactivated. This is not surprising, in most systems it is not desirable to have micro organisms floating around in the product, vodka is one example. In fact, who would want to drink vodka after it was run over a biologically regenerated carbon filter?

Aquariums are a natural for biological regeneration. In fact, it would be impossible to stop this process, unless the aquarium water itself was sterile.
 
Disagree completely..aquaria can..carbon can't.
 
as to zeolite.

J double R said:
and then consume the resulting chlorine molecules, but not the ammonia molecules?

Last.. Zeolite is technically an "artificial" means for removing ammonia. How is using zeolite to remove ammonia any different from consistently using a water conditioner? At least Prime leaves the bound ammonia available to the bacterial biofilter. Zeolite completely removes it, which causes TRUE starvation of the bacteria, and promoting the very situation that water conditioners in this thread are being accused of.
Click to expand...

The first part of your text deals with personal preference, and of course, that is personal.

However, aquatic plants have a definite preference for ammonia based nitrogen, papers on the net can verify this. Most aerobic micro organisms also demonstrate a preference for organic forms of nitrogen, again, the net can verify this. Anaerobic bacterias function in all this is a little more debated, at this time, the net can verify this.

Zeolite occurs as a natural rock formation, it can also be created commercially, but not as cost effectively as the naturally occurring deposits can be mined, usually.

Zeolite is nothing like the action of chemicals which 'neutralize' ammonia. Zeolite exchanges sodium ions for ammonia. You can then remove the zeolite, and the ammonia with it from the tank, regenerate the zeolite again, and use it again. With the chemicals, the ammonia remains in altered forms. On the net, you can find the value of one debated against the other, above, in another post, I have included an example.

In my AquaClear filter, the zeolite lays on top of all the other filter media. All the plants in the tank are given first crack at grabbing the ammonia/fertilizer, then the micro organisms in the sponge, carbon and biological media have their chance, finally, the zeolite can grab the last. Of course, this process is on going as waste materials develop more ammonia. The plants are not starved for ammonia, the bacteria in the filter is not starved for ammonia, and it appears to work very well.

If someone finds their aquarium demands more ammonia, to function correctly, the zeolite can simply be pulled. In an emergency, you could drop some ammonia in the tank, I suppose.
 
I understand, searching the net can be a pain.

Rbishop said:
Disagree completely..aquaria can..carbon can't.
Click to expand...

So, here is an article from the University of Illinois which speaks to the use of carbon in sludge treatment, I suspect that means the byproduct of human urine and feces:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=f422236f311c0bff732d63aa83712c87

It actually states that the properties of carbon are enhanced, over time, in use. They give credit to biological regeneration. Actually, I am surprised this can occur at all in a sludge filter; I am not that shocked it occurs in aquariums.
 
Well ...

coach_z said:
This is all very interesting winston. can you please post up results of before/after chlorine/chloramine and ammonia levels when doing a water change?
Click to expand...

I have no method to measure chlorine or chloramine, ammonia always remains zero. I mentioned, I run the zeolite 24/7 on the top of the AC filter media stack.

I take it, you don't believe that carbon strips the chlorine atom of the chloramine? Am I correct? You want me to post a site to a credible source?
 
I'm wondering what the cost of your method entails...

100mL of Prime treats 1000 US gallons of water. For me, that is about 100 water changes or almost two years worth of dechlorinator for under $10. Gets even cheaper if you buy the larger containers.

Of course pure sodium thiosulfate is even cheaper but out of convenience of just picking it up at any LFS I know of I will always choose Prime.
 
I think the important thing to remember is that for most people, Prime does work well, and makes water changes most convenient. More water changes = healthier fish. Many people simply won't do as many water changes if aging the water is required. I can't comment on which is better, using Prime vs. treating water with carbon/Zeolite which seems to be your method, but obviously you have a different kind of tap water than most/many of us, a more difficult kind of water to work with for aquarium keeping. I am lucky in that my well water is rich in alkaline reserve, no nitrates, no chlorines or chloramines. So I can change directly from the tap to the tank, 50% or more with no issue.

How you make your tap water safe for your fish is completely your prerogative. I am surprised people are getting defensive about that. I think if you said you used Prime and then carbon no one would care, they would think you're being extra careful, but to use carbon by itself to make tap water fish safe may seem reckless to some. It's the way we've been made to think - that chloramine needs to be chemically neutralized, unlike chlorine which could simply be "aired out" in as little as 24 hours. Some folks just sprayed their new water into their aquarium with an aerator and that took care of it. Not so with chloramine...but probably carbon and Zeolite does completely take care of it.

What doesn't surprise me, is that people are getting defensive about you saying that carbon regenerates itself, if that is indeed what you are saying.

If you are saying that heat is not necessary to regenerate carbon, and that carbon, like wine, actually becomes better over time, then you are going against basically everything that is written about carbon usage and will stir up a heck of a lot of controversy on an aquarium site (perhaps this is your intention).

Heat is necessary to regenerate carbon, that is why it is not practical for the home aquarist and why carbon is considered a disposable product.

Here is a link to a report published by the Environmental Protection Agency about Granular Activated Carbon Absorption and Regeneration:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/carbon_absorption.pdf

Carbon regeneration is accomplished primarily by thermal means. Organic matter within the pores of the carbon is oxidized and thus removed from the carbon surface. The two most widely used regeneration methods are rotary kiln and multiple hearth furnaces. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the carbon is destroyed in the regeneration process or lost during transport and must be replaced with virgin carbon. The capacity of the regenerated carbon is slightly less than that of virgin carbon. Repeated regeneration degrades the carbon particles until an equilibrium is eventually reached providing predictable long term system performance.
 
Platytudes: Science direct is a site for scholarly journal articles that have been published.

I have no easy way of logging into my school account right now to read anything but the abstract but to the OP I would be cautious comparing the biological activity of a sludge unit to that of the aquarium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom