what is the best fluidized media filter?

kodyboy · 08/13/2007, 04:37 PM

I have TLF phosban reactors, how does the viaaqua polyreactor compare? The kent? the AquaC? Could you use a rainbow lifeguard (pentair aquatics) fluidized bed filter for chemical media instead of sand?

pjf · 08/13/2007, 05:17 PM

I have a MRC FMC-415 (http://www.myreefcreations.com/fmc.htm). Because of the external pump (Eheim 1046) that hangs from the filter, it is not the easiest device to remove from your sump for maintenance.

If I were to start over again, I would take a closer look at the following fluidized media filter which has an internal pump:
http://www.customaquatic.com/customa...=FI-SHMULTI100

Percula9 · 08/13/2007, 07:25 PM

Yes, you can use different media in the lifeguard.

kodyboy · 08/13/2007, 07:29 PM

thanks

I will look at the schuran, looks nice
On the lifeguard would I have to Jerry-rig some sort of sponge at the top to avoid media in the sump?
Anyone else?

pjf · 08/13/2007, 09:14 PM

Most vendors of fluidized media filters provide two sponges and allow you to order more. The two sponges are for the top and bottom of the media compartment. They prevent the media from escaping into your sump.

I ordered a 3rd sponge to separate my granular activated carbon (GAC) medium from my granular ferric oxide (GFO) medium.

kodyboy · 08/13/2007, 09:18 PM

thanks on the sponges

I have found purigen to be somewhat annoying in my phosban reactor as it is so small it gets everywhere. I now use filter floss to keep it in the reactor.

pjf · 08/13/2007, 10:20 PM

I have no experience with Purigen. The media that is "in fashion" on the Chemistry Forum are:

- GAC: Norit ROX 0.8 (http://www.twopartsolution.com/index...ex&cPath=74_38)

- GFO: Warner Marine PHOSaR HC (http://www.premiumaquatics.com/Merch...ry_Code=warner)

I am using the above media now. To keep dust from entering the sump, I rinse the media by running the fluidized media filter in a bucket of filtered or RO/DI water. I let the effluent run into the sink. When the effluent is clear, the filter can be placed into your sump.

I've started to take water quality measurements to determine the effectiveness of the GAC and GFO. Based on initial phosphate readings, the GFO appears to be working. I have no idea how to determine if the GAC is absorbing dissolved organic carbons (DOC) that bypass the skimmer. I'm not sure if the Salifert Organics kit is the appropriate kit to use.

kodyboy · 08/14/2007, 06:58 AM

thanks. Is the warner marine phosar HC better than the GFO from two part solution? It is a lot more expensive.

pjf · 08/14/2007, 12:45 PM

You are correct. PHOSaR HC is 3 times the price of Bayoxide 33 by weight and 5-6 times the price by volume.

I have only used PHOSaR HC so I cannot give you a comparative answer. PHOSaR HC is almost twice the density of Bayoxide 33 and I am told that the greater density means that PHOSaR HC is more durable and less prone to dusting and disintegration with strong flow.

Here are some possible reasons for using Bayoxide 33:

Greater Dwell Time. For your 100 gallon tank, 5 tablespoons of PHOSaR HC is sufficient. A 5-tablespoon layer of PHOSaR HC in a 4-inch diameter reactor is only 1/3-inches high. If not distributed evenly, there could be channeling. The same weight of Bayoxide 33 will be twice as thick and allow for greater dwell time.

Lower Replacement Cost. Although GFO media can last twice as long as GAC media, the GFO is normally replaced at the same time that the GAC is replaced. It is a lot cheaper to replace Bayoxide 33 than PHOSaR HC.

pjf · 08/14/2007, 05:57 PM

Another alternative is to use an external canister filter. Randy Holmes-Farley uses a Marineland 350 Pro. Canister filters have a faster flow rate so the GFO and GAC are often mixed together to keep the GFO from tumbling and disintegrating.

When using a reactor, there are two common media placement strategies to avoid disintegration of the GFO:
(1) Sandwich a layer of GFO between two layers of GAC. This will keep the GFO from tumbling.
(2) Place the GFO on top and leave a void space between the GFO and the top sponge. Tune the flow so the surface of the GFO gently "boils" without undue tumbling. I use this second method but I don't have to tune the flow because my Eheim 1046 pump is already slow.

Both the canisters and the Schuran reactors have internal pumps that I think are more easily handled than external pumps. I dislike the pump dangling from my reactor. It requires more care to remove the reactor and pump from the sump for servicing.

08/13/2007, 04:37 PM	#1
kodyboy Moved On Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,990	what is the best fluidized media filter? I have TLF phosban reactors, how does the viaaqua polyreactor compare? The kent? the AquaC? Could you use a rainbow lifeguard (pentair aquatics) fluidized bed filter for chemical media instead of sand?

08/13/2007, 05:17 PM	#2
pjf Premium Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,954	Schuran I have a MRC FMC-415 (http://www.myreefcreations.com/fmc.htm). Because of the external pump (Eheim 1046) that hangs from the filter, it is not the easiest device to remove from your sump for maintenance. If I were to start over again, I would take a closer look at the following fluidized media filter which has an internal pump: http://www.customaquatic.com/customa...=FI-SHMULTI100

08/13/2007, 10:20 PM	#7
pjf Premium Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,954	I have no experience with Purigen. The media that is "in fashion" on the Chemistry Forum are: - GAC: Norit ROX 0.8 (http://www.twopartsolution.com/index...ex&cPath=74_38) - GFO: Warner Marine PHOSaR HC (http://www.premiumaquatics.com/Merch...ry_Code=warner) I am using the above media now. To keep dust from entering the sump, I rinse the media by running the fluidized media filter in a bucket of filtered or RO/DI water. I let the effluent run into the sink. When the effluent is clear, the filter can be placed into your sump. I've started to take water quality measurements to determine the effectiveness of the GAC and GFO. Based on initial phosphate readings, the GFO appears to be working. I have no idea how to determine if the GAC is absorbing dissolved organic carbons (DOC) that bypass the skimmer. I'm not sure if the Salifert Organics kit is the appropriate kit to use. Last edited by pjf; 08/13/2007 at 10:25 PM.

08/14/2007, 05:57 PM	#10
pjf Premium Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,954	Canister Filters Another alternative is to use an external canister filter. Randy Holmes-Farley uses a Marineland 350 Pro. Canister filters have a faster flow rate so the GFO and GAC are often mixed together to keep the GFO from tumbling and disintegrating. When using a reactor, there are two common media placement strategies to avoid disintegration of the GFO: (1) Sandwich a layer of GFO between two layers of GAC. This will keep the GFO from tumbling. (2) Place the GFO on top and leave a void space between the GFO and the top sponge. Tune the flow so the surface of the GFO gently "boils" without undue tumbling. I use this second method but I don't have to tune the flow because my Eheim 1046 pump is already slow. Both the canisters and the Schuran reactors have internal pumps that I think are more easily handled than external pumps. I dislike the pump dangling from my reactor. It requires more care to remove the reactor and pump from the sump for servicing. Last edited by pjf; 08/14/2007 at 06:15 PM.

08/13/2007, 07:25 PM	#3
Percula9 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Orange County CA Posts: 3,819	Yes, you can use different media in the lifeguard.

08/13/2007, 07:29 PM	#4
kodyboy Moved On Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,990	thanks I will look at the schuran, looks nice On the lifeguard would I have to Jerry-rig some sort of sponge at the top to avoid media in the sump? Anyone else?

08/13/2007, 09:14 PM	#5
pjf Premium Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,954	Most vendors of fluidized media filters provide two sponges and allow you to order more. The two sponges are for the top and bottom of the media compartment. They prevent the media from escaping into your sump. I ordered a 3rd sponge to separate my granular activated carbon (GAC) medium from my granular ferric oxide (GFO) medium.

08/13/2007, 09:18 PM	#6
kodyboy Moved On Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,990	thanks on the sponges I have found purigen to be somewhat annoying in my phosban reactor as it is so small it gets everywhere. I now use filter floss to keep it in the reactor.

08/14/2007, 06:58 AM	#8
kodyboy Moved On Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,990	thanks. Is the warner marine phosar HC better than the GFO from two part solution? It is a lot more expensive.

08/14/2007, 12:45 PM	#9
pjf Premium Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,954	You are correct. PHOSaR HC is 3 times the price of Bayoxide 33 by weight and 5-6 times the price by volume. I have only used PHOSaR HC so I cannot give you a comparative answer. PHOSaR HC is almost twice the density of Bayoxide 33 and I am told that the greater density means that PHOSaR HC is more durable and less prone to dusting and disintegration with strong flow. Here are some possible reasons for using Bayoxide 33: Greater Dwell Time. For your 100 gallon tank, 5 tablespoons of PHOSaR HC is sufficient. A 5-tablespoon layer of PHOSaR HC in a 4-inch diameter reactor is only 1/3-inches high. If not distributed evenly, there could be channeling. The same weight of Bayoxide 33 will be twice as thick and allow for greater dwell time. Lower Replacement Cost. Although GFO media can last twice as long as GAC media, the GFO is normally replaced at the same time that the GAC is replaced. It is a lot cheaper to replace Bayoxide 33 than PHOSaR HC.