|
|
|
06/30/2007, 07:53 AM
|
#1 |
|
New England
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 5,450
|
Carbon/phosphate tests
At our local club meeting last week we tested several brands of carbon without them being rinsed prior. I had a feeling the dust would effect the test outcome to some degree. And it did. Of the 10 brands sampled at the meet I happened to have 3 of them at my house. So I decided to do a little testing of my own and cross ref the results I got with the results we got at the meeting. Testing went as follows.
Each sample tested was 1 tablespoon of carbon in 4oz of RO/DI water with an additional 4oz standardized solution of plain RO/DI water as a control. All sat for 48 hours in identical temp setting (~77F). All samples were rinsed in tap water, to rid them of dust, prior to being added to RO/DI sample. All were done in glass jars so there would be no PO4 leaching from plastic. All testing was done with a Hanna PO4 photometer. All tests were repeated 3 times and an avg taken. Here's what I got for #'s... Brand-------------@meet-------my test Kent-----------------0.12----------0.10 Black Diamond-----0.34----------0.02 ROX 0.8-------------0.41----------0.44 I was surprised to see how low Black Diamond came in at. IIRC, the meeting sample had ALOT of dust in it also. So It explains the skewed #'s from the meet. I was disappointed in the ROX 0.8 carbon #. This was purchased from 2 Part Solution's website, is supposed to be "the best" and is rather expensive. Another brand I want to test is Two Little Fishes. Supposedly it has zero PO4. Want to see for myself. If anyone has a small sample they wouldn't mind parting with please LMK. At this point looks like Black Diamond is the way to go if PO4 reduction is your plan. Not sure how you'd test the actual effectiveness of the carbons performance regarding toxin removal. I have used all 3 at different times in my system and honestly can't see a difference between any of them. So it is what it is I guess. Thanks.
__________________
-Cato I swear it's an illness... Current Tank Info: On Hiatus |
|
|
|
06/30/2007, 08:24 AM
|
#2 |
|
Team RC Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 14,754
|
Interesting tests. I'm sure the Chem Forum would love to see these results too.
__________________
-Brett 180g Marineland Starfire In-Wall 278 gallon system |
|
|
|
|
06/30/2007, 08:50 AM
|
#3 |
|
New England
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 5,450
|
OK, Done.
__________________
-Cato I swear it's an illness... Current Tank Info: On Hiatus |
|
|
|
|
06/30/2007, 11:19 AM
|
#4 |
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 76
|
Did you wash in tap water? Would it absorb phosphate from tap water?
|
|
|
|
|
06/30/2007, 02:32 PM
|
#5 | |
|
New England
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 5,450
|
Quote:
The whole point is... different brands of carbon contain different levels of PO4. So, if youre looking to minimize PO4 in your tank, you'd be making it a bit easier by choosing your carbon brand wisely. Simple as that. If PO4 is not of your concern then use whatever you like.
__________________
-Cato I swear it's an illness... Current Tank Info: On Hiatus |
|
|
|
|
|
07/05/2007, 10:57 PM
|
#6 |
|
RC Sponsor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,516
|
after proper wincing none of these carbons release any meaningful amount of P04.
putting a tablespoon of carbon in 4 oz of water doesn't really have much meaning considering a 100 gallon tank has almost 13,000 oz of water . so you need to take that .44 reading you have and divide it by over 3,000 to get the real amount of P04 added to the tank by that tablespoon of carbon. If you really want to find out what carbon is the best to use , test it for its ability to remove color and other common aquarium pollutants not .001-0.0001 PPM of p04 which is meaningless : ) |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
