MAtrix vs GFO
- Thread starter rmorris
- Start date
And quite dangerous. It involves using very strong muriatic acid and/or lye. Neither of which is a joke, healthwise. For a huge tank or public institution that goes through piles of it frequently, maybe worthwhile. But for the majority of hobbyists, just not worth it.
Rick, GFO and matrix do the same *GENERAL* thing: that being nutrient control. However, hey are two different nutrient and one doesn't necessarily work on the other.
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 41
I too have looked into it, and came to the same conclusion. GFO is expensive, but I'm not sure I would be able to trust reused GFO to be completely void of the already absorbed phosphates. I may have overlooked it in my research, but is there a way to tell if the regenerated GFO is actually clean?
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 41
But couldn't you still get a 0 reading whether are not they were actually in the GFO? Like when someone with a ton of hair algae tests 0 because all of the phosphates are in the algae. Maybe I'm thinking about this too much, and it's not like it matters as i don't plan on ever trying to regenerate GFO.
I'm with you there. After the acid bath it should be releasing what it's holding on to. Seems like most of the problems I saw were with the rinse step. People were reporting sky high phosphates coming from their re-claimed gfo.
I'll do tons of stupid stuff for money. Playing with acid to save $40 isn't one of them though.
Most public aquariums have experimented with regeneration because of the thousands of pounds they use but have not implemented it due to the potential hazards. It's not worth it, just FYI.
Back on your original post, you mentioned Purigen. Just curious if it's necessary, sounds like a great nutrient export system without it.
Back on your original post, you mentioned Purigen. Just curious if it's necessary, sounds like a great nutrient export system without it.
I don't think the cost benefit of trying to re-generate GFO, especially in the consumption quantities I will be using in my tank, is worth the risk. In fact, one of the reasons I am looking at employing multiple filtration options like both GFO and Matrix is to keep overall consumption down. I have seen that things like carbon and Purigen last longer themselves if there are other effective filtration tools in the chain.
I think the key to my original question is what Jeremy (Sea Atlanta) pointed out, that GFO and Matrix target different types of nutrient removal. So, as many have pointed out here, it would be advantageous to o having both in the system at the same time.
I have seen several comments about being cautious about introducing GFO use to an existing system. Why is that the case? Does it have some impact of the water that could somehow be a shock to the system? If it is a new tank build, should you run GFO from the beginning during LR curing and tank cycling? Or should it be added after the tank is fully cycled and before adding any livestock?
Edit:
The biggest reason for the Purigen is mainly as a water-polisher . There are claims that it improves redox, but I have never tested that. I have used it at times in previous tanks and it definitely appears the glass stays cleaner much longer when I am using it than when I am not.
I think the key to my original question is what Jeremy (Sea Atlanta) pointed out, that GFO and Matrix target different types of nutrient removal. So, as many have pointed out here, it would be advantageous to o having both in the system at the same time.
I have seen several comments about being cautious about introducing GFO use to an existing system. Why is that the case? Does it have some impact of the water that could somehow be a shock to the system? If it is a new tank build, should you run GFO from the beginning during LR curing and tank cycling? Or should it be added after the tank is fully cycled and before adding any livestock?
Edit:
The biggest reason for the Purigen is mainly as a water-polisher . There are claims that it improves redox, but I have never tested that. I have used it at times in previous tanks and it definitely appears the glass stays cleaner much longer when I am using it than when I am not.
Live rock, sand, etc. contain absorbed Phosphates. The problem arises when removing the Phosphate out of the water column faster than the live rock, sand, etc. can release their concentrations of Phosphate thus creating a water column with no Phosphates. A slow approach is better because as I believe was mentioned, some minuet level of Phosphates are necessary. It works best to test daily, or several times a week to determine when a specific amount of GFO slowly decreases the levels. It's easy to remove what's in the water, however it takes time and consistency to strip it out of the rock and such. As far as introducing GFO on a new tank, testing will determine that. Phosphates can already be in the rock and sand before they ever get to your tank.
I have an MRC Bio-Sump that has a bio-chamber filled with whatever MRC's version is of Matrix rock. Hence my original question with this thread of if there was a benefit to running GFO and Matrix at the same time. The overwhelming consensus is that it would.
Matrix is basically a breeding ground for your bacteria. Carbon removes impurities from your water, so they serve different purposes.
Even if phosphate isn't a problem right now, I can pretty much guarantee it will be at some point.
Dual reactors are a little trickier in getting the proper flow to both canisters. Not saying it's impossible, just takes a little more fidgeting. If you're set on a dual reactor......I would do GFO in one (this one needs to have enough flow to make the surface ripple) Carbon or Matrix in the other (these don't). Odd man out can go in a media bag in the sump.
Even if phosphate isn't a problem right now, I can pretty much guarantee it will be at some point.
Dual reactors are a little trickier in getting the proper flow to both canisters. Not saying it's impossible, just takes a little more fidgeting. If you're set on a dual reactor......I would do GFO in one (this one needs to have enough flow to make the surface ripple) Carbon or Matrix in the other (these don't). Odd man out can go in a media bag in the sump.
Now that I have the Bio-Sump (Thanks to Jeremy at Sea Atlanta!) plan is to run Matrix in the sump, and a manifold off the return pump feeding reactors with carbon, Purigen and either GFO or PhosGuard.
Jeremy explained that PhosGuard is a harder material than GFO so it is easier to adjust the flow rate without worrying about either clumping or grinding the GFO into fines. I'm all for easy.
Jeremy explained that PhosGuard is a harder material than GFO so it is easier to adjust the flow rate without worrying about either clumping or grinding the GFO into fines. I'm all for easy.
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 0
Rick,
You are more than welcome to come check out my setup. It's ideal in the direction you are heading and you'll get a better idea. Send me a PM, I would love to help with your build regardless.
Rick
You are more than welcome to come check out my setup. It's ideal in the direction you are heading and you'll get a better idea. Send me a PM, I would love to help with your build regardless.
Rick
Similar threads
