Interesting. Do you have any information for this? Everything Ive read doesnt indicate "FAR inferior", but I know youre in the industry, so I'd like to see what you may have.
MAtrix vs GFO
- Thread starter rmorris
- Start date
Interesting. Do you have any information for this? Everything Ive read doesnt indicate "FAR inferior", but I know youre in the industry, so I'd like to see what you may have.
Out the office today, I can send you some independent isotherms maybe tomorrow or next week. We get most of our definitive results from pilot studies where we due our own field testing. One of the most difficult tasks we challenge is when supply water has trace phosphate. GFO has such a high affinity for the phosphate, we can't get the our primary contamination specialty, arsenic, out due to saturation from phosphate. We have had about 7,000lbs of AA for over 3 years now and can't find an application where it out performs GFO.
Please do. I do not doubt at all much of what you say above, but there is also some cons that play into that. And from everything Ive seen, the GFO may "outperform" in a temporal application, but not in all applications, of which some are very critical to aquarists.
- Messages
- 1,129
- Reaction score
- 1
Isnt it like... a bleach bath followed by a vinegar bath?
Now It's becoming more clear what I have stated before (about reusing GFO) however the results of getting GFO washed or regenerated won't help as much as getting a new batch installed and have the peace of mine that you adding something that won't realized the PO4 back in your system!
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Most aquarist don't know there is a product that (claim to) remove 4x more phosphate than GFO designed specifically for the aquarium hobby?
The other claims are that typical GFO releases iron-ions up to 10x the concentration of natural seawater back into the water column, and it doesn't. And to top it off, it doesn't clump, an requires no rinsing.
It's called PO4x4, check it out.
Right now I'm using GFO, but a friend of mine have me some PO4x4 while we were waiting on a shipment of GFO to arrive.
The other claims are that typical GFO releases iron-ions up to 10x the concentration of natural seawater back into the water column, and it doesn't. And to top it off, it doesn't clump, an requires no rinsing.
It's called PO4x4, check it out.
Right now I'm using GFO, but a friend of mine have me some PO4x4 while we were waiting on a shipment of GFO to arrive.
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 15
This study uses 2 specific brands of GFO & Aluminum based phosphate removers, ROWA & Elimi phos, by Tropic Marin. While not identical to Phosguard and generic GFO, they are both similar enough to draw your own conclusions...
just read the study and form your own opinion.
been using it a while now,used to use gfo.the greatest benefits i see is no rinsing and higher flow.i always hated the clumping and with po4x4,you can crank the flow up without it breaking down.i cant really speak to how much more efficient it is because i still use 1 cup and change every 2 weeks just like i did with gfo just because thats my routine and i dont deviate... i like structure
i certainly havent seen any negative effects from it.
i certainly will Scott.i guess no need to discard if it still has plenty of life left.i used to change the gfo every 2 weeks because that was about as long as it took to start clumping and thats definitely not the case anymore.
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 15
right now I use 1 cup a week of high capacity GFO from BRS. I paid $90.00 for a half of gallon (3.5 pounds). Your 1000 ml is about 1/2 of the volume of my HC GFO. HC GFO is supposed to be twice the removal power of regular GFO which puts it back to an even price tage if both products work as stated. I'm not sure about using lye to reguvinate to save a few bucks either...
Similar threads
