MAtrix vs GFO

R

rmorris

New Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I am starting a new 93g tank build and looking for advice on running media filtration. The tank will have live rock and a 3.5" to 4" and bed (of which 25% to 50% gets deep vacuumed weekly). That worked well for about 10 years on my previous big tank. It will be a mixed reef tank with lps, sps and clams plus some fish.

My sump has a bio media area filled with Matrix Rock right after the input socks. The water flows through the socks, though the Matrix Rock and into an open center area, then through a bubble block to the return area. I plan to run a manifold off the external return pump to feed a UV light, calcium reactor, carbon filter reactor, and a Purigen canister reactor. If I am lucky and can find a way to fit it in, I want to add a small refugium just to play. The protein skimmer will be fed from the input area and return just before the matrix rock chamber.

My question is whether or not there would be any benefit to adding a GFO reactor to the system?

Thanks,
Rick
 
Matrix does something different than GFO however. Your title Matrix vs GFO implies one or the other. Use both if you have space. Matrix for biofiltration and nitrate reduction, and GFO for phosphates.
 
I wouldn't look at Matrix and GFO to be able to do the same thing for your nutrient export.. I look at Matrix as basically ultra concentrated LR because of its surface area and porosity that far exceeds that of your basic LR. I don't really know how much it will impact your phosphate export. GFO on the other hand directly exports phosphates. I think the real question you should ask is if you get the refugium setup and grow macro, will you then still need the GFO reactor...

on a side note I have 1 gallon of matrix in my sump, grow chaeto in a less than ideal refugium setup, and run a GFO reactor.. nitrates and phosphates are at 0, however recently I pulled the GFO reactor offline for 6 weeks and GFO crept up to 0.06.. Brought 2 cups of BRS bulk GFO back online and within 10 days my phosphates have consistently tested at 0 and maintained at 0 going on 3 weeks now... pretty convincing evidence for me.
 
You can regenerate matrix by washing it, and reused over and over again. But you might not be able to use gfo again since the particulates are getting close to dust every time you mess with it or try to reused, it just get exhausted and It's better to throw away and use a new batch of it. However I haven't tested them in a long run, just for a few months but I have hear they both do wonders. You have to be careful on introducing gfo to the tank first time, as it could shock your system if not used properly.

Same here with the title, I went for the meaning of one media vs another media.
 
Kirkwood;932619 wrote: I wouldn't look at Matrix and GFO to be able to do the same thing for your nutrient export.. I look at Matrix as basically ultra concentrated LR because of its surface area and porosity that far exceeds that of your basic LR. I don't really know how much it will impact your phosphate export. GFO on the other hand directly exports phosphates. I think the real question you should ask is if you get the refugium setup and grow macro, will you then still need the GFO reactor...

on a side note I have 1 gallon of matrix in my sump, grow chaeto in a less than ideal refugium setup, and run a GFO reactor.. nitrates and phosphates are at 0, however recently I pulled the GFO reactor offline for 6 weeks and GFO crept up to 0.06.. Brought 2 cups of BRS bulk GFO back online and within 10 days my phosphates have consistently tested at 0 and maintained at 0 going on 3 weeks now... pretty convincing evidence for me.
Click to expand...

unless you're using a BIG fuge with a small tank I'd say GFO will have a MUCH bigger impact on PO4
 
joseayes;932622 wrote: You can regenerate matrix by washing it, and reused over and over again. But you might not be able to use gfo again since the particulates are getting close to dust every time you mess with it or try to reused, it just get exhausted and It's better to throw away and use a new batch of it. However I haven't tested them in a long run, just for a few months but I have hear they both do wonders. You have to be careful on introducing gfo to the tank first time, as it could shock your system if not used properly.
Click to expand...

GFO cannot be regenerated. It is exhausted in arguably a 1 week - 6 week time span (many on ARC advocate a specific amount of time). For me i'm in the 2 week - 4 week window.

Not sure what you mean by "regenerate" matrix. Matrix is simply super porous rock that is ideal for the bacteria we need to maintain the nitrogen cycle. In most all applications it is a "set it and forget it" setup. The only time I could see doing anythign would be if the Matrix was covered in debris hence eliminating its porosity. But since he said he is running the matrix after the filter sock and skimmer, he shouldn't any issues with that.

Edit:
SnowManSnow;932625 wrote: unless you're using a BIG fuge with a small tank I'd say GFO will have a MUCH bigger impact on PO4
Click to expand...

I agree.. i've been wanting to figure out how much chaeto one would have to grow to equal the phosphate export of 1 cup of GFO???

you can't argue that macro is cheaper .... LOL
 
Kirkwood;932626 wrote: GFO cannot be regenerated. It is exhausted in arguably a 1 week - 6 week time span (many on ARC advocate a specific amount of time). For me i'm in the 2 week - 4 week window.

Not sure what you mean by "regenerate" matrix. Matrix is simply super porous rock that is ideal for the bacteria we need to maintain the nitrogen cycle. In most all applications it is a "set it and forget it" setup. The only time I could see doing anythign would be if the Matrix was covered in debris hence eliminating its porosity. But since he said he is running the matrix after the filter sock and skimmer, he shouldn't any issues with that.

Edit:

I agree.. i've been wanting to figure out how much chaeto one would have to grow to equal the phosphate export of 1 cup of GFO???

you can't argue that macro is cheaper .... LOL
Click to expand...
Gfo can be regenerated....
 
On the GFO I gave my opinion after I have searched for "regenerate GFO" you guys probably could do a quick google search and a it will come out with quite a few people who have attempted.

On the Matrix I pointed as regenerate or reuse once the media got clogged, and it says by manufacture instructions. (Seachem suggests) I have know some members who either opt for washing it to remove the big debree trap on the media or like another members that choose to removed from the system to avoid trapping that much waste particles on it

:D
 
Kirkwood;932626 wrote: GFO cannot be regenerated. It is exhausted in arguably a 1 week - 6 week time span (many on ARC advocate a specific amount of time). For me i'm in the 2 week - 4 week window.

Not sure what you mean by "regenerate" matrix. Matrix is simply super porous rock that is ideal for the bacteria we need to maintain the nitrogen cycle. In most all applications it is a "set it and forget it" setup. The only time I could see doing anythign would be if the Matrix was covered in debris hence eliminating its porosity. But since he said he is running the matrix after the filter sock and skimmer, he shouldn't any issues with that.

Edit:

I agree.. i've been wanting to figure out how much chaeto one would have to grow to equal the phosphate export of 1 cup of GFO???

you can't argue that macro is cheaper .... LOL
Click to expand...
Gfo can be regenerated....
 
I apologize for the misleading title, I should have said something like "Matrix with or without GFO?", but thanks for all the good input. Sounds like I'll be finding a way to fit another reactor in the system.

Lifereef makes a Bio-Reactor with two 3"x12" filter canisters and a 3 1/2"x12" reactor that can be used for GFO. He makes a custom bracket to fit whatever sump you have. Think I will get a quote from him compared to building my own. I wish the canisters were bigger, but for a 93g I think should hold enough media for 2-4 weeks. Anyone disagree?

Rick
 
The Two Little Fishies Phos-Ban 150 reactor can be hung inside the sump. It is very easy to put in service.
 
...and to add to Dave's comment the bulkreefsupply.com single or dual media reactor is so simple to use remotely...one for gfo and one for carbon...
 
mysterybox;932720 wrote: ...and to add to Dave's comment the bulkreefsupply.com single or dual media reactor is so simple to use remotely...one for gfo and one for carbon...
Click to expand...


I saw the BRS reactors. Nice to see some feedback on them. Maybe run the dual for carbon and Purigen and the single deluxe model for the GFO. Hopefully my MRC sump will be in tomorrow and i can see just how much room I have in the stand.

Rick
 
heathlindner25;932754 wrote: Its alot of work, I dont do it.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm the luckiest guy in the world. My wife handles most all of the maintenance duties in the stand. So I go to great lengths to make it as easy as possible. If adding in a GFO reactor means less time cleaning glass and removing algae, I am all for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
UV plumbing
Replies
2
Views
111
ptreef
P
H
Tank crash, if anyone can assist with helping me Rebuild my tank please help
Replies
8
Views
293
TeddyM
TeddyM
S
What store in the metro would you trust the most for live Rock?
Replies
15
Views
471
TeddyM
TeddyM
S
Instant/quick cycle?
Replies
10
Views
422
LilChefEnzo2004
LilChefEnzo2004
PJs_Bucket_List
Plumbing a Sump For Dummies: the Exclusive ARC Edition
Replies
3
Views
116
PJs_Bucket_List
PJs_Bucket_List
Back
Top