Acroholic;622960 wrote: And what are the qualifications of the person that wrote that Awiki entry? Do you accept that this single entry is the de facto authority on the usefulness of carbon in aquaria?
Additionally, you need to disclose that you are an Administrator of this website you are linking to in post #1 and that your Avatar is the symbol of this aquarium related website. Your website has links for online Vendors that are not ARC Sponsors. Advertisement is only permitted for ARC Sponsors per Forum Rules.
[citation needed]
Seriously? http://www.atlantareefclub.org/forums/showthread.php?t=54056">http://www.atlantareefclub.org/forums/showthread.php?t=54056</a> First post. But I'll add it to my Sig.
[QUOTE=][B]Lifestudent;622957 wrote:[/B] Granulated Activated Carbon (i.e., GAC) in a reef aquarium removes dissolved organic material (i.e., DOC) from the water column.
Please refer to this 2-part article by the Penn State Chemistry Department about the benefits of using carbon in a reef tank as well as the frequency that it should be changed: [IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1">www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1</a>
As for me, I use 2+ quarts of GAC in my 100G system and change the oldest 50% of it monthly.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that article.
My math says your 2quarts is equal to approximately 680g of AC (using volume and weight numbers I found at BRS), their smallest sample is 25g so, 3% of what you use (they also tested 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200g).
The real related comments of interest is:
[QUOTE=]One interpretation of this trend is that when HC2 amounts above the 75 gm threshold are used, a large excess of HC2 binding sites are available compared to the amount of dye present, and so the dye molecules always "see" binding sites. This hypothesis is buttressed by the fact that 511 mg of dye in total is used in each experiment, and with an average binding capacity of 53 mgs of dye per gram of HC2 (from the calculated xm above), only about 10 grams of HC2, in principle, is required to sop up all of the dye. Of course, since there is a great heterogeneity of binding sites, it would take a long time (recall the Langmuir binding experiments took over 14 days to reach equilibrium) to saturate all of the slow-binding sites. And so, it appears empirically that in the region above 75 grams of HC2, there are enough fast-binding sites to absorb the dye over the course of the 2-3 hour experiment. It is likely that in an aquarium, the fast binding sites are responsible for most of the absorption as well.[/QUOTE]
and
[QUOTE=]
An interesting observation to emerge from these simulations is that, at least for the 100 gallon water volume/100 gm of HC2 case described by Table 5 and Figure 11, the GAC saturation times vary tremendously depending upon the clean/dirty state of the tank water. Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days.
[/QUOTE]
The researcher readily admits that there are many if-ands-or-buts relate to this research, but the general conclusion is that a AC in a dirty tank is effective less then a week, and AC is a clean tank is effective for about a month.
This brings up the next question, is AC just a bonus to water quality or is necessary?
