Bio-balls And Bio-max

[sjolliff]

iv got a fluval 205 with bio-max but using the blue tray supplied could i have half bio-balls and half bio-max, would this make any difference or better filtration?
thanks steve

 

[waterdrop]

I personally prefer ceramic ring type media (I assume that would be the biomax in your case) to plastic ball type constructions (I assume that would be the bioball media in your case) as I feel somehow that the ceramics will have somewhat more surface area and will sit there and do their "randomize the small waterstreams" function better than bioballs. I feel bioballs are a little more optimized for huge "sump" filters, whereas ceramic rings might be a little more optimized for the smaller size of external cannisters or HOBs but this is just a hunch built up over time, so not to say there might be alternative arguments, and I'd say its a subtle thing overall.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[glolite]

Yes I agree with waterdrop, I've only seen bioballs in pond filter set ups.

 

[sjolliff]

They come with the tetratec ex700.1200 etc, just wanted to know which one was best for flow and bacteria growth

 

[waterdrop]

The sad thing is I don't think anybody knows scientifically. You could see there being more room for oxygen and ammonia flow with the "spacier" bioballs, but I always can't see how they could have as much bacterial attachment surface area as ceramic rings do. Occasionally at aquarium society meetings and the like I've heard people argue that certain types of stringy plastic brillo pad type things, similar to what works scrubbing pots, are supposed to outperform rings, balls and sponges but I don't know whether I agree with that. Certainly never seen any data presented...

~~waterdrop~~

 

[drobbyb]

You could go with a hybrid material such as bio-chem stars. They are made of a polymer, but have a porous construction. I have a good many in my canister and they seem to work just fine.

http/www.petsmart.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2752397

 

[waterdrop]

Yes, those stars look like pretty good stuff. They look like they would form a bed of pieces lying in random directions and thus do a good job of "randomizing" the initial streams of water and debris as they start their way through the filter media, just like ceramic rings are supposed to accomplish. That's supposed to be a good function of the first media in the stream, to slow down the flow and make sure there aren't any cheater pathways where the water can get through easily without being filtered. Meanwhile the relatively large size of the initial media allows the largest debris to become trapped without clogging the later, finer mechanical openings in the next smaller media that the water will enounter next.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[OldMan47]

You are right about the plastic pot scrubbers too WD. I have been using some in my big Rena canister for well over a year. The only problem that I have with them is that they don't fill a basket very well so I add ceramic media to the spaces they leave, just to make good use of the space. On a surface to volume ratio, they have more than almost anything you can buy and they also have a very open structure that allows easy water flow at all surfaces. I'm not sure they are the best media but they are high up on my list of good media.

 

[waterdrop]

You are right about the plastic pot scrubbers too WD. I have been using some in my big Rena canister for well over a year. The only problem that I have with them is that they don't fill a basket very well so I add ceramic media to the spaces they leave, just to make good use of the space. On a surface to volume ratio, they have more than almost anything you can buy and they also have a very open structure that allows easy water flow at all surfaces. I'm not sure they are the best media but they are high up on my list of good media.

Of course, you're so good with numbers, you may have a way of making some calculations and feel you can compare surface to volume between brillo and ceramic rings, for instance, but that kind of a calculation would elude me. For instance, an interesting question would be whether to consider the interior and exterior surfaces of a ceramic cylinder to be simply a geometric or smooth mathmatical plane and make a calculation OR whether to ask whether the bacterial cells are small enough that all over the ceramic surface they would see the "texture" of the ceramic as little caves, thus vastly increasing the effective surface area. And immediately following on that thought one would have to ask whether the microscopic surface of the plastic material of the "brillo strands" were as porous?

There were two research "tidbits" announced in the last week or so related to bacteria and their biofilms. First, a couple of guys out of Duke University claimed to have found that the total volume of bacteria in relation to the volume of their environment, which increases the concentration of the chemicals the cells are sensing, is indeed how they "quorum sense." Then a few days later, a group out of Chicago announced that they had been able to isolate individual bacteria into nano-droplet environmental cages and cause them to "incorrectly" sense a "quorum" and behave as if they thought they had lots of nearby neighboring bacteria. Among other things, "quorum sensing" is how bacteria know to begin building biofilms, the effort of which is not as useful to them if they do not have enough same-species neighbors to make it a group effort. But single celled bacteria do not have any sensing organs and so must infer this presence via chemicals. Anyway, the finding of the Chicago group has direct implications for how, for instance, the first few bacteria, just starting a new colony might decide to get started with their biofilm.. if they found themselves lodged into a tiny crevice and either the crevice was very tiny or if two or 3 cells filled it up then the feedback from their quorum sensing chemicals would trigger them to begin biofilm construction.

I just found the research announcements interesting when viewed in the context of biomedia materials and construction. Of course, the thing that mostly drives reasearchers such as these is that many of our mechanisms and approaches to dealing with bacteria in humans assume the population needs to be lowered but don't think about the possibility that biofilm formation could be triggered by tight niche spaces. Biofilm materials themselves are often the more toxic aspect of bacterial infections, rather than the bacteria themselves.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[OldMan47]

Do you have a link to that WD? I am always the first to want to learn and expand my knowledge. What I have read in the past relates how the film, once it is developed, is more or less limited by its surface since all oxygen and nutrients must move through the surface. It is one reason that I have been ignoring the inflated claims by some manufacturers about their porous surfaces being manyfold the surface area of a smooth ceramic. The claims that the micropores match the size of bacteria and make more surface available means little if the bacterium lodged in that pore is still being fed by the bacteria that form a film more or less on the smooth outer surface. The net result might be a bacterium that is harder to dislodge but one that still relied on the surface film for nutrient supply, thus not adding to the total processing capability of the film. This sounds like it might be going in a different direction and be well worth learning. After all, at one time, the observed effects of large water changes on a mature tank were lots of fish deaths. Then we figured out that it was not the water change but the lack of previous water changes that caused the stress and killed the fish, what we call old tank syndrome. As in anything, the more we understand, the better we can do with our fish.

 

[jonchall]

Hi OldMan47 and waterdrop (again),

I find it interseting that you brought up the use of pot scrubbers as filter media WD, and that you stated that you currently use them OM. I recently returned to fishkeeping after about a 15 year hiatus, and based on prior experience, I bought 2 Whisper EX45 HoB filters for my 50 gallon tank. Years ago, these filters had stronger, more durable fiber pouches that housed the activated carbon and were refillable. I used to run the filters with the carbon in them during the initial start up of a tank, then a week or so later, I'd ditch the carbon and fill them back with some floss. Now, however, they have gone to a disposable carbon pack that you throw away and replace, which got me wondering where the bacteria was supposed to live. Since they do not sell a premanufactured sponge/floss/whatever replacement media, I decided to ditch the carbon packs and bought some pond poly filter, which looks very similar to the pot scrubbers. I simply cut the poly to fit the cratridge frame. I was wondering, however, if the poly provided a suitable environment for a bacterial colony, as the weaving seemed to have larger pores than a typical sponge. You guys now have me interested in your findings, although I believe trying to incorporate the biomax rings (or something similar) would be a far reach in my situation.

 

[OldMan47]

The EX filters have that little bristly surface between the cartridge and where water returns to the tank. It sort of looks like the tufts on a toothbrush but coarser. In theory, that is your biofilter while you toss all the good stuff on your cartridge every few weeks. I just cleaned one of mine tonight by removing the sealed fiber and carbon cartridge and squeezing it a few times in a tank that I want to cycle. The cartridge then went right back where it came from because I don't trust those few hundred bristles to be enough biofilter for the single pair of killies in that tank.

 

[jonchall]

The EX filters have that little bristly surface between the cartridge and where water returns to the tank. It sort of looks like the tufts on a toothbrush but coarser. In theory, that is your biofilter while you toss all the good stuff on your cartridge every few weeks. I just cleaned one of mine tonight by removing the sealed fiber and carbon cartridge and squeezing it a few times in a tank that I want to cycle. The cartridge then went right back where it came from because I don't trust those few hundred bristles to be enough biofilter for the single pair of killies in that tank.

Is this what you are talking about?

If so, I do not trust it either. That's why I cut the poly filter to fit the frame where the carbon filter is supposed to go. I cannot speak for its ability to populate bacterial colonies as of yet, but it seems to do a good job of mechanical filtration so far. I may, however, need to implement some sort of finer material to filter smaller particulates.

 

[sjolliff]

Nothing in my filter looks like that
tetratec EX1200

 

[jonchall]

Nothing in my filter looks like that
tetratec EX1200

Hi sjolliff,

That is from a Tetra Whisper EX45 hang on the back power filter--they call it the "bio-scrubber."