Changing filter media
- Thread starter Dasmms45
- Start date
D
Deleted member 149562
Guest
The noodles collect greater amounts of good stuff and only need a cursory rinse in aquarium water to get the poo off, they last several months and are the first stop that the water makes on the journey through the filter
D
Deleted member 149562
Guest
My 500g bag of floss is barely a quarter used and is about 18 months old
One thing about fishkeeping is that it can quickly become very expensive if you keep using the manufacturers bits and pieces, especially in filtration
(I use Superfish anti-ammonia and anti-algae mats that I cut into tiny triangles in my filter....have saved an absolute fortune over the years)
I've spent a small fortune already probably on stuff I dont really need but I'm learning fast
That exactly what the shop keepers/fish supply manufacturers want to hear...
D
Deleted member 149562
Guest
Yep...thats what they are banking on and why they turn a nice healthy profit year in and year out
TwoTankAmin
Fish Connoisseur
My favorite media is Poret foam. I have cubefilters, Mattenfilers using it and I even use it in canisters and powerfilters.
When you clean media avoid squeezing it. Rather, fill a bucket with tank water and then swish the media in it vigorously. That brown stuff is what cleans the water, But is also clogs the media. The goal is not to have it clog the media.
Fillter floss is a great host for bio until it clogs. Then it becomes th oposite. Floss is also a good mechanical media. I use it most of my folters which have a pair of foams with floss between them. I use a more rigid form of floss that can be cut to size/shape. I have way to many tanks to clean and reuse it so I simply replace it every week.
Next, rinsing media under your tap water will not wipe out the bacteria. They live in a biofilm which protects them. It takes 24 hours for chlorine in tap water to penetrate the biofilm. Long before then it will have evaporated fromthe water, Chloramine will not kill the bacteria as long as there is some ammonia in the water. In a tank there always is but it gets consumerd fast by the bacteria. When the chorine part dissipates, the bacteria wake up and go baclk ti work because of the ammonia present. Chloarmaine is chlorine mixed with ammonia.
Understand when you rinse media in tap with chlorine.chloramine there is only a residual amount. The amount in the media is small and as soon as you put it back into the filter it is diluted greatly. If you use decjlor, it will neutraliz anything left in the media fast.
Don't take my word for this, read here:
Lee WH, Wahman DG, Bishop PL, Pressman JG. Free chlorine and monochloramine application to nitrifying biofilm: comparison of biofilm penetration, activity, and viability. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Feb 15;45(4):1412-9. doi: 10.1021/es1035305. Epub 2011 Jan 12. PMID: 21226531.
Abstract
Biofilm in drinking water systems is undesirable. Free chlorine and monochloramine are commonly used as secondary drinking water disinfectants, but monochloramine is perceived to penetrate biofilm better than free chlorine. However, this hypothesis remains unconfirmed by direct biofilm monochloramine measurement. This study compared free chlorine and monochloramine biofilm penetration into an undefined mixed-culture nitrifying biofilm by use of microelectrodes and assessed the subsequent effect on biofilm activity and viability by use of dissolved oxygen (DO) microelectrodes and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) with LIVE/DEAD BacLight. For equivalent chlorine concentrations, monochloramine initially penetrated biofilm 170 times faster than free chlorine, and even after subsequent application to a monochloramine penetrated biofilm, free chlorine penetration was limited. DO profiles paralleled monochloramine profiles, providing evidence that either the biofilm was inactivated with monochloramine's penetration or its persistence reduced available substrate (free ammonia). While this research clearly demonstrated monochloramine's greater penetration, this penetration did not necessarily translate to immediate viability loss. Even though free chlorine's penetration was limited compared to that of monochloramine, it more effectively (on a cell membrane integrity basis) inactivated microorganisms near the biofilm surface. Limited free chlorine penetration has implications when converting to free chlorine in full-scale chloraminated systems in response to nitrification episodes.
Underlines above added by me andm sorry, you need to to have organizational membership to see the full paper.
When you clean media avoid squeezing it. Rather, fill a bucket with tank water and then swish the media in it vigorously. That brown stuff is what cleans the water, But is also clogs the media. The goal is not to have it clog the media.
Fillter floss is a great host for bio until it clogs. Then it becomes th oposite. Floss is also a good mechanical media. I use it most of my folters which have a pair of foams with floss between them. I use a more rigid form of floss that can be cut to size/shape. I have way to many tanks to clean and reuse it so I simply replace it every week.
Next, rinsing media under your tap water will not wipe out the bacteria. They live in a biofilm which protects them. It takes 24 hours for chlorine in tap water to penetrate the biofilm. Long before then it will have evaporated fromthe water, Chloramine will not kill the bacteria as long as there is some ammonia in the water. In a tank there always is but it gets consumerd fast by the bacteria. When the chorine part dissipates, the bacteria wake up and go baclk ti work because of the ammonia present. Chloarmaine is chlorine mixed with ammonia.
Understand when you rinse media in tap with chlorine.chloramine there is only a residual amount. The amount in the media is small and as soon as you put it back into the filter it is diluted greatly. If you use decjlor, it will neutraliz anything left in the media fast.
Don't take my word for this, read here:
Lee WH, Wahman DG, Bishop PL, Pressman JG. Free chlorine and monochloramine application to nitrifying biofilm: comparison of biofilm penetration, activity, and viability. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Feb 15;45(4):1412-9. doi: 10.1021/es1035305. Epub 2011 Jan 12. PMID: 21226531.
Abstract
Biofilm in drinking water systems is undesirable. Free chlorine and monochloramine are commonly used as secondary drinking water disinfectants, but monochloramine is perceived to penetrate biofilm better than free chlorine. However, this hypothesis remains unconfirmed by direct biofilm monochloramine measurement. This study compared free chlorine and monochloramine biofilm penetration into an undefined mixed-culture nitrifying biofilm by use of microelectrodes and assessed the subsequent effect on biofilm activity and viability by use of dissolved oxygen (DO) microelectrodes and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) with LIVE/DEAD BacLight. For equivalent chlorine concentrations, monochloramine initially penetrated biofilm 170 times faster than free chlorine, and even after subsequent application to a monochloramine penetrated biofilm, free chlorine penetration was limited. DO profiles paralleled monochloramine profiles, providing evidence that either the biofilm was inactivated with monochloramine's penetration or its persistence reduced available substrate (free ammonia). While this research clearly demonstrated monochloramine's greater penetration, this penetration did not necessarily translate to immediate viability loss. Even though free chlorine's penetration was limited compared to that of monochloramine, it more effectively (on a cell membrane integrity basis) inactivated microorganisms near the biofilm surface. Limited free chlorine penetration has implications when converting to free chlorine in full-scale chloraminated systems in response to nitrification episodes.
Underlines above added by me andm sorry, you need to to have organizational membership to see the full paper.
FranciscoB
Fish Crazy
Although my favorite HOB filters are Fluval Aquaclears, this is what I use inside filters that use "disposable" cartridges, thus becoming non-disposable and permanent. The cartridges in the photos have been in use for years, rinsed weekly. I prefer to continue to use the plastic frame of the disposable cartridges, simply because they fit well inside the filters. One can insert media without the frames, but it can get out of perfect position and cause overflow or other issues.
Savvy fishkeepers have the power to boycott the "disposable approach of aquarium filter makers", but only if we convince other people to be savvy about it.
If one buys floss, and then disposes of it no matter how infrequently, yes, some money is saved, but the "disposable" problem is about the same. Heard of microplastics and plastics in the general environment? Think about that floss.... and what does it do when placed in the trash....
Shown is an older Penguin 350, but I have done similar things (for friends) in their Emperor, Whisper, Tetra, Ecotech, and other filter brands that use disposable cartridges.
Savvy fishkeepers have the power to boycott the "disposable approach of aquarium filter makers", but only if we convince other people to be savvy about it.
If one buys floss, and then disposes of it no matter how infrequently, yes, some money is saved, but the "disposable" problem is about the same. Heard of microplastics and plastics in the general environment? Think about that floss.... and what does it do when placed in the trash....
Shown is an older Penguin 350, but I have done similar things (for friends) in their Emperor, Whisper, Tetra, Ecotech, and other filter brands that use disposable cartridges.
FranciscoB
Fish Crazy
Should have mentioned-
... In this manner, there is never any loss of bacteria, because there is never changing media!
... In this manner, there is never any loss of bacteria, because there is never changing media!
TwoTankAmin
Fish Connoisseur
When I had an Emperor 400 I used those sort of baskets. I almost never have to replace bio-media any more. Only the older AC sponges which do degrade over time. I have yet to replace any Poret foam. But I have only began using it 2012.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
284 -
220 -
215 -
181 -
173 -
170 -
139 -
131 -
124 -
115 -
114 -
103 -
101 -
96 -
94