Filter media and Beneficial bacteria myth

[Deleted member 149562]

Why can't Chloramine be removed naturally, why can't an acid tank with enough plant disssipate the Chloramine, considering most dechlorinators are just acids.

Not every aquarium has plants...well....not real ones...and that can be for a variety of reasons.

Granted having living plants is probably the healthiest way to go....but that is becoming tempered by the increased use of additives to make them grow faster/thicker than never used to be required in such heavy doses. Plants do clean up alot of things, and not just in an aquarium but everywhere, but again just like the fish we have now compared to decades ago, even the plants have often been genetically messed with and we really do not know what the side effects might be later down the line.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

Why can't Chloramine be removed naturally, why can't an acid tank with enough plant disssipate the Chloramine, considering most dechlorinators are just acids.

Apparently*, it was added to some water sources because standard chlorine would dissipate, whereas chloramine doesn't. Standing water will naturally lose chlorine and, almost contradictorily, agitated water will lose chlorine.
In other words, a deliberately more resilient chemical was added to the water, to make is safe for us.

*Source: Biochemist working for water company.

 

[itiwhetu]

What acid is in dechlorinator?
Mine contains sodium thiosulphate (which splits chloramine into chlorine and ammonia, then turns the chlorine into chloride) and tetra sodium EDTA (which binds metals)

I would have assumed most aquarists would be using an ascorbic acid based dechlorinator rather than one with a Sulphur base. Considering that the sulphur based dechlorinators lower the oxygen levels on the tanks. I really have know idea what you use or why, as I have never used a dechlorinator. I am just asking the question why won't an acid tank, planted heavily breakdown Chloramine.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

The one thing I would say for "bio-Media" over sponges alone is better flow rates.

Sponges clog quicker and reduce flow rates more.

Personally I use both for this reason. Sponges mainly for mechanical filtration and some form of ceramic media for bio-filter. I'm still using bio media I had over 15 years ago so I kind of consider it a 1 time cost which isn't too bad.

 

[Essjay]

Most dechlorinators contain thiosulphate; I've not come across one that contains acid, but not every brand lists its ingredients.

 

[AbbeysDad]

I'm sure a lot of these fancy pants biomedia products are gimmicks. But I have had a lot of success with API's BioStars.

The point really is that any and all stationary or 'solid' surfaces will serve as a home to beneficial bacteria. It really comes down to surface area complimented by a slight water flow across or through the media. Charging an arm and a leg for bits of ceramic, plastic, or rock is a cash cow P.T. Barnum dream!

I have never used a dechlorinator. I am just asking the question why won't an acid tank, planted heavily breakdown Chloramine.

Many municipal water supplies have switched to chloramine because chlorine readily dissipates making chloramine much more long lasting and effective. Modern aquarium conditioners break the chlorine/ammonia bond and then neutralize the chlorine while the bio-filter will handle the ammonia. Aquarium water is not acidic enough to do much to chloramine - but I'm not a chemist. Still if a hobbyist has chlorine or chloramine treated source water, s/he needs a conditioner to ensure the well being of the Aqua life s/he's responsible for.

The one thing I would say for "bio-Media" over sponges alone is better flow rates.

Sponges clog quicker and reduce flow rates more.

I would tend to disagree as water flows through my sponges just fine AND unlike hard commercial bio-medias that become coated with detritus and far less effective, sponges are more easily cleaned for re-use. (There's a reason [ignored by most hobbyists] that manufacturers of commercial bio-medias recommend periodic replacement of 1/3 to 1/2 the media as it becomes compromised by detritus). Some could probably be reclaimed with a 50/50 bleach/water solution, then conditioner, but that's never recommended as some medias may be difficult to recondition properly...besides, you've got lots of money to throw at new media.
Edit: And then again, not all sponges are the same and coarser sponges will tend to work better and last longer between cleanings.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

I would tend to disagree as water flows through my sponges just fine AND unlike hard commercial bio-medias that become coated with detritus and far less effective, sponges are more easily cleaned for re-use.

Maybe we just do things differently.

I always use a course sponge as the pre-filter so most detritus is removed right away. The biomedia I prefer to use would be something porus that doesn't float. That way I can whip the tray out and swish it in a bucket of tank water. That is all I have ever done and I have had ceramic media last years. I have never once replaced it because it become clogged or was unusable. Never did any "deep cleaning" either. At most I might have blasted under a tap for a bit if I was using some from an old tank that I hadn't used for a bit.

In filters where I have run pure sponges the flow rate is noticeably slower, even when new and clean. Again though this could be down to filter design?

Edit: must say though the plastic "biomedia" I recently got because that's all that was in stock is awful. It floats so makes the "water swish" a pain and the surface area is nowhere near as good and pumice stone or ceramic "noodles".

 

[Ch4rlie]

Maybe we just do things differently.

I always use a course sponge as the pre-filter so most detritus is removed right away. The biomedia I prefer to use would be something porus that doesn't float. That way I can whip the tray out and swish it in a bucket of tank water. That is all I have ever done and I have had ceramic media last years. I have never once replaced it because it become clogged or was unusable. Never did any "deep cleaning" either. At most I might have blasted under a tap for a bit if I was using some from an old tank that I hadn't used for a bit.

In filters where I have run pure sponges the flow rate is noticeably slower, even when new and clean. Again though this could be down to filter design?

Edit: must say though the plastic "biomedia" I recently got because that's all that was in stock is awful. It floats so makes the "water swish" a pain and the surface area is nowhere near as good and pumice stone or ceramic "noodles".

This I agree with too, on my filter that has 5 trays, I seem to have something like 3/5 sponge media and one tray with ceramic noodles and another tray with these stupid white plastic mechanical media, I've never had these white media before but its what came in the bag when I bought the filter so thought why not use its since I have it anyway, but it floats when rinsing it out is annoying because a lot of them just flows over the tray itself and end up picking up a number of them back into the tray, will either replace this with filter floss or sponge media maybe 30ppi or something like that, depends on what I have in the cupboard ( have so much fishkeeping bits and pieces in that cupboard I forget what I have!!)

Oh hang on, just remembered I have some Eheim ceramic brown porous stone type media and black mechanical ball media, think will use that!! Am a happy bunny now! methinks if I remembered right of course!

But anyway, its a personal choice for keepers for what they want insider their filters, does not really matter what you have as long as you do have some media for the BB to colonise in, even active carbon makes a suitable home for BB, so anything works really as long as you have the right ratio that does not impede the filter flow is all.

 

[Fishfinder1973]

I’m going to ask something here,and I am probably opening myself up to ridicule,but I’ll ask anyway.

If I used bio media as substrate,would the BB still grow on it,like it would in the filter.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

I’m going to ask something here,and I am probably opening myself up to ridicule,but I’ll ask anyway.

If I used bio media as substrate,would the BB still grow on it,like it would in the filter.

Dont worry about asking questions, it's always good.

Yes it would work. However, the reason it works better in a filter is because of the water flow.

If you just have the media sat on the bottom of the tank it isn't coming into contact with the same volume of water the as t it would have in a filter with a high flow rate.

Back in the day people used under gravel filters. Basically a plastic tray with holes in and one or two tubes connected to pumps. They sat at the bottom of the tank and the gravel sat on top as the filter media. The pumps pulled the water through the gravel to act as the filter.

These work fairly well but you was restricted on your substrate. I think some of the early biorb tanks basically worked the same way. They also tended to get clogged up pretty quickly. That's why people switch to reverse flow ugf which pushed the water through the substrate instead. That worked better but aren't as good as even internal filters.

They are great for pure biological filtration though.

 

[Ch4rlie]

If I used bio media as substrate,would the BB still grow on it,like it would in the filter.

The BB grows on any surfaces of the aquarium, filter, plants, decor, wood and substrate not matter what type of substrate. BB will still grow on those.

There is a tank, Bio-Orbs that uses a special porous substrate rocks that works fairly well what sound like what you are describing, only downside is that these Bio Orb tank filters only works with those rocks so you cannot switch to sand or gravel substrate as i learned the hard way a long time ago!

But would work to a certain degree in standard tanks though.

EDIT - I see xxBarneyxx has said pretty much the exact same thing while was typing this!!

 

[Fishfinder1973]

Dont worry about asking questions, it's always good.

Yes it would work. However, the reason it works better in a filter is because of the water flow.

If you just have the media sat on the bottom of the tank it isn't coming into contact with the same volume of water the as t it would have in a filter with a high flow rate.

Back in the day people used under gravel filters. Basically a plastic tray with holes in and one or two tubes connected to pumps. They sat at the bottom of the tank and the gravel sat on top as the filter media. The pumps pulled the water through the gravel to act as the filter.

These work fairly well but you was restricted on your substrate. I think some of the early biorb tanks basically worked the same way. They also tended to get clogged up pretty quickly. That's why people switch to reverse flow ugf which pushed the water through the substrate instead. That worked better but aren't as good as even internal filters.

They are great for pure biological filtration though.

Thanks for the detailed answer BarneyI had to ask because I seen a video where a tank had a false back and it was packed full of media,like a sectioned off area,and if I remember right the water was pushed through it at one end and back out at the other.

 

[Fishfinder1973]

The BB grows on any surfaces of the aquarium, filter, plants, decor, wood and substrate not matter what type of substrate. BB will still grow on those.

There is a tank, Bio-Orbs that uses a special porous substrate rocks that works fairly well what sound like what you are describing, only downside is that these Bio Orb tank filters only works with those rocks so you cannot switch to sand or gravel substrate as i learned the hard way a long time ago!

But would work to a certain degree in standard tanks though.

EDIT - I see xxBarneyxx has said pretty much the exact same thing while was typing this!!

Interesting ch4rlie

 

[AbbeysDad]

In filters where I have run pure sponges the flow rate is noticeably slower, even when new and clean. Again though this could be down to filter design?

Ah...but good filtration, including bio-filtration is not about how much or how fast we push water through media. In spite of what many hobbyists have been told, a slower flow through bio-media is more effective.
Many of the commercial bio-medias 'claim to fame' is their porosity or micro-pores. Unfortunately these often plug quickly with a coating of detritus, making them less effective. Most hobbyists continue to use the same old soiled media even though the surface area (relative to pores) is compromised...it still 'works' because it still has a solid surface, but then even gravel would work in a filter.

If I used bio media as substrate,would the BB still grow on it,like it would in the filter.

It would work but as mentioned above, it wouldn't be any better than gravel or sand. The most effective bio-filtration happens when water somewhat slowly and constantly flows over and/or through media.
Again, regardless of marketing genius hype, commercial bio-medias are an overrated cash cow for manufacturers. And in the established aquarium (6+ months) it serves little/no real purpose! (See The Very Best Aquarium Filter)

 

[WhistlingBadger]

I am just asking the question why won't an acid tank, planted heavily breakdown Chloramine.

Well, the simple answer is not everyone has acid water, and not every fish thrives in acid water. My water is extremely soft but quite alkaline, and it stays that way over time.

But even for those blessed with acidic water, I don't think it would work. It seems like the only natural ways to remove chloramines are boiling and carbon filtration. Ascorbic acid can break it apart, and presumably other acids could too, but it takes a large amount. In the presence of chloramines, I wouldn't trust my fish's lives to slightly acidic aquarium water. For most people, it's more practical just to add a conditioner.

I appreciate the natural approach. I think it's a good ideal to strive for. Unfortunately the state of our water in most places is very unnatural, and it requires intervention on our part to restore it to its natural state.