Question About Filtration System

[PaPeRo]

RO system use multistage carbon. The carbon works just the same as it does in a fish tank. Separating the good from bad water is the same as "soaking up".

http/www.freedrinkingwater.com/ro-45-detail.htm

NSF KX Extruded Carbon Block 5 micron 10" —gets rid of unpleasant chlorine, tastes and odors, cloudiness and colors.

Sounds like the same carbon function when used in fish tanks.

BTW I'd like to see that "study"...online. Some carbons work better than others (lasts longer). Funny how after the 6th day some mysterious ghosts turns off the carbon switch making the carbon totally ineffective.

Maybe Ghost Hunters can dedicate a show to catching these carbon ghosts in the act with infared cameras...

 

[Tommy Gunnz]

Nevermind, sorry....

 

[PaPeRo]

What you're saying again doesn't make any sense because you do not understand how things actually work. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm not going to let someone make bold claims against my post with incorrectly understood information.

RO systems don't just use carbon. They also need to use...gasp...a RO membrane. The membrane has nothing to do with carbon and works in a separate stage. The carbon is what actually removes the odor, taste, color, etc from the water. Just because it is a completely sealed system doesn't mean the carbon works a different way. Are you telling me carbon in a fish tank doesn't remove odors, colors, etc. because it isn't sealed and isn't micron rated??? Absurd.

Try an a simple experiment yourself. Take a tank and fill it with water put in some color dye now let the filter run with carbon. Does the carbon remove the color? Uh...yeah of course. I'm scratching my head how the water color from tannins from my driftwood dissappeared...I'm using a cheap $6 HOB sponge filter with carbon not some $250 RO system...

 

[Tommy Gunnz]

PaPeRo:
"What you're saying again doesn't make any sense because you do not understand how things actually work. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm not going to let someone make bold claims against my post with incorrectly understood information.

RO systems don't just use carbon. They also need to use...gasp...a RO membrane. The membrane has nothing to do with carbon and works in a separate stage. The carbon is what actually removes the odor, taste, color, etc from the water. Just because it is a completely sealed system doesn't mean the carbon works a different way. Are you telling me carbon in a fish tank doesn't remove odors, colors, etc. because it isn't sealed and isn't micron rated??? Absurd.

Try an a simple experiment yourself. Take a tank and fill it with water put in some color dye now let the filter run with carbon. Does the carbon remove the color? Uh...yeah of course. I'm scratching my head how the water color from tannins from my driftwood dissappeared...I'm using a cheap $6 HOB sponge filter with carbon not some RO system..."

====================================================================================
To explain all of my deleted posts, I guess that I offended PaPeRo with some information on how long carbon is effective in a filtration system and how RO units use carbon differently than aquarium filters. I appologize since this was not my intention.

However, I would like to point out that I never said that carbon does not remove colors or odors from water and it also is somewhat effective for removing chlorine and chlorimines from tap water as well. I simply was trying to point out that it eventually becomes saturated with these things and that it doesnt take all that long before the carbon is useless. I had read a study on the topic which stated that in most cases, carbon was ineffective after about 6 days in an aquarium.

As a side note, I believe that if I was to put dye in my fish tank's water, the carbon would take some of the color out, but it wouldnt make it completly clear unless I changed it often or was able to keep A LOT of carbon in my filter. PaPeRo's experiment would eventually prove us both right in the end so the argument is not worth it and so I deleted my posts.

 

[PaPeRo]

I would like to point out that some people keep perpetuating the myth that carbon is only good for removing medications. Carbon is useful for removing a variety of things that the bacteria doesn't remove. Yes frequent water changes also removes the same things that carbon does, but sometimes I prefer using carbon when I don't want to disturb the tank by doing water changes. Carbon also helps make the water clear. Yes carbon only last a few weeks that's why it needs to be replaced, but that's pointing to the obvious. If you can afford to use carbon then there's nothing wrong with using it as it provides cleaner clearer water. In a perfect world we'd be using RO water lke thw SW aquariusts. Using carbon in a freshwater tank gets us closer to that ideal. Ironically in satwater setups it is better to not use carbon because it removes trace elements that are needed by fish and invertebrates. However since RO water is used to mix saltwater the water has already been precleaned by the carbon in the RO process.

Since cegha asked about carbon, well it is up to you to decide whether the benefits of carbon outweight it's added cost. Personally i always use carbon because it doesn't cost THAT much when you buy it in a large container which lasts me YEARS. I avoid prepackaged carbon cartridges though. I like to pack my own cartridges with my own carbon. I can use a little or a lot.

 

[Tommy Gunnz]

Thanks PaPeRo for that reply. You are certainly right about carbon; it has multiple roles to play in an aquarium and it is a good thing to have it assuming that it is changed frequently. But on the other hand, one could go without it completely without too much harm or noticable differences. Perhaps what I was saying about it was not clear and that is my fault and I will do better in the future to get my thoughts across fully.

However, the use of RO water is not always the best for freshwater tanks since, as you point out, it takes out nearly all of the trace elements found in tap water, if not all of them. The same applies usually to filling a tank with distilled water since this is one of the most purest forms of water available, making it all but void of every mineral and chemical. In saltwater, RO water is a good thing since it has no trace elements (or only very minimal levels) which means the aquarist can have better control over the ecosystem within his or her tank. However, RO water and normal salt would not be benificial since many SW fish and inverts, including corals, need some elements that are commonly found in pre-RO filtered water. THe difference here is that the salt used to make saltwater replaces all of these elements, leaving the aquarist with water that has everything it needs dissolved in it but still has no unwanted elements in it. So, in short, SW is not just pure water with only salt added to it. In a perfect world, there would be a filtration method for both types of tank that only took out the bad minerals and chemicals but left the good ones. It is also possible to fill a SW aquarium with only conditioned (dechlorinated) tap water with the end result not being as good as when using RO water, but still not a complete disaster either. A good thing to think about is how people were able to keep a SW tank before the RO technology was even available or just plain old too expensive to buy and operate.

So yea, I am starting to believe that a debate is being created within the aquarium community as to the benifits or lack of benifits of using carbon in a filter much like the debate over whether or not aquarium salt is good or bad to add into a freshwater tank. Both probrably have equal pros and cons to them and it may just be a matter of opinon entirely.

 

[PaPeRo]

However, the use of RO water is not always the best for freshwater tanks since, as you point out, it takes out nearly all of the trace elements found in tap water, if not all of them. The same applies usually to filling a tank with distilled water since this is one of the most purest forms of water available, making it all but void of every mineral and chemical.

True however tap water doesn't contain all the right trace elements for freshwater fish either and also contains other elements that fish don't need. I remember reading about the break down of trace elements of saltwater but never really heard anything about it for freshwater. From that I assume trace elements aren't that big of an issue for freshwater fish. If it were there'd be companies selling trace elements for freshwater fish.

In saltwater, RO water is a good thing since it has no trace elements (or only very minimal levels) which means the aquarist can have better control over the ecosystem within his or her tank. However, RO water and normal salt would not be benificial since many SW fish and inverts, including corals, need some elements that are commonly found in pre-RO filtered water. THe difference here is that the salt used to make saltwater replaces all of these elements, leaving the aquarist with water that has everything it needs dissolved in it but still has no unwanted elements in it. So, in short, SW is not just pure water with only salt added to it.

Oh I'm fully aware of that, just didn't want to go too deep into the trace elements in saltmix which cegha didn't really ask about...I used to own a saltwater tank so I know how most of it works.

In a perfect world, there would be a filtration method for both types of tank that only took out the bad minerals and chemicals but left the good ones. It is also possible to fill a SW aquarium with only conditioned (dechlorinated) tap water with the end result not being as good as when using RO water, but still not a complete disaster either. A good thing to think about is how people were able to keep a SW tank before the RO technology was even available or just plain old too expensive to buy and operate.

True then again back in the day people had freshwater setups without fancy filters too, not ideal but it worked.

So yea, I am starting to believe that a debate is being created within the aquarium community as to the benifits or lack of benifits of using carbon in a filter much like the debate over whether or not aquarium salt is good or bad to add into a freshwater tank. Both probrably have equal pros and cons to them and it may just be a matter of opinon entirely.

Very true.

 

[Underwurlde]

....and what about the planted tank scenario? Would you, or would you not use carbon?

Andy

 

[PaPeRo]

I have a planted tank and I use carbon but it's for the fish that live in the planted tank. If it's plant only then I wouldn't use carbon.

 

[Tommy Gunnz]

Actually, carbon is good and bad for planted tanks, with an emphasis on being good. Carbon, while it does take out some nutrients from the water, also takes out proteins from the water which can collect on the surface water and reduce the ablity for light to reach the bottom of the tank. If you have a planted tank (or any tank really) that is cycled and running well, but you have foam on the top of the water, carbon can most likely fix that.

The difference between FW fish and SW fish is that FW do not use the water in the tank as much as SW fish to hydrate themselves. For example, a SW tank is almost constantly flushing its body with water, polluting the water more quickly (which is why less fish can be kept in a SW tank versus the same tank and FW fish). So, nutrients in SW are more important to the fish and inverts. It is obviously more complicated than that, but you can get the gist of it.

The same with planted tanks happens since there is a struggle between plants and algea for nutrients and most usually the plants win out. At night, there is a competition between plants and fish for dissolved oxygen, which is why, I assume, most people turn off their CO2 injections at night.

So, carbon is good for planted tank, and thinking logically, a heavily planted tank sans fish would benifit even more from carbon to remove the proteins. Protein skimmers on SW tanks are not as effective on FW tank for a myriad of reasons, but most notably because saltwater is more dense than FW and hence protein can be seperated more easily.

 

[PaPeRo]

Why would you need carbon to remove protein in a plant only tank? Plant only tanks shouldn't contain protein. Protein is onlly an issue if you have fish, fish food, etc. in the tank.

 

[Tommy Gunnz]

I am assuming from some fertilizers since they usually contain organic compounds. I am not the plant expert though, as I have said and my background is more so in tropical fish, SW tanks, and water chemistry. The point is that many people who experience froth on the surface of their tanks, could benifit from carbon.

I thought you were the carbon advocate and so I figured this would help support your ideas and opinions. Apparently you are just looking to disagree with people, if not only with me.

 

[PaPeRo]

I am assuming from some fertilizers since they usually contain organic compounds. I am not the plant expert though, as I have said and my background is more so in tropical fish, SW tanks, and water chemistry. The point is that many people who experience froth on the surface of their tanks, could benifit from carbon.

I thought you were the carbon advocate and so I figured this would help support your ideas and opinions. Apparently you are just looking to disagree with people, if not only with me.

I advocate the use of carbon for freshwater tanks that contain fish etc. not ones that contain plants only or saltwater tankfs. I'm not a blind carbon nut like those blind no-carbon nuts. Finally plant only tanks tend to have very clean water since the plants act as a filter. I don't claim to be an expert but I don't try to spread erroneous information disguised as fact either.

 

[Tommy Gunnz]

"I advocate the use of carbon for freshwater tanks that contain fish etc. not ones that contain plants only or saltwater tankfs. I'm not a blind carbon nut like those blind no-carbon nuts. Finally plant only tanks tend to have very clean water since the plants act as a filter. I don't claim to be an expert but I don't try to spread erroneous information disguised as fact either."

I am neither blind nor a pro-carbon or anti-carbon person and I am sure that those who are not in favor of using it would take offense to your title of 'blind-carbon nut'.

I have and can back up anything I have said so far and like I said, I appoligize for being misleading.

 

[andywg]

The difference between FW fish and SW fish is that FW do not use the water in the tank as much as SW fish to hydrate themselves. For example, a SW tank is almost constantly flushing its body with water, polluting the water more quickly (which is why less fish can be kept in a SW tank versus the same tank and FW fish).

As I understand it, the main limiting factor in SW tanks is the lack of dissolved oxygen in the water - Saltwater of the same temperature as freshwater holds 42% less dissolved oxygen. Saltwater fish can survive pretty elevated nitrate levels (80ppm+) just like FW fish can (marine inverts are a different matter).

I have never heard that a SW fish pollutes the environment it is in quicker than a FW fish, but rather the environment will pollute the fish quicker as a result of the method employed by marine fish to osmoregulate. I would expect the rate of pollution would depend on the fish's metabolism and food uptake more than the osmoregulation method.