lol
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Reclaim YOUR Bio-Media
- Thread starter AbbeysDad
- Start date
flipperfeet
New Member
The average established tank with a system that employs bio-media is in balance and the colonies of Nitrobacter are in equilibrium with the production of wastes in the system. Removing 50% of the media and killing off perfectly good bacteria with the intent of recovering lost surface area for them to re-establish and repeat the hypothesized plugging of the pores within 30-days sounds like busy work or a great way to keep bio-media manufacturers in business.
When these bio-media where introduced to the hobby 40+ years ago, a key selling point was their durability, ease of cleaning, and reusability. I know, because I worked in a LFS at that time and that is how Kordon and the others pitched them to shop owners. Enterprising shops even offered to "prime" the media by dropping them in store tanks for a few days before customers placed their "seasoned bio-media" in their own systems.
Perhaps the most salient question has not been asked. Is there a demonstrable benefit to implementing this chemical cleaning regimen, and if so is it any better than cleaning by agitation?
Without an electron scanning microscope, it would be difficult to determine if chlorine or other chemicals are actually flushing out the detritus and Nitrobacter, or if the process is simply killing the bacteria in place and leaving the pores plugged.
Using standard aquarist test kits, I have found no measurable drop below pre-bio-media-cleaning levels of ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate in the hours or days after replacing or bleaching 50% of bio media. However, I have seen non-lethal climbs in waste levels for short periods post-sterilization or replacement.
What I have observed is that vigorously tumbling 100% of the bio-media in a bucket or hitting it with a power washer breaks free visible detritus and there is no measurable post-wash climb in waste levels when it is returned to the filter in a timely fashion.
I think it important to note, that bio-balls and similar media where introduced as cheap alternatives to the ceramics and promoted as not "plugging" as you have outlined. In the last 40 years, I have had to periodically replace the plastic bio-media I have picked up from retired aquarists and used filters because over time they become brittle and messy, bleaching only seems to hasten this deterioration. On the other hand, I am still using most of the ceramics I purchased in the 1970s; it remains my favorite bio-media for canisters and reactors making it possible for me to reliably hold more inches of fish-per-gallon than would otherwise be prudent.
When these bio-media where introduced to the hobby 40+ years ago, a key selling point was their durability, ease of cleaning, and reusability. I know, because I worked in a LFS at that time and that is how Kordon and the others pitched them to shop owners. Enterprising shops even offered to "prime" the media by dropping them in store tanks for a few days before customers placed their "seasoned bio-media" in their own systems.
Perhaps the most salient question has not been asked. Is there a demonstrable benefit to implementing this chemical cleaning regimen, and if so is it any better than cleaning by agitation?
Without an electron scanning microscope, it would be difficult to determine if chlorine or other chemicals are actually flushing out the detritus and Nitrobacter, or if the process is simply killing the bacteria in place and leaving the pores plugged.
Using standard aquarist test kits, I have found no measurable drop below pre-bio-media-cleaning levels of ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate in the hours or days after replacing or bleaching 50% of bio media. However, I have seen non-lethal climbs in waste levels for short periods post-sterilization or replacement.
What I have observed is that vigorously tumbling 100% of the bio-media in a bucket or hitting it with a power washer breaks free visible detritus and there is no measurable post-wash climb in waste levels when it is returned to the filter in a timely fashion.
I think it important to note, that bio-balls and similar media where introduced as cheap alternatives to the ceramics and promoted as not "plugging" as you have outlined. In the last 40 years, I have had to periodically replace the plastic bio-media I have picked up from retired aquarists and used filters because over time they become brittle and messy, bleaching only seems to hasten this deterioration. On the other hand, I am still using most of the ceramics I purchased in the 1970s; it remains my favorite bio-media for canisters and reactors making it possible for me to reliably hold more inches of fish-per-gallon than would otherwise be prudent.
Last edited:
OP
OP
AbbeysDad
Fish Gatherer
The problem with ceramic and stone (as in pumice rock with micro pores) is that they become clogged with detritus, reducing or eliminating the coveted enhanced surface area. This is partly due to the function of the filter. It traps waste where it breaks down to very tiny particulates that are pushed with pressure into bio-media. Micro pores clog and the anaerobic bacteria dies. Comparing new media to used media under a microscope tells the story.
The detritus can't be simply washed away by tumbling or conventional spray washing. Bleach/water on the other hand, will burn off the embedded organics and restore these medias to there original 'like new' condition.
------
Footnote: I rarely use the ceramic or stone bio-media's. Oh I once bought into the marketing hype and I've tested them. But with 50 plus years in the hobby and with rare exception (like a DIY enhanced box filter in the 110g stock tank where it's used more for it's weight) I've come around to using bio-sponge material instead. Each to his/her own.
You can keep using 'dirty' ceramic/stone like bio-medias (like most do) but it does become very ineffective in it's desired purpose - might just as well use plain old gravel. Most don't notice because by the time the media is compromised, the tank (especially the substrate) has developed to compensate.
The detritus can't be simply washed away by tumbling or conventional spray washing. Bleach/water on the other hand, will burn off the embedded organics and restore these medias to there original 'like new' condition.
------
Footnote: I rarely use the ceramic or stone bio-media's. Oh I once bought into the marketing hype and I've tested them. But with 50 plus years in the hobby and with rare exception (like a DIY enhanced box filter in the 110g stock tank where it's used more for it's weight) I've come around to using bio-sponge material instead. Each to his/her own.
You can keep using 'dirty' ceramic/stone like bio-medias (like most do) but it does become very ineffective in it's desired purpose - might just as well use plain old gravel. Most don't notice because by the time the media is compromised, the tank (especially the substrate) has developed to compensate.
flipperfeet
New Member
1) If the tank has developed significant Nitrobacter to compensate, why bother going through the regimen you have outlined?
2) are you not arguing both sides of the coin? If it is just marketing hype, what exactly is being recovered?
The surface area you say is being reclaimed by “burning off” the biofilm is lost to biofilm recolonization in a short period, certainly much sooner than 30 days. Further, the biofilm is the same film that covers virtually all porous and non-porous surfaces throughout the tank that is breaking down waste. Unless one is trying to rid the tank of some sort of pathogen there is no practical reason to bleach biological media. The temporary gain in surface area is fleeting and has no significant impact on reducing waste levels.
Clearly, biofilms are something you are well versed in but for the rest of us, this resource link is relevant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504244/. I think it important for the discussion folks understand that biofilms do not act like plastic wrap, there is a degree of permeability.
It is also important that we understand that for a long time, ammonia and nitrite oxidation by chemolithoautotrophic nitrifiers were thought to be restricted to oxic environments and the metabolic flexibility of these organisms seemed to be limited. The discovery of a pathway for anaerobic ammonia oxidation by Planctomyces (anammox) and the finding of an anoxic metabolism by ‘classical’Nitrosomonas‐like organisms showed that this is no longer valid. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00920.x
2) are you not arguing both sides of the coin? If it is just marketing hype, what exactly is being recovered?
The surface area you say is being reclaimed by “burning off” the biofilm is lost to biofilm recolonization in a short period, certainly much sooner than 30 days. Further, the biofilm is the same film that covers virtually all porous and non-porous surfaces throughout the tank that is breaking down waste. Unless one is trying to rid the tank of some sort of pathogen there is no practical reason to bleach biological media. The temporary gain in surface area is fleeting and has no significant impact on reducing waste levels.
Clearly, biofilms are something you are well versed in but for the rest of us, this resource link is relevant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504244/. I think it important for the discussion folks understand that biofilms do not act like plastic wrap, there is a degree of permeability.
It is also important that we understand that for a long time, ammonia and nitrite oxidation by chemolithoautotrophic nitrifiers were thought to be restricted to oxic environments and the metabolic flexibility of these organisms seemed to be limited. The discovery of a pathway for anaerobic ammonia oxidation by Planctomyces (anammox) and the finding of an anoxic metabolism by ‘classical’Nitrosomonas‐like organisms showed that this is no longer valid. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00920.x
Last edited:
OP
OP
AbbeysDad
Fish Gatherer
@flipperfeet - You somehow got hung up on bio-film and one month. I think that although bio-film plays a role, the main detractor to long term bio-media performance degradation is detritus. Tiny dirty water particulates from decaying organic matter that's blasted into all the nooks an crannies of the bio-media.
------
The typical manufacturers recommendation is to replace half the media EVERY OTHER month or so. Adding some 'clean' media every couple of months better ensures the ongoing efficiency of the nitrification process.
------
In any case, I merely offered a simple means to clean and rejuvenate ceramic/stone medias so they are like new again.
As I said, like many, you're free to continue using dirty media. There are many that believe that bio-media should never be touched. Then there are many that believe that filters actually clean the water and don't service filters for months on end. Then again, if one does sufficient large volume water changes, it's all less important.
------
Personally, I use slow flow and bio-sponge material that I rinse clean every week or two. In my display tank, I run a diatom filter for a few hours weekly following the partial water change.
------
You can lead a horse to drink, but you can't make him water. ;-)
------
The typical manufacturers recommendation is to replace half the media EVERY OTHER month or so. Adding some 'clean' media every couple of months better ensures the ongoing efficiency of the nitrification process.
------
In any case, I merely offered a simple means to clean and rejuvenate ceramic/stone medias so they are like new again.
As I said, like many, you're free to continue using dirty media. There are many that believe that bio-media should never be touched. Then there are many that believe that filters actually clean the water and don't service filters for months on end. Then again, if one does sufficient large volume water changes, it's all less important.
------
Personally, I use slow flow and bio-sponge material that I rinse clean every week or two. In my display tank, I run a diatom filter for a few hours weekly following the partial water change.
------
You can lead a horse to drink, but you can't make him water. ;-)
Last edited:
flipperfeet
New Member
@AbbeysDad, bleach breaks down the biofilm, it does not act like scrubbing bubbles and clear out or "burn" away the detritus in the micropores. It may return the media to a like-new appearance, but it has not returned it to a like new state.
The point being, the bleaching regimen you have proposed, whether it is done every couple of months or every month does little to improve the efficiency of the media or improve water quality, even in the near term. As your signature acknowledges, an aquarist and their tank occupants would be better served by using the same time to do another water change (and simply rinse away the bulk of the detritus that sits atop the biofilm, like you are doing each time you rinse out your sponge).
------
It would be silly to get into the semantics of what "clean" means as it relates to filters. But if you are a regular user of a diatom filter, you are clearly of the belief that pulling particulate and organic matter >1μ out of the tank has some benefit whether it is for the visual effect or the reduction in biologic load, most folks would consider this a type of "cleaning" performed by a filter, you may not. Your low and slow sponge filters are a fine media for removing large particulate matter while providing additional substrate for the nitrogen cycle to do its magic, but you would likely not need to run the diatom filter as long or as frequently if it were doing a better job. But as you say, "you're free to continue using dirty media." ;-)
The point being, the bleaching regimen you have proposed, whether it is done every couple of months or every month does little to improve the efficiency of the media or improve water quality, even in the near term. As your signature acknowledges, an aquarist and their tank occupants would be better served by using the same time to do another water change (and simply rinse away the bulk of the detritus that sits atop the biofilm, like you are doing each time you rinse out your sponge).
------
It would be silly to get into the semantics of what "clean" means as it relates to filters. But if you are a regular user of a diatom filter, you are clearly of the belief that pulling particulate and organic matter >1μ out of the tank has some benefit whether it is for the visual effect or the reduction in biologic load, most folks would consider this a type of "cleaning" performed by a filter, you may not. Your low and slow sponge filters are a fine media for removing large particulate matter while providing additional substrate for the nitrogen cycle to do its magic, but you would likely not need to run the diatom filter as long or as frequently if it were doing a better job. But as you say, "you're free to continue using dirty media." ;-)
Last edited:
OP
OP
AbbeysDad
Fish Gatherer
LOL
Lets just agree to disagree. Bleach/water does an excellent job of burning off organics! The process I suggested is nearly identical to the documented process to reclaim/rejuvenate Seachem Purigen.
I believe that clean ceramic/stone bio-medias are more effective than dirty medias coated with detritus.
------
The coarse/fine bio-sponge material in my filters works just fine for both mechanical and biological filtration! My weekly routine for the 60g LR display tank involves glass cleaning, substrate disturbance, filter maintenance in addition to the partial water change. I do not NEED to run the Marineland Magnum Polishing Internal Canister filter with the micron cartridge and diatomaceous earth. I simply CHOOSE to do so to polish the water to crystal clarity. I don't bother to do this in the several other (10g,20g,37g,110g) grow out tanks I have (that also exclusively use sponge material for filtration instead of ceramic/stone medias).
Lets just agree to disagree. Bleach/water does an excellent job of burning off organics! The process I suggested is nearly identical to the documented process to reclaim/rejuvenate Seachem Purigen.
I believe that clean ceramic/stone bio-medias are more effective than dirty medias coated with detritus.
------
The coarse/fine bio-sponge material in my filters works just fine for both mechanical and biological filtration! My weekly routine for the 60g LR display tank involves glass cleaning, substrate disturbance, filter maintenance in addition to the partial water change. I do not NEED to run the Marineland Magnum Polishing Internal Canister filter with the micron cartridge and diatomaceous earth. I simply CHOOSE to do so to polish the water to crystal clarity. I don't bother to do this in the several other (10g,20g,37g,110g) grow out tanks I have (that also exclusively use sponge material for filtration instead of ceramic/stone medias).
flipperfeet
New Member
Agreed
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
270 -
263 -
185 -
169 -
156 -
152 -
147 -
130 -
125 -
107 -
93 -
93 -
86 -
85 -
85