Activated Carbon - The Doomsday Particle?

[Sailfish]

I kind of freaked out after seeing this YouTube-video:

Then I saw some hope, in a really great demonstrational video, made by BRS:

If the goal is to remove as much tannins (pigments), and as little trace elements as possible, isn't the Lignite activated carbon the supreme choice?

[markalot]

Don't use activated carbon unless you need to remove something from the water, like keeping leathers with other corals. The old saying, the poison is in the dose, applies to pretty much everything. You'll get the best efficiency by using just a little bit of the highest grade of activated carbon.

 

I think you are suggesting Lignite due to the larger pore sizes, but I don't think that applies well to a reef where they will probably get clogged with crap pretty quickly. I do not know this though, not an expert in activated carbon.

 

I don't use carbon at all in my 40 gallon and my water is not yellow. I'm not a big believer that it's useful for much besides removing toxins in an emergency.

[seabass]

Didn't seem that scientific. The conclusion was that the sudden introduction of activated carbon and phosphate remover can kill coral (although the blame was put squarely on activated carbon). They didn't measure light PAR at the coral's depth, or the trace elements that were mentioned in the video (let alone phosphate levels or alkalinity). Without testing, they are speculating why certain coral seemed more affected than others.

 

While I don't fault anybody who decides against using activated carbon, I personally believe that activated carbon can be a beneficial media for a variety of systems. In addition to removing color and toxins (including chemical warfare from other coral), it removes organics from the water. While elements like iodine are likely reduced when using activated carbon, the reaction seen in the first video could have been due to the use of the phosphate remover (causing a change in alkalinity and phosphate). It could also have been caused by the increase in light penetration, or some other factor (or combination of factors).

 

Then I saw some hope, in a really great demonstrational video, made by BRS... If the goal is to remove as much tannins (pigments), and as little trace elements as possible, isn't the Lignite activated carbon the supreme choice?

Their video shows that their ROX 0.8 is the better choice.

[tetraodon]

The only time I ever use carbon or any media is when I cant get the desired result through other means, also ive only ever had tanins or any coloration to my water was in my fresh planted tank after adding new drift wood, I never use it unless its an emergancy or and umknown chemical

[tibbsy07]

Definitely not a scientific study, but his personal experience. I think it had less to do with activated carbon as a whole and more of the fact that he started using 2.0L of activated carbon alongside 1.0L of phosphate remover at the same time. Drastic changes are bad for tanks.

[Sailfish]

Their video shows that their ROX 0.8 is the better choice.

Their ROX 0.8 was most efficient in removing all the particles, large, medium and small.

My point was that the Literite seemed to be as effective as the ROX 0.8 in removing pigments (large molecules), while leaving more of the methyl blue (medium molecules). In my mind that translates into the ROX 0.8 being the best option if your primary goal is to remove medium-small sized molecules (e.g. many medications), while the Literite will be the best 24/7 preventive option. It should remove as much pigments, but leave more trace elements in the system, right?

[seabass]

I see what you are saying. The large particle lignite carbon removes mostly larger molecules, leaving more medium sized molecules. Assuming that's what you are trying to remove (and leave behind), then yes. However, since I'm not sure of the molecule sizes of the trace elements (or organics, or toxins) in question, I can't confirm this assumption.

 

You might have to rinse the lignite carbon for a couple of minutes to remove the dust, compared to just a few seconds with the ROX 0.8 carbon. I also imagine that the lignite carbon will generate more fines (a suspected cause of Head and Lateral Line Erosion disease in fish).

[Sailfish]

I see what you are saying. The large particle lignite carbon removes mostly larger molecules, leaving more medium sized molecules. Assuming that's what you are trying to remove (and leave behind), then yes. However, since I'm not sure of the molecule sizes of the trace elements (or organics, or toxins) in question, I can't confirm this assumption.

 

You might have to rinse the lignite carbon for a couple of minutes to remove the dust, compared to just a few seconds with the ROX 0.8 carbon. I also imagine that the lignite carbon will generate more fines (a suspected cause of Head and Lateral Line Erosion disease in fish).

From wikipedia (I know wikipedia does not equal facts, but role with me ):

"Tannins have molecular weights ranging from 500 to over 3,000^[3] (gallic acid esters) and up to 20,000 (proanthocyanidins)."

These are rather LARGE molecules, compared to methylene blue (319,85) and trace elements; e.g. iodine (126,9).

 

Actually if methylene blue has three times larger molecular weight then iodine, we can assume that, at the same concentration, there would have been at least three times more iodine left in the solution. It would probably be much more, as the test did not demonstrate how well any of the carbons filter so small molecules, but indicated that Literite had mostly large pores (large>medium>small).

 

Do you have any idea of how fine "fines" really are? Should be easy to simply add a filter sock, fine enough to not allow any carbon fines through.

[seabass]

Interesting, but maybe we need to try and compare molar volume (at 80°F) instead of molar weight. I assume that would be a more valid comparison given that pore size tends to determine what activated carbon adsorbs. IDK, chemistry is a little out of my comfort zone.

[hypostatic]

I was running carbon 24/7 for months without any issues. It gets exhausted pretty quickly though, so unless you're constantly putting in new carbon, or using a huge amount, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[SchnauzerFace]

Not sure why carbon was getting all the blame. IMO he's got a massive bioload, but he doesn't run a skimmer or macro algae. and the tank only has ~50lbs of live rock in a 500 gallon. I'm curious what his ammonia and nitrate readings are.

 

Also, he says strontium and iodine are stripped by the carbon, but it doesn't sound like he did any tests for trace elements before or after the carbon. I can't imagine trace elements could being so thoroughly depleted by carbon so as to cause coral death unless WC aren't done regularly. So he's got a fully, fully stocked tank with no real method of nutrient export that may not have adequate water changes -- along with absolutely no parameters presented of any kind -- yet he seems certain carbon is the culprit? Way too many variables to identify any single thing at this point.

 

I've used carbon to very good success, and I wouldn't let this video turn anyone off from using it in their tanks as well. His fish looked healthy and so did most of the corals, though, so obviously he's doing something right. But I don't think carbon should become public enemy number 1 just yet.

[Bill Nye]

I have been thinking of taking my carbon out or running it 2 weeks on 2 weeks off but I've been using it for so long I am afraid to . I run rox in my tank at over the recommended dose and never really thought about it my now that my new system is at very low nutrient levels (I tested .02 phosphates after removing phosguard for 3 or 4 days...) I think it might be having a negative effect.

 

People on reefcentral swear carbon, especially rox, can be detrimental to sps but who knows...

[farkwar]

How hard is it to do a water change?

 

Or buy iodine, strontium, K, trace elements, etc.

 

That is assuming the hypothesis is accurate.

 

It seeems as if all the large reef suppliers have some line of elemental supplements.

 

I like the Rox GAC, but I may try the KZ brand when I run out of Rox, just to see if there's any difference besides price.

[bertyboy69]

that user actually has multiple videos, and i was told on another forum that he is the creater/owner of miracle mud , which if you notice he states that his sump is only running miracle mud, he had another video testing skimmers vs no skimmer vs light skimming vs miracle mud