GFO and Carbon reuse.....

[lazyreefer]

Hey, I'm running GFO and Carbon through a double reactor from BRS

I flushed them out in a bucket, got rid off all kinds of detritus and whatnot, and then dried the GFO and Carbon out in the sunshine. The stuff looks exactly like the fresh stuff out of the container....can I reuse it ??

If not, why not.....

Thanks

 

[stunreefer]

How long was it in use for?

Carbon is almost certainly a no, as it absorbs and "fills up" quickly. Two weeks is more than it's "lifetime". GFO can go month, maybe two depending on how much you're using and how high your PO4 is.

Generally speaking you cannot recharge or reuse them though.

 

[SSA]

Carbon can be re-used if you bake it in the oven to burn out the organics that are trapped within the carbon's matrix. Tends to foul the oven though. Just not worth it in my opinion.

 

[lazyreefer]

I know a well respected guy who tumbles his carbon in a reactor for months - he's got a Maxijet 12 running full blast through the reactor with Warner Marine carbon. Swears this idea that carbon absorbs stuff only to kick it back out is a myth due to low flow ideas which cause a build up of detritus and creates a nitrate factory. I'm using Black Diamond and put another "post" filter after the carbon and see all kinds of carbon dust, is this dust harmful to livestock ??

I'm lazy and not a big fan of carbon anyways so I have no problems replacing with fresh. But GFO is a whole 'nother ball of wax I haven't heard much about. My GFO was in there for about 6 weeks, but what makes the potency of GFO diminish and why can't it be recharged like Phosguard or Phosban ??

Thanks

 

[RBursek]

Both are filled of liitle pores that get filled rinsing does not get rid of what they absorb, at this point I have to do some research to see if it can be regenerrated but have never read anything prior to this that it can be. Here is a good read on carbon.

CC GAC is very low in dust and hard compared to something like BD, which makes BD a poorer choice of GAC over other GAC that have lower dust. The downside of CC GAC is that it is a poor choice for us, as the pores are way to small and almost all CC is very high in PO4. As one approaches the original material the Ash, contaminates and PO4 increase, except that which is acid washed. So, if we look at two bitum's, GAC like the TFG vs BD, the TFG is a much better choice in having less dust and contaminates. Then ask yourself the question " would any hospital use BD for dialysis" The answer would be a flat no way BD has to much dust, is not acid washed, water rinsed or pH neural and has higher contaminants. TFG GAC is used in dialyzes, it is a medial grad GAC used for that very purpose. ROX, TFG, TLF and BRS Lignite area all acid washed. Acid washing, removes Ash and contaminates. BD is not acid washed. So, we are back to square one, choosing a lower grade Ca++ sup with more contaminates vs higher grade with less contaminates. Which one would Randy use GAC is no different. We want a purer grade and at the same time these purer grades, that I listed above, are more adsorbent. As far as any potential dust goes, for ANY GAC, we can just use a post GAC micro filter. Then, how come is it that anybody that has used ROX or TFG will not go back to their old GAC choice. Reason, they almost could not believe the difference in water clarity and the price was worth it. If the theory holds water of, "just use more of it", then why don't companies that do water or liquid filtration just use "more of it" That way GAC companies could all just make one kind of GAC.

From a quote by Boomer at Reef Central and Reef Sanctuary.
ROX is the purest along with thefilteguys, BRS Ligntie and TLF is next, Elos is also really good but they are NUTS what they want for it, ROX is cheaper.

I'll see if I can find you that link on recent controlled lab studies on what causes FHLLE. It is not final as much is still in the works, where more testing is needed but marine fish tested for sure had negative affects. Many people and public aquarium people have seen this with GAC dust on certain fish===> Laterial Line Erosion. I use to be a big time non-believer in this but not any more. Tony Frakes has alway told me this was so when he ran AS.

One of the issue is usually only higher grade GAC give you "Randy" concerned data, like Ash and other solubles and pH. Almost all GAC companies start to drop "Boomer & "Randy" data as the GAC goes into cheaper grades etc, you loose things like Molasses #, Ash, Iron, etc.. None in this hobby, other than Matrix, BRS Lignite and ROX give this data. All of them or most of them, do not want you to know how they compare to each other. I have data for thefilterguys, TLF and BD but can not give it out. As I said I would not, when it was given to me for Ken's current GAC studies. Data for BRS ROX and Liginte is not an issue as they got it from reading my post here and will admit to that, as somebody asked them

Scott

BRS Lignite is by far better than BD

But I was not able to translate the comments there into any useful action on the brand of carbon to use. RH-F.

I was

CC GAC is very low in dust and hard compared to something like BD, which makes BD a poorer choice of GAC over other GAC that have lower dust. The downside of CC GAC is that it is a poor choice for us, as the pores are way to small and almost all CC is very high in PO4. As one approaches the original material the Ash, contaminates and PO4 increase, except that which is acid washed. So, if we look at two bitum's, GAC like the TFG vs BD, the TFG is a much better choice in having less dust and contaminates. Then ask yourself the question " would any hospital use BD for dialysis" The answer would be a flat no way BD has to much dust, is not acid washed, water rinsed or pH neural and has higher contaminants. TFG GAC is used in dialyzes, it is a medial grad GAC used for that very purpose. ROX, TFG, TLF and BRS Lignite area all acid washed. Acid washing, removes Ash and contaminates. BD is not acid washed. So, we are back to square one, choosing a lower grade Ca++ sup with more contaminates vs higher grade with less contaminates. Which one would Randy use GAC is no different. We want a purer grade and at the same time these purer grades, that I listed above, are more adsorbent. As far as any potential dust goes, for ANY GAC, we can just use a post GAC micro filter. Then, how come is it that anybody that has used ROX or TFG will not go back to their old GAC choice. Reason, they almost could not believe the difference in water clarity and the price was worth it. If the theory holds water of, "just use more of it", then why don't companies that do water or liquid filtration just use "more of it" That way GAC companies could all just make one kind of GAC


We don't get to rinse most other additives. RH-F

That was kinda a good come back


The rising is to flush out as best one can PO4, which you can even measure with at test kit, dust and any trapped gasses. It will no do much at all for ash. Some GAC when rinsed takes forever TGF and ROX requires no rinsing at all but I still say rinse all or any GAC for *maybe any trapped gases and to get it well wetted and any dust it * may have, even though it *seems dust free. I call it being safe. And as far as FW washing goes we do not really know what it will do other than the above. You could always acid wash your BD with HCl to lower ash and other contaminates. The HCl "eats" stuff right out of the GAC and gives a better GAC. I wish BD was acid washed but it is not. *If it was the dust and ash would be very low. And then use a 1 micro post GAC filter for any dust that was not washed out.or any potential future dust. Some GAC are acid washed with Nitric Acid and most hobby people, other than you, would never be able to get their hands on any, without the FBI pounding on their door

ROX is the purest along with thefilteguys, BRS Ligntie and TLF is next, Elos is also really good but they are NUTS what they want for it, ROX is cheaper.

I'll see if I can find you that link on recent controlled lab studies on what causes FHLLE. It is not final as much is still in the works, where more testing is needed but marine fish tested for sure had negative affects. Many people and public aquarium people have seen this with GAC dust on certain fish===> Laterial Line Erosion. I use to be a big time non-believer in this but not any more. Tony Frakes has alway told me this was so when he ran AS.

One of the issue is usually only higher grade GAC give you "Randy" concerned data, like Ash and other solubles and pH. Almost all GAC companies start to drop "Boomer & "Randy" data as the GAC goes into cheaper grades etc, you loose things like Molasses #, Ash, Iron, etc.. None in this hobby, other than Matrix, BRS Lignite and ROX give this data. All of them or most of them, do not want you to know how they compare to each other. I have data for thefilterguys, TLF and BD but can not give it out. As I said I would not, when it was given to me for Ken's current GAC studies. Data for BRS ROX and Liginte is not an issue as they got it from reading my post here and will admit to that, as somebody asked them

Scott

BRS Lignite is by far better than BD