Phosphate test

[fishbait]

I bought a posphate test kit today and did a little testing. I was kinda shocked and dissapointed with some of the test results. first, I tested my trusty distilled water from wal-mart. It had a trace of phos, but not much. It made a slight color change, but not quite .25 which is the lowest amount on the kit. so we will just say less than .25
second, I tested my tank water. It tested 0. which I figured it would since I'm running chaeto, with the fuge lit 24/7 and it's using up some pohsphates.
third I tested my carbon, which is the fluval carbon thats allready in the mesh bags. now this is where my dissapointment came in. I soaked it in bowl full of ro water for 15 minutes. then tested the water. it was over .50! that would explain why I started getting some algae outbreaks in the last month and a half. which is when i started using the fluval carbon.
oh, and my tap was only .25. not bad considering I have been pumping twice that amount in my tank from the carbon.
so now i'm running some phos-zorb. and hopefully my recent algae outbreaks will be a thing of the past.

 

[reeffreak]

Hmmmm,I had never test the carbon before.Usually I take their word if it says ''phosphate free''.The next time I change out the chemipure,I will test that.

Fish,you are going to change brands right?

 

[fatman]

I have tested 12 different carbons from area LFS's , Dr's Foster & Smith and Marine Depot over the last three years and all of them came up with readable phosphates, the most easily obtainable GAC I have found without phosphates is also the cheapest. Calgon, available real cheap at waterfiltersonline.com or at your local Culligan store. Even the granulated activated carbon, and its brother in pellet form used in my local college laboratory tested out for readily soluble phosphates. The charcoal made from coconut shells were worse and surprisingly the majority of the expensive charcoals supplied higher phosphate levels than the cheaper charcoal. I use cheaper charcoal in larger amounts.

 

[fishbait]

reef, I was going to change carbon brands, but I didn't know which brand to go with. but after reading fatmans posts i'm wondering if it's possible to find a good one.

fatman, which one's had the lowest amounts? and how much was it? maybe I will have to run phosban just to offset the phosphate released from the carbon?

 

[fatman]

:twocents: No real good news in the charcoal department. Some phosphate will be found in all charcoal. Some just have lower amounts. Most tests are done on removing color from marine eater caused by dissolved organics. In these tests pelletized charcoal, including scientific grades, performed the worse. Pelletized in general tested at about 0.07-0.09 for phosphates. Coconut tests out at about 0.05-0.07 but its pore size is wrong performs poorly at removing color, therefore poor at removing any organic based dissolved pollutants. It removes chemical based pollutants better (great for RO prestage filters for chlorine removal). It is hard to find the source material for charcoal production listing on aquarium charcoal packaging. The least effective carbon is made from anthracite coal, the best is a toss up between hardwood based charcoal (which is higher in phosphate than bituminous coal based) and between butiminous coal based. Most pelletized charcoal is hardwood based, as are most scientific grade charcoals. All this probably doesn't doesn't help you a whole lot. The best bet is still Culligan's GAC made made from bituminous coal. You have to be specific when you order it or buy it as Culligan is a major manufacturer of charcoal and produces over forty different types/mixes. All in all, if you just use a little charcoal a few days per month it really doesn't matter if it leaches a little phosphate. If you use large amounts often or near constantly then the phosphates will add up. Unless your a heavy cigarette smoker, use room deodorizers, a lot of hair sprays and deodorants (aerosols suck) there is not a lot of things for charcoal to be used for. Well pissed off soft corals! Or to remove medications from a tank.:twocents:

 

[fatman]

Oops. I forgot bituminous is usually 0.02-0.03.

 

[fatman]

:frustrat: Broke down and looked in one of my lab notebooks. Lignite coal based charcoal tested out best in both tests. That is if you can believe in a university's spectrophotometer (for color removal test) and Hach test kit (for phosphate with results in parts per million).
Bituminous coal is the most common charcoal. It is amazing what a person can talk a professor into letting them do a paper on. :^:

 

[fishbait]

looks like you are a pretty smart feller when it comes to this technical stuff.
so basicly what you are saying is, as long as I don't run the crappy carbon no more than a few days at a time, there won't be enough phosphate leaching into the water to matter.

 

[Doc]

or do regular water changes and it keeps the phosphates down. It is worth it for me to run my carbon all the time to keep my water super clear.

-Doc

 

[fatman]

Some people believe in better living through chemicals. Water changes is really the key. Carbon removes, as does skimming, some goodies along with the bad things, some people are against both. Clarity is great as lighting is costly and dissolved organics block/absorb a lot of light. Charcoal removes organics left by your skimmer at the cost of water changers and for heavy users the need for measures such as phosphate absorbers and larger more frequent water changers. Precipitation of phosphates through Kalkwasser is effective. Choose your control based on your raw input of phosphates. But, yeah small occasional use of charcoal is usually easier on phosphate maintenance than continual usage. Most reef tank usually do not have untraceable inputs of phosphate. It is more common with larger fish loads where feeding is a large source of phosphate and also water coloring. Plus dieing macro algae. Remember your live rock and substrate also take up phosphates. Unless you chemically pollute your tank charcoal is nice but more for cosmetic reasons than any thing else, as most of its benefits are better supplied my other methods with less consequences as charcoal is not a very discriminatory filter.