# Chemi-pure in FX5



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

I have an FX5 filter on a 90 gallon tank and I'd like to use chemipure. This isn't a thread about the pros/cons of running this particular media, just a question about size.

Will the 46.96 ounce bag of Chemi-pure elite fit in an FX5 media tray? I'd do the math but I have no clue what the density of Chemi-pure is.

Thanks


----------



## kodyboy (Dec 9, 2007)

as long as the chemi pure is kept in a bag that can contain it it should be fine. Chemi pure is really fine and can easily get out of most bags.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

My understanding is that it comes in a bag, is this correct? If so, I was wondering if the whole thing will fit... I'd rather not cut open the bag it comes in just to put it in a different bag.


----------



## Rockydog (Oct 21, 2007)

I use the Chemi-pure Elite in the 11.74 oz bag (which is considered 1 unit) x 4 would equal your 46.96 oz bag and I could fit 4 bags in one basket. However, with my size tank I require 6 units so I place 2 units in each basket with the Fluval Pre-filter ceramic rings. They never have to be replaced so maintenance cost is 0. The Chemi-pure supposedly will last 6 to 8 months, if so then the maintenance cost is not great.

I tried all kinds of mech filter media in the baskets and they just don't work. There is so much water flow that they plug very easily and then create cavitation that results in major micro bubbles being blown in the tank.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

Alright, cool! For my size tank I really only need two of the smaller bags but it seems reasonable to assume using more of it would result in having to change it less frequently.

I'm planning to run the bottom try with Eheim Ehfisubstrat Pro, the middle with the big bag of Chemi-pure Elite, and the top try full of Marineland's diamond blend which is a mix of carbon and amarid. I know a lot of people here say carbon is a waste of money but in MY experience with MY water supply, I've had much better success keeping my fish alive and well than when I've ran tanks without it. Also, with the 1.87L jar of it on a 90 gallon tank and also running the big bag of Chemi-pure Elite which is supposed to be good up to 200 gallons, I don't think I'll have to change out the diamond blend more often than bi-monthly and the Chemi-pure bi-annually.

I can swing $8 every two months and then about $42 every 6... comes out to 36 cents a day to keep $200+ worth of fish alive in a $1000ish setup... Not nearly as cost prohibitive as many try to claim.


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> I know a lot of people here say carbon is a waste of money but in MY experience with MY water supply, I've had much better success keeping my fish alive and well than when I've ran tanks without it.


I think you make some good points. It's possible that certain water supplies are less fish friendly than 
others. I've suspected this because some experience stressed fish after water changes, when mine 
don't bat an eye no matter how much I change. Have you compared the cost of the chemicals vs a 
whole house water filter system? Just wondering if that would be easier, even if more costly. Might free 
up the chambers in your filters, and not tie you to having to configure them the way you need to now.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

I definitely believe that certain water supplies are much more fish friendly than others.

I'm still in college (going for Mechanical Engineering, about 16 months left) so my tank is actually at my parent's house. They have a whole house water filter system, but it does not include a carbon filter and it dumps water directly into a water softener. Several people have recommended I pull water prior to it being softened for cichlids. I live at home half the year and the other half I live at school but it's only about a 40 minute drive so I can make it home each weekend for routine maintenance / checking on my fish.


----------



## Rockydog (Oct 21, 2007)

Personally, I am using the Chemi-pure Elite as a replacement to charcoal. Will do the same thing but not strip the water of trace elements.


----------



## SupeDM (Jan 26, 2009)

has anyone tried the poly filter pads. I love them and I think they are alot easier to use that the chemi pure. I actually had a bag of chemipure let go in my xp3 once and it was a disaster. the poly filters can be cut to fit anysize filter and mine usually last for about 6-months before they turn black and need to be replaced. Also I keep the old ones in lower baskets as they have a huge surface area for biofiltration.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

I'm not exactly sure what product you are referring to. Could you please post a link? I've seen a lot of different filter pads but none that claimed the same benefits as Chemi-pure.

Thank you for sharing about a bag failing on you though, I will double bag mine (stick the bag of chemi-pure into a fine filter bag).

From what I have read, trace elements being stripped from the water isn't anything to be concerned with if you keep up on water changes. I have no firsthand experience with testing water for the concentrations of trace elements so I cannot refute this... though if anybody has any proof that it is something I should be concerned with, I would greatly appreciate them sharing! :thumb:


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> I have no firsthand experience with testing water for the concentrations of trace elements so I cannot refute this... though if anybody has any proof that it is something I should be concerned with, I would greatly appreciate them sharing!


No one does, I can assure you. I wouldn't worry about it either.

Here's the poly filter pad. I used them briefly a long time back, but stopped when I determined my water was fine.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

Hmm... the poly pads are kinda interesting as well. I have a hard time believing that it can absorb as much as the chemi-pure before exhaustion though. I could be way off base here but it seems to be a standard poly pad that contains chemicals that pull things out of the water, correct? It seems like having just the chemicals and no pad would be a much more efficient use of space so an equal volume of chemi-pure might be the better way to go, but I have no data on how much either can actually absorb :? For all I know Chemi-pure might be mostly inert filler and contain the same chemicals the pad does.

It might be time for some experimentation... What brand test kits do you guys / gals recommend? I'll have a new 90 gallon setup running soon and I'm going to need all the basic tests for hardness, pH, NH3, NO2, NO3, as well as phosphate and I'm open to suggestions on other things to test for. Due to a hair algae outbreak in a previous tank, I'm fairly sure I have significant phosphate levels in my water supply...


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> For all I know Chemi-pure might be mostly inert filler and contain the same chemicals the pad does.


And interesting that they won't tell what's in the jar. I tried to find out one time.



> What brand test kits do you guys / gals recommend?


API freshwater kit is a good place to start. They also make a copper test kit. I like the Instant Ocean 
nitrate/phosphate test kit. Sailfert kits have a good reputation, but are pricey. There's only so much you're 
going to be able to test for with the hobbyist kits. I think I'd take a look at your local water supply quality 
report. And you may be better off having your water professionally tested by a lab. It sounds extreme, 
but it'd bug me. And I'd want to know what was not agreeing with my fish.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

Yeah, I'd like to know what chemicals are in all of the products I buy but companies don't like to share that info... I wonder if they'd reply to a request for a MSDS.

Here's the 2007 info on water quality for my area, no tests are done for phosphate or nitrate or anything apparently.

Flouride: 0.58ppm 
Arsenic: 5.0ppb
Selenium: 5.0ppb
Barium: 0.22ppm
Radium: 1.23pCi/L (picocuries per liter)
Trihalomethethane: 16.63ppb
Haloacetic acid: 4.9ppb
Sodium: 50ppm
Chlorine: 1.8ppm
Copper: .881ppm
Lead: 6.9ppm

Doesn't sound too tasty.....


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> Flouride: 0.58ppm
> Arsenic: 5.0ppb
> Selenium: 5.0ppb
> Barium: 0.22ppm
> ...


That's the hard part. Researching each to see which may be causing your problems. Then finding 
something that'll remove it and being able to test for it to confirm. You've got a project on your hands.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Dec 21, 2003)

Just saw another note, Nitrate is <10ppm.

Here are the EPA regulations for drinking water, which are supposedly the same as the FDA's regulations for bottled water... max amounts allowed are as follows:

Flouride: 4ppm
Arsenic: 10ppb
Selenium: 50ppb
Barium: 2ppm
Radium: 5pCi/L (picocuries per liter)
Trihalomethethane: 80ppb
Haloacetic acid: 60ppb
Sodium: No limit established
Chlorine: 4ppm
Copper: 1.3ppm
Lead: 15ppm

Everything listed in the report shows my water contains lower than the maximum allowable levels of the contaminants.

Does anybody happen to know if Prime will also remove Flourine from water? I know that generally Flourine reacts to the same way Chlorine will as they are in the same periodic family, but I don't actually know what is in Prime to remove chlorine.

I plan to test for phosphates, but nothing on that list seems like it could be too bad for fish if it's safe for drinking water, except possibly the flouride. I'm fairly sure there's something in the water that's not so great for fish though as past tanks which received regular (weekly) water changes (with stress coat as a dechlorinator) seemed to have fish die off much sooner than tanks which received less maintenance.


----------

