# The Great Filtration Debate



## RRasco

Okay, so let me premise this by saying I don't want to start an argument, rather a discussion on how aquarium filtration is actually quantified. Coming into this discussion, I am going to assume that you already know the basics of aquatic filtration. If you don't, please read up before commenting.

We often see filters rated for certain sizes of aquariums and we often hear general rules that filters should provide 10x turnover of the tanks total volume. For example, a Rena XP2 is rated for tanks up to 75 gallons with flow rate of up to 300 gph, effectively 4x turnover. In contrast, a Rena XP3 is rated for tanks up to 175 gallons with a flow rate of up to 350 gph, effectively 2x turnover. Surely 50 gph does not provide a stark contrast in filtration capabilities and makes you wonder, why is one filter capable of filtering more than double that of the smaller filter? The only other difference between an XP2 and an XP3 is 2.25" of height. This larger canister, even if marginally, provides extra space for filter media which directly equates to a larger nitrifying bacterial colony.

I'd like to propose a theory and ultimately put down the concept that a high turnover rate equals better filtration. In theory, so long as the water is moving and there is enough filter media, or surface area, for a nitrifying bacterial colony large enough to break down the bio load of the tank, there should be no problem with filtration. Applying this theory, a tank could sustain enough biological filtration using a very low gph flow rate.

There are a few caveats to this theory, such as the notion that the bacteria has more of a chance to 'eat' the toxins in the water with a higher flow rate. There is also the possibility that nitrifying bacteria requires a certain level of flow to sustain itself, I don't know that, I'm kind of blindly making an observation from my experiences.

In no way am I stating that a high turnover rate is bad, but it definitely doesn't do much to increase filtration, at least not biologically. I will concede that the more volume of water that passes through the filter each hour can directly have an impact on mechanical filtration, and chemical filtration as well if you use it. The flow rate could also have a direct impact on oxygen levels in the water as well. I'm not arguing that.

Basically, I hear these 'rules' that are set by the community and I'm not really saying they are bad to follow, but how many of them are actually a must? If I have a 100 gallon tank with the exact same amount of filter media and one has 2x the flow rate of the other, does that actually mean it has 2x the filtration? Wouldn't the bacterial colonies, in theory, be exactly the same?

Thoughts?


----------



## xxbenjamminxx

I am by no means an expert but with a higher turn over rate I believe it helps with mechanical side of filtration, therefor not allowing all the "gunk" to be left on the bottom of tank and stuck in corner to rot. Would this excess "gunk" cause nitrates to rise higher than it would it were to be picked up by the filter and stored in the pre-filters? Or is this just because of the fact that most cichlids are messy fish and the added turn over rate is there to help keep tank maintenance down?

I know this in no way answers the questions asked in the OP, but thinking maybe there is only a slight increase in flow due to the smaller filters running at the lower end of flow of what is needed to keep the bacteria colony alive and thriving and then the larger ones don't need much more than that to sustain the added bacteria alive in the extra media present with them.

I have been trying to understand this logic myself and this is what I have settled on up to this point. I am also not saying to or not to follow these community set rules but I do see my tank being cleaner with more turnover then without.

Or maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, I dont know.


----------



## GTZ

The high turnover rate has nothing to do with how well the bacterial colony performs. So long as the water is flowing enough for it to not become stagnant and kill the colony, it doesn't make any difference what the turnover rate is. The turnover has to do with mechanical and chemical filtration.
Also, I don't view them as rules, moreso as guidelines.
As far as going from 75g to 175g with an XP2 (300gph) and XP3 (350gph), I agree, it seems like a bit of a stretch for a 50gph increase. I too would like to know what they base their numbers on.


----------



## cjacob316

could too high a flow force debris through the mechanical media though? the rule of thumb isn't 10x turnover with one filter, its for the whole tank, I will be pretty sure than 1250 gph in one filter would be nearly useless, but 10 filters at 125 gph each probably filter the water extremely well.


----------



## GTZ

I think all the gph figures are with empty canisters. I could be wrong.
I just ran through some popular canisters to calculate turnover using the uppermost aquarium size recommended per filter. I realize turnover certainly isn't everything but found it interesting nonetheless.



> 205 40, 110gph, 2.75x/hr
> 305 70, 185gph, 2.64x/hr
> 405 100, 225gph, 2.25x/hr
> FX5 400, 925gph, 2.41x/hr
> 
> 2211 40, 60gph, 1.5x/hr
> 2213 66, 116gph, 1.75x/hr
> 2215 92, 164gph, 1.78x/hr
> 2217 159, 264gph, 1.66x/hr
> 2260 396, 635gph, 1.6x/hr
> 
> XP1 45g, 250gph, 5.55x/hr
> XP2 75g, 300gph, 4x/hr
> XP3 175g, 350gph, 2x/hr
> XP4 265g, 450gph, 1.7x/hr


----------



## shellies215

I think a discussion on this topic is long over due. I have 3 tanganyika tanks set up and none of them have 10x, If you go by the manufacturers flow ratings, my tanks would average about 6x, but these are usually just pump ratings, not taking into consideration the loss of flow caused by the filter media, so realistically, I probably have 4-5x filtration.

As far as credible information goes, it's hard to find, but here we go.

1. From Dr. Paul Loiselles book, _Guide To African Cichlids _ "To function effectively, all the water in the tank must pass through the filter medium two to three times per hour.(refering to mech. filter.)

" A high flow rate is less important in a biological filter. For this type of filter to be effective, the waste stream must remain in contact with the bacterial flora long enough for the nitrifiers to work on the dissolved metabolites. It is enough if the water in the tank moves through the filter medium once an hour

2 Why not use the manufacturers tank size guidelines? They probably know a little more about filters than we do.


----------



## RRasco

GTZ said:


> The high turnover rate has nothing to do with how well the bacterial colony performs. So long as the water is flowing enough for it to not become stagnant and kill the colony, it doesn't make any difference what the turnover rate is. The turnover has to do with mechanical and chemical filtration.


This is *exactly* the point I am trying to make. I also think the same as you do, these gph ratings are undoubtedly done without filter media. I'm not really trying to go into whether these numbers match the mfr claims, more so the concept of flow rate vs filter effectiveness. Theoretically you could have a 6"x6"x6" canister and run 10,000 gph through it, doesn't mean it is an effective biological filter for a 1,000 gallon tank. In contrast, you could have a 6'x6'x6' canister and run 1,000 gph through it and have effective biological filtration for the same size tank.



shellies215 said:


> Why not use the manufacturers tank size guidelines? They probably know a little more about filters than we do.


I think that is part of the problem. So many people just believe what they are being told instead of thinking critically about the issue at hand. I for one never believe anything a salesmen tells me, especially when it's their product they are trying to sell me.

Those numbers are interesting *GTZ*, thanks for the data.


----------



## cjacob316

because visibly, one xp3 or 2217, will not keep my 125 clean, I have 2 x 2217 and 1 x xp3 on it and I am still trying to figure it out

also have an xp2, c-220, penguin 350 and ac110, and still not clean. each one of those is rated for a 75 or more except for the c-220. needless to say i'm still trying to figure this one out too


----------



## shellies215

RRasco, If Fluval was trying to be a salesman, they would tell me I need an fx5 to filter my 40 gallon breeder.


----------



## RRasco

shellies215 said:


> RRasco, If Fluval was trying to be a salesman, they would tell me I need an fx5 to filter my 40 gallon breeder.


I'm not saying everyone is out to get you, but it's best practice to take the information at hand and formulate your own decision.

From what I hear FX5s are really nice, but you won't catch me spending close to $400 for a canister filter, for any size tank.


----------



## shellies215

My example was a bit exaggerated, but based on my experiance with fluval products, the tank size recommendations on their products seem pretty accurate. For marineland products, I usually go one size bigger than their ratings


----------



## GTZ

RRasco said:


> GTZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The high turnover rate has nothing to do with how well the bacterial colony performs. So long as the water is flowing enough for it to not become stagnant and kill the colony, it doesn't make any difference what the turnover rate is. The turnover has to do with mechanical and chemical filtration.
> 
> 
> 
> This is *exactly* the point I am trying to make. I also think the same as you do, these gph ratings are undoubtedly done without filter media. I'm not really trying to go into whether these numbers match the mfr claims, more so the concept of flow rate vs filter effectiveness. Theoretically you could have a 6"x6"x6" canister and run 10,000 gph through it, doesn't mean it is an effective biological filter for a 1,000 gallon tank. In contrast, you could have a 6'x6'x6' canister and run 1,000 gph through it and have effective biological filtration for the same size tank.
> 
> 
> 
> shellies215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not use the manufacturers tank size guidelines? They probably know a little more about filters than we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that is part of the problem. So many people just believe what they are being told instead of thinking critically about the issue at hand. I for one never believe anything a salesmen tells me, especially when it's their product they are trying to sell me.
> 
> Those numbers are interesting *GTZ*, thanks for the data.
Click to expand...

LOL, and here I thought I was arguing your point  
Your theory that a higher turnover rate doesn't equal better filtration is valid, to a point. That point being where the filter doesn't provide adequate mechanical and/or chemical filtration for the volume of water in the tank.


----------



## fox

It is my belief that canister manufacturers base their performance stats on biolgical filtration. And they are extremely well at bio filtration. Where they lack is in mechanical, you get to a point where you just liquify the detritus collected.

ROT for filtration is 2-3x's for bio and for many that has proven to be true. But there are exceptions with certain stock and tank sizes.

If your concern is for 0,0,<20 ammonia,trItes and trAtes than most cans @ 3x's turnover will be just fine.

For mech it really depends on tank size and 'scaping. 5x's turnover starts to show results and helps with dead spots but the more turnover and better media will really show in clarity. I shoot for the floating in air look and pay more attention on mech filtration than bio as bio pretty much takes care of itself. 10x's is not uncommon on prolly half our tanks and from five feet or so distance you could pick out those tanks with ease from the water collumn alone.

Whatever works for you is the best combination and that can only be found through trial, error and quite a few water tests.


----------



## moto_master

fox said:


> For mech it really depends on tank size and 'scaping. 5x's turnover starts to show results and helps with dead spots but the more turnover and better media will really show in clarity. I shoot for the floating in air look and pay more attention on mech filtration than bio as bio pretty much takes care of itself. 10x's is not uncommon on prolly half our tanks and from five feet or so distance you could pick out those tanks with ease from the water collumn alone.
> 
> Whatever works for you is the best combination and that can only be found through trial, error and quite a few water tests.


I completely agree. I had a 120 gallon with two 12" Oscars and several African Cichlids running for several months with just a penguin filter without any media in it. It was just for water flow. The nitrogen cycle held up fine! The tank was in need of some mechanical filtration though. I believe that for a well established tank, the surfaces inside the tank can provide enough biological filtration. All I worry about is mechanical and chemical filtering. I take the manufacturer's recommendations, and the general rules with a grain of salt...


----------



## Narwhal72

I think the first misconception that needs to be cleared up is that Volume of tank divided by the flowrate of the filter = turnover rate. This is not true.

Turnover rate can be calculated by T= 9.2(V/f) Where T= the number of hours it takes to run 99.99% of the water through the filter one time, 9.2 is the purity coefficient, V= the volume of the aquarium, and f= the flow rate. This is because we are mixing the filtered and unfiltered water in the same container (the aquarium). Some of that water that just exited the filter is going to go right back in again while other water is going to stay longer in the aquarium before going through the filter. This equation allows you to account for that.

A 75 gallon aquarium with a 300 gph pump would take 2.3 hours to filter the water one time. A 175 gallon aquarium with a 350 gph pump would take 4.6 hours to do the same.

In a pond filtration system one turnover per day is generally the rule of thumb. In an aquarium, (which has a much higher stocking density) the turnover rate should be more frequent. However there are too many variables in the filtration system to calculate what this magic number should be for any given volume.

In mechanical and chemical filtration applications the more turnovers per day the more efficient the filter will be at clearing the water.

In a biological function the slower the water the more contact it has with the biological filter bed for removal of ammonia and nitrite. However if the flow is too slow through the column the available oxygen could be stripped out and you lose efficiency.

In either case, at 4.6 hours for a turnover that is still 5 times a day which is pretty respectable for a biological filter although it is on the short side for mechanical and chemical filtration possibly.

Andy


----------



## BillD

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that not all the water in the tank will pass through the filter even once per hour, regardless of flow rates and turnover. It may be similar to water changes, in that if you change 50% today, 50% tomorrow, and 50% the next day, you still haven't changed 100% of the water. Perhaps it also doesn't matter. I don't know how you would determine the actual amount of the water that actually passed through the filter, and if it all did. In addition, we know that low flow filters such as air driven sponge filters work to keep a tank healthy. It is what filters most of my tanks. My two cannisters sit idle. 
It seems from most of the posts I have seen, people want their filters to remove visible particles and detritus from the water, equating a crystal clear tank with a healthy one. If all that solid material is being hidden in a cannister, it is still in the tank.
Assuming a regular water change regimen, the removal of detritus from the tank, rather than letting it accumulate in a filter is probably a better solution. For sure, nitrate numbers will rise more slowly. It always makes me laugh when I hear UGFs called nitrate factories; every working filter is a nitrate factory. What affects the nitrate level of a tank is the bioload, not the type or brand of filter.
I guess what we need to differentiate is between "clearing" the water and "cleaning". Polished water is great to look at, and if you have used a diatom filter to remove material from the tank, this is different than removing it from the tank and hiding it in a filter. This would be a situation where clear and clean would by synonymous. However, I don't think a tank needs to be crystal clear to be healthy.


----------



## fox

Mech filtration is more than just sweeping it under the rug so noone see the mess. Well at least for me it is.

I am gung ho on mech filtration and have expressed this before. What needs be done is to remove the socks/ pads/ floss/ sponge once or twice a week for a good rinsing or replacement. On our tanks the socks do not go more than three days and the sponges get squeezed at the least with every WC. We also keep HOB's on most of our smaller tanks and fill em with floss which gets discarded with each WC. So I guess with us clean water starts with clear water and I shoot for clear water.

Cans ... I use em just for bio, too much a hasstle to use one for mech as I go three months or so 'tween maintenance to prolong the orings and other gremlins that pop up when they get opened.

YMMV


----------



## chiroken

Great thread, a topic I have recently struggled with. I am currently designing a sump for an upgrade from a 90 to a 135-150 gallon tank and trying to determine what turnover I think is best. I'm finding it difficult. I agree that the flow rate of a canister is less when media is present. My question is this: the return pump is pumping water from a sump chamber holding only water, after it has passed through the media chambers. Would this be considered full flow (of course taking into consideration how high the return water is being pushed) based on the head charts for the pump?

And for each filter, whether it be HOB or canister would the flow rate not vary based not only on the type of filter media being used, but also how long the media has been in the filter (ie. how much trapped gunk it has, therefor impeding water flow)?


----------



## Narwhal72

A wet/dry filter would not be affected by clogged media. Water will simply bypass around it and make it's way to the pump by any means necessary. Other than the effects of gravity (head pressure) and friction in the plumbing lines the flow would be the full force of the pump.

For HOB filters they also have bypass arrangements. Water will simply flow around the media and back into the tank. So clogged media will affect the "effective" water flow (water through the media) but not the net water flow. A clogged strainer or intake will have a strong effect on water flow however. The same also applies to canister filters.

In canister filters the media is located upstream of the pump and essentially acts like a large strainer. When it becomes clogged the water flow will be affected. How quickily it clogs will depend on the type and coarseness of the media as well as how much debris is generated by the aquarium.

Andy


----------



## Sand Man

Great thread as I am trying to figure out if my Eheims will filter my new tank sufficiently or if I have to add a 3rd canister. I am not a fan of HOBs though I do have one at the ready if needed.


----------



## nick a

An excellent discussion....which may be destined as a primer for novices...a wealth of thought and knowledge expressed here.

I usually skip any kind of 'filter debate' topic because way too often they are simply about which brand is better. :roll:



> A clogged strainer or intake will have a strong effect on water flow however. The same also applies to canister filters.


Well said, Andy. Something that all proponents of putting 'prefilters' on their intakes should seriously consider.

I've come to the conclusion over the years that spending extra money on so-called bio-media is a farce.


> we know that low flow filters such as air driven sponge filters work to keep a tank healthy


 :thumb: 
ANY contents... foams (as in a sponge filter), matala pads, plastic army men....whatever...that is in a position to supply the 02 and food for benebac is correctly labeled as bio-media. The need to add expensive "super-porous-exponentially-more-surface-area-to colonize" speciality materials is vastly overstated.

Bill, I understand what your saying about the difference between clear/clean...my ultimate goal is obviously to have both. Clear for my pleasure, clean for the fish's health (which enhances my pleasure!). Repeating what has been said before....filters and tanks are _systems_; 'stuff' in any one is in the system.

One way folks who are desireous of both clear/clean systems can benefit themselves is by simply doing 'complete' service on their filters. On HOBs such as the EMP 400, for example, I've seen so may folks who only pull the media catridges out for rinsing and call that good. Please look at the volume of debris left inside the filter housing (still a part of your system)....then take to the sink an dump it out!


----------



## ivanmike

Nick - an easier way to get rid of the debris in a HOB filter is to simply leave it running with a fine mesh net under the return "waterfall". When taking the media out, it may take a minute, but all of that junk will flow out of the filter and into your net.

As far as keeping water "clear" I use two methods - one is to throw some filter floss in the top of a HOB filter for a while till it clogs this usually gets rid of all the fine debris missed by the filter.

The second method is to use a fine sponge (like the old tetra PHAS filters) attached to a powerhead. If you don't want excessive waterflow you can make a spraybar return from the output, or simply run a hose to the hob filter - in the latter case the flow is still higher, but it's all in one place. Heck, I've even ran a hose to an above tank trickle filter (which will run slowly due to the low head these powerheads can usually take).

Actually I use a third method and vacuum the gravel a lot. Removing big junk prevents it from becoming little junk.

More on topic with the OP - to me filtration should be doing two things...

1 - converting ammonnia to nitrite to nitrate, which is then removed from the tank via frequent water changes
2 - removing particulate matter from the tank system so it does not continue to decompose and produce more ammonia and other compounds. - This is not completed until the particulate matter is removed from the filter media and is no longer in the tank system, (or until the debris is siphoned out of the tank itself and into a bucket/your yard/drain/etc. as part of a frequent water change regime.)

All media is "bio-media" as nick a points out. This is a good thing. I personally don't like to use anything that will trap particulate waste very effectively in a canister filter due to human nature - it's more of a PITA to disassemble a canister to rinse out the media in tank water than it is to yank it out of a HOB filter. Until this "stuff" is out of the tank system, you're fooling yourself (but the fish know).

For those of you who hate HOB filters, consider trying a powerhead/sponge combination (which can even be made with fluval foam - i think it works better if you freeze it before you cut it - there is a thread about this somewhere on here). These powerhead/sponge filters can be hidden and are relatively silent, and they will mechanically filter the water admirably. When removing these to clean them, use a large net with a fine mesh to surround the sponge as a lot of the fine debris will fall off when it is moved.


----------



## chagoi

There are pros & cons. I'll take the canister you can do a lot with it mine anyway.

Over flow to 2 draws filter media - 1 draw crushed coral about 5 gals bio balls in sump pumped out to 2 canisters. 2 returns to tank 1 teed off with a valve to a UV.

I don't need all that but I like it.


----------



## preston stamper

You need to consider another factor . Water tests. My 200 gal tank in theory is under filtered. I have two Fluval 405's managing 35 adult Cichlids. The nitrates and ammonia are low to non-existant . I did add one small pump to shoot water across tank. With the two filters and the jet it keeps water going in a counter clockwise direction with no dead spots. Don't get hung up on the math. Aim for 3 to 8 times an hour and test the water . Mind you it takes a month or so to equalize the bacteria to waste ratio.


----------



## Brentt700

This is kind of interesting after I was talking to Seachem today about using more than the normal amount of matrix in the filters and they came back with you would have greatly increased filtering capacities doing this. Now, I am assuming that this means that it would work even BETTER in larger amounts and one way to get larger amounts is to have more filtration. I would tend to side with a company that microscopically on a molecular level tests their own product versus most other companies and brands out there that don't delve in that far believing in their product. Sure....if you can use pot scrubbers and plastic freaking balls for media...why not most other ceramic based media???? All's I know is that I am one of those few morons in most of your eyes that run an excessive amount of filtration and you know what? If you could be here with me to see what it actually does, you might ease up a little on people who like to run lots of filtration versus just two. According to Seachem....the five liters I am using is making a huge difference in the abilities of the filters for getting rid of ammonia, nitrite, and NITRATES. YES...nitrates.


----------



## Iggy Newcastle

Brentt700 said:


> This is kind of interesting after I was talking to Seachem today about using more than the normal amount of matrix in the filters and they came back with you would have greatly increased filtering capacities doing this. Now, I am assuming that this means that it would work even BETTER in larger amounts and one way to get larger amounts is to have more filtration. I would tend to side with a company that microscopically on a molecular level tests their own product versus most other companies and brands out there that don't delve in that far believing in their product. Sure....if you can use pot scrubbers and plastic freaking balls for media...why not most other ceramic based media???? All's I know is that I am one of those few morons in most of your eyes that run an excessive amount of filtration and you know what? If you could be here with me to see what it actually does, you might ease up a little on people who like to run lots of filtration versus just two. According to Seachem....the five liters I am using is making a huge difference in the abilities of the filters for getting rid of ammonia, nitrite, and NITRATES. YES...nitrates.


I don't think anyone thinks you're a moron for running extra filtration, so I wouldn't say that 'most' of us forum members think so.


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle

<--Over filtration moron right here, and i dont care :-D


----------



## BillD

It would seem that most responders in this thread are more fastidious than the typical filter user. Many can users think, a filter should go 6 months between cleanings.
While the previously posted formula for calculating turnover, may be useful, I think one turnover would be the time for the filter to reduce ammonia to zero. So if you were to take a sterile tank, a fully cycled filter, added a measurable amount of ammonia and see how long it took to reduce the ammonia to zero, that would be one turnover for that filter on a tank that size.


----------



## Narwhal72

> While the previously posted formula for calculating turnover, may be useful, I think one turnover would be the time for the filter to reduce ammonia to zero. So if you were to take a sterile tank, a fully cycled filter, added a measurable amount of ammonia and see how long it took to reduce the ammonia to zero, that would be one turnover for that filter on a tank that size.


This would be an incredibly difficult and tedious method of measuring anything. It also doesn't measure the mechanical and chemical filtration ability of the filter either. Keep in mind that as soon as you start the filter it is going to shed bacteria into the aquarium environment which will then immediately grow on the surfaces in the aquarium. These surfaces can be orders of magnitude higher in surface area than there is on the media inside the canister. This would prevent you from getting an accurate measurement of the filter's efficiency. Calculating this degree of error would probably be impossible. Lastly, how do you quantify a fully cycled filter?

Ignoring all the uncontrollable variables, you could possibly say that it is the measurement for biological filter efficiency but it would not be turnover.

Andy


----------



## BillD

My point is that it would equal one true turnover, and would likely take place before any bacteria shed by the filter would have any impact. Hence the need to start with a sterile tank. Mechanical doesn't need to be considered to know the true turnover. Having bacteria in the tank on all the hard surfaces would improve the overall biological capacity, but wouldn't be a measure of the filter alone. This would actually be an easy test to to do, and not at all tedious, as it would likely take very little time and only have to be done once, if one had a test kit. This are just my thoughts on the subject. To me GPH, turnover, and that sort of thing is not of any import; the question is does that filter work with that setup? things like "10X turnover" appeared out of nowhere, as being necessary, and now are repeated like it were fact. There is no good business case for a manufacturer to over rate their filters; in fact the reverse would be true.
Some filters don't do much mechanical, such as Hamburg/mattenfilters, but work otherwise incredibly well and with as little maintenance as is possible, often going years between cleanings. They have very low flow rates with the target being 1x to 1.5x per hour. They can do large tanks using only airlifts to move the water. One of our club members has all his 30+ tanks outfitted with mattenfilters, the largest being a 350 gallon, all powered by a singe 45 watt air pump. 
So, while we all have different wants and needs for filtration, most of us could get by quite nicely with less filtration.


----------



## Narwhal72

I would disagree. Having done similar tests myself. The experiment would involve testing the ammonia levels in the aquarium repeatedly over time until you determined how long it went before the ammonia levels dropped off. If the process is fast as you suspect it could mean many tests minutes apart. If the process is slow it could mean hundreds of tests over the course of days. Noone really knows until a baseline for this kind of experiment is created. The longer it goes the more the bacteria in the aquarium itself will become a factor.

You are right that the 10X turnover is a pretty random factor without any science behind it. But keep in mind that many aquarists want a filter that will keep their water clear of debris. Which means an efficient mechanical filter, in which case a higher gph/turnover rate is going to be superior. Even though a slow turnover rate sponge filter will keep their water healthy for their fish biologically.

Running 8 tanks on mattenfilters myself I would have to disagree with you on their mechanical filtration ability. I have to clean mine out every couple of weeks and they are filled with brown gunk. Mainly that is because I keep a lot of loricariids that eat and poop wood all day. But that is mechanical filtration by any definition. It's not as efficient as a HOB but it does function.

Andy


----------



## Brentt700

I like having the ability to have the space (having more than one filter) to add different media as well as certain amounts of media to do a certain job that a certain filter may not have enough space for. In my case....the Fluval 205's that I originally purchased due to availability and price only are rated for 40 gallons per filter and the "baskets" inside of them really aren't that big as in liter amounts. Three very small baskets that don't hold that much. So, I purchased three of the filters to equate to the right amount of filtration in MY MIND for my 75 gallon tank. I like that I have one with all the baskets two baskets full of Matrix and the bottom one with Azoo Bio-glass ceramic rings, another with all two baskets of Matrix and one top basket with Denitrate (was in another filter so instead of throwing it out or not using the seeded with bacteria media, I used it in this 205 filter), and the last 205 is chemical based with usually two Chemipure inserts (now I have the space for one filled with Seachem Phosguard for the high phosphate levels in my tank which have gone WAY down since using this product) and one basket full of Seachem Purigen. We won't get into what modifications I have done to the three HOB's I also have on the tank, which are far from "stock" with what I have inside of them. I understand you can use less filtration. I have before in my 25 years of fishkeeping, many times. I just wanted to 'experiment' with an idea of overfiltrating this tank to see if it would affect the maintenance schedule being that it has about five liters of Seachem, Matrix being utilized in the system and I wanted to see IF this media actually does what they claim that it does. And you know what?

It does.


----------



## Narwhal72

There is nothing wrong with overfiltering your tank. But your test is one example, without a control to compare to, and without any replicates to weed out anomalous results.

It doesn't mean that your tank is working any better than a tank with a single canister filter, or even a single HOB filter operated as directed right out of the box.

Andy


----------



## Brentt700

Andy.....I personally don't think that it is over-filtered. For the amount of media say that you have in an Eheim Pro 2078...which is eight liters of space in the baskets...I am merely making that up with more filters, some HOB's I already had, to have that same capacity. Pretty easy to see where this was all headed towards initially. It just ended up putting up a high system GPH total.


----------



## Brentt700

"without a control to compare to"

I do have a lot of things to 'compare' my results towards. ALL of the ten plus tanks (55g x2/100g x3/125g x2/150g x2/45g/20g x4) I have kept since the late eighties. NEVER have I had tanks that acted like this one in the maintenance department and with all the testings I have done within the logbook I have kept with all of the results over the last year and a half religiously. I have noticed that it doesn't need to be tended to as much as all of my previous tanks did when I never used the media combinations I am using right now. I just thought about what the tank would need really hard and applied it towards the filtration and it seems to be working like a charm, to even my surprise. No joke! Why do you think I am so #@$% vocal about the products I use and repeatedly tell about them seemingly in every post I make????  Because I am ecstatic about how well they have been working! I would have never guessed by loading the #@$% up on Matrix so much that it would be doing what it is doing with test results being the proof in the pudding, proverbially? I just want others to know about this as it helps a TON with nitrate levels tremendously and keeps them down LOW for long periods of time. As Seachem said....the more you use.....the better off you will be filtration wise for control of contaminates. You cannot use too much. And it all gets cultivated and grows bacteria just fine. Now....I haven't busted out my microscope and did some serious research into this, but I am quite sure of this being true as I know that Seachem has done their homework with their own product if you look at their web-page and their testings.


----------



## Narwhal72

Sorry, but 3 Fluval 205's and 3 HOB's is over filtration for a 75 gallon tank.

Noone is saying that it's wrong to tout the products you believe in. You have had good results with Matrix. Good for you and good for Seachem for making a good product.

But your other tanks are not identical setups as your 75 gallon are they? They may have been underfiltered, they may have been overfiltered, at the very least they had a different filtration setup than what you are currently running. They cannot be considered controls and are irrelevant as a comparison.

Real research involves testing a hypothesis against a control. If I want to see how well X filter media performs, I need to compare it to how Y filter media performs in the same situation. Then you can say that X is better/worse than Y. Otherwise the test is meaningless.

Here's a challenge for you. Remove all the Matrix from your canisters and replace it with generic activated carbon, or zeolite, or any other media for that matter and record the results over time. If you find a decrease in filter performance then you will have quantifiable evidence that Matrix works better than that specific media you chose as your control.


----------



## Brentt700

There is NO WAY I would even want to consider removing my already matured media from my canisters to use carbon or zeolite on them. Sorry. That, to me, is a rather dumb idea, as I know what would happen in most cases without having doing the actual test. I wouldn't want to put my fish through "testings" like that for scientific research that really means nothing to me. I KNOW what is going on and I KNOW what has worked in different tanks over the last twenty-five years of keeping tropical fish whether they where CA/SA cichlids, "regular" tropical fish such as neon tetras and zebra danios, etc, or African cichlids. I also know that EVERY tank was VERY different in every way with bioloads and such and even all the substrates and decorative pieces like rock types make the difference as well.....so I do know that nothing was the EXACT same for a comparison in certain aspects. BUT........BUT the difference I do notice is the water clarity and quality being better than any tank I have had before and for longer amounts of time between water changes.

And what I choose to have as filtration and what I consider "over filtration" is different than you and most here. I am a believer that you cannot have too much filtration and besides, you can only FIT a certain amount on a given tank anyways. There is only so many inches you have to utilize. So there actually IS somewhat a limitation as to how much you can run, other than what size canisters you decide to run......whether it be an FX5, a Pro 3E 2078, a Marineland C-360, or a Fluval 205. IMO.....a lot of people running FX5's are running OVER-FILTRATED for what size tanks they have. I don't rant or rave about their choice to run what they decide to run. It works VERY well for me and that is all that matters.


----------



## Deeda

Okay everyone, let's get back on track.


----------



## Brentt700

Thank you. Let's! :thumb:


----------



## BillD

Narwhal72 said:


> I would disagree. Having done similar tests myself. The experiment would involve testing the ammonia levels in the aquarium repeatedly over time until you determined how long it went before the ammonia levels dropped off. If the process is fast as you suspect it could mean many tests minutes apart. If the process is slow it could mean hundreds of tests over the course of days. Noone really knows until a baseline for this kind of experiment is created. The longer it goes the more the bacteria in the aquarium itself will become a factor.
> 
> You are right that the 10X turnover is a pretty random factor without any science behind it. But keep in mind that many aquarists want a filter that will keep their water clear of debris. Which means an efficient mechanical filter, in which case a higher gph/turnover rate is going to be superior. Even though a slow turnover rate sponge filter will keep their water healthy for their fish biologically.
> 
> Running 8 tanks on mattenfilters myself I would have to disagree with you on their mechanical filtration ability. I have to clean mine out every couple of weeks and they are filled with brown gunk. Mainly that is because I keep a lot of loricariids that eat and poop wood all day. But that is mechanical filtration by any definition. It's not as efficient as a HOB but it does function.
> 
> Andy


While I don't disagree that there woule be some work involved, I would suggest it won't take days. If it did, the entire concept of turnover would be upset. Since most tanks with a cycled filter would show 0 ammonia on an regular basis, I don't believe it would take more than a few hours of testing. I could, of course be wrong, but when you have chloramined tap water, and you use a dechlor, the ammonia isn't around for days. I don't test my water so I can't do the test.
As to your mattenfilters, how are you moving the water? My friend uses air lifts for all his tanks and has gone over a year on most of his tanks with no maintenance of the filters; just weekly 50% water changes. I haven't asked him lately whether those particular tanks have gone over a year without filter cleanings. He has run all his tanks on mattenfilters for at least 5 years now.


----------



## Narwhal72

> While I don't disagree that there woule be some work involved, I would suggest it won't take days. If it did, the entire concept of turnover would be upset. Since most tanks with a cycled filter would show 0 ammonia on an regular basis, I don't believe it would take more than a few hours of testing. I could, of course be wrong, but when you have chloramined tap water, and you use a dechlor, the ammonia isn't around for days. I don't test my water so I can't do the test.


You may very well be right, or you could be wrong. As I said before, until someone actually performs an experiment like you describe there is nothing but guesswork as to what will happen.

A dechlorinator with an ammonia neutralizer is a completely different thing. This is chemical neutralization of ammonia which occurs nearly instantly. It is not the same as biological nitrification.

I am running 8 15's connected to my central system with mattenfilters. Water from the common sump is pumped into each tank and a drain is behind the mattenfilter wall draining back into the sump from each tank. Water flow rates are about 75-150 gph per tank.

The main difference is that most of these tanks contain wood eating loricarid catfish (plecos) and the large volume of poop they make is what clogs up the sponges.

Andy


----------



## BillD

Narwhal72 said:


> A dechlorinator with an ammonia neutralizer is a completely different thing. This is chemical neutralization of ammonia which occurs nearly instantly. It is not the same as biological nitrification.
> 
> I am running 8 15's connected to my central system with mattenfilters. Water from the common sump is pumped into each tank and a drain is behind the mattenfilter wall draining back into the sump from each tank. Water flow rates are about 75-150 gph per tank.
> 
> The main difference is that most of these tanks contain wood eating loricarid catfish (plecos) and the large volume of poop they make is what clogs up the sponges.
> 
> Andy
Click to expand...

My understanding is that those dechlors don't "neutralize" ammonia, but rather convert it to non toxic ammonium, so it is still there and will show on a test kit. Correct me if I am wrong. The resulting ammonium is consumed by the nitrifying bacteria.
You have a very high high flow rate with your mattenfilters, which explains why the filters need regular cleaning.


----------



## Narwhal72

Not quite. The most common ammonia neutralizing chemical is sodium methanal sulfoxylate, aka sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate or SFS. This is the active ingredient in Amquel, Prime, Kent Ammonia Detox, Aqueon Ammonia Remover, etc.... When reacted with ammonia it forms the harmless aminomethylsulfinate ion. This ion is harmless to fish and will eventually be consumed by beneficial bacteria. The ammonium to ammonia ratio is a function of pH. At pH values less than 7 ammonia is practically nonexistent with most being harmless ammonium.

aminomethylsulfinate will give a positive result on a Nessler's type ammonia test kit (the most common type out there) but will not show up on a sodium salicylate method test.

The flow rate is probably higher than a single air operated uplift tube (a 1" diameter airlift produces a water flow of appx. 45 gph) but not crazy high. An Aquaclear 110 power filter also uses a sponge for filtration and they claim a flow rate of 500 gph (not really, but that's another topic that I am not going to get into) through a sponge that is a fraction of the surface area of my 12 x 12 mattenfilters. So it's not unreasonable.

Even at a slow flow rate it is still performing mechanical filtration. Just not as well.

Andy


----------

