Carbon Filter

[Hunterprey]

I read from some of the topics from here that I should get rid of it.
I have a Fluval U3. It has the Poly/carbon cartridges, foam pads and Biomax nodes,
Should I just get rid of the carbon cartridges and leave the foam pads and Biomax nodes?

It said in the instructions to change one of the foam pads, and half the nodes every 3-6 months.And also change 1 of the poly/carbon cartridge every 2 weeks. What should I do? Should I just remove 1 of the carbon cartridges for now and the other one next week since it already built good bacteria?

Thnx in advance, Im kinda confused.

 

[raptorrex]

I read from some of the topics from here that I should get rid of it.
I have a Fluval U3. It has the Poly/carbon cartridges, foam pads and Biomax nodes,
Should I just get rid of the carbon cartridges and leave the foam pads and Biomax nodes?

It said in the instructions to change one of the foam pads, and half the nodes every 3-6 months.And also change 1 of the poly/carbon cartridge every 2 weeks. What should I do? Should I just remove 1 of the carbon cartridges for now and the other one next week since it already built good bacteria?

Thnx in advance, Im kinda confused.

well, my advice, would be to remove the carbon,(peel it from the plastic frame and replace it with sponge or floss). as for replacing the sponges and nodes? sponges need changed, only when they fall apart. I'm assuming, though i have no experience of them, the same is true of the nodes.

 

[aly_starh]

Carbon only lasts for three days, so money wise it will be a tight strain. Though if you do leave it in the filter it will start to get the good bacteria culture on it.

 

[raptorrex]

Carbon only lasts for three days, so money wise it will be a tight strain. Though if you do leave it in the filter it will start to get the good bacteria culture on it.

it is suggested that carbon leaches chemicals back into the water, when its saturated. leaving it in, only leaves your fish at risk. if as you say. 

Carbon only lasts for three days

. where would the bacteria live, if you leave it in longer?

 

[aly_starh]

The bacteria starts to grow on the carbon, or so ive read over 10 times on this forum

 

[OldMan47]

Carbon will support the growth of bacteria, just as any other surface will. The problem with carbon as a long term media for bacteria is that it breaks down rather quickly over time compared to most other biological media. This makes it a not very good media for the long term. The chemical action of carbon can be anything from a few days in a high organics tank to a couple of weeks in a cleaner tank. Carbon will adsorb materials until its adsorption sites are filled which will vary depending on how much contaminants the carbon is trying to deal with. If you have a high level of something like tannins in the water, it will not last long at all but if you have an essentially sterile tank, it can last a good long time. In that ultra-clean tank it won't do much for you because there is not much there for it to do.

 

[raptorrex]

The bacteria starts to grow on the carbon, or so ive read over 10 times on this forum

aha, comment without understanding. ok  bacteria will grow on anything. unfortunately, that does not mean you should use it. 


the problem, for tanks, with carbon, is leaching. even break down is not a problem. if carbon is exhausted after three days, it needs removed. there is also the depletion of "good" water borne content to think of too.

there are hobbyists that use Carbon, exclusively for filtration. but this is a dedicated technique. it needs the fish to be acclimatised. and requires, regular exchange and cleaning (heating to over 350f) of the carbon.

the "perceived" wisdom, currently (though it seems some mods, wish that to change) of this forum. is that carbon, should only be used for the removal of meds. the possibility of the above mentioned leaching, and its short life. make it something we can all do without, for the most part.

if you doubt my comments, try to PM, bignose (he is a mod, so may well be busy) he can explain it from the scientific angle.

 

[waterdrop]

The topic of "leaching" or perhaps "equilibrium" as it might be better called has been discussed a number of times. I think the issue is not as significant as the word makes it sound.

Have a read of the second post (by Bignose) in BTT's thread here in the Scientific section:

Carbon link

~~waterdrop~~

 

[raptorrex]

The topic of "leaching" or perhaps "equilibrium" as it might be better called has been discussed a number of times.  I think the issue is not as significant as the word makes it sound.

Have a read of the second post (by Bignose) in BTT's thread here in the Scientific section:

Carbon link

~~waterdrop~~

significant enough, for the last 4 years, for its use to be discouraged, if not actively advised against. here and on many other forums.  

 

[kelly528]

Honestly, I know very little about the adverse effects of carbon (if any), but I just prefer to replace it with filter wool because, leaching or no, it's pretty expensive for mediocre bio-media!!!

 

[waterdrop]

The topic of "leaching" or perhaps "equilibrium" as it might be better called has been discussed a number of times.  I think the issue is not as significant as the word makes it sound.

Have a read of the second post (by Bignose) in BTT's thread here in the Scientific section:

Carbon link

~~waterdrop~~

significant enough, for the last 4 years, for its use to be discouraged, if not actively advised against. here and on many other forums.  

Oh no, you misunderstand me. I do not advise using carbon, in fact I've been advising many new users here for a long time to replace their carbon with more biomedia. I was just pointing out that "leaching" is not usually the reason that we advise replacing it. Its more that its just not needed. Even though bacteria will grow on it, its surfaces are not optimized for that like ceramics and sponges are and it crumbles and gets carried out with water changes and filter cleans, whereas those other media do not. Its just meant to be a chemical media, not a biological media, and an optional choice at that. As we've said many times before, its most often used on a temporary basis to remove medicines after they've run their course, yellow tannins from wood and sometimes for organic odors where the source is unknown.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Haych]

so, i am lost on all this jargon...

you say REMOVE carbon as its not worth it.... and it will only last a couple of days....

if this is the case, why do you get it with a new filter??

and should i have removed the carbon??

 

[JustFrozen]

you say REMOVE carbon as its not worth it.... and it will only last a couple of days....

i think the meaning is that its effects of leeching chemicals from the water only last a short time. its effect of storing bacteria for the nitrogen cycle, although not as effective (as WD pointed out), are nearly limitless as the other types of media.

if this is the case, why do you get it with a new filter??

because it's cheap, is good for filtering while it lasts, and still holds bacteria.

and should i have removed the carbon??

only if you want to replace it with a different type of media, for the potential of storing an increased amount of bacteria. in other words it will still do its job for the nitrogen cycle, just not as well as some of the other media types. the choice is yours really. plenty of people get by fine using only carbon, it's just much preferable to have something that better collects the bacteria

please correct me if i'm wrong =)

 

[waterdrop]

Sorry Haych! We *do* sometimes get a bit away from the clarity we should always try to have here in the beginner section!

Not using carbon (aka activated charcoal) on a regular basis in a freshwater aquarium filter is one of the "surprise" bits of advice that most beginners pick up here in the TFF "New to the Hobby" subforum. Indeed, it does come as bit of a shock considering how extremely common it is in the starter-packs with new filters and in recommendations from local fish shops!

First of all, please understand that there's nothing -bad- per se about carbon. We aren't taking it out of our filters because it would be bad for the fish or the tank. In fact, if you've had it in and have an established aquarium then some thought should go into a decision to change it out. It will have some of the beneficial bacteria growing on it and in some cases its better to only replace half or one third at a time with a couple weeks in between, so that you won't abruptly diminish your all-important bacterial colonies.

So WHY did this all come about? Well, the usual explanation is that carbon is indeed a useful type of media. Experienced aquarists usually keep a supply of it on their fish supply shelves so that they can use it for its ideal purpose: as a -temporary- optional "chemical media" (again, as said before, mostly to remove medications or tannins.) Whenever the industry has something that is described by lots of aquarists as "good" they see a way to possibly keep some steady movement of "product" across their shelves... so many of us feel they've long ago taken advantage of this situation and they represent to beginners that carbon is this stuff that you should always have in your filter and that you should keep buying a steady supply and replacing it frequently.

Anyway, many of us experienced aquarists don't agree and hopefully you can kind of get the picture why. Does that help?

~~waterdrop~~

 

[kelly528]

so, i am lost on all this jargon...

you say REMOVE carbon as its not worth it.... and it will only last a couple of days....

Well, It only does what it's advertised to do for a couple of days.

if this is the case, why do you get it with a new filter??

And why are all filters made to accomodate only the manufcturer's filter inserts? So you will spend $7 each month on glorified rocks!

and should i have removed the carbon??

Like JF said, only if you are one-upping for a better media like a sponge, biomax, or filter wool.