Changing Filter Media

[golfzzin]

Hi

Today i am changing the carbon part of the media in my filter. Now last time i did this i just swopped the new carbon with the old, leaving the foam part and biomax part alone. Doing this still caused a spike in nitrates, so, this time i have decided to add the new carbon, leaving the old in. There was room in the filter so i slotted it in. I plan on removing the old carbon after a week or so hoping this will give the new carbon time to become home to the bacteria i need.

So, is this ok? or will it cause an issue?

The filter is now stacked Foam -> Old Carbon -> Biomax -> New carbon

Thanks

 

[Tizer]

Why do you need the carbon?

 

[golfzzin]

Why do you need the carbon?

To make money for Fluval

To be honest i dont know, the filter that comes with the Fluval Edge is tiny, and comes with foam, carbon and biomax media so i just planned to continue with this arrangement.
The more media i have for bacteria the better to be honest as i am a tiny tiny bit overstocked (although i change water often and gravel clean a lot to keep on top of this) My water stats are : nitrite and ammonia both at 0 and nitrates vary between 20 - 50.

 

[KittyKat]

Why do you need the carbon?

+1, you imply that you don't swap the carbon often.. do you realise that it is all used up in a matter of hours? So the day after you add it, it is already not doing anything more than a sponge or some ceramic bio media?

Doing this still caused a spike in nitrates

No, replacing carbon won't cause a nitrate spike, that would be biologically impossible. If anything it could cause an ammonia or nitrite spike if your aquarium is overstocked/you don't have enough bio-media.

So, is this ok? or will it cause an issue?

It won't cause and issues and there is no reason for this to affect your aquarium in a bad way. In fact, it won't have any effect at all..

To be honest i dont know, the filter that comes with the Fluval Edge is tiny, and comes with foam, carbon and biomax media so i just planned to continue with this arrangement.
The more media i have for bacteria the better to be honest as i am a tiny tiny bit overstocked (although i change water often and gravel clean a lot to keep on top of this) My water stats are : nitrite and ammonia both at 0 and nitrates vary between 20 - 50.

To be honest, you would be better off using more Biomax instead of the carbon (if it will fit into the filter) and never replacing it.

 

[Tizer]

Im not familar with the filter, but i've obviously seen the tank in most fish shops i visit. If you can, dont put carbon in, but put another Biomax load in where the carbon goes.

You only really need carbon in to remove chemials you may use to treat your fish and nolonger need in the water. Obviously it has other uses but mostly its there to help clean the water of crap and it does have a very short lifespan.

These tanks and filters are sold with carbon in so they cover all aspects of water treatment, but the lfs should really inform you that carbon isnt needed unless you have problems.

Ditch it, chuck in biomax and just enjoy your tank and save some cash

 

[golfzzin]

No, replacing carbon won't cause a nitrate spike, that would be biologically impossible. If anything it could cause an ammonia or nitrite spike if your aquarium is overstocked/you don't have enough bio-media.

Ah i had assumed i had got the spike as i had removed 1/3rd of the media, hence trying to prevent that from happening this time by seeding the new carbon before removing the old

OK, well thank you both for the replies Il use up the carbon i currently have (no point in throwing it away i guess) then il use that space for more biomax media

Thanks again

 

[Tizer]

But your not using it for anything Ditch it Nao! Gogo Biomax!

 

[Aqua Tom]

Dont use the carbon, keep it for the future, you may need to remove meds or tannins & that is what it does best.

Just chuck in some bio media & you will be rocking.



Tom

 

[golfzzin]

But your not using it for anything Ditch it Nao! Gogo Biomax!

Looks like il be going to the lfs Friday after work then to get some more biomax

Thanks again for the reply, really didnt realise how little the carbon does. I have one pack of carbon still sealed which il keep incase i have to use and then remove medication again in the future

 

[golfzzin]

OK i decided i could make it today before i started work, more biomax is now added

Thanks again all

 

[waterdrop]

I was looking through this thread (I think it came to a good conclusion, so my comments are not directed at any further solution for the OP) and had a bit of a question for the members:

I think we covered the biological filtration and chemical filtration aspects in this thread as we usually do but the third function of any freshwater filter is the mechanical filtration. Do any of you find yourself, as I do, often wondering whether there is a nonlinear aspect with respect to mechanical filtration and filter volume?

I mean, it seems to me that as filter beds (layers or sections of a particular media) grow larger in volume, they can become much more effective in the mechanical aspect (trapping of debris.) And I find myself wondering whether, as the filter gets down to being very tiny, the mechanical effectiveness reaches a limit of some sort where the media particle size is just too large and it's just too easy for water to pass through unfiltered. I find myself wondering if the media particle size decision grows more critial as the filter gets smaller? Does anyone else think this?

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Aqua Tom]

I was looking through this thread (I think it came to a good conclusion, so my comments are not directed at any further solution for the OP) and had a bit of a question for the members:

I think we covered the biological filtration and chemical filtration aspects in this thread as we usually do but the third function of any freshwater filter is the mechanical filtration. Do any of you find yourself, as I do, often wondering whether there is a nonlinear aspect with respect to mechanical filtration and filter volume?

I mean, it seems to me that as filter beds (layers or sections of a particular media) grow larger in volume, they can become much more effective in the mechanical aspect (trapping of debris.) And I find myself wondering whether, as the filter gets down to being very tiny, the mechanical effectiveness reaches a limit of some sort where the media particle size is just too large and it's just too easy for water to pass through unfiltered. I find myself wondering if the media particle size decision grows more critial as the filter gets smaller? Does anyone else think this?

~~waterdrop~~

Interesting point WD & one I will have to go away & have a ponder over.



Tom

 

[Tizer]

I was looking through this thread (I think it came to a good conclusion, so my comments are not directed at any further solution for the OP) and had a bit of a question for the members:

I think we covered the biological filtration and chemical filtration aspects in this thread as we usually do but the third function of any freshwater filter is the mechanical filtration. Do any of you find yourself, as I do, often wondering whether there is a nonlinear aspect with respect to mechanical filtration and filter volume?

I mean, it seems to me that as filter beds (layers or sections of a particular media) grow larger in volume, they can become much more effective in the mechanical aspect (trapping of debris.) And I find myself wondering whether, as the filter gets down to being very tiny, the mechanical effectiveness reaches a limit of some sort where the media particle size is just too large and it's just too easy for water to pass through unfiltered. I find myself wondering if the media particle size decision grows more critial as the filter gets smaller? Does anyone else think this?

~~waterdrop~~

I think you think too much

 

[waterdrop]

I was looking through this thread (I think it came to a good conclusion, so my comments are not directed at any further solution for the OP) and had a bit of a question for the members:

I think we covered the biological filtration and chemical filtration aspects in this thread as we usually do but the third function of any freshwater filter is the mechanical filtration. Do any of you find yourself, as I do, often wondering whether there is a nonlinear aspect with respect to mechanical filtration and filter volume?

I mean, it seems to me that as filter beds (layers or sections of a particular media) grow larger in volume, they can become much more effective in the mechanical aspect (trapping of debris.) And I find myself wondering whether, as the filter gets down to being very tiny, the mechanical effectiveness reaches a limit of some sort where the media particle size is just too large and it's just too easy for water to pass through unfiltered. I find myself wondering if the media particle size decision grows more critial as the filter gets smaller? Does anyone else think this?

~~waterdrop~~

I think you think too much

Yeah, some of my good UK forum friends would like to sit me down in (what's it called? a public house)... matter of fact ...