Phosphate Remover Article

[NaH2O]

I noticed a few posts regarding an article in the latest Advanced Aquarist. Here is a link to the article: Ferrous Oxide Phosphate Removers by Richard Harker.

My understanding of the 2 products named in the article prior to the article....was that Rowaphos was a better product by quite a bit. I thought there was extensive testing done, and it was determined that rowaphos was superior. After reading the article...I'm perplexed more than anything. In my opinion, I don't think an adequate determination can be made based on several hours of testing. I would think a long term approach would have been a better test. Also...

Five grams of each media were sandwiched within filter media and placed in Marineland Duetto internal filters.

The term "sandwiched" didn't really appeal to me either....I also understood that Rowaphos performs better with a fluidized reactor? Sandwiched seems like it is packed into a space.

Maybe it is just me....but I don't feel like the tests performed were worth the article. Someone please correct me if I'm out of line. Can we really make an adequate determination based on tests that lasted less than 24 hours?

I'll see if I can find more info about testing done with rowaphos

 

[RGibson]

You are not out of line on this ,the test should have run 60 to 90 days than Richard Harker should have ask Randy Homes Farley to chech his work. RGibson

 

[NaH2O]

There was a lot of testing done in Berlin on Rowaphos, and I found the link, but for some reason I can't access it. ROWAphos - click on the Berlin test results.

RGibson - I agree...a long term study would have made for more accurate data.

In the grande scheme of things....does it really matter which leading Iron phosphate remover is better?

 

[RGibson]

In the end cost of the phosphate remover will deside which one is best.

 

[Curtswearing]

While trying not to be too negative.....

This was poor testing methodology. There were no controls in place. This is certainly not a double-blind scientific study. That is fine because he isn't claiming it is. He admits it is a product review. This review is quite useful if you only care about how much phosphate you can remove in 8 hours.

However, if you care about it's use in a tank over a long term (which is how both of these products are intended to be used), then this test is worthless. Does the material re-release the Phosphates like Aluminum based P removers? Is there any long term change to pH? (not in my experience with either product...I have a pinpoint monitor). Any long term affect to alkalinity? (again not in my experience with either product).

I have a definate preference for Rowaphos but I haven't done any testing to prove things one way nor the other.

IMO Advanced Aquarist should ask for their money back from Mr. Harker. The only excuse for this test would be if they called him the day before they "went to press" and he only had 8 hours available.

 

[mojoreef]

Well the article is kinda correct. What you have to do is to look at what reason was the study done in the first place, then the answers fall into place pretty clearly. Rowas claim to fame is that they absorb 5 times more PO4 then phosban. This creates kinda of a tough one for Phosban as thier costs are pretty much the same. So now comes Richard, how to turn the tables with out really BSing to much. The difference as I have read in various testing logs including the berlin Univercity (the one Rowa is hanging its hat on) is that the Rowa product is far more highly refine and thus has the ability to absorb 5 times as much as the phosban product. The main claim is that it will reduce PO4 to NSW levels. Here are a couple of problems with the article.
The absobsion of PO4 is based on the total ammount absorbed, not on time. So a correct study would have been to have 1ppm of PO4 in 1 gallon and then see what the story was.
The Product also absorbs silicates so they should have been removed as the arthor was using an internal filter, thus random selection of water for the test tanks.
If it reduces to NSW it has a threshold and will stop absorbsion beyond that point, but that doesnt mean that it will stop.


Lots of little things like the above. That kind of make the testing not really tell you anything. more like free advertising.

Their was something that rings a bell with me about the wet versus dry but I cant remember it. I will do some digging and ss if I can find it.


Mike

 

[reedman]

Tests like this are much like surveys. First you decide the results you want then you design the test to produce the results you want.

I think there is merit to the test, but you have to take it for what it is. If you plan to use the product for a limited time to drive down the PO4 (similar to the way many people use Carbon) then the test results show you that you can use either product and get similar results. If you are planning to use the product long term as a fluidized media, then this test isn't any good for you.

Keep in mind that just becuase the early results show that the best way to use these media is to suspend them (fluidized filtering) doesn't mean that a year from now the results won't indicate that the best results are through a compressed media. You just have to read the tests carefully and understand what it was designed to show.

My opinion.
-Reed

 

[NaH2O]

Their was something that rings a bell with me about the wet versus dry but I cant remember it. I will do some digging and ss if I can find it.

Waiting for a reply concerning this issue....I'll post when I hear something.

 

[Dr B]

Id really like to start running something to get my phosphates down but i dont know what.
I also dunno if the deltec reactor that I have on order is worth it, or if i should go with a cheaper one...

 

[RGibson]

I used Salifert Phosphate Killer and Salifert said not to used a fluidised filter. I used a filter media bag 4in by 8in and have it in the sump. Filter media bag came from marinedepot cost $2.25 I hope this helps

 

[RGibson]

The Salifert Phosphate Killer i used is the 250 mi size my reef tank is 180 gal. make sure to run ro water though the bag before useing

 

[mojoreef]

Dr B I wouldnt go for the deltec unit, ust way to expensive. Me and Big T put two units together for less then 60 bucks. I think we need to talk someone into starting to make these things. I say we beat on on John at IAP or maybe even Big T, to start pumping out some reasonably priced units.


Mike

 

[Dr B]

Dr B I wouldnt go for the deltec unit, ust way to expensive. Me and Big T put two units together for less then 60 bucks. I think we need to talk someone into starting to make these things. I say we beat on on John at IAP or maybe even Big T, to start pumping out some reasonably priced units.


Mike

So yours was DIY built though? Isnt there a little phosban reactor for like 50 bucks? Do you think that is adequate... I dont remember how many mL itll hold though, i know it is alot smaller than the 1l deltec unit i have on order.

And you are running RP right? Any true thoughts on RP/Phosban?

 

[Hooked]

I built mine for about $28 in parts plus a Mini-jet 606 I had laying around. I only have 250 ml ROWAphos in it, but I think I could run it with 1/2 liter, maybe even 1 liter. It doesn't have any filter or foam media in it that needs to be replaced or cleaned--I considered this to be a plus.

 

[Scooterman]

If John at IAP or maybe even Big T would make these, I'd get one, I'm sure he would sell quit a few.

 

[DonW]

Sinse this thread is already here. I thought it would be helpful to discuss the negatives of ROWA Phos. Brad mentioned that there were alot of people on RC having problems with the product. From what I can gather they are complaing of SPS RTN.

I did a little experiment with my daughter 20.
First I measured the ORP at 376 and th PH at 8.4 one hour after the lights went on. After a full day there was no change.
So I added the recommeded quantity of RP to a little aquaclear filter in the supplied bag. I did use slightly used RP one day old, I did not want to get the rusty color in my daughters tank.

The results after 5 hours were.
ORP 510 and PH 8.3
134 increase in ORP. I removed the RP and this morning ORP was 381.
My assumption is that if the test was continued for a while longer ther ORP would have continued up over 550. Thats enough to shock any smallish size system. My guess is that the shock lowers the immune system and RTN sets in.

Probably not very scientific but would tell me that using RP should be done at a very slow rate, and could be the cause of most people problems.

Don

 

[Scooterman]

DonW, having a higher ORP, is that good or bad, I understand that sudden changes can be a shock but was wondering if you went up slowly, whoul dthat be a good level of ORP?

 

[RGibson]

DonW less is better with ROWA if you have a 180 gal tank than used the amount for a 100 gal tank would be better.

 

[Scooterman]

RGibson explane that, your not clear?

thanks

 

[DonW]

DonW, having a higher ORP, is that good or bad, I understand that sudden changes can be a shock but was wondering if you went up slowly, whoul dthat be a good level of ORP?

To high ORP is a bad thing and to low of orp is a bad thing. Some people believe that a orp of 450 is the high mark. I just did the ORP testing because of some articles I found regarding rowa and drinking water in europe.
I think that if you took things slowly with rowa and worked your way up to the recommended amount, there would be very little effect on ORP.
It worked for me but I did it out of fear, rather than orp readings.
I divided the rowa into 6 parts and added each part every ten days. I remove one part and add a new part every other sunday now. Works fine with no shock or mess.

Don