Knowledgeseeker
Well-known member
does anyone know the positives and negetives of using reef ceramics for aquascaping. Also the cost difference vs lr
Reef Ceramics
- Thread starter Knowledgeseeker
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Krish
RF STAFF
Well, ceramics won't help with any denitrification whereas LR will. LR can contain beneficial bacteria and critters, ceramics don't. Nevertheless, these same things can be added later (critters, beneficial bacteria etc) I guess it would be entirely up to you which way you would want to go. Mike Harrington is using ceramics in his tank so maybe you could check out his thread http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6928&page=7
Just a few thoughts...Best of luck!
Just a few thoughts...Best of luck!
NaH2O
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 8,568
Not to long ago I was on a thread in my club forum about ceramic reef rock. The thread starter used to be a zeovit dealer. Here is a link to the pricing: Reef Ceramics
Live rock is comprised of reef building stony corals. If you look at a cross section of a SPS, you can see how porous it is. Have a peek at this image taken with a scanning electron microscope. Different regions will have different corals providing the primary structure. - Image is from this article: Explorations into the inner beauty of corals
Now to contrast:
Biomorphous Oxide Ceramics. When comparing the scales of the coral to the ceramic, the pore sizes are much different....the ceramics are more porous.
Open Cellular Ceramic Foams - This link shows how the ceramic is created, and it says in there that it is coated in zeolite.
A problem I have, though, is the coating in zeolites. The average pore opening size of a zeolite is 0.001uM, while the average size of a bacteria is 1uM (thanks Boomer for the help on this). So the pore size in the ceramic is great for bacteria, however, the zeolites.....not so much. The zeolites would end up getting coated in biofilms with the bacteria on the surface....at least that's how I see it. I'll see if Boomer has any comments on this or corrections to my post.
Live rock is comprised of reef building stony corals. If you look at a cross section of a SPS, you can see how porous it is. Have a peek at this image taken with a scanning electron microscope. Different regions will have different corals providing the primary structure. - Image is from this article: Explorations into the inner beauty of corals
Now to contrast:
Biomorphous Oxide Ceramics. When comparing the scales of the coral to the ceramic, the pore sizes are much different....the ceramics are more porous.
Open Cellular Ceramic Foams - This link shows how the ceramic is created, and it says in there that it is coated in zeolite.
A problem I have, though, is the coating in zeolites. The average pore opening size of a zeolite is 0.001uM, while the average size of a bacteria is 1uM (thanks Boomer for the help on this). So the pore size in the ceramic is great for bacteria, however, the zeolites.....not so much. The zeolites would end up getting coated in biofilms with the bacteria on the surface....at least that's how I see it. I'll see if Boomer has any comments on this or corrections to my post.
aquariumdebacle
electrolyte addict
I think the issue about micropore size is irrelvent. The true benefit to live rock is its importation of diverse organisms and its inherent macroporocity. The micropores of any substrate will quickly subccumb to bacterial clogging within days of introduction. The pore size smaller than the millimeter range probably will not produce any significant change to the overall chemistry due to its clogging by bacteria.
What I think is more important and less understood is the effect of the constituent products that make up the ceramics. If they are heavy in irons or other such elements they could cause secondary problems ranging from catastophic to nutrient loading.
Support you local (fisherman, dealer, retailer) and buy live rock. I personally like tonga Branch, but that is just me! It can be a renewable resource.
What I think is more important and less understood is the effect of the constituent products that make up the ceramics. If they are heavy in irons or other such elements they could cause secondary problems ranging from catastophic to nutrient loading.
Support you local (fisherman, dealer, retailer) and buy live rock. I personally like tonga Branch, but that is just me! It can be a renewable resource.
Boomer
Well-known member
Nikki
Those bimorphous ones made of Al+, these are Aluminum oxide, the same exact stuff the many of the phosphate removers are made of. So these are going to suck up PO4 and act as a sink, since you are not going to be removng them, for more than likely cyano. Some chemistry on such Al+ based materials;
Aluminum and aluminum-based phosphate binders
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2003/chem.htm
A problem I have, though, is the coating in zeolites. The average pore opening size of a zeolite is 0.001uM, while the average size of a bacteria is 1uM (thanks Boomer for the help on this). So the pore size in the ceramic is great for bacteria, however, the zeolites.....not so much. The zeolites would end up getting coated in biofilms with the bacteria on the surface
I do not consider the zeolite coating an issue, as it is just a coating . One needs to look at the pore opening size of the actual ceramic itself and for the open cell it is huge, avg 1- 2.5 mm. Way to big IMHO. If you look at the Biomorphous it is more on the order of LR. Now look at that coral, you will see there are allot of pores down there in the .1 mm range, some even smaller. The biggest is only like 1 mm or a tad more. I do not like the open cell. I would stick with the TiO2, and ZrO2 Biomorphous. I would choose the Zirconia sol.
Y-stabilized cubic ZrO2.
I think the issue about micropore size is irrelvent. The true benefit to live rock is its importation of diverse organisms and its inherent macroporocity. The micropores of any substrate will quickly subccumb to bacterial clogging within days of introduction.
Mostly true to a point
Those bimorphous ones made of Al+, these are Aluminum oxide, the same exact stuff the many of the phosphate removers are made of. So these are going to suck up PO4 and act as a sink, since you are not going to be removng them, for more than likely cyano. Some chemistry on such Al+ based materials;
Aluminum and aluminum-based phosphate binders
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2003/chem.htm
A problem I have, though, is the coating in zeolites. The average pore opening size of a zeolite is 0.001uM, while the average size of a bacteria is 1uM (thanks Boomer for the help on this). So the pore size in the ceramic is great for bacteria, however, the zeolites.....not so much. The zeolites would end up getting coated in biofilms with the bacteria on the surface
I do not consider the zeolite coating an issue, as it is just a coating . One needs to look at the pore opening size of the actual ceramic itself and for the open cell it is huge, avg 1- 2.5 mm. Way to big IMHO. If you look at the Biomorphous it is more on the order of LR. Now look at that coral, you will see there are allot of pores down there in the .1 mm range, some even smaller. The biggest is only like 1 mm or a tad more. I do not like the open cell. I would stick with the TiO2, and ZrO2 Biomorphous. I would choose the Zirconia sol.
Y-stabilized cubic ZrO2.
I think the issue about micropore size is irrelvent. The true benefit to live rock is its importation of diverse organisms and its inherent macroporocity. The micropores of any substrate will quickly subccumb to bacterial clogging within days of introduction.
Mostly true to a point
edgerat
Indecisive
cost is supposed to be a little more expensive that the best "show" rock that there is out there. I really don't like the looks of the stuff, as far as whether or not it will cause any damage remains to be seen. There are several people with large tanks that use it and have reported no side effects to date. I really don't think there is any substitue for good live rock.
