Purigen

[johnrt]

Hi
There have been several treads on activated carbon. Has anybody used Purigen and compared the two, or are they even comparable (doing the same job)?
John T

[spawner]

What are you wanting to use if for? Why don't you want to use activated carbon.

[johnrt]

What are you wanting to use if for? Why don't you want to use activated carbon.

I understand that activated carbon absorbs materials rather indiscriminately and can strip out micronutrients and as pointed out in other treads, may leach some compounds (phosphates) that had been used in processing. Additionally, there is no convenient way to determine when it is used up. So we are obliged to use it on a time bases rather than a efficiency basis. Consequently, there is no good way to use it "correctly". If changed too infrequently, it will be ineffective and could actually act as a source of nitrates and phosphates as the trapped organics break down and if changed too frequently would be wasteful, mess up ionic balance and be a source of leachates.

By contrast, Putigen - based only on the SeaChem advertising bumff -

"Purigen® controls ammonia, nitrites and nitrates by removing nitrogenous organic waste that would otherwise release these harmful compounds. Purigen’s™ impact on trace elements is minimal. It significantly raises redox."

Additionally,

"Purigen® darkens progressively as it exhausts, and is easily renewed by treating with bleach. Purigen® is designed for both marine and freshwater use."

The 'indicator' property and regeneration make it attractive. I would like to conduct some trails.

Before I start any trails, I would like to collect some anecdotal experiences from users. If it has some commonly experienced nasty properties, I will not bother testing. If people suspect that it might have some shortcomings, I can design the trails to look for more solid evidence evidence.

Finally, Purigen is much more costly than activated charcoal and both bleach and dechlorinator are not free, this is a consideration.

My name is John: I tinker.

John T

[Suzy]

Very interesing study!

But, is SeaChem claiming it just removes nitrogen compounds? I use don't use activated carbon for that. I use bacteria! I am not sure why one would use a product to remove nitrogen compounds when bacteria removes them?

[spawner]

Carbon works mainly by adsorption, extremely small pore sizes. The PO4 issue is mostly from industrial carbon, not likely something you would see from "reef grade carbon". I'm not sure if this synthetic is charged or not. Charged compounds are not so effective in saltwater, as they were plenty of ions around to interact with. Do they say in saltwater or freshwater for the removal of nitrogenous compounds?

[johnrt]

Do they say in saltwater or freshwater for the removal of nitrogenous compounds?

On their website, above, it is claimed that it is for both marine and fresh water use.

Again, I am looking for anecdotal experiences from users to help me design the trials. I is not as useful to spend time and energy looking for theoretical problems that have never been observed in practice.

So for people that have used the product: does it appear to make the water clearer and is there a co-incident decrease in NO3 or PO4 that you have measured? Does it appear to regenerate when bleached. How many cycles did it last and what criteria did you use to decide that it was 'used up'? If you used it at one point and stopped, why did you stop?

Thank you all.
John T

[Luis A M]

I agree that of all agents used to improve WQ,carbon is the less understood,the most empirical.
But you seldom find problems using it,and PO4 leaching doesn´t happen with aquarium commercial carbon.
And you can tell when it is exhausted,the water turns yellow,(Gelbstoff).Or you can pass tap water thru it and check for Cl.
And these Purigen claims sound too "infomercial"(snake oil?)

[johnrt]

And these Purigen claims sound too "infomercial"(snake oil?)

Yes, That I why I want to have a little play with it. Probably too soon to say, but looking like nobody has any real experience, hence a bit early to jump to conclusions. SeaChem has some very good products.

I was hoping for some salt-water experience. I would be nice to know it was not evil before I got started. . .

John T

[sunny d polyp]

Isn't there research going on that has substantial proof that activated carbon causes lateral line disease in Tangs? That would be reason enough.

[johnrt]

Isn't there research going on that has substantial proof that activated carbon causes lateral line disease in Tangs? That would be reason enough.

That would be a potential reason to avoid activated carbon. I am just testing the water to see if people even suspect it caused 'hole right trough the head disease', 'lateral line trenching' or some other weirdocity.

Personally, I would be surprised if AC, which has been used for decades in all manor of industries, including laboratories and in the the aquarium hobby has a hither-to unknown biological effect. It could effect some micro-nutriens (easily corrected by dosing) or some specific brands or forms (Platypus Liver Activated Carbon) leaches something strange. But Activated Carbon = bad - unlikely, IMHO.

John T

[Luis A M]

+1
And as Spotte explained years ago,if some trace elements are removed,much more are added in water changes and feeding.

[sunny d polyp]

I have Tangs and have always used AC, my water stays clean and I'm meticulous with my o2 patials as well as parameters but I have also had 2 tangs with lateral line even though I feed a variety of foods to them and not an overly aggressive tank. It is frustrating to say the least, that was why I posted to get a bit of input from those here that are able to keep their tangs healthy. I gave away both tangs to friends and neither of them use AC, both tangs cleared up within 8 months. That is not a scientific study by no means but when I read the article about the affiliation with using ac and lateral line it made me take up and notice. I had them in a 75/gal tank which I know is not recomended AT ALL and the person that got the sailfin has a 210 and the scopas went to a 180, so I prob didn't have any business placing them in a 75 in the first place but I'm still not totally convinced it was only due to tank size. I'm setting up a 120 in the next couple of weeks and I will keep it tang free for now.

[Greshamh]

I am not sure why one would use a product to remove nitrogen compounds when bacteria removes them?

Removal of nitrites stops the production of nitrates bacteria convert, Purigen captures.

I've used it for years, as does a ton of my service company friends. Great stuff in numerous cases.

[Greshamh]

+1
And as Spotte explained years ago,if some trace elements are removed,much more are added in water changes and feeding.

More current reading on the subject:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

[Suzy]

But, anaerobic bacteria removes nitrates, right? Does it remove po4?

[PaulG]

More current reading on the subject:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

Gresham,

Can you please fix the link? it no workie

Thanks
PaulG