# Hamburger Matten Filter-Why Not?



## Hoppy

Sewingalot has a good thread going on building one of these unusual filters. But, it was specifically mentioned that arguments about whether or not to use one would be unwelcome. I kind of like good arguments:icon_smil

Those who have tried one of these filters, please tell us why you wouldn't do it again. (Or why it was a great idea.) I'm not just playing games here. I read that thread in APC back when it started, and was intrigued, but I soon forgot the subject entirely. I now hope to be setting up a low maintenance low light tank when I move to an apartment soon, so I really would like to understand any problems these filters might give me.


----------



## driftwoodhunter

Glad you started this - I was trying to fing the pro/con discussion but couldn't. I assumed it was on this site! lol
I'm very intrigued by this method of filtration, which I have never heard of before, and want to know if anyone has experience with it in larger tanks. I'm thinking about trying it in a 55g. Right now I use HOB filters, but I have an idea to put two 55s end to end to make a dividing wall between my living room & kitchen (which is one long space without division of any sort). The tanks would start at the exterior wall and extend into the living area - the idea of having a wall of sponge filter at the exterior-end wall on tank 1, and the interior-end wall of tank 2 (which would put the second sponge wall in the visual center of the two tanks) is appealing to me. If it is more effective than the HOBs - and it sounds like it would be - it will also be easier to hide/disguise the plumbing/electrical.
My wording of where the sponges would be in each tank is convoluted to say the least! lol Imagine a 55g tank with the side pressed up against an exterior wall, and another tank butted up to it. The left side of each tank is where I would put the sponge wall and pump...
I hope a good pro/con dialog starts!
~ Cin ~


----------



## zdnet

From Diana Walstad's book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium":

"Nitrifying bacteria are helpful, if not essential, in tanks without plants. However, in planted tanks they compete with plants for ammonia."

To me, that means a Hamburger Matten filter is not good for the plants in a planted tank.


BTW, in case anyone is interested, here is the APC discussion way back years ago:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...3-wet-thumb-forum-new-filtration-concept.html


----------



## driftwoodhunter

So, is this setup used mostly by breeders with fry in unplanted tanks?
And thanks for the link...


----------



## driftwoodhunter

Well, that was an interesting read! I read in another place about the idea of planting mosses, etc in the foam. One poster in the above link said it keeps the foam form clogging with debirs, but wouldn't the plants themselves block the foam and prevent it from being it's most effective? I did like the idea of cutting shapes out and inserting larger blocks to create ledges for plants.
A noob question; if the bacteria on the foam filter competes with plants for nitrogens (nitrates?) how is this any different than the bacteria formed on the bio balls, sponges, etc in canister filters? I've never had a canister filter, so I'll be the first to admit I don't know how they work - I may have it a** backwards - lol.
Incidently, every time I test my recently set up 55 (4 weeks) I have 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite, and barely visable color to the nitrates = as close to zero as possible. Could my tank be too lightly stocked? Or is it still in it's initial cycle? (sorry for the hijack)
~ Cin ~


----------



## snausage

I set one up about a year ago. I stopped using it because the tank was converted to a plant only tank:

Pros:
*Maintenance free*
Cheap
Great biofilter (far superior to a regular sponge filter)
Very durable

Cons:
Takes a long time to cycle properly
Requires fine tuning
Takes up a lot of space in the tank
Difficult to incorporate chemical media (although some europeans have a way of doing this)

Basically, it's far superior to a sponge filer, so if you're setting up a tank with air driven filtration, it's a really good option.


----------



## plantbrain

Ugly in your tank, that's enough for me to give it the axe, this is not new by any means, folks have done these since the 50-60's.

They work well, particularly if you get good foam.

I've seen some set up where they are well hidden and done nicely, but these are the exception.

I use plants mostly, sediment etc, the filter is more for detritus removal and moving/water flow.


----------



## Hoppy

snausage said:


> I set one up about a year ago. I stopped using it because the tank was converted to a plant only tank:
> 
> Pros:
> *Maintenance free*
> Cheap
> Great biofilter (far superior to a regular sponge filter)
> Very durable
> 
> Cons:
> Takes a long time to cycle properly
> Requires fine tuning
> Takes up a lot of space in the tank
> Difficult to incorporate chemical media (although some europeans have a way of doing this)
> 
> Basically, it's far superior to a sponge filer, so if you're setting up a tank with air driven filtration, it's a really good option.


Chemical media are a very poor idea for a planted tank filter anyway, so that isn't a disadvantage. The space it takes up, at least for a corner version, doesn't seem to be excessive to me, if it eliminates the filter cleaning process, as it is supposed to do. What "fine tuning" is involved - I didn't notice that any was. And, the cycling process is that of growing the colony of bacteria in the sponge, which should take no longer than it does in a canister filter. It looks like one could run some established filter squeezings through the mattenfilter right after setting it up, and that would jump start the cycle, just as it does with a canister filter.

I once used a sponge filter on the inlet to a powerhead as a total tank filter. It worked, but wouldn't adequately "polish" the water to suit me. Mattenfilters use so much more and thicker sponge that I would expect it to be a very good "polishing" filter.

If I do one of these I think I will grow moss on it. Moss will never be dense enough to block water flow, but it could trap debris, making a messy bed of moss. I suppose the vacuuming of the moss would take care of that.


----------



## Hoppy

plantbrain said:


> Ugly in your tank, that's enough for me to give it the axe, this is not new by any means, folks have done these since the 50-60's.
> 
> They work well, particularly if you get good foam.
> 
> I've seen some set up where they are well hidden and done nicely, but these are the exception.
> 
> I use plants mostly, sediment etc, the filter is more for detritus removal and moving/water flow.


The original mattenfilter, across the end of the tank, would certainly look ugly, but it looks like a back corner version would look fine. I wouldn't be concerned about the biofilter aspect of this, since I know the plants do much of that job anyway, but it seems effective for keeping very clear water. Is it?

And, if the pump can be used as a CO2 reactor too, that appeals to me by removing another piece of equipment from the tank. Plus, if the outlet can effectively ripple the water it also eliminates the need for a powerhead - possibly.


----------



## driftwoodhunter

I was reading one of the links on sewingalot's tread, and there was a good two part video in it. The presenter mentioned that the area behind the foam could house a media material of your choice, as well as the pump, heater, etc. I was thinking it would be a good spot for filter floss, for extra polish.


----------



## Bahugo

driftwoodhunter said:


> I was reading one of the links on sewingalot's tread, and there was a good two part video in it. The presenter mentioned that the area behind the foam could house a media material of your choice, as well as the pump, heater, etc. I was thinking it would be a good spot for filter floss, for extra polish.


I have seen people move there ceramic discs from there canister into the back of the foam corner. 

I don't find the corner unit ugly. Especially with black foam, you would also be able to hide the heater and what not. If you had a white background it would be noticeable, but just buy some black background. I honestly find a sponge filter or a big filter intake and heaters more of an eye sore then a corner sponge that fits the tank from top to bottom that could be blended into the background if done properly.


----------



## Jim Miller

zdnet said:


> From Diana Walstad's book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium":
> 
> "Nitrifying bacteria are helpful, if not essential, in tanks without plants. However, in planted tanks they compete with plants for ammonia."
> 
> To me, that means a Hamburger Matten filter is not good for the plants in a planted tank.
> 
> 
> BTW, in case anyone is interested, here is the APC discussion way back years ago:
> 
> http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...3-wet-thumb-forum-new-filtration-concept.html


You want as much competition for ammonia as possible if you have critters. Consumption or conversion of ammonia to something benign is important.

jim


----------



## driftwoodhunter

Bahugo, I agree - that's one of the factors that interested me in this system. I find the single tower of black foam much more unobtrusive than the HOB intake, heater and whatnot in my tank now. I'm trying to hide them with plants, but how nice it would be to hide them with a functional wall that can even be planted if you so desire.


----------



## plantbrain

I also should mention that ALL of my tanks including client's have large foam blocks, so they are all "Hamburger filters", but I use them *in the sump*.
This is because they are easy to squeeze and clean, I also have sponge material in the prefilters, which get cleaned weekly, whereas the 4" blocks in the sump are massive and get cleaned once every 2-3 months etc.


----------



## Jim Miller

Tom

Any special foam used?

Thanks
Jim


----------



## Bahugo

You can order foam sheets off the internet and just cut them to size you want


----------



## BlueJack

plantbrain said:


> I also should mention that ALL of my tanks including client's have large foam blocks, so they are all "Hamburger filters", but I use them *in the sump*.
> This is because they are easy to squeeze and clean, I also have sponge material in the prefilters, which get cleaned weekly, whereas the 4" blocks in the sump are massive and get cleaned once every 2-3 months etc.


Do you ever use bio media? (other than sponges?) I want to toss all my bio stuff out of my eheim if it competes with my plants.


----------



## Jim Miller

Plants are quite happy consuming NO3 which is what the bacteria eventually produce from NH4. You can't always count on your plants to consume all the NH4 due to things like trimming or plant rearrangment. 

Jim


----------



## wkndracer

Foam cell size is listed all over the older threads on this topic.

Steve at AngelsPlus sells several core sizes in any dimension you wish to order,


----------



## wkndracer

Bahugo said:


> You can order foam sheets off the internet and just cut them to size you want


haha cutting thick foam trying to get a clean / square edge is one of those things that I'm not thrilled with doing. :fish:


----------



## zdnet

Jim Miller said:


> Plants are quite happy consuming NO3 which is what the bacteria eventually produce from NH4.


That is not true, according to Diana Walstad's book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium":

"Many aquatic plants have been found to prefer ammonium over nitrates, and this preference is substantial. For example, Elodea nuttallii growing in a mixture of ammonium and nitrates, removed 50% of the initial ammonium after 8 hr but few nitrates (Fig. VII-1). Only when much of the ammonium was gone (at 16 hr), did it begin to take up nitrates."

"Plants use ammonium to synthesize their proteins. Thus, when nitrifying bacteria convert ammonium to nitrates, plants are forced−-at great energy−-to convert nitrates back to ammonium."




Jim Miller said:


> You can't always count on your plants to consume all the NH4 due to things like trimming or plant rearrangment.


In a heavily planted tank, trimming or re-arrangement should not cause NH4 issue, unless the tank is over-populated.


----------



## Bahugo

wkndracer said:


> haha cutting thick foam trying to get a clean / square edge is one of those things that I'm not thrilled with doing. :fish:


Use a ruler and a Fishing filet knife.


----------



## plantbrain

wkndracer said:


> haha cutting thick foam trying to get a clean / square edge is one of those things that I'm not thrilled with doing. :fish:


Use a bread serrate knife, cuts, like.....well butter


----------



## plantbrain

zdnet said:


> That is not true, according to Diana Walstad's book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium":
> 
> "Many aquatic plants have been found to prefer ammonium over nitrates, and this preference is substantial. For example, Elodea nuttallii growing in a mixture of ammonium and nitrates, removed 50% of the initial ammonium after 8 hr but few nitrates (Fig. VII-1). Only when much of the ammonium was gone (at 16 hr), did it begin to take up nitrates."
> 
> "Plants use ammonium to synthesize their proteins. Thus, when nitrifying bacteria convert ammonium to nitrates, plants are forced−-at great energy−-to convert nitrates back to ammonium."
> 
> In a heavily planted tank, trimming or re-arrangement should not cause NH4 issue, unless the tank is over-populated.



Many, not ALL plants. As only a few are cited, can we say this for all 400 species? Perhaps,.......

And most all plants prefer a mixture of both NH4 and NO3, not either or, and in reality, this is what they are exposed to. High levels of NH4 is also a good way to kill plants, fish will die much sooner.......but........

NO3 is 1000X less toxic, and virtually non toxic for out purposes.

Karen Randall and I had this debate about 15 years ago, filters will get what they get.......bacteria is all over everything, pumps, plants, roots, sediment, will you remove those as well?

I do not think the filter represents a significant barrier to growth of aquatic plants. I think you'd have a tough time growing plants that only get NO3 or only get NH4. Relative to CO2 issues in non CO2 tanks, the lion's share of resources and energy allocation is for Carbon, N is much less.
Light is the other resource, N is an order of magnitude less than light or CO2.

Will planted tanks do well without a filter? Sure.
Why? Well they will take up the NH4, but there's still plenty of bacteria, you ain't getting away from, only reducing a little bit.

The research is under ideal, not planted tank conditions.
It was also only when the levels of NH4 where above 0.5ppm or so.that uptake was higher for one of the graphs, then NO3 uptake increased, was similar etc. We tend to have levels under 0.5ppm as a rule for NH4. 

You know, why not dose some NH4 and see?
See if you get significantly better growth and dose 0.5ppm to 0.8ppm per day of NH4 and do not use any KNO3, just say urea or Nh4Cl etc and K2SO4.

I could not tell much difference.

I do not adding that much to my shrimp or fish though.

Also, under real aquatic conditions, how do you know who gets what? Eg, which bacteria or the plant get each NH4 molecule?

Not unless you label the Nitrogen can you figure this out, eg, stable isotope of N15H4 or N15O3. I know of a lab at UF(Ramesh Reddy) that has a 1 meter square set up for this.

I personally think NH4 is great.......for the sediment and NO3 is great.........for the water column.

This covers both and is easier to manage and address other issues that are more important, like good pruning/gardening/CO2/light etc.


----------



## plantbrain

zdnet said:


> That is not true, according to Diana Walstad's book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium":
> 
> "Many aquatic plants have been found to prefer ammonium over nitrates, and this preference is substantial. For example, Elodea nuttallii growing in a mixture of ammonium and nitrates, removed 50% of the initial ammonium after 8 hr but few nitrates (Fig. VII-1). Only when much of the ammonium was gone (at 16 hr), did it begin to take up nitrates."


Uptake, while suggestive, does not imply the rate of growth is higher, only a brief uptake time frame versus say 6 months or a year.....are very different things.

Also, is this for a non CO2 condition or a CO2 enriched system?

Where sediment source of NH4 vs NO3 does as well?



> "Plants use ammonium to synthesize their proteins. Thus, when nitrifying bacteria convert ammonium to nitrates, plants are forced−-at great energy−-to convert nitrates back to ammonium."


Sounds good and is true, but at what amount or rate in a planted tank? This is not ANSWERED. It is speculated, maybe it is significant, but perhaps not since bacteria covers sediment, the plants themselves, ADA AS or MTS has plenty of NH4 should the plant need it via the roots etc.......

I do not know, but neither do any of us.

She raises some interesting questions, which I think is more the point, that saying we know what is occurring in a planted tank.
Such questions can be tested and folks can try and see.

I do not think many have found much difference in their tanks using NH4 vs NO3 with CO2 gas, and I've been very very successful with scaping and setting up non CO2 tanks WITHOUT any NH4 or even fish and used only KNO3 as the source and inert sediments.

Examples:


















Neither are high energy tanks and both look decent.

Still, a nice looking scape does not imply a method is better/worse either.
I do not put a lot of effort in to such tanks, but I do not have to......
They are heavily filtered and plenty of sponge material.

I see little issue. So while I do not question the results from the studies, I have little to say except I accept them....how they are applied to the planted tank is where the issues can come into play, sounds good etc.....but do we see any differences?

I'm still looking, it's been a decade or more......I'd like to say sure and the study supports it.......but I cannot, least not yet.


----------



## wkndracer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *wkndracer*  
_haha cutting thick foam trying to get a clean / square edge is one of those things that I'm not thrilled with doing. :fish:_


Bahugo said:


> Use a ruler and a Fishing filet knife.





plantbrain said:


> Use a bread serrate knife, cuts, like.....well butter


Geez! tank yawl! Big suthern rednick i'm neevr thunk a uzin a ruleer ur buttur knif

hahaha I don't look forward to the grinding preparation required doing fiberglass repairs either.


----------



## OverStocked

I've used them in breeder tanks, but in my show tanks I won't use them because they take up space and look like a big huge sponge..... The same reason I don't use standard sponge filters in my show tanks... My preferred setup is a drilled tank with sump. Drilled with canister close second. Acrylic lily pipes third. 

They do their job, but since planted tanks have no shortage of biofiltration the mechanical aspect is almost completely missing. For grow out tanks for cichlids they worked great though.


----------



## firefiend

wkndracer said:


> haha cutting thick foam trying to get a clean / square edge is one of those things that I'm not thrilled with doing. :fish:



Heat a guitar sting (the high E or B as they aren't wound)... cuts foam like butter


----------



## Jim Miller

OverStocked said:


> I've used them in breeder tanks, but in my show tanks I won't use them because they take up space and look like a big huge sponge..... The same reason I don't use standard sponge filters in my show tanks... My preferred setup is a drilled tank with sump. Drilled with canister close second. Acrylic lily pipes third.
> 
> They do their job, but since planted tanks have no shortage of biofiltration the mechanical aspect is almost completely missing. For grow out tanks for cichlids they worked great though.


Any pix of your sump setups for your planted tanks?

Jim


----------



## OverStocked

I'll have to clean out a few stands and take pics. The key to sump setups in planted tanks is no "wet/dry tower" and I just put a plexi lid on them to reduce co2 loss(in pressurized systems.... in non co2 I don't care).

Obviously the tank you intend to put a matten filter on is likely not the same type you'd typically put a sump on, as I don't use sumps on breeder, grow out tanks.


----------



## sewingalot

Hoppy said:


> Sewingalot has a good thread going on building one of these unusual filters. But, it was specifically mentioned that arguments about whether or not to use one would be unwelcome. I kind of like good arguments:icon_smil
> 
> Those who have tried one of these filters, please tell us why you wouldn't do it again. (Or why it was a great idea.) I'm not just playing games here. I read that thread in APC back when it started, and was intrigued, but I soon forgot the subject entirely. I now hope to be setting up a low maintenance low light tank when I move to an apartment soon, so I really would like to understand any problems these filters might give me.


Haha, seeing as large as thread has already gotten, I bet you can see why I suggested creating a new thread for the debate and having mine left for the actual building of the HMF. :redface: 

Interesting reading so far. Much of what I've read already; it seems most of the foreign sites are much more in favor of HMF than US based sites. In general, it appears as if we are more into mechanical filtration than bio-filtering.

One flaw is there will be mulm/detritus buildup over time that other filters would remove. I plan to deal with this by mainly growing non-stem plants like mosses, javas and water changes with a vacuum.


----------



## Hoppy

I'm still trying to understand why filtering through 2 inches of foam won't give you good mechanical filtering. It just seems counter-intuitive. I don't really believe that lots of bio-filtering is needed for a planted tank, so if the HMF won't do a great job of mechanical filtering I will probably not want to use it.


----------



## sewingalot

It will give good mechanical filtering to an extent. But even like a canister, the larger leaves and some food will need to be removed manually. This is my favorite explanation:

_What's the difference?
A mechanical filter, with its powerful pump and dense filter medium, will remove particles from the water. These particles remain in the filter and this should be cleaned regularly to prevent clogging the medium. There is little or no biological filtration of the water because essential criteria for this are not met (more about this later). Especially the older models of the known canister filters belong to this category. I would therefore prefer to speak of mechanical filtration only, if frequent cleaning of the filter medium is necessary.
These filters contribute little to the establishment and stabilization of the biological environment in the tank, which is a disadvantage and I see it as a source of many problems in the aquarium.

A biological filter, on the other hand, is characterized by its relatively low throughput. It is true that these filters also remove particles from the water, but only those that are free floating in the water column which because of their low specific weight, can be caught and transported by the low suction of the filter. The effectiveness is based on bacterial activity in the mulm. But biological filters also perform the task of mechanical filter; they should be able to remove suspended particles from the water. Because of this limited suction of the biofilter, it is inevitable that part of the reduction should take place in the aquarium itself. These substances should be predigested, so to speak. Not that the biofilter is not capable of performing this task, it is just that these larger organic waste products (food leftovers, leaves) never get to the filter in the first place because of the low current involved. 

Source: http://www.janrigter.nl/mattenfilter/_

For someone that wants a lightly planted tank with minimal maintenance, and interior filtration to minimize water leaks (I can't count the number of times my canisters/HOB have leaked over the years) I think it's perfect.


----------



## livingword26

plantbrain said:


> I also should mention that ALL of my tanks including client's have large foam blocks, so they are all "Hamburger filters", but I use them *in the sump*.
> This is because they are easy to squeeze and clean, I also have sponge material in the prefilters, which get cleaned weekly, whereas the 4" blocks in the sump are massive and get cleaned once every 2-3 months etc.



This is the core issue for me. Cleaning these massive foam blocks looks like a big ordeal, especially if there are plants growing on them. Simply removing them will put large amounts of filtered material back into the tank. Cleaning my cannister, lets nothing leak into the tank. And I don't have to mess with anything in the tank unless I want to.


----------



## zdnet

plantbrain said:


> Many, not ALL plants. As only a few are cited, can we say this for all 400 species? Perhaps,.......


No, we can't. First, the book has actually some 30+, not just a few, aquatic plants cited with reference to various scientific studies. Second, the book has identified some exceptions. Thus, the use of the word "many", not "all".




plantbrain said:


> And most all plants prefer a mixture of both NH4 and NO3, not either or,


Are you aware of any scientific studies supporting the above assertion?

Based on various scientific studies, Ecology of the Planted Aquarium said:

"Ammonium often inhibits nitrate uptake and assimilation in a variety of organisms [44]. For example, algae doesn't take up nitrates if the ammonium concentration is more than 1 µM (0.018 mg/l) [46]. The prompt cessation of nitrate uptake when ammonium is added to nutrient solutions has been investigated extensively in duckweed [5,35,36]."


----------



## hydrophyte

I have seen these filters and this was my impression...

required big expensive pieces of (the right kind of) foam
required pretty involved DIY
required a lot of space in the tank
required disassembly for servicing
It's a lot easier and cheaper to just use one of those weighted sponge filters. The filter foam in the HMF that I saw was very coarse and I wouldn't be suprised if a maller sponge filter with the finer foam would have greater foam surface area.


----------



## Hoppy

hydrophyte said:


> I have seen these filters and this was my impression...
> 
> required big expensive pieces of (the right kind of) foam
> required pretty involved DIY
> required a lot of space in the tank
> required disassembly for servicing
> It's a lot easier and cheaper to just use one of those weighted sponge filters. The filter foam in the HMF that I saw was very coarse and I wouldn't be suprised if a maller sponge filter with the finer foam would have greater foam surface area.


The cost of appropriate foam for a HMF is certainly a shock, but the foam from http://www.angelsplus.com/FiltersCustom.htm is reasonably priced. It is the Poret foam that is so expensive, from SwissTropicals, for example.

The DIY involved is pretty simple and adaptable, so that doesn't bother me. It intrigues me because of the possible variations.

The tank I hope to use this with is my 65 gallon tank, where the space needed isn't that significant, largely because of the 24 inch height of the tank.

The Europeans have found that servicing is not needed for several years, if the filter uses the right pore density and the outer surface is gently vacuumed periodically. I almost never keep a tank setup for more than a 2-3 years anyway. Then it is on to something different. (It is a hobby, not a commercial farm, and doing various setups is part of the fun.)

A sponge filter is, in my opinion, harder to hide than the HMF, mostly because if you are going to clean it every few weeks you can't grow anything on it.

But, all of those points are things that need to be considered before committing to a HMF because switching to a different filtering method isn't a quick process.

I just recalled: I had a 8 gallon nano cube set up for about a year, which had a built-in filter at the back that functioned exactly like a HMF. When I tore it down a few weeks ago the filter was still working fine, and that was with no maintenance at all. That was a good experience for me.


----------



## livingword26

Hoppy said:


> I just recalled: I had a 8 gallon nano cube set up for about a year, which had a built-in filter at the back that functioned exactly like a HMF. When I tore it down a few weeks ago the filter was still working fine, and that was with no maintenance at all. That was a good experience for me.


Did yo have other filter media that you had to clean? or did this one sponge do all the polishing you needed?


----------



## jjp2

where to start...

This is all my opinion and experience (both real and from what others have written on various forums). I am not going to say it is right or wrong.

I'm planning a 180 gallon and am going with a 40 gallon sump with bio media and the foam. I may eventually do Discus or Clown Loaches or some other large fish which is good with plants. I have decided on the sump for the followiing:

- I find cleaning the FX5 on my 125 is a real PIA. Its very heavy and awkward to hoist out of the stand and lug outside. Its impossible to drain ahead due to the low position of the drain on it and how it sits in the stand. 

- The FX5 has 3 trays each with 2 large sponges.


That basically means my fx5 is a large foam based filter already.

With the sump on the 180, I will be able to reach in pull out the foam, put them in a tray or bucket and bring them outside to raise. Quick and easy compared to the fx5. 

I also expect to achieve a much higher bioload or just longer time between cleanings. 

I am going to layer the foam, I got the 10, 20 and 30 pore densities. This will act as the mechanical and polish the water. Flow though the sump was not impacted at all by this layering.

Yes, the foam was expensive, but not for the size I got when compared to smaller chucks of it. My hole sump (foam, 40 breeder, matrix bio media and mag 18 pump) is current at the price of an fx5. 

On larger tanks, I think this is the best approach to an easily maintainable filter vs a single large cannister or multiple smaller cannisters.


----------



## Hoppy

livingword26 said:


> Did yo have other filter media that you had to clean? or did this one sponge do all the polishing you needed?


The only filter media was 3 cubes of foam, exactly like that used for the HMF. The water stayed very clean. I had an oversized pump, compared to what is recommended for a HMF, so I may not have had good bio filtration in the sponges.


----------



## hydrophyte

The sheets of foam certainly do offer a great deal of adaptability for filter setups. My observations from post #36 above were in regards to using HMF in many breeding tanks in a fishroom, where the system really does seem very costly and cumbersome. 

A big sheet or block of foam could be very effective for sump filtration or other configuration for fish displays with lots of bioload and no plants.


----------



## snausage

Hoppy said:


> Chemical media are a very poor idea for a planted tank filter anyway, so that isn't a disadvantage. The space it takes up, at least for a corner version, doesn't seem to be excessive to me, if it eliminates the filter cleaning process, as it is supposed to do. What "fine tuning" is involved - I didn't notice that any was. And, the cycling process is that of growing the colony of bacteria in the sponge, which should take no longer than it does in a canister filter. It looks like one could run some established filter squeezings through the mattenfilter right after setting it up, and that would jump start the cycle, just as it does with a canister filter.
> 
> I once used a sponge filter on the inlet to a powerhead as a total tank filter. It worked, but wouldn't adequately "polish" the water to suit me. Mattenfilters use so much more and thicker sponge that I would expect it to be a very good "polishing" filter.
> 
> If I do one of these I think I will grow moss on it. Moss will never be dense enough to block water flow, but it could trap debris, making a messy bed of moss. I suppose the vacuuming of the moss would take care of that.


By 'fine tuning' I meant the placement of the pumping apparatus behind the foam. IME, a powerhead should be centered and placed 1/3rd of the way down from the top of the mat. The uplift tube works a lot better if it's slightly off centered. 

I tried covering it with moss, but it just got filthy. I would try something like brazilian pennywort. When I had the tank well planted, my rotala nanjenshan rooted into the foam really well. 

The foam itself should be the *Poret* brand. You can purchase it from swisstropicals.com.


----------



## snausage

livingword26 said:


> This is the core issue for me. Cleaning these massive foam blocks looks like a big ordeal, especially if there are plants growing on them. Simply removing them will put large amounts of filtered material back into the tank. Cleaning my cannister, lets nothing leak into the tank. And I don't have to mess with anything in the tank unless I want to.


The main advantage of the HMF is that it almost never needs to be cleaned. In general, people only clean them once every 12-18 months. 

I think most people are missing the point. It's primarily useful to breeders since they tend to have dozens of bare-bottomed tanks and all of their filtration is air powered. The HMF is really just a nice alternative to the standard sponge filters since it provides superior biofiltration and requires a fraction of the cleaning.


----------



## jjp2

snausage said:


> The HMF is really just a nice alternative to the standard sponge filters since it provides superior biofiltration and requires a fraction of the cleaning.


 
From the sites I've read which describe and show them, it is a big sponge filter. Usually the foam is towards the back with 1 - 2 inches behind it and some method to pull the water through it. 

You are correct that due to their size, they don't need to be cleaned often.


----------



## plantbrain

livingword26 said:


> This is the core issue for me. Cleaning these massive foam blocks looks like a big ordeal, especially if there are plants growing on them. Simply removing them will put large amounts of filtered material back into the tank. Cleaning my cannister, lets nothing leak into the tank. And I don't have to mess with anything in the tank unless I want to.


Yep, that's why I have them in the sump.

MUCH easier to quickly remove them and swap with a clean one etc, or squeeze and rinse in a sump vs a canister.

Easy to add/remove any chemical media etc, add pH probes, CO2, heater etc etc........


----------



## plantbrain

snausage said:


> The main advantage of the HMF is that it almost never needs to be cleaned. In general, people only clean them once every 12-18 months.
> 
> I think most people are missing the point. It's primarily useful to breeders since they tend to have dozens of bare-bottomed tanks and all of their filtration is air powered. The HMF is really just a nice alternative to the standard sponge filters since it provides superior biofiltration and requires a fraction of the cleaning.


yes, +1


----------



## Bahugo

HMF shouldn't be taken out of the tank, quote from the translated site in one of Sewingalots links



> *One says that it should still be squeezed out.*
> 
> No. It is not in the nature of a mattenfilter to need any care. Only some occasional sucking off every few
> waterchanges is necessary. In tanks that are extremely contaminated this might be the case more often and
> more periodically. Oddly enough, it also happens in normal aquaria. But one does not need to and should not
> squeeze it or de-mud it by principle.
> 
> _ _ _ _ _
> *
> How old does a mat get ?
> *
> My oldest mat lived to be eleven. The mats I had to change had been beaten up with pushes from the hose at
> multiple cleanings. No wonder, it were breeding tanks with a lot of Baby brine shrimp feeding. But even under
> these conditions, they are in it for 3 - 4 years for sure and without any intensive cleaning.


 I don't think it's that expensive for multiple tanks, if you were to cut a 13x13" piece (20g long just for reference) of foam from http://www.foamandupholstery.com/out_door_foam.htm (scroll down to regicell foam) 39x79x2" 30ppi at 128.~ You are paying 7.11 for each tanks worth of filter foam. *edit: you will get 18 cuts @ 13x13 from one sheet of 39x79


----------



## Hoppy

Bahugo said:


> HMF shouldn't be taken out of the tank, quote from the translated site in one of Sewingalots links
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's that expensive for multiple tanks, if you were to cut a 13x13" piece (20g long just for reference) of foam from http://www.foamandupholstery.com/out_door_foam.htm (scroll down to regicell foam) 39x79x2" 30ppi at 128.~ You are paying 7.11 for each tanks worth of filter foam. *edit: you will get 18 cuts @ 13x13 from one sheet of 39x79


That Regicell foam doesn't appear to be comparable to Poret foam. Has anyone successfully used it for a HMF?


----------



## plantbrain

Poret foam is good, you might be able to source some decent materials elsewhere, I gave it a good long look for a few months when looking for 4" thick block.......I never got anything better than the Poret from Swisstropicals.

CERTAINLY, worth your nickel to buy from them.

I'm not saying something as good a quality is not cheaper elsewhere, but I did not find anything .........in reasonable size sheets.


----------



## Hoppy

A 19.5 inch square of *Poret* foam would only cost $28 plus shipping, and that would make a good size filter for a 65 gallon tank, with some cutting and gluing pieces together with silicone. (For a 24 inch deep tank, cut a 4 1/2 inch strip off one edge, then glue it to the bigger piece to make a 15 inch by 24 inch piece.) That could make a quarter circle corner filter, or be cut again to make a 11 inch wide by 4 inch by 24 inch "L" piece to make a rectangular corner filter. That's not bad at all.


----------



## Gold Finger

I've been debating whether a "Matt" in my sump might be better than my current setup, a Hydro Sponge on a power head in my sump. Better meaning easier. Both do what they are supposed to very well assuming good quality like "Poret" and "Hydro" brands. 

The Hydro may be a bit more efficient due to the fact that the draw through is forced to be more even through the cylindrical sponge than is the case with a Matt, but I don't imagine it amounts to a meaningful difference. 

The Matt can potentially go longer between cleanings if it is bigger or not filtering as well, but this is not a plus for me because I don't want to leave all the waste in my sponge (system) for a year. Either can go a month or more between cleanings. Probably too long.

The two things which concern me are; how hard it will be to yank out the sponge and clean it, and what will that mean to my bacterial colony?

The Matt might be easier to yank out, but I think the best solution, for me, is to have two or three Hydro Sponges (I'll add one or two more). Then I can yank one off of it's power head at any time and clean it or just toss it and still have my colony remain mostly intact. 

All in all, there's no _big_ difference to me. A sponge is a sponge


----------



## Hoppy

The theoretical difference between a Hamburger Mattenfilter and an ordinary sponge filter is that the first is designed to get optimum water velocity through the sponge, so the bacteria have enough time to do their work. And, as long as you stay within the velocity limits, you can use a very big filter, so it can last a very long time with no real cleaning. I haven't tried one yet, but I'm all set to do so on my 65 gallon tank when I get to set it up again after moving. In a year or so I should have a strong opinion about HMF filtering.


----------



## Gold Finger

I use the large hydro sponge at ~ 70 gph flow through, not anywhere near the 600 gph it is capable of. This gives me a more or less optimum dwell time. It is the same principle and achieves the same result as the Hamburg style application of a foam wall. One may balance flow-through using either type of foam setup to achieve this goal, or push higher flow rates and sacrifice optimum bio in a (misguided?) attempt to improve mechanical.


----------



## Gold Finger

I don't disagree that optimum dwell time for bacterial purposes is an intrinsic part of the Hamburg system of using a foam mat, just that it can be applied to any foam, or any bio media, and that a regular sponge is not limited to a different purpose, and that optimum dwell time is not unique to Hamburg.


----------



## Gold Finger

Hamburgs are great for certain purposes like yours, which you mentioned, where the bio load is not too high and going a year without tearing down the filter is a great deal. The theory applied to different foam applications serves different purposes, like mine with a high bio load where cleaning the foam is a good thing, as well. I think dwell time, which you brought up, is really important and often misunderstood or overlooked in these and many other filters which forego good dwell time in order to achieve good turnover.

This is why I use multiple foam cylinders on small, dedicated power heads in a sump ( I only have one going right now, but will add another). Each individual sponge gets the right flow through and the battery (all of them together) provides the high turnover. Furthermore, I can clean the sponges at different times, to obvious benefit, and have pump failure redundancy all in a relatively simple and straightforward system.


----------



## klaus07

I've been using HMF in at least one one tank for the last 15 yrs. I find they work very well, though it doesn't replace water changes. The reason the foam is so expensive is because there is a virtual monopoly on the supply of the right kind of foam. Although you can find domestic foam with the right cell structure and material, it all has mold inhibitors and/or flame retardants mixed in and will kill your fish, shrimp and maybe even your plants. 

If you go to an arts and crafts store you can get the non-allergenic foam they sell that does not have any toxic additives and you can make mattenfilters out of it. The problem is the cell density is very fine and may clog over time. The way to tell if your mattenfilter has reduced flow is to keep track of the height of the water behind the pad in comparison to the front. If you see the height dropping then you know you have a reduced flow and it is time to rinse it out. I think a mattenfilter made with Poret would last indefinitely in a planted tank because the fish load is generally low.

I cut my mattenfilters with a chef's knife and i leave an extra .125 inch or so (wider than the inside dimension of the tank) so there is a slight compression to the pad . It is important to use a good quality knife. I use a shun or Japanese chef's knife because they are better at slicing than the German knives wich are heaver and have a larger cutting angle. I have not experienced shrinkage of the pad if kept wet and in the tank. However, I have seen these pads shrink over time if exposed to air. So it is important to use them as you cut them or to have channels that they fit into. My son has a 90 gallon with a 3" thick HMF set up for a year now cut that way and there has been no shrinkage and its not installed with channels. I used the 3" stuff from the Hobby Lobby. I don't expect it to last as long as Poret, but when it does wear out I will replace it with poret.


----------



## DogFish

I've found cutting foam with an electric carving knife to be the best method. I sandwich the foam between to sheets of acrylic with the part to be remove exposed. The edges of the two acrylic become a guide to insure a straight cut. I simply run the carving knife blade down along the acrylic.

A power sponge I just made, I'm only 1/8" off on one side.


----------



## jccaclimber

A sharp smooth kitchen knife and some pressure. It's been a couple months since I sharpened mine and I can get a clean square cut through 2" Poret with one stroke.


----------



## audioaficionado

I'm looking at building a sump for a large tank I'll be getting. Foam might simplify the cleaning process. Slide the dirty foam out and slide the clean one back in. Then take the dirty one outside, clean and dry it for the next exchange.

Now would it be advantageous to have a fine pore prefilter layer or have the fine pore after a large pore to catch the fines that got through? I'd like my water to be clear and not take days to settle out.

Do you really need a wet/dry sump with heavily planted tanks? I have a modestly sized Magnum 350 canister that has very little media volume for the high flow rates and obviously no dry cycle.


----------



## jccaclimber

^It seems that will kill any bio filtration you have going at the time in the foam, unless that isn't a concern.


----------



## audioaficionado

I'm thinking 90% of my bio filter is in my 45gal planted tank. I just rinse my 2 spun poly sleeves out in tap water and never had any tank cycle resets. I could also just use some prime in tap water to rinse out the foam media in a bucket or plastic storage tubs to preserve any filter bio film.

I'm thinking of more than one foam filter wall layers in the sump I'd build for my future large tank.


----------



## epiphany

audioaficionado said:


> I'm thinking 90% of my bio filter is in my 45gal planted tank. I just rinse my 2 spun poly sleeves out in tap water and never had any tank cycle resets. I could also just use some prime in tap water to rinse out the foam media in a bucket or plastic storage tubs to preserve any filter bio film.
> 
> I'm thinking of more than one foam filter wall layers in the sump I'd build for my future large tank.


Yeah, assuming the one layer of foam isn't the only thing water flows through in your sump it wouldn't be an issue cycle wise.


----------



## evilhorde

snausage said:


> The foam itself should be the *Poret* brand. You can purchase it from swisstropicals.com.





klaus07 said:


> Although you can find domestic foam with the right cell structure and material, it all has mold inhibitors and/or flame retardants mixed in and will kill your fish, shrimp and maybe even your plants.


I bought my foam from a local foam shop and it killed only half of my fish and made a forest of lucky bamboo in my tank toxic.
Despite the danio genocide, I liked the way the foam looked and I liked the way it hid my heater and pump, etc. If I set up another 'bamboo' forest I'll try foam again.


----------



## dprais1

Hoppy said:


> The theoretical difference between a Hamburger Mattenfilter and an ordinary sponge filter is that the first is designed to get optimum water velocity through the sponge, so the bacteria have enough time to do their work. And, as long as you stay within the velocity limits, you can use a very big filter, so it can last a very long time with no real cleaning. I haven't tried one yet, but I'm all set to do so on my 65 gallon tank when I get to set it up again after moving. In a year or so I should have a strong opinion about HMF filtering.


Any update on this?


----------



## nzafi

I know this is an old thread but thought I would share my experience. I attempted a HMF filter on a 180g non-planted tank and unfortunately it failed miserably. It started off well but went downhill after about 2 months. Couple observations/thoughts:
- It takes much longer to establish this filter than sumps, cannisters, HOBs. This is noted in the german site that has been linked. This is extremely important as my filter failed for this reason. I moved from 3 AC110s to the HMF and placed all of my biomax behind the hmf. I keep larger predator fish and was used to doing large 50% weekly water changes. These larger water changes inhibited the filter from establishing and resulted in multiple mini cycles with ammonia spikes. I highly recommend small water changes when this filter is young
- You cannot just throw any media behind the hmf. Differnt biomedia works under different conditions. HMF is based on low flow. I threw all of my biomax behind the hmf assuming it will work just as well, and it did not. Biomax is a biomedia that works best with high flow hence the use in HOB and cannisters. The effectiveness of my biomax was drastically reduced by just throwing it behind the hmf. You can do it, but don't expect it work as well as in HOB or cannisters

I am looking to use filter on a planned 500g tank potentially as I know others that have used it with success on multiple 265g, 220g, and 660g. I also found individuals with this filters on tank up to 900g to 3,000g. Here is what I am planning to do differently:
- I have setup an autodrip which eliminates the large water changes. I now have continuous small water changes
- I will be using my biomax to help seed the filter, but plan on using marine pure which is a low flow media behind the hmf. I have an existing 8x8x4 block in my 180g

I ended up throwing out my expensive poret foam and re-installing my 3 AC110s on my 180g. Primary reason is that in addition to mini-cycles I ended up with voltage leakage in my tank. The combination caused HITH and a bad breakout of columnaris on my aimara wolf fish. I had to breakdown the 180g and completely disinfect, plus treat my fish in a 40g breeder. An aimara is somewhat rare and very expensive fish, so instead of risking another columnaris break out I tossed the filter. My fish luckily survived the disaster but has large scarring from both the HITH and columnaris still about 6-7 months later unfortunately.


----------



## AbbeysDad

After years of 'playing' with all sorts of bio-media (ceramic, pumice...), I'm convinced that sponge material is not only a great mechanical media, but ALSO an excellent bio-media platform. 

Many fishrooms are run exclusively with air driven sponge filters.

As a matter of fact, it's my understanding that the Aquaripure Denitrate Filter is all sponge (coarse, medium, fine).

My two Aquaclear 70 filters are filled with sponge material - making them HOB sponge filters.

I have a hamburg/matten filter in the 10g I use as grow out and quarantine tank. It works just great so I question some of the previous comments in this thread.


----------



## Kampo

I will totally agree sponge is all you need in an aquarium. its all i run. sponges in HOB aquaclears, mostly mattens in the fishroom and this is my new solution for "pretty" sponge filtration on a new tank i'm setting up. pretty cheap too. 10 bucks for the foam (could do 2 with the sheet) and 5 bucks for the clear molding. stuck a rio pump in back since it will be c02 so didn't want air driven.


----------



## JJ09

I have never used one of these filters but there is a couple in my fish club who have over twenty tanks in their house and like the matten filter so much they are changing all their tanks to using just matten filtration. It's like a sponge wall on the short end of the tank. Their shrimp love it. I don't know if their tanks are planted much, so can't say how it affects plants.


----------

