# Best bio media



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

Can't beat foam or simple plastic pot scrubbies. Try here for a review and full testing of all the major bio media.

https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/7-filter-media/


----------



## en7jos (Jun 7, 2020)

I'm also intrigued by this same question! I have always bought into the "hype" of brand name bio-media (Seachem Matrix) and have found that it has done its job as expected. But when I read the website that @Somefishguy linked above, I wondered whether pot scrubbers, foam or the K1 extruded plastic could be just as good, if not better. I came across some K1 media on sale recently so bought a couple of bags to take a look at and maybe see about trying to replace existing Matrix with it in a canister filter (given that the article says it should be more than 4x better than Matrix!).

I asked here if anyone had used K1 as static media (i.e. not in a moving bed setup), but so far zero replies:
Anyone us K1 as static media in a canister?

I know that people do use pot scrubbers and foam as their only biomedia, but I wonder how common this actually is.

In short, if foam, pot scrubbers and K1 media are soooo much better, than why aren't we all using them?

Really interested in hearing personal experience from the many experienced (dare I say expert?) people on this forum!
So what do people actually think - are these cheaper alterantives actually so much better than the commercial bio-medias????


----------



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

en7jos said:


> Really interested in hearing personal experience from the many experienced (dare I say expert?) people on this forum!
> So what do people actually think - are these cheaper alterantives actually so much better than the commercial bio-medias????



I posted this a while back...


https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...27-haze-after-water-changes.html#post11383899


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

What is best changes with different tanks and different situations and does take some judgement as there is no one "best" for all things. 
Some of the factors involved are size of tank and waste load, age of tank and how much time effort you want to put in for cleaning, etc. Lots of small points to think about. 
First is what do you want/need the media of all types in your filter to do for you. Not important what others want done in their tank! 
If you have a newish tank, less than maybe six months old, there will be different levels of bacteria, depending on how you have worked the nitrogen cycle to build those colonies of bacteria. 
Bio media is simple "something" that provides a place for lots of bacteria to live. The more tiny spaces for them to hang on is often considered "better" for bio. That leaves things like ceramic and many of the Special stuff better for lots more bacteria but then if we look at whether we need that much bacteria, we may find a different answer. 
If you have a newish tank and lots of big messy fish, you may need a lot more bio to take care of the waste processing, but if you have an older tank and lots of plants as well as few or small, far less messy fish, you don't need a lot or very good bio media as you have other things taking care of the job! 
spong is often considered mechanical and it does do that but it also has a fair amount of small spaces for bacteria so it is also bio media. 
That leaves us open to slanting the media to fit what we find works best for us. Specific great bio media is okay but not needed if you really find your big old messy fish needs more water straining to remove the floating debris he kicks up! 
What is best is what works for you and the time you want to spend cleaning the filter and media.
I normally start a tank with a mix of bio and mech but over time, I do change out some things like spong if they begin to be too much work due to stopping up flow too quickly. 
Spong and filter floss are often too time consuming if I have a reasonable fish load, so I go for things that don't stop up so quick, once I know for sure there are tons of good bacteria all over the tank. Just not to throw out too much of the media at one time to create a spike due to loss of bacteria.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Some of us use no bio-media in our filters at all.


----------



## number1sixerfan (Nov 10, 2006)

You can basically use anything that is non-toxic with sufficient surface area. The bio media topic gets overthought for sure. I have used all kinds of bio media over the years with no material, discernible or detectable difference. Lastly, I certainly wouldn't overpay for something like Matrix (works just fine, but way overpriced)


----------



## en7jos (Jun 7, 2020)

Deanna said:


> Some of us use no bio-media in our filters at all.


So is that just a foam in there then @Deanna?


----------



## Sam the Slayer (Dec 18, 2019)

Everyone above is essentially correct. I haven’t purchased bio media in sometime and the only two tanks of mine that use it use it because it came with it and my other hang on backs use a coarse sponge prefilter and filter floss inside (these are the cartridge hobs). All my other tanks use under gravel filters. I really think of filters now as just water movers. Most planted tanks that are doing ok have more than enough surface area in the substrate and combined with plant growth handle all forms of ammonia. Of course if your tank is super stocked with little to no plants and minimal water changes and minimal substrate then yes an appropriate filter will benefit you. As far as what you fill it with it really doesn’t matter, sponge, ceramic/plastic media. LRB Aquatics runs 250 tanks all filterless and just uses the principals I spoke of and manages everything via water changes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

en7jos said:


> So is that just a foam in there then @Deanna?


Nope. All of the BB is in the substrate or on the surfaces throughout the tank and supporting systems. The only media in the canister is some filter floss for mechanical filtration, and that is discarded every week or so.


----------



## en7jos (Jun 7, 2020)

Sam the Slayer said:


> I really think of filters now as just water movers. Most planted tanks that are doing ok have more than enough surface area in the substrate and combined with plant growth handle all forms of ammonia.


So my next question is then.... if the filter is pretty much just a "water mover", why not get rid of the filter completely and just have a in-tank water mover (wave maker)? That would simplify the setup a whole lot for an established tank wouldn't it? I guess the filter is still required for the mechanical 'polishing' (filter floss) even if all the important BB is in the tank?

Thanks all, really interesting to hear how others go about things, especially when it contradicts what I thought I knew! :wink2:


----------



## AcidGambit (Aug 30, 2018)

en7jos said:


> So my next question is then.... if the filter is pretty much just a "water mover", why not get rid of the filter completely and just have a in-tank water mover (wave maker)? That would simplify the setup a whole lot for an established tank wouldn't it? I guess the filter is still required for the mechanical 'polishing' (filter floss) even if all the important BB is in the tank?
> 
> Thanks all, really interesting to hear how others go about things, especially when it contradicts what I thought I knew! :wink2:


I think that's certainly doable, but you would lose the mechanical polishing, as you noted. You also lose the additional water volume -- maybe not as big of a deal with a canister, but my sump adds about 8 gallons to the system water volume, which is nice. A sump or canister also allows you to remove equipment from the tank.


----------



## Sam the Slayer (Dec 18, 2019)

en7jos said:


> So my next question is then.... if the filter is pretty much just a "water mover", why not get rid of the filter completely and just have a in-tank water mover (wave maker)? That would simplify the setup a whole lot for an established tank wouldn't it? I guess the filter is still required for the mechanical 'polishing' (filter floss) even if all the important BB is in the tank?
> 
> Thanks all, really interesting to hear how others go about things, especially when it contradicts what I thought I knew! :wink2:



It just completely depends on the setup. High tech, high light you’ll want a setup that evenly distributes co2/nutrients around to each plant which is easier with two points of water movement (intake and output) but in lower tech it matters less because of less demand by the plants. It’s a fun hobby because there are many ways to do the same thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

I like to keep from walking too close to eht edge and filtering seems very easy to do that. One point to the filter is that we never want to do things which totally disrupt the bacteria and having bacteria in a filter is one way to have some added safety. 
What can happen if you only have bacteria in the tank and none in the filter and you decide to do a really good cleaning of the sub and scrub down the walls? You can be running very close to an ammonia spike! But you can get away with doing a couple foolish things if you hedge your bet and have some bacteria in the tank and some in the filter. In that case, you only have to remember to NOT clean both at the same time! 
Keep a little slack in your operation as I have found I WILL screw it up at times! 
Human is to error once in a while, smarter human assumes it will happen and prepares for it!


----------



## Kcd394 (Nov 15, 2020)

I've been running my 29 gal this last 9-11 months with HOB filter and only thing in it is a coarse sponge and a pre-filter sponge on the intake. Just Saturday I ordered bio rings. Half the filter has bio rings, and I folded the sponge in half and tucked it in at the top. There is also a small sponge filter in the tank I added maybe 6 months ago. Doing fine so far. Did I need the bio rings? probably not. I figured I would give them a try though to add more surface area for bacteria since I am hoping to add some more fishes soon. Plus if ever I need to quickly cycle a new tank I can either pluck out half the bio rings or the sponge filter and borrow them to the new tank.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

I'm a big fan of Matrix. High quality and very affordable vs similar quality media.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

varanidguy said:


> I'm a big fan of Matrix. High quality and very affordable vs similar quality media.


 Can you expand on that please? 

ADA is using something similar, just little larger in size. Seachem says, _*“These macropores are ideally sized for the support of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. This allows Matrix™, unlike other forms of biomedia, to remove nitrate along with ammonia and nitrite, simultaneously and in the same filter. “ *_

Have you experienced different results with this media than with others? I am looking for conversion of NO3 to nitrogen gas because in order for this to happen, certain bacteria need to feed on inorganic carbon, either from CO2 or carbonate CO3. There are other bacteria that do the same conversion but feed on *organic* carbon like fish waste and glucose leaked from plants.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Can you expand on that please?
> 
> ADA is using something similar, just little larger in size. Seachem says, _*“These macropores are ideally sized for the support of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. This allows Matrix™, unlike other forms of biomedia, to remove nitrate along with ammonia and nitrite, simultaneously and in the same filter. “ *_
> 
> Have you experienced different results with this media than with others? I am looking for conversion of NO3 to nitrogen gas because in order for this to happen, certain bacteria need to feed on inorganic carbon, either from CO2 or carbonate CO3. There are other bacteria that do the same conversion but feed on *organic* carbon like fish waste and glucose leaked from plants.


I'm curious: once you get your anaerobic bacteria going, and measure a consistent NO3 reduction, have you ever tried enhancing the de-nitrification with things like vodka, methanol, etc.?

Also, as your NO3 came down, did you note any corresponding drop in KH? I'm wondering if KH might be a confirming indicator of anaerobic bacteria activity, since they should be consuming some of the CO3.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Edward said:


> Can you expand on that please?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be honest, I don't buy into the "full cycle" claims Seachem and Pondguru both make. It's not to be disrespectful or dismissive, but it takes very special conditions to achieve the complete removal of nitrates, of course barring massive water changes or massive plant mass with a small fish bioload.

What I have experienced with Matrix vs sponge, pot scrubbies, bioballs, et al is efficiency. Using the same filters, but with Matrix, has contributed to a more stable cycle. Of course it's anecdotal, but I've had good success with it so why change it? Plus it's pretty affordable for the amount you're getting. Is it dollar store pot scrubbies cheap where you can fill an FX6 for a few bucks? No...but I believe in the claims behind porous media. I believe tray for tray, Matrix, Biohome, Biomax, Substrat Pro and similar sintered media have considerably more capacity than cheap sponges and the like.

But, your question does make me curious...maybe an experiment would be fun.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

You might want to check on this Denitrifying Media information.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Somefishguy said:


> You might want to check on this Denitrifying Media information.


I read this same article some time ago and decided to discount it. As they mentioned, their nitrate levels were in the 160ppm area but, admittedly, without better test equipment, they could not be certain that their readings weren't drifting. The test kits they used are not good at distinguishing such high values and, when diluted, may not be sensitive enough to catch meaningful changes that might be useful at lower levels. For example; would a 10ppm reduction be noticed at their 120-160ppm levels, even when diluted with smaller and smaller measurement changes as dilution increases? However, if our 15ppm NO3 tanks saw a drop of 10ppm, we would consider that mighty dramatic.

Had they run their tests at, say; a consistent contribution to maintain 20ppm levels (meaning no fish or plants and adding known N-NO3 quantities) and used objective, albeit expensive, testing equipment, I would be more inclined to accept the study.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Deanna said:


> I read this same article some time ago and decided to discount it. As they mentioned, their nitrate levels were in the 160ppm area but, admittedly, without better test equipment, they could not be certain that their readings weren't drifting. The test kits they used are not good at distinguishing such high values and, when diluted, may not be sensitive enough to catch meaningful changes that might be useful at lower levels. For example; would a 10ppm reduction be noticed at their 120-160ppm levels, even when diluted with smaller and smaller measurement changes as dilution increases? However, if our 15ppm NO3 tanks saw a drop of 10ppm, we would consider that mighty dramatic.
> 
> Had they run their tests at, say; a consistent contribution to maintain 20ppm levels (meaning no fish or plants and adding known N-NO3 quantities) and used objective, albeit expensive, testing equipment, I would be more inclined to accept the study.


That last part is what I'm considering as an experiment but without the expensive laboratory equipment. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

Deanna said:


> I read this same article some time ago and decided to discount it. As they mentioned, their nitrate levels were in the 160ppm area but, admittedly, without better test equipment, they could not be certain that their readings weren't drifting. The test kits they used are not good at distinguishing such high values and, when diluted, may not be sensitive enough to catch meaningful changes that might be useful at lower levels. For example; would a 10ppm reduction be noticed at their 120-160ppm levels, even when diluted with smaller and smaller measurement changes as dilution increases? However, if our 15ppm NO3 tanks saw a drop of 10ppm, we would consider that mighty dramatic.
> 
> Had they run their tests at, say; a consistent contribution to maintain 20ppm levels (meaning no fish or plants and adding known N-NO3 quantities) and used objective, albeit expensive, testing equipment, I would be more inclined to accept the study.


OK, please post a test that proves this data wrong. Seachem has no data, no test and says itself it not does work. Contact Seachem like thousands have and ask for any proof that ANY of their products do what they say. They have no test anywhere that any of their stuff does what they say, although some medications do work, and Prime does de-chlorinate water. Seachem doesn't even have one patent on any of their products. Why is that? Contact Great Wave Engineering also and they have no test to prove BioHome works. If either did they would the data plastered all over their web site, and they don't. Just sorry to pop so many bubbles, but I fell for the hype also, did my research and learned. Marketing is great. Sorry. Anaerobic information is here.



The author is right about:


*Belief perseverance*, also known as *belief* persistence, is the inability of people to change their own *belief* even upon receiving new information or facts that contradict or refute that *belief*. In other words, *belief perseverance* is the tendency of individuals to hold on to their *beliefs* even when they should not.

OH, I did do a one year test of Matrix. Non planted tank, all fake. Nitrates never went down with over 6 liters of Seachem rocks in the tank. Had to do water changes like everyone.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Somefishguy said:


> OK, please post a test that proves this data wrong.


I don't care a tiny bit about Matrix and if it works like it says or not, but one don't need one's own data set to dismiss the more bold claims on that particular website. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it has good information mixed with strong opinions and highly sus experiments. I don't believe it's the last word on anything.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Somefishguy said:


> OK, please post a test that proves this data wrong. Seachem has no data, no test and says itself it not does work. Contact Seachem like thousands have and ask for any proof that ANY of their products do what they say. They have no test anywhere that any of their stuff does what they say, although some medications do work, and Prime does de-chlorinate water. Seachem doesn't even have one patent on any of their products. Why is that? Contact Great Wave Engineering also and they have no test to prove BioHome works. If either did they would the data plastered all over their web site, and they don't. Just sorry to pop so many bubbles, but I fell for the hype also, did my research and learned. Marketing is great. Sorry. Anaerobic information is here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't countering your “belief persistence” in what any of us might be willing to accept as proving a negative by virtue of not finding personally acceptable data. I was only pointing out the pitfalls of the nominal test in that link. I could counter by asking that you please post a test that proves the linked data right, but I prefer not to challenge, in this way, because credulity is a major issue in all things Internet. In fact, I don't believe that either of those two particular products provide significant de-nitrification ability.



varanidguy said:


> That last part is what I'm considering as an experiment but without the expensive laboratory equipment.


If you decide to do this, you may want to start a thread that would initially seek opinions on how to structure the test and allow everyone to follow the progress. One thing I would add, would be to supply CO2 for any anaerobic bacteria that does develop.


----------



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

Deanna said:


> I could counter by asking that you please post a test that proves the linked data right, but I prefer not to challenge, in this way, because credulity is a major issue in all things Internet.



I did post my data to prove to myself that the media does nothing. The author said that he doubts anyone would run a one year test. Well, I did and he was right.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Somefishguy said:


> I did post my data to prove to myself that the media does nothing. The author said that he doubts anyone would run a one year test. Well, I did and he was right.


Others,here on TPT, have found that de-ntrification works, but it's all anecdotal.

Like anyone, I also have my “belief persistence” attributes. For example, if we look at the home page of aquariumscience.org it asks, at great length, readers to simply have faith in the website because the website claims to be based in science and is founded by someone that claims more knowledge than others in the hobby. Maybe he/she does …who knows? However, my “belief persistence” is going to stay with the likes of 2hraquarist.com, which happens to disagree with aquariumscience.org on many topics, including de-nitrification. I, personally, can’t prove that either site is right or wrong, so I’m left with belief.


----------



## Suntek (Nov 18, 2020)

Fell for the Biohome hype as well, the bloody thing recked my filter flow..


----------



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

Deanna said:


> However, my “belief persistence” is going to stay with the likes of 2hraquarist.com,


Which is a marketing site meant to sell you his own products so he will say anything. What folks don't understand is the the Aquarium Industry is Unregulated. That means the manufactures, marketing sales are allowed to say, print and publish anything they want without any proof or evidence that their product will work or do anything it says. Which is what we see everyday. Sorry that this is happening.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Somefishguy said:


> Which is a marketing site meant to sell you his own products so he will say anything. What folks don't understand is the the Aquarium Industry is Unregulated. That means the manufactures, marketing sales are allowed to say anything they want without any proof or evidence that their product will work or do anything it says. Which is what we see everyday. Sorry that this is happening.


True for all e-tailers that can act merely as distributors/hosts. Amazon is a perfect example.


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Somefishguy said:


> Which is a marketing site meant to sell you his own products so he will say anything. What folks don't understand is the the Aquarium Industry is Unregulated. That means the manufactures, marketing sales are allowed to say, print and publish anything they want without any proof or evidence that their product will work or do anything it says. Which is what we see everyday. Sorry that this is happening.


It looks like the only product he sells is fertilizer and there actually are a lot of regulations for that, though they vary by municipality. 

But just because someone is selling something, it does not follow that they "will say anything". It is definitely something to keep in mind, sure, but they don't automatically lose all credibility just because they also made a product.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Somefishguy said:


> Which is a marketing site meant to sell you his own products so he will say anything. What folks don't understand is the the Aquarium Industry is Unregulated. That means the manufactures, marketing sales are allowed to say, print and publish anything they want without any proof or evidence that their product will work or do anything it says. Which is what we see everyday. Sorry that this is happening.


That's some piss poor logic imo.

I breed and sell reptiles. I often lose sales because I won't give bad information to people, and when they realize what it takes to care for a monitor, they'll sometimes back out. I could easily just say anything and make my $400+ on a single animal, but don't. It's common and good business practice, because reputation means a lot. We don't need ham-fisted government regulations on everything.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> I'm curious: once you get your anaerobic bacteria going, and measure a consistent NO3 reduction, have you ever tried enhancing the de-nitrification with things like vodka, methanol, etc.?


 Good to see you back on the other side, for a moment. 
Well, the bacteria world is crazier than most think. These tiny microbes live in all conditions and convert everything back and forth. One bacteria waste is another bacteria food. They go after all elements and compounds. 

You say methanol? No, I don’t use it, remember the headaches? Well, reef and marine aquarists dose 40% ethanol aka Vodka to boost bacteria metabolism in order to remove more NO3. Vodka is C2H6O, a source of organic carbon some bacteria feed on. In planted aquariums, I think, we may have enough organic carbon from fish waste and plant leak. I have tried ethanol few years ago but didn’t know much about it. Interesting are scientific studies about plants depressing algae and also about plants leaking glucose C6H12O6. It is something to think about because glucose is also source of carbon bacteria feed on. The idea is to boost beneficial bacteria metabolism, quantity and variety in hope to have all organics taken as well. 



> Also, as your NO3 came down, did you note any corresponding drop in KH? I'm wondering if KH might be a confirming indicator of anaerobic bacteria activity, since they should be consuming some of the CO3.


 I wouldn’t know because I have zero KH. Some bacteria consume carbon from carbonate and also from CO2. 

The way I did it is not scientific, it is just for fun. I tried it with three planted aquariums with CO2 injection, 50, 90 and 125 gallon. Dosing daily urea as the only nitrogen addition and stabilized the dosage to have 5 – 10 ppm NO3 in the water. So the dose was completely taken by the plants. Then I added to each aquarium canister filter filled with larger garden lava rocks. There were no canisters before. Gradually, I had to start increasing the dosage in order to have the same NO3 concentration in the water. It had leveled after about two months. In all aquariums, I had to dose 3 – 4 ppm (as NO3) more. Then I removed the canisters and the needed dosage returned back. 



varanidguy said:


> I believe in the claims behind porous media. I believe tray for tray, Matrix, Biohome, Biomax, Substrat Pro and similar sintered media have considerably more capacity than cheap sponges and the like.


 Yes, I think porosity is the key, deep porosity. 


> But, your question does make me curious...maybe an experiment would be fun.


 Absolutely, love experiments. Thanks for the info.



Somefishguy said:


> Anaerobic information is here.


 The article is written by a person predetermined to resist the idea of existence of denitrifying microbes. Sorry but there are thousands of real scientific research papers to prove otherwise.


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

Sponges are excellent bio media for bacteria; so saying you only run with a sponge is like saying your filter is all bio media.

There has been studies (I don't have any references in front of me) that suggest most of the beneficial bacteria is in the filter and not so much the substrate.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> The idea is to boost beneficial bacteria metabolism, quantity and variety in hope to have all organics taken as well.


This is the crux of this entire thread: what medium can best provide this ideal blend.



Edward said:


> Gradually, I had to start increasing the dosage in order to have the same NO3 concentration in the water. It had leveled after about two months. In all aquariums, I had to dose 3 – 4 ppm (as NO3) more. Then I removed the canisters and the needed dosage returned back.


I've been considering changing from my long-standing media-less filter to improve my control over the N stream and, since I've been dosing only urea for a few years anyway, any NO3 reducer would help in this control aspect. Your pointing to the MarinePure in another post (I've ordered the spheres) finalized my decision on this. 

Why change if no problems, you ask? Well, last month I left my lights on overnight after bypassing the timer for tank maintenance and, within a day, GSA exploded. I'm thinking, with no ability to test this theory, that moving much of the BB back to the filter, I may reduce the periphyton on the tank and plant surfaces. Since i believe this is a major base for algae operations, I may be able to further inhibit it. Now, knowing how to quickly re-create GSA, perhaps I can test this in 6 months or so.



jake21 said:


> Sponges are excellent bio media for bacteria; so saying you only run with a sponge is like saying your filter is all bio media.
> 
> There has been studies (I don't have any references in front of me) that suggest most of the beneficial bacteria is in the filter and not so much the substrate.


If you have bio-media in your filter, I also believe this to be true.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> This is the crux of this entire thread: what medium can best provide this ideal blend.


 To get robust and diverse beneficial bacteria in the filter? I am no expert, just trying to put pieces together. I think we need to divide the bacteria needs into two parts. One is what bacteria feed on and the other where want to live. 

As a bacterial diverse community they feed on organic and inorganic elements and compounds. We can supply it with fish food and waste, glucose leaked from plants, CO3 carbonate, macros and micros fertilizers, CO2, ethanol Vodka, glucose dextrose, acetate vinegar. 

Such diverse community wants to live in layers divided by dissolved oxygen levels. What is ideal? I would say larger chunks of porous inert material because they have spaces of gradually lower and lower oxygen concentrations from outside to the core. In contrary smaller, not porous or plastic balls are limited to only high oxygen surfaces. 

Biological filtration can remove organic and inorganic compounds and nitrate. Here is research paper called Performance of Anoxic-Oxic Sequencing Batch Reactor for Nitrification and Aerobic Denitrification. Below are examples:

_*In this chapter, the feasibility of achieving nitrogen removal using a lab-scale biological sequencing batch reactor (SBR) exposed to anoxic/oxic (AN/OX) phases is described in order to attain aerobic denitrification. The SBR was fed with acetate and ammonium sulfate. 

Carbon is not a difficult compound to eliminate by biological processes; on the contrary, one of the most common problems in wastewater treatment plants is the lack of organic carbon to carry out the denitrification process. Particularly, treatment plants with low chemical oxygen demand/nitrogen (COD/N) ratios exhibit difficulties for nitrogen removal due to a shortage of organic substrate [6, 7].

In conclusion, the organic load stimulated strongly the competition by oxygen between heterotrophic and nitrifying bacteria at low DO concentrations.

Therefore, in addition to achieving efficient nitrification, sufficient organic carbon must be supplied for the denitrification process to take place. High oxygen availability permitted to minimize competition by oxygen between heterotrophic and nitrifying bacteria.

It must be considered that a high organic load led to an excessive growth of heterotrophs, which probably involved an intense competition by different growth factors among heterotrophic bacteria.

Anoxic denitrification rates are commonly higher than those obtained under aerobic conditions [57]. 

A lab-scale sequencing batch reactor (SBR) operated with two phases, anoxic and aerobic, achieved complete COD chemical oxygen demand removal.*_



Deanna said:


> Your pointing to the MarinePure in another post (I've ordered the spheres) finalized my decision on this.


 Can’t wait to see your results!


> I'm thinking, with no ability to test this theory, that moving much of the BB back to the filter, I may reduce the periphyton on the tank and plant surfaces. Since i believe this is a major base for algae operations, I may be able to further inhibit it. Now, knowing how to quickly re-create GSA, perhaps I can test this in 6 months or so.


 I expect the periphyton to stay but its composition to change significantly and that should impact algae.


----------



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

Edward said:


> The article is written by a person predetermined to resist the idea of existence of denitrifying microbes. Sorry but there are thousands of real scientific research papers to prove otherwise.



Sure it is possible, just not in an aquarium though. Post your sites that shows how this is done in an aquarium with their tests.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Somefishguy said:


> Sure it is possible, just not in an aquarium though.


 Do you know if it works with saltwater aquariums?


----------



## Somefishguy (Jan 8, 2020)

Edward said:


> Do you know if it works with saltwater aquariums?



Pretty sure the same thing. But most saltwater uses live rock. But I don't know about saltwater...


----------



## Optix (May 31, 2011)

i'm a little confused by the articles linked.

So...if I filled my sump with pot scrubbers...I should expect to eventually get crystal clear water?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> I expect the periphyton to stay but its composition to change significantly and that should impact algae.


My hope, as well. I only wish there was some way to test/verify this. 

Although I generally have no algae issues, it's always fun to see if we can find ways toward more robust approaches to achieve a final set-and-forget-it tank. Please: no laughing! 



Somefishguy said:


> Post your sites that shows how this is done in an aquarium with their tests.


I wanted to alert you to something that may change your opinion of the site you referenced. My intent is to just give you something to consider in case you want to investigate the de-nitrification issue further. Who knows, maybe you’ll become our resident expert on de-nitrification.

The study on the website states that nitrates were “deliberately kept very high, 120 to 240 ppm.” and the author claims that only he did the “scientific experiment with controls.” However, the author seems to have missed a major control point. Could the author have missed the possibility that he had killed all of the bacteria?

High nitrate (nitric acid) removes the buffers in water, causing pH to plunge. Like aerobic bacteria, anaerobic bacteria begin to die below pH of about 7.0. Essentially, NO3 higher than ~100ppm will severely stall the nitrogen cycle as though they had induced an over-the-top “old tank syndrome” environment. So, unless they constantly monitored and maintained pH at optimal levels, they may not have had any de-nitrifying bacteria, let alone not having enough aerobic bacteria (some forms of aerobic bacteria do step in to take-up the slack at low pH levels).

Of course, without the anaerobic bacteria, there is no hope of de-nitrification, but they would also be struggling with ammonia (TAN). However, at such low pH the TAN would be in a fish-safe ammonium form, so the hardy fish that were selected for the NO3 onslaught would have also survived high ammonium levels.

The study makes no mention of controlling or monitoring pH or TAN, which is a major oversight. It may have been a far different outcome had pH been maintained at the optimal minimum of 7.0 and TAN had been monitored. A much lower level of NO3 would also have made it much more realistic, perhaps 60-80ppm. As @Edward mentioned, supplying CO2 as we do with pressurized systems may have further shown anaerobic bacterial activity by supplying carbon.

We do have something of an expert on the subject in @Phil Edwards, who occasionally pops in. You may find these two threads of interest:

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1291505-nitrate-reduction-products.html

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1123306-most-effective-method-nitrate-reduction-methanol-dosing.html


----------



## number1sixerfan (Nov 10, 2006)

jake21 said:


> Sponges are excellent bio media for bacteria; so saying you only run with a sponge is like saying your filter is all bio media.
> 
> There has been studies (I don't have any references in front of me) that suggest most of the beneficial bacteria is in the filter and not so much the substrate.


Agree, and this is why I don't get the point of the overall never ending debate on this topic. I never do. If it's been proven that aquariums can thrive with something as simple as a pot scrubber, why does any of this matter much lol 

There are just so many options that work just fine. I don't doubt at all that some studies may show that more expensive options such as matrix may perform slightly better, but I haven't observed any real world, material difference. (keep in mind, I have matrix in one of my eheims now and have used quite a bit over the years. Not against the stuff, only purchase it when it's on sale/highly discounted)


----------



## ElleDee (May 16, 2020)

Optix said:


> i'm a little confused by the articles linked.
> 
> So...if I filled my sump with pot scrubbers...I should expect to eventually get crystal clear water?


As I understand it, the argument is that nearly all aquarists have hazy water due to excess bacteria/algae/protozoa and this can only be solved with filter media with lots of surface area (20x more than you need for sufficient nitrification) to grown enough biofloc bacteria to outcompete the stuff in your water column and make it clear.

I have a lot of skepticism about that, starting with the claim that unless your water is crystal clear it's unhealthy for fish and going from there. 
@Deanna has done a nice job raising some issues with the "experiment" that is supposed to disprove denitrification, but you could do that with nearly the entire website, at least the parts where it's trying to overturn aquarium orthodoxy. I am always up for new ideas, but I need more details and citations and less condescension. There may be some good ideas in there, but it's too much work to pick them out.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

number1sixerfan said:


> Agree, and this is why I don't get the point of the overall never ending debate on this topic. I never do.


Remember that the OP asked for opinions on what the "best biomedia" is. This is why the debate exists and, for some of us, it is interesting to challenge the pros and cons, as others see them, to help us learn. So, there is a lot of back and forth almost as a pastime. If the OP had asked, as some do, "what biomedia do you use" that type of question usually results in simpler answers.

In fact, as can be found in the thread, many believe that no biomedia is the "best biomedia" to use and you can't get simpler than that. I suspect that we could also just throw an old sock (even before we wash it) into the filter and all would agree that it works just fine.


----------



## jake21 (Aug 11, 2019)

That's the sad thing. The paper i've read show that a simple 30ppi sponge filter will vastly out perform something like bio matrix with regards to efficiency. But in this day and age advertising is king and facts are well not important 




number1sixerfan said:


> Agree, and this is why I don't get the point of the overall never ending debate on this topic. I never do. If it's been proven that aquariums can thrive with something as simple as a pot scrubber, why does any of this matter much lol
> 
> There are just so many options that work just fine. I don't doubt at all that some studies may show that more expensive options such as matrix may perform slightly better, but I haven't observed any real world, material difference. (keep in mind, I have matrix in one of my eheims now and have used quite a bit over the years. Not against the stuff, only purchase it when it's on sale/highly discounted)


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> My hope, as well. I only wish there was some way to test/verify this.


 This doesn’t bother me because there are too many variables involved, who doesn’t like it can ignore it. 

For all I know, denitrifying heterotrophic bacteria live in anaerobic low oxygen space and convert NO3 to N2 when organic carbon is available. That means that the conversion stops when carbon is deficient but that can hardly happen when fish, plants and CO2 injection is present. This is why saltwater aquarists are dosing ethanol while monitoring NO3 drop. They need to boost organic carbon because their protein skimmers remove the organic compounds. We don’t use protein skimmers with planted aquariums so we should have more organic carbon available for the bacteria. Theoretically, the bacteria colony could be used more as organic compound remover than NO3 remover, which is my intention. 

We remember the universal blaming reason for all problems, the “Not enough CO2”? It lasted years. Now we have “organics” to blame. So this is probably the reason why I want to experiment with additional removal of organic compounds. Well, who knows, maybe it will be the right path. 


> Although I generally have no algae issues, it's always fun to see if we can find ways toward more robust approaches to achieve a final set-and-forget-it tank. Please: no laughing!


 Perfectly reasonable!


----------



## number1sixerfan (Nov 10, 2006)

Deanna said:


> Remember that the OP asked for opinions on what the "best biomedia" is. This is why the debate exists and, for some of us, it is interesting to challenge the pros and cons, as others see them, to help us learn. So, there is a lot of back and forth almost as a pastime. If the OP had asked, as some do, "what biomedia do you use" that type of question usually results in simpler answers.
> 
> In fact, as can be found in the thread, many believe that no biomedia is the "best biomedia" to use and you can't get simpler than that. I suspect that we could also just throw an old sock (even before we wash it) into the filter and all would agree that it works just fine.


That was just the title of the thread. Via the context of the actual OP, he's clearly just looking for good bio media and to avoid using something that's overhyped (and more importantly overpriced). The OP then goes on to ask in a cheap solution is viable, so I don't think a scientifically proven 'best' media is a must have for him or her. 

But to your other point, I do understand where you're coming from and I think that's fair.. I just think sometimes the age old conversation can be quite a bit confusing to new hobbyists trying to decipher between what adds real world value and what's needed vs. not, that's why it tends to not be my favorite topic. (not necessarily speaking about this thread, as that's not what's happening)


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

number1sixerfan said:


> That was just the title of the thread. Via the context of the actual OP, he's clearly just looking for good bio media and to avoid using something that's overhyped (and more importantly overpriced). The OP then goes on to ask in a cheap solution is viable, so I don't think a scientifically proven 'best' media is a must have for him or her.
> 
> But to your other point, I do understand where you're coming from and I think that's fair.. I just think sometimes the age old conversation can be quite a bit confusing to new hobbyists trying to decipher between what adds real world value and what's needed vs. not, that's why it tends to not be my favorite topic. (not necessarily speaking about this thread, as that's not what's happening)


Yes, the issue of those wanting more in-depth discussion and those that will lose interest beyond a certain point has been raised many times. The problem/benefit with a public forum is that it does provide the acceptable option to either expand a discussion or simply back out. Recently, there have been concerns about the overall health of forums, like this, given the instant, but shallow, activity on other sites, such as FB pages regarding aquariums. Some want to learn as much as possible and some just want to know what to do. If the OP is of the latter aspect, then the answer was given. However, for those that want to exercise new thoughts about the topic, then they will read on and, hopefully, participate.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

number1sixerfan said:


> That was just the title of the thread. Via the context of the actual OP, he's clearly just looking for good bio media and to avoid using something that's overhyped (and more importantly overpriced). The OP then goes on to ask in a cheap solution is viable, so I don't think a scientifically proven 'best' media is a must have for him or her.


 Hi
I was going to … but this post explains it like no other:


somewhatshocked said:


> Some of y'all have never heard of the search function and it really shows.
> 
> Not meant to be rude but more common sense. Use the search function. Seriously. It is your friend. You'll find thousands of posts when there's something you don't quite understand. Thousands of tank journals. Thousands of in-depth discussions about issues like this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Leeatl (Aug 8, 2015)

To the OP and everyone else that has not read it , here is a great thread on bacteria...https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1045898-matrix-without-seachem.html


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Leeatl said:


> To the OP and everyone else that has not read it , here is a great thread on bacteria...https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1045898-matrix-without-seachem.html


Thanks for that reference, but ...PHEW! ...41 pages! Any chance that either you or @Immortal1 could summarize the results for us?


----------



## Leeatl (Aug 8, 2015)

Yes it is long but a fun read if you have the time . If I remember right the experiment showed that most anything can be bio material and handle high levels of ammonia , even the sides of a bare glass tank . I mmortal1 can tell more than I . I need to reread it myself .


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Leeatl said:


> Yes it is long but a fun read if you have the time . If I remember right the experiment showed that most anything can be bio material and handle high levels of ammonia , even the sides of a bare glass tank . I mmortal1 can tell more than I . I need to reread it myself .


OK. Coincidentally, there is a discussion about this going on at https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8-general-planted-tank-discussion/1314347-biological-filtration-survey-2.html#post11385895. I did see part of it where @Immortal1 seemed to have found that pumice was significantly better than Matrix, but that may have been an early result.

I just received an order of MarinePure media that was recommended by @Edward for de-ntrification. I opted for the 1.5” spheres. They are more like pumice than either the Matrix or Biohome Ultimate. I cut all three in half and the Matrix and Biohome appear to have very little, if any, visible porosity in their centers. However, the MarinePure has the same apparent porosity throughout, as is evident on their surface.

In my case, I am more interested in them for anaerobic BB activity, but their surfaces will certainly develop aerobic BB. I would expect that both the Matrix and Biohome would be better for aerobic activity pound-for-pound simply because they are smaller (which adds up to more surface area). However, as you may see if you look at the other site I just mentioned, I’m not sure that there is really that much necessary aerobic BB activity anyway. I’m going to string these spheres together, like popcorn on a string (a long needle will penetrate them), and hang them in the back corner of the tank, behind the plants, rather than putting them in the filter. I may even bury some of them 1/2-3/4 into the substrate.


----------



## latchdan (Sep 7, 2007)

https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1045898-matrix-without-seachem-21.html#post9364066
This is a old post years ago it test a bunch of bio media started with matrix and just pumis and evolved into using no media and still having bio filtration in a empty tank and empty filter.

Might be worth looking into

Looks like someone linked this already


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Leeatl said:


> Yes it is long but a fun read if you have the time . If I remember right the experiment showed that most anything can be bio material and handle high levels of ammonia , even the sides of a bare glass tank . I mmortal1 can tell more than I . I need to reread it myself .


 Ah yes, that was a fun / interesting summer of learning. And you are correct, most any surface can host BB. Some surfaces hose more than others as expected. The original purpose of the test was to compare Matrix with industrially available pumice. The results pretty much showed the 2 materials were pretty similar in the amount of BB that could be supported. Good old plastic BioBalls did OK, but were not as good as the various Bio Medias. The big winner was the simple sponge filter. I was amazed at how much BB the little sponge could hold and, in turn, how much ammonia it could process in a 24 hour period.


What I didn't test, and kinda wish I would have, is how well a course sponge holds BB. I say this as typically with my various canister filters I rinse out the smooth ceramic rings and course sponge filters in un-treated tap water. The filter floss gets pitched and replaced. The one thing I don't do much with is the Eheim BioMech and the Eheim Substrat Pro. Both of these items are at the very end of the filtration process. So far, I have not been able to document much, if any increase in ammonia after a filter servicing.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Immortal1 said:


> Ah yes, that was a fun / interesting summer of learning. And you are correct, most any surface can host BB. Some surfaces hose more than others as expected. The original purpose of the test was to compare Matrix with industrially available pumice. The results pretty much showed the 2 materials were pretty similar in the amount of BB that could be supported. Good old plastic BioBalls did OK, but were not as good as the various Bio Medias. The big winner was the simple sponge filter. I was amazed at how much BB the little sponge could hold and, in turn, how much ammonia it could process in a 24 hour period.


Looks, to me, like a well-designed experiment. For aerobic BB, the sponge probably wins simply as a function of having more surface area. Plastic bioballs have smooth surfaces (no pores to increase surface area), leaving the more intricate surfaces of other biomedia with more surface area.



Immortal1 said:


> I say this as typically with my various canister filters I rinse out the smooth ceramic rings and course sponge filters in un-treated tap water. The filter floss gets pitched and replaced. So far, I have not been able to document much, if any increase in ammonia after a filter servicing.


- Why are you using ceramic rings when you have the sponge? 
- I suspect that the lack of an ammonia increase following filter cleaning is because there just isn't as much BB activity in our filters as we typically think there is. Your test had only the tank walls for BB development, with no plants or substrate BB to remove the ammonia. I think that even Seachem recognized this when they dramatically reduced their recommended quantity to use for Matrix several years ago, which also made Matrix appear to be less expensive than before.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Immortal1 said:


> The big winner was the simple sponge filter. I was amazed at how much BB the little sponge could hold and, in turn, how much ammonia it could process in a 24 hour period.


 Nice experiment!
Are you going to do the other half of beneficial bacteria biological filtration? The denitrification part?


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Edward said:


> Nice experiment!
> Are you going to do the other half of beneficial bacteria biological filtration? The denitrification part?


Would have to say - no. Barely have time to take care of my 3 tanks let alone any more tanks. 

LOL, sitting here looking at my tank I think the next experiment is to see just how fast I can grow Rotala Bronze. I swear it is growing more than 1" per day.

Bump:


Deanna said:


> Looks, to me, like a well-designed experiment. For aerobic BB, the sponge probably wins simply as a function of having more surface area. Plastic bioballs have smooth surfaces (no pores to increase surface area), leaving the more intricate surfaces of other biomedia with more surface area.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On my Eheim Pro 4 Model 350 I replaced the upper course sponge with smooth ceramic rings https://eheim.com/en_GB/aquatics/filter-media/mechanical/mech/mech-840g to provide course filtering. Cleaner water then goes down to the bottom of the filter and up thru 2 different pore size sponge filters, the BioMech, Substrat Pro and filter floss. This arrangement seems to provide more consistent flow and crystal clear water. The original course sponge filter in the top tray seemed to get excessively dirty in a rather short time.


In the Fluval FX4, the very bottom has some smooth ceramic rings for the same reason - keep the chunks out of the course filters.


----------



## Karley (Jun 16, 2020)

I'm not sure if this anecdote will be useful to the conversation at this point, but the post about having a white haze after changes was mine. After reading the material @Somefishguy posted, I decided the surface area figures were convincing enough to replace the ceramic rings and plastic balls with 30ppi foam. I like the idea of the pot scrubbers being cheap and accessible, but I already had the foam on hand. It's only been a couple weeks, so I can't speak to how quickly they get clogged or long term performance, but I got the result I was going for: when I did a top off, I did not experience that bacterial bloom/white haze. My water stayed crystal clear upon addition of the treated tap water and has remained crystal clear.

The plastic balls came with this filter (Marineland® Magniflow C220 Canister Filter) and the ceramic rings were from an established filter that I used to "seed" this one during the ultimate catastrophe: a leaking tank full of fish. I was able to salvage most of the water, reuse the substrate when setting up the new tank, and managed to make it through without losing any fish, though several of my plants intensely resented the disruption and melted. 

I also use foam pads in my little betta tank. I rarely service his tank, and that water is also always crystal clear.

Which is all to say, I can't claim that the foam pads are the penultimate in filtration media, but I'm happy with their performance in my tanks. I'm able to enjoy beautiful water and maintain stable parameters for my little fishies, so I'm content with this solution in my set up.


----------



## Optix (May 31, 2011)

swapped out my filter media Dec 1st for pot scrubbers. I rinsed them in tap water.

..so far...have had a green water explosion. But I'm patient...so just going to continue the course and give it at least 120 days (plan to evaluate by my birthday in April) becuase it makes it easy to remember


----------

