# seachem matrix bio best ?



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

just came across their website and saw them stated 

" BET surface area measurements indicate that Matrix™ contains nearly 10 times the specific surface area of Substrat Pro, and more than 20 times the specific surface area of MicroMec. " 

and 

"Matrix contains between 4 to 4.5 times the biologically active surface area of Substrat Pro, and between 8 to 9 times the biologically active surface area of MicroMec."

does that mean matrix have more bio surface area than substrat pro and micromec ?


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

That is what they're saying.


----------



## ChadRamsey (Nov 3, 2011)

i was given a can of it and use it in my FX5. that stuff is NOT cheap.

I also use lava rock in the same filter. That has a TON of surface area. I like using it. 

If the Martix wasnt given to me i would have NEVR paid for it.


----------



## bradlgt21 (Mar 24, 2010)

Matrix isn't that bad. I bought a big container of it from Kensfish for not to bad of a price. The only thing I don't like about Matrix is they are large, they are like rocks. Works fine for cannister filters but stuffing my aquaclear with it isn't as easy.


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

agreed that they are like rocks . sandy too !


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

ChadRamsey said:


> i was given a can of it and use it in my FX5. that stuff is NOT cheap.
> 
> I also use lava rock in the same filter. That has a TON of surface area. I like using it.
> 
> If the Martix wasnt given to me i would have NEVR paid for it.


matrix is cheaper than substrat pro


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

Matrix is great, and being its inert you can use it practically forever, with that said $25- for 4 liters is cheap in my opinion. The biological function of a filter, and tank is #1 it's worth investing in


----------



## blink (Feb 22, 2012)

bradlgt21 said:


> Matrix isn't that bad. I bought a big container of it from Kensfish for not to bad of a price. The only thing I don't like about Matrix is they are large, they are like rocks. Works fine for cannister filters but stuffing my aquaclear with it isn't as easy.


They also make denitrate which is much smaller and functions mostly the same, it supposedly helps reduce nitrates but only if it's used in a low flow application (under 50gph iirc). Much easier to jam into a HOB filter.

I love my Matrix, I don't have any way to prove that it works better than any other bio media but it works well enough. Plus it doesn't seem to stain like some other bio media does which makes it easier to tell when it's actually needing a rinse.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

Matrix is just pumice stone. Get some bulk pumice and your laughing if you want Matrix without the price tag.


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

jcgd said:


> Matrix is just pumice stone. Get some bulk pumice and your laughing if you want Matrix without the price tag.


I had no idea!


----------



## lochaber (Jan 23, 2012)

huh, I haven't seen it in person yet, but the pics I pulled up on google image do look a lot like pumice...

You can get a bag for a couple dollars in garden centers and such. Not real sure what they use it for (maybe similar to perlite and such).


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Well, isn't it interesting - lol. I also Googled "bulk pumice stone", and sure enough it looks just like Matrix. So then I Googled "Matrix pumice" and found another forum conversation where the same thing was said. That certainly explains the dust! Plus they both float - another giveaway.

So I have 2 questions; (sorry for the thread hijack!) Plain old pumice from a garden center should be aquarium safe if there are no additives listed on the bag, right? Also, since it's pores will harbor nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria, why can't it be used in the substrate? Like placing a layer under MGOCPM, or Black Diamond? If whatever is over the pumice is a thick enough layer, the pumice still wouldn't show after all the smaller particles of the other material fell though the gaps. Or would that be so deep anaerobic problems could start? Just a thought for increasing nitrifying and denitrifying surface area, I don't see why it has to be in a filter to work...(my apologies again, OP, for the derailment)


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

anaerobic problems. It needs a richer source of oxygen which it's not going to get inside the tank or in the substrate. Yeah matrix is pumice stone. Old volcanic rock.


----------



## ChadRamsey (Nov 3, 2011)

youdontknowme said:


> matrix is cheaper than substrat pro


 
for UNDER $3, at your local home improvement supplier, you can get a 25# bag of small lava rock. Just rinse and use. And you will have enough there for 10 FX5s:hihi:


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

CrypticLifeStyle said:


> anaerobic problems. It needs a richer source of oxygen which it's not going to get inside the tank or in the substrate. Yeah matrix is pumice stone. Old volcanic rock.


Thanks - I'll stick to putting it behind my Mattenfilters. 

Any opinions on what is better - pumice stone or lava rock? I would think the lava rock, having larger "pores", would collect mulm & detritus more easily. But lava rock leaches iron (desirable to me) into the water as I understand it, so I would still use it to tie my anubias and java ferns to (or perhaps it contains iron that the roots can access - I can't remember).

So I will put pumice stone in the filters, and lava rock attached to water column feeding plants. Sounds good?


----------



## In.a.Box (Dec 8, 2011)

ChadRamsey said:


> for UNDER $3, at your local home improvement supplier, you can get a 25# bag of small lava rock. Just rinse and use. And you will have enough there for 10 FX5s:hihi:


I can only find the 7lb for $4 at homedepot.
Maybe its a reason thing.


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

driftwoodhunter said:


> Thanks - I'll stick to putting it behind my Mattenfilters.
> 
> Any opinions on what is better - pumice stone or lava rock? I would think the lava rock, having larger "pores", would collect mulm & detritus more easily. But lava rock leaches iron (desirable to me) into the water as I understand it, so I would still use it to tie my anubias and java ferns to (or perhaps it contains iron that the roots can access - I can't remember).
> 
> So I will put pumice stone in the filters, and lava rock attached to water column feeding plants. Sounds good?


Well though pumice stone is volcanic, it's just another form of volcanic rock, that makes it different in mineral make up, and how it was formed then what we typically think of with the other lava rock which is more red in color. Pumice stone in the filter yeah, red lava rock in the tank, sure. I know a lot of people will even put the red lava rock in their media baskets in their canisters. But i think i red somewhere once if your co2 injecting, it can make the lava rock leach a lot of iron out. Maybe something to check into on how much that is.


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

Plastic scrubbies are the best bang for the buck in terms of bio-media, that and they don't clog up very easily.


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

TexasCichlid said:


> Plastic scrubbies are the best bang for the buck in terms of bio-media, that and they don't clog up very easily.


Do they have more surface area than pumice or lava rock?


----------



## cichnatic (Oct 16, 2012)

Scrubbies have way more surface area for bacteria to grow compare to pumice or lava rocks.


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

" The first positive impression we had of Matrix was how quickly it cycled. In our new planted tank with ADA Aquasoil, we achieved zero levels of free ammonia from day 5. When using Substrat Pro, we averaged about 14 days and with Bio Rio, about 10 days. "

seems convincing from where it is quoted and the claims by seachem 

quoted from : 
http://theaquaticgazette.com/2012/03/08/seachem-matrix/


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

I found that article too, when researching Matrix - I thought it was interesting.


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

driftwoodhunter said:


> I found that article too, when researching Matrix - I thought it was interesting.


it is isn't it ? :biggrin:


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm the middle of the road for scrubbies. Sure they work well too, but what has always concerned me is how well does it retain bacteria to repopulate after cleaning them over matrix. I also feel matrix allows better flow even after buildup, and I'm big on flow.


----------



## acitydweller (Dec 28, 2011)

This is just a porous media material that holds up under water. There are plenty of alternatives so YMMV


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

CrypticLifeStyle said:


> I'm the middle of the road for scrubbies. Sure they work well too, but what has always concerned me is how well does it retain bacteria to repopulate after cleaning them over matrix. I also feel matrix allows better flow even after buildup, and I'm big on flow.


scrubbies will definitely work well . but i believe that matrix will not build up as quickly as scrubbies and if you have high bioload , matrix will definitely work even better IMO . :icon_smil


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

If you have a planted tank, buying ultra quality bio media is not really required. Your plants and high CEC substrate help with that a lot. Where good quality bio-media is really needed is with overstocked tanks and messy fish with no plants.

Here is what I use for reference.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?88677-Beginners-Guide-to-Filter-Media


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Well, my Google Chrome blocked my access to page two, saying there was a known malware distributing source on it, and it could infect my computer! (www.momo(something) koi.com I can't remember what it was exactly). But I did read all of page one, which was interesting. I have high bioloads so I'll stick to pumice/Matrix. And I'll take Chrome's advice & skip the rest...


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

driftwoodhunter said:


> Well, my Google Chrome blocked my access to page two, saying there was a known malware distributing source on it, and it could infect my computer! (www.momo(something) koi.com I can't remember what it was exactly). But I did read all of page one, which was interesting. I have high bioloads so I'll stick to pumice/Matrix. And I'll take Chrome's advice & skip the rest...


Yah I am guessing someone linked to a picture from there. Page 3 was fine for me but the bulk of the info is one page 1. Looking at your tanks, I'm not seeing very high bioloads nor messy fish, but you can't go wrong with Matrix either way.


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

driftwoodhunter said:


> Well, my Google Chrome blocked my access to page two, saying there was a known malware distributing source on it, and it could infect my computer! (www.momo(something) koi.com I can't remember what it was exactly). But I did read all of page one, which was interesting. I have high bioloads so I'll stick to pumice/Matrix. And I'll take Chrome's advice & skip the rest...


if you have high bioloads and have the cash to spend on biomedias , go for matrix and you wont be wrong :hihi:


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

That's interesting that you would say that about my tanks - I never have been able to figure out how to judge bioloads. But I have so-so filtration on my 125 (never have been able to figure out how the Mattenfilter rates. My HOB is only rated for an 80g tank, I think. I have 98 actual gallons) and very light planting so far, so the Matrix will help in the meantime while I slowly beef up the plant ratio. I won't bother with more details as I don't want to derail the thread...


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

youdontknowme said:


> if you have high bioloads and have the cash to spend on biomedias , go for matrix and you wont be wrong :hihi:


I was lucky to get a 4L tub on Black Friday at 60% off and free shipping. Since I'd heard so much about Matrix, I wanted to try it. Now that I know it's only pumice stone, I'm going to be on the hunt for that at the home improvement/pond/farm stores...


----------



## exv152 (Jun 8, 2009)

Matrix is the best de-nitrifying bio media. If you have high NO3 it's probably a good idea, but so are water changes. Whatever gets your planted tank NO3 spec to around 20ppm is good; be it substratpro, lava rock, micromec etc.


----------



## Jnad (Aug 17, 2012)

I have used Matrix in a canister filter as the only filtering media in a reef tank over a longer period with succsess, this tank did not have a proteinskimmer either. The Matrix did the filtering all alone, i did not have any nitrate in this tank when Matrix was used. If i wanted the best possible filter media, i would go for Matrix once again.

Jnad


----------



## hbosman (Oct 5, 2006)

What I wonder about is, pumice or Matrix has small pores. After awhile, it appears to me that the pores are all covered with bio film. Doesn't that nullify the effectiveness of the pores? I could imagine that Matrix is effective when new and clean. But, what about 3 months from now? In three months, wouldn't sponges, lava rock, plastic hair curlers be just as effective?


----------



## exv152 (Jun 8, 2009)

hbosman said:


> What I wonder about is, pumice or Matrix has small pores. After awhile, it appears to me that the pores are all covered with bio film. Doesn't that nullify the effectiveness of the pores? I could imagine that Matrix is effective when new and clean. But, what about 3 months from now? In three months, wouldn't sponges, lava rock, plastic hair curlers be just as effective?


Seachem claims it does not need to be replaced because the pores are naturally too small for organics to clog, but large enough to be washed to have the old bacteria remains removed. I think it can be rinsed and boiled (several times) to be rendered reusable. I would just avoid the use of any products because of the highly porous nature of pumice stone.


----------



## hbosman (Oct 5, 2006)

exv152 said:


> Seachem claims it does not need to be replaced because the pores are naturally too small for organics to clog, but large enough to be washed to have the old bacteria remains removed. I think it can be rinsed and boiled (several times) to be rendered reusable. I would just avoid the use of any products because of the highly porous nature of pumice stone.


I wonder on its cost effectiveness, I'm guessing it won't be better than anything else in a few months. If pumice is cheap enough though, you could simply toss and replace like filter floss.


----------



## exv152 (Jun 8, 2009)

hbosman said:


> I wonder on its cost effectiveness, I'm guessing it won't be better than anything else in a few months. If pumice is cheap enough though, you could simply toss and replace like filter floss.


If washed thoroughly I doubt all the internal suface areas will be blocked. Making it still better than say plastic bio-media which is limited to surface area only. Costwise, if you can reuse the stuff again and again, it's a great buy. For those living near volcano active regions you can pickup pumice stone for free. Can't beat that for cost effectiveness


----------



## hbosman (Oct 5, 2006)

exv152 said:


> If washed thoroughly I doubt all the internal suface areas will be blocked. Making it still better than say plastic bio-media which is limited to surface area only. Costwise, if you can reuse the stuff again and again, it's a great buy. For those living near volcano active regions you can pickup pumice stone for free. Can't beat that for cost effectiveness


I'll have to see how much pumice costs at Lowes and Home Depot, no volcanoes in Northern Virginia. :icon_wink
I want the option of tossing it if it looks to dirty.


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

exv152 said:


> Matrix is the best *de-nitrifying bio media*. If you have high NO3 it's probably a good idea, but so are water changes. Whatever gets your planted tank NO3 spec to around 20ppm is good; be it substratpro, lava rock, micromec etc.


I just want to make sure that you meant denitrification in your post.

How is this media achieving localized anaerobic spots within a filter with so much water movement?


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

exv152 said:


> Seachem claims it does not need to be replaced because the pores are naturally too small for organics to clog, but large enough to be washed to have the old bacteria remains removed. I think it can be rinsed and boiled (several times) to be rendered reusable. I would just avoid the use of any products because of the highly porous nature of pumice stone.


Would you have to boil it? I thought you would just rinse it in tank water (like I would my Mattenfilter) to get rid of any detritus build up?


----------



## lipadj46 (Apr 6, 2011)

driftwoodhunter said:


> Now that I know it's only pumice stone, I'm going to be on the hunt for that at the home improvement/pond/farm stores...


Matrix is a man made expanded media and not pumice.






Darkblade48 said:


> How is this media achieving localized anaerobic spots within a filter with so much water movement?


It doesn't 

sent from an undisclosed location using morse code


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

driftwoodhunter said:


> Would you have to boil it? I thought you would just rinse it in tank water (like I would my Mattenfilter) to get rid of any detritus build up?


You dont have to boil it . Just rinse the matrix thoroughly in tank water and it will be as good as new and the effectiveness wouldn't decrease. Also, seachem have claimed it does not need replacement at all, since its natural stone, it will not breakdown like other biedia example " biohome " or ceramic rings or substray pro, getting smaller and smaller . Personally, i find that seachem makes great stuff like purigen, prime, excel, fluorish and so on.. :drool:


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

Darkblade48 said:


> I just want to make sure that you meant denitrification in your post.
> 
> How is this media achieving localized anaerobic spots within a filter with so much water movement?


You have to have low flow rate to grow anaeroboc


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

lipadj46 said:


> Matrix is a man made expanded media and not pumice.
> 
> Its natural stone not man made. http://www.seachem.com/support/forums/showthread.php?t=3879


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

lipadj46 said:


> It doesn't





youdontknowme said:


> You have to have low flow rate to grow anaeroboc


As I suspected, I think exv152 meant nitrification and not denitrification 

I was just looking for clarification.


----------



## driftwoodhunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Anthony, can you please tell me the difference between nitrification and denitrification? I know I have links that explain this somewhere, but I am feeling so yucky after being out in the cold today that I can't think straight. For the life of me I can't remember what denitrification is...thanks!

PS - congrats again on moderator, in case people haven't noticed!


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

driftwoodhunter said:


> Anthony, can you please tell me the difference between nitrification and denitrification? I know I have links that explain this somewhere, but I am feeling so yucky after being out in the cold today that I can't think straight. For the life of me I can't remember what denitrification is...thanks!
> 
> PS - congrats again on moderator, in case people haven't noticed!


Nitrification is the process of converting ammonia to nitrates, and requires an aerobic environment.

Denitrification is the reverse process; converting from nitrates to nitrogen gas. 

That is the general gist of things. There are some bacteria that can carry out more/less steps of each pathway and/or carry the process further (i.e. all the way to nitrogen gas rather than just nitrite, etc).

Also, thank you for your kind words. I look forward to making TPT an enjoyable experience for everyone.


----------



## exv152 (Jun 8, 2009)

I just looked up the matrix product description on seachem's website, and they claim:

_"...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. "http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/Matrix.html_​


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

exv152 said:


> I just looked up the matrix product description on seachem's website, and they claim:
> 
> _"...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. "http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/Matrix.html_​


What an interesting claim; I just don't see how this is possible...

Time to e-mail Seachem support


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

Darkblade48 said:


> What an interesting claim; I just don't see how this is possible...
> 
> Time to e-mail Seachem support


Its possible. There is anoxic zones in the media. Where there is deplete of oxygen, thus allowing anaerobic bacteria to grow. Aerobic bacteria ( not sure how to spell ) will be on the outer side of the pores, consuming oxygen. That is why deep inside the pores, there is lack of oxygen.


----------



## kevmo911 (Sep 24, 2010)

I'm hesitant to point this out, as I have no interest in starting another argument about the necessity of bio-media, but because nobody has mentioned it (or I missed it), and cost seems to be a factor in this thread...

Many of us have gone the route of zero bio-media and have perfectly happy plants and fish. While there are a couple valid reasons to use bio-media in a filter, there's plenty of surface area for bacteria to colonize on without adding volcanic rock to the filtration process. Remember, also, that mech-media is *also* bio-media, without exception. Adding bio-media will not increase the amount of beneficial bacteria in the system. It will only provide an area of higher concentration of bb.

Again, there are a couple valid arguments for bio-media, and there are similarly valid arguments to the contrary. Good luck with whatever you decide!


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

youdontknowme said:


> Its possible. There is anoxic zones in the media. Where there is deplete of oxygen, thus allowing anaerobic bacteria to grow. Aerobic bacteria ( not sure how to spell ) will be on the outer side of the pores, consuming oxygen. That is why deep inside the pores, there is lack of oxygen.


Yes, I was thinking the same thing; somehow, the media must create localized anaerobic spots for denitrification to occur.

However, what would be the purpose (if anaerobic bacteria truly are present)? Denitrification would take the nitrates that are produced by the aerobic bacteria, and convert back to nitrites...which are then converted back to nitrates by the aerobic bacteria.

On top of this, the aerobic bacteria would be much in excess compared to the anaerobic bacteria, meaning nitrification would be *very* favoured.


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

This whole pumice talk made me research its debate the last couple days, and I can't find any evidence it'd the same as matrix. There's a lot of suspect it is, and a lot of visual similarity's but if you put it under a microscope it is different. No one really has a technical true answer to what it really is from my readings.


----------



## youdontknowme (Jan 17, 2013)

CrypticLifeStyle said:


> This whole pumice talk made me research its debate the last couple days, and I can't find any evidence it'd the same as matrix. There's a lot of suspect it is, and a lot of visual similarity's but if you put it under a microscope it is different. No one really has a technical true answer to what it really is from my readings.


totally agree with you  although it looks similar , it doesnt mean it is the exact same .


----------



## Rob in Puyallup (Jul 2, 2009)

I agree, it looks nothing like the pumice that we find around here from Mt St Helens. 

Perhaps it's similar to rockwool. A mineral that's melted then spun in the cooling process? 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)

To further fuel this discussion currently in my FX5 from top to bottom I have filter floss (walmart quilt batting), ring two (Pumice- BBQ grill scrubbers broken into inch pieces) ring three same as ring two. This same set up I use on my fluval 205 for my 29 gallon. I run zero chem and when i clean the filters I rinse tray two one month then tray 3 the following. BBQ scrubbers are 100% pumice, little dusty but a whole box of them i believe was like 10 bucks and filled one whole tray in my FX5.
But to field the question about zero oxygen zones, I would say that since pumice and matrix has pores that pass completely through it, wouldn't it require collection of debris on both sides of the pore to creat this dead zone?


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)

CrypticLifestyle, I will find that answer out for you tomorrow night in my Chemlab class, I will take one piece of Matrix and one BBq scrubber into lab class with me and examine it and hopefully photograph it adnd I will post the findings here, I might be able to get some grad students to chem analize it for us too.


----------



## exv152 (Jun 8, 2009)

Darkblade48 said:


> Yes, I was thinking the same thing; somehow, the media must create localized anaerobic spots for denitrification to occur.
> 
> However, what would be the purpose (if anaerobic bacteria truly are present)? Denitrification would take the nitrates that are produced by the aerobic bacteria, and convert back to nitrites...which are then converted back to nitrates by the aerobic bacteria.
> 
> On top of this, the aerobic bacteria would be much in excess compared to the anaerobic bacteria, meaning nitrification would be *very* favoured.


I think, and I'm not an expert by any means, the actual process in denitrification involves bacteria reducing nitrates to nitrites, and then reducing that to two things; nitrogen gas and ammonia. The part that's converted back to ammonia will get used again by the bb, but the part turned into nitrogen gas is not usable and is lost to the atmosphere.


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

VAtanks said:


> CrypticLifestyle, I will find that answer out for you tomorrow night in my Chemlab class, I will take one piece of Matrix and one BBq scrubber into lab class with me and examine it and hopefully photograph it adnd I will post the findings here, *I might be able to get some grad students to chem analize it for us too*.


I'll be waiting for mass spectrometry results then. But seriously, I don't think you'll find many helpful graduate students, trust me, I know from experience. I was one of them :flick:



exv152 said:


> I think, and I'm not an expert by any means, the actual process in denitrification involves bacteria reducing nitrates to nitrites, and then reducing that to two things; nitrogen gas and ammonia. The part that's converted back to ammonia will get used again by the bb, but the part turned into nitrogen gas is not usable and is lost to the atmosphere.


Neither am I, my research had nothing to do with soil bacteria 

A quick search on Pubmed reveals that denitrification generally involves bacteria reducing nitrates to nitrogen through the nitrite intermediary. There are some bacteria that just leave it at the nitrite step (meaning it would be available for beneficial bacteria), while some take it all the way to nitrogen gas. 

While direct reduction to ammonium from nitrates is possible, apparently it is rarer than going through the nitrite intermediate.

I still find it hard to believe that an anaerobic environment could exist in a canister filter with good flow and porous media. Now, if it were a plenum, I could see it happening.


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)

*Pictures easier than typing*


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)




----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

Those images show that the process referred to as denitrification reduces nitrates to nitrous oxide (through nitrite) and/or nitrogen gas.

Direct reduction of nitrates to ammonium (ammonia) is done by a process known as "Dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA)"

Here is some good reading for more information regarding DNRA.



> Sgouridis F, Heppell CM, Wharton G, Lansdown K, Trimmer M. Denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) in a temperate re-connected floodplain. Water Res. 2011 Oct 15;45(16):4909-22. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.06.037. Epub 2011 Jul 8.
> 
> Nizzoli D, Carraro E, Nigro V, Viaroli P. Effect of organic enrichment and thermal regime on denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) in hypolimnetic sediments of two lowland lakes. Water Res. 2010 May;44(9):2715-24. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.02.002. Epub 2010 Feb 7.


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)

So basically the end result would be N2 in a crystaline form at the soil/water contact point as a result of DNRA? I did find a few more articles one from a text book from 07, still relavant though
Biogeochemistry
January 2008, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 99-111
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10533-007-9171-6?LI=true

Good job Dark, I happen to have gotten into fish tanks not for their beauty but for the science...thanks for fanning the flame.


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

VAtanks said:


> So basically the end result would be N2 in a crystaline form at the soil/water contact point as a result of DNRA? I did find a few more articles one from a text book from 07, still relavant though
> Biogeochemistry
> January 2008, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 99-111
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10533-007-9171-6?LI=true
> ...


Nitrogen is not crystalline, nor is it the end product of DNRA. The end result of DNRA is ammonia/ammonium, depending on pH.

Regarding your link to the article (not a textbook), it points out that "the importance of DNRA in freshwater sediments appears to be minor relative to DNF."

As I previously mentioned, DNRA is probably rarer than denitrification.


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)

Physics major/Engineer...so chem baffles me. Is DNRA bacterial related or is it just a natural chemical reaction based on water conditions?


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)

Seems its strictly bacterial related only and only in an anaerobic environment specifically pseudomonas and clostridium bacteria. which brings us back to the zero air zone in the matrix, but my follow on question would be, if this is naturally occuring in nature has it been established in a tank? would seem to me outside of trace elements needing to be refreshed would almost eliminate the need for water changes?:icon_ques


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

VAtanks said:


> Physics major/Engineer...so chem baffles me. Is DNRA bacterial related or is it just a natural chemical reaction based on water conditions?


As you mentioned below, it is bacterial mediated. It occurs in facultative aerobic bacteria, so it really only occurs in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic bacteria).



VAtanks said:


> ...my follow on question would be, if this is naturally occuring in nature has it been established in a tank? would seem to me outside of trace elements needing to be refreshed would almost eliminate the need for water changes?:icon_ques


For your second question, it is a very difficult one 

Some things that happen in test conditions, do not necessarily happen in nature, and vice versa. On top of that, since nature is not controllable, it makes things even more complicated.

As I mentioned, DNRA is much less common than denitrification. The amounts of ammonia/ammonium being produced would be much less than nitrites/nitrous oxides that would be produced through the denitrification pathway.

So, let's assume that nitrites are being produced; the amount of it being produced would be dependent on the number of facultative aerobic bacteria, which would be in turn based on the amount of anaerobic space there is in the Matrix biomedia (assuming it exists). This surface area would be greatly outmatched by the surface area that exists in aerobic conditions, so nitrification (production of nitrates) would be much more favoured.

With nitrates being produced, water changes will be required (assuming you do not have a planted aquarium whereby plants are uptaking nitrates...).

To my knowledge, in reef aquariums, the production of nitrates is slowed down through the addition/construction of a plenum.


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

VAtanks said:


> CrypticLifestyle, I will find that answer out for you tomorrow night in my Chemlab class, I will take one piece of Matrix and one BBq scrubber into lab class with me and examine it and hopefully photograph it adnd I will post the findings here, I might be able to get some grad students to chem analize it for us too.


That would be awesome. This has been of much great debate. Some solid scientific answers to a degree will open up some of the mystery.


----------



## VAtanks (Feb 1, 2013)

Unfortunately I am not able to tell, both are silica based but since pumice has such a huge range between 78ish percent all the way to about 89 percent. I can not tell, at this point I couldnt even difinitively say my BBQ grill scrubbers are pumice.:confused1: and am considering removing them. The only thing I can say for sure is the channels or pores under microscope are very similar. El cheapo microscope though so at this point my two samples are in the hands of a geologist adjunct professor. It was suggested I heat both samples to about 800 degrees and if they flow then they do belong to the glass family of compounds.....but that wouldn't answer is Matrix pumice....


----------



## lochaber (Jan 23, 2012)

VAtanks said:


> The only thing I can say for sure is the channels or pores under microscope are very similar.



I would think this would be the important part for it's purpose as biomedia. Even if it isn't exactly pumice, if it is similar enough, then people could probably get similar results using much cheaper horticultural pumice.


----------



## hitmanx (Jun 24, 2012)

3 years to the day and I am still on the edge of my seat!

Did you ever end up melting the samples?


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

Why not just ordinary perlite which you can get from nearly any nursery?
It is cheap enough to discard, and you can throw it out into your garden when done, where it will help aerate your soil.


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

From the Seachem support forums when asked if Matrix is just cleaned and sterilized pumice.



> Re: Matrix vs Pumice
> 
> 
> This isn’t the first time we’ve been asked this question. The short answer is you know what you are getting with Matrix: it has been tested and proven to work well as a biomedia. We’ve tried to find a better biomedia and so far have been unable to. With garden center pumice, you have no guarantee about whether or not it will support denitrifying bacteria or whether it will affect pH or leach anything into the tank.


So, according to Seachem, Matrix is "specially selected, graded and cleaned pumice"

The entire reply with a full explanation is here Seachem Support Forums - Matrix vs Pumice


----------



## SwissCheeseHead (Dec 24, 2014)

Kubla said:


> From the Seachem support forums when asked if Matrix is just cleaned and sterilized pumice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's one of the most "yes it is but I'm not going to tell you it is" responses I've ever heard lol.


----------



## Zaki (Jan 27, 2015)

Greetings..

Three years old thread.. Still interesting..

VATanks.. Are you still there..?
Am -still- Waiting for your analysis on both the Seachem Matrix Vs Pumice..

Have you done the Spectroscopic comparisons ? Material(s) Compositions.. ??

Would love to know you've documented your analysis..
Seachem would hate us.. !! Rest of Plant will Appreciate your work.. Allot.. 

Thanks for it all..


----------



## Pattern8 (Dec 9, 2015)

I think Seachem might have had VATanks black bagged and renditioned him. Poor guy is probably held up in some cell in Guantanamo. Now we'll never know.


----------

