filtration

  • frogman5
  • frogman5's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 8
  • Thank you received: 0

frogman5 created the topic: filtration

anybody have a favorite filter
#1606

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • OFL
  • OFL's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Founder of OFL
  • Posts: 13309
  • Karma: 38
  • Thank you received: 414

OFL replied the topic: Re:filtration

To answer this question properly, we would have had to have tested a lot of filters. However, I have used around five different filters since keeping Oscars. One of them was Fluval 4. Nice filter if you keep guppies but no good for Oscars. An internal filter on my old jewel aquarium, again not really very adequate for Oscars. And finally, two external canister filters. The Eheim 2329 and the Eheim 2028. Please filters do the job and it could be argued that the Eheim 2329 is more efficient because it is wet dry. However, I found these type of filters to be troublesome and needed much more maintenance so my preference is the Eheim 2028. This filter will do a 130 gallon tank. I have two of them running on mine. They are reasonably priced and if you shop at the right outlet, you can sometimes get free media with it.

I may not always be right, but I am always the BOSS :-)
#1611

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 472
  • Karma: 7
  • Thank you received: 0

Joliet Jake replied the topic: Re:filtration

PROOF POSITIVE!!!!!!!!!(Somebody DID Test alot of Filters.)

Which Is the Best Biofilter?
by Timothy A. Hovanec, Ph.D.

The most often asked question in fishkeeping and the aquarium hobby is "which filter is best?" Translated into reality this question becomes "which filter can I get so that I never have to change water, never have to clean the filter components, and can put as many fish and as much food into the aquarium as I wish?" Of course, this filter does not exist. However, there are many good filters in the market place.

To properly answer the question the hobbyist needs to consider several factors as the answer to which filter is best may not be the same for every person. Many manufacturers do strive to make a quality product at a reasonable price which can give the fish owner a good chance to keep their fish healthy for a long time. However, every filter needs maintenance and servicing which means the hobbyist must interact at some level with the filter. The time required for these activities can vary from a few minutes each week to an hour a day depending upon the type and size of the filter. However, for the hobbyist it can be hard to make an informed decision about which filter to use because some manufacturers do overstate their filtration claims and promise much more than the filters can actually deliver.

To help with filter selection it would be good to have the various types of filters compared so that their strengths and weaknesses can be evaluated. These types of studies are rare. But this month, I will review the results of one such study which were recently published. The] study is entitled: "Evaluation of various biofilters in an intensive recirculating fish production facility". The authors are P. W. Westerman, T. M. Losordo and M. L. Wildhaber. The paper was published in 1997 in the Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers Volume 39, issue 2 pages 723-727.

In this study they compared the following types of biofilters: Upflow sand filters, fluidized bed sand filters, floating bead filters (Canister Filters) and rotating biological contactors (RBC) in various combinations. Each filter was connected to a tank containing 18,900 liters of water which was stocked with a hybrid red tilapia. Freshwater exchange on a daily basis was 9 to 11% of the total tank volume. The actual set-up was as follows:

Tank 1 had four upflow sand filters
Tank 2 had one upflow sand filter and two fluidized bed sand filters
Tank 3 had two floating bead filters and
Tank 4 had one upflow sand filter and one RBC. Water testing was for pH, carbon dioxide (CO2), total ammonia-nitrogen (TAN), nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N), dissolved oxygen (DO), and suspended solids (SS) was performed for each filters on each tank twice a week for 5 months. Water flow rates through the filters were also measured. One time water samples were taken every 4 hours for 24 hours to investigate the diurnal water quality pattern.
The result were as follows:
Ammonia Oxidation: The filters were evaluated in terms of their ability to oxidize ammonia (or nitrite) by measuring the difference between the ammonia concentration on the influent and effluent sides of the filter. This difference was then expressed as a percentage reduction of ammonia (or nitrite) for each day measured and then averaged over the course of the test. Thus a higher reduction means more ammonia (or nitrite) was oxidized as the water passed through the filter. Therefore, a higher reduction is better.

Average ammonia reduction was lowest in the fluidized bed filters (Tank 2) with an average ammonia reduction of 24 percent (the average was 29 and 19 percent for the two filters). The performance of the sand filters (Tank 1) and the bead filters (Tank 3) were nearly identical with average ammonia reduction of 31.25 (with individual filter averages of 40, 27, 39 and 19 percent) and 31 percent (36 and 26 percent for the two filters. The RBC (Tank 4) had the greatest ammonia reduction average of 67% over the course of the test.

Nitrite Oxidation: Nitrite (NO2-N) concentration was higher in sand and bead filters (Tanks 1 and 3 , respectively) over the course of the test. The mean reduction of nitrite for the four sand filters on Tank 1 were 6, -1, 54 and 9 percent of the influent nitrite level. It seems that sand filter number 2 never really established the ability to completely nitrify. The percent nitrite reduction for the two bead filters of Tank 3 was 0 and 6. Again, one filter seemingly failed to establish complete nitrification. The fluidized bed filters (Tank 2) operated more effectively, reducing nitrite 19 and 16 percent. The RBC on Tank 4 was the most effective in reducing nitrite with a mean percentage of 59.

Other results: The researchers noted other performance particulars with some of the filters. The sand filters and the fluidized bed filters tended to lose sand which had to be periodically replaced. Only the bead filter removed significant amounts of suspended solids.

Conclusions from this test: This test showed that the RBC was able to reduce more ammonia and nitrite than the other filter evaluated "thus making it appear to be the most efficient remover of both TAN and NO2-N."

The researchers also noted the following conclusions about the various filters:
Sand Filters: These "filters became clogged with solids and back-flushing became a time-consuming process." They noted that this system had operating problems and water quality was poor in the latter stages of the test. Maintenance was also a problem with these filters.

Upflow Sand Filter and Fluidized Bed Filters (Tank 2): Fish growth was good in this system but sand would flush out of both types of filters (so it had to be replaced) and there were problems getting and keeping the sand beds in the fluidized state. The sand bed in both filter types packed and "the upflow sand filter media began to 'gel' with a bacterial slime."

Floating Bead Filters: (Canister Filters) After 100 days of operation these units had problems because they retained solids which lead to high TAN concentrations and poor water quality. Cleaning the systems did not significantly improve the situation.

Rotating Biological Contactor: "Performance of this system was the most consistent of all of the systems. The RBC proved to be the most reliable nitrifying filter."
The researches noted that all four types of biofilters can be good biofilters but they have different operational and maintenance requirements which cannot be ignored if they are to continue to operate. There were significant differences in the amount of time and effort required for maintenance for the various filters.

The situation is no different for hobbyists. There are smaller versions of the types of filters used in this test available to hobbyists. Generally, they operate just like these larger units. They have the same benefits, and the same problems.

In reality, almost every biological filtration system can do a good job nitrifying if they are maintained. The question becomes how much time and energy do you want to expend maintaining the filter. It is like owning a car, sure you would like a Ferrari but can you really afford the time and money maintaining and servicing it? A nice Toyota will get you to the same place and is a lot more reliable and less expensive to own over the long haul.

With aquarium filter you can spend a lot money for a 'state-of-the-art system' and you can also spend a lot of time and money maintaining it. Or you can go with a simple reliable filter system using principals shown to give reliable, dependable nitrification. You will give just as good (or better) water quality and the time and money you save can be spent on other things - like buying more fish!

Therefore, when asking yourself 'what is the best filtration system' make sure you consider the time you are willing to devote towards maintaining it, as the most expensive filter poorly maintained will not provide the level of water quality necessary for the health of your fish. Simple systems based on proven principals, which are effective and efficient, are available to all hobbyists.

©1997, Timothy A. Hovanec, Ph.D.
Originally published in Aquarium Frontiers, Dec. 1997

<< Back to Dr. Tim's Articles Index
Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable
Ken, 51, NJ-USA (Mated

Ken, 51, NJ-USA (2 Tiger Oscars)
Need to give away one healthy 1 year old Oscar if you know of anyone interested. See the adoption thread for photos. Thanks!
#1625

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 472
  • Karma: 7
  • Thank you received: 0

Joliet Jake replied the topic: Re:filtration

I posted the below article to demonstrate that someone in authority DID test alot of common filter types and the Bio-Wheel type filter came out on top, even against canister type filters.

Canisters are good in their own way because they are usually made for larger volumes of water (larger flows etc) and store the dirt for 3-4 weeks at a time, lessening the maintenance interval. Bio-Wheels are now being made for tanks up to 110 gallons and more common are smaller hang on type bio wheel filter units for tanks up to about 55-75 gallons. My current tank has a Marineland Hood that has built in 4 large Bio Wheel filters rated for 600 GPH total. Thats pretty good numbers and considering you can spend $200 for a canister filter alone, I got tthis complete hood, fluorescent light and filter unit complete for $299 (actually $269 on sale).

Look at my aquarium photos and you will see various photos of that hood. (I posted you the link in your 75 Tank thread). I used to raise Angel fish and had large aquariums and at that time used eheim 2028 filters. Good but I didnt like the rubber gaskets that connected the baskets and I didnt like all the metric tubing and fittings. In the US, Metric is still like a fish out of water. I honestly feel to have a combination of one canister and one bio wheel filter is the best way to go. Not everyone agrees but then not everyone has actually tried a bio wheel filter either. ;)

P.S. Sump Filters often use a variation of a bio wheel and they are made for the largest aquariums made. Bio Wheel is superior biological filtration, not a toy and not made for just your goldfish bowls...

Ken, 51, NJ-USA (2 Tiger Oscars)
Need to give away one healthy 1 year old Oscar if you know of anyone interested. See the adoption thread for photos. Thanks!
#1626

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • OFL
  • OFL's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Founder of OFL
  • Posts: 13309
  • Karma: 38
  • Thank you received: 414

OFL replied the topic: Re:filtration

A good article. I may put that in the articles section. The author's name is on there, where did they come from?

I may not always be right, but I am always the BOSS :-)
#1627

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 472
  • Karma: 7
  • Thank you received: 0

Joliet Jake replied the topic: Re:filtration


Ken, 51, NJ-USA (2 Tiger Oscars)
Need to give away one healthy 1 year old Oscar if you know of anyone interested. See the adoption thread for photos. Thanks!
#1630

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • OFL
  • OFL's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Founder of OFL
  • Posts: 13309
  • Karma: 38
  • Thank you received: 414

OFL replied the topic: Re:filtration

Even though these filters have got a good write-up, I'm still not convinced that they are actually made for big messy fish. I have tried searching for these type of filters I just can't find anywhere in this country that sells them. I have found small ones that are made for the smaller tanks but none that are made for anything over 100 gallons. It seems that these filters seem more popular in the United States than over here.

Have you got any links to places that sell a wide variety of these filters?

I may not always be right, but I am always the BOSS :-)
#1631

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 472
  • Karma: 7
  • Thank you received: 0

Joliet Jake replied the topic: Re:filtration

Links in this thread already posted here in reply to elsabe..


www.oscarfishlover.com/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,90/func,view/id,1529/catid,14/

Ken, 51, NJ-USA (2 Tiger Oscars)
Need to give away one healthy 1 year old Oscar if you know of anyone interested. See the adoption thread for photos. Thanks!
#1632

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Big-KenDRACO
Time to create page: 0.114 seconds