Bio Media Comparison Information

Bio Media Comparison in square feet per cubic foot of Surface Area. You have to find a balance between good filtration and water flow. Fast water flow is good to oxidize ammonia but if the media gets clogged too fast the water flow slows and so does the oxidation.

The flow through the filters does the following important tasks:

1. The most important function is to supply the “beneficial bacteria” (autotrophic) on the surface and in the interstices of the biomedia a constant supply of ammonia from the fish.
2. The second most important function is to supply a different type of bacteria (heterotrophic) on the surface and in the interstices of the biomedia a constant supply of carbohydrates and proteins from uneaten food to create crystal-clear water.

Interstices- an intervening space, especially a very small one.

Here is a corrected version of the Bio Media Comparison that now has the real measured values for surface area.

Previous post showed my comparison table with a ranking stating that the media with the highest surface was best. I was wrong. I am sorry. I think folks should throw cans of beer at me… cold of course.

I followed what the BET test I received from Seachem and believed what it said because other manufactures stated the same surface area with thousands and thousands of square feet per cubic foot, so Seachem had to be right. Wrong.

The surface area claims made for Matrix are 700 meters per liter. This is 700,000 m2/m3 or 213,416 ft2 per ft3 of surface area.
***
The same above goes for Biohome.

With that I also have said the following, which is incorrect:

If you can see through your media you don’t want it in your filter.

Slower flow over your media is best to keep the water in contact with your media longer.

(Again, false information propagated by Seachem Matrix and De-Nitrate)

This is wrong too as you will see below. The correct saying should be:

If you can barely see daylight through your media it belongs in your filter.

You want fast flow through your media to oxygenate your media also for fast oxidation of ammonia.

So let’s look at this corrected table. Updated for rank.




This is not an all inclusive media list that is available out there.

Three things that really should be looked at as far as what media you should use:

1. Can you hold up the media and barley see daylight through it (about 1” wide)?

2. Does the media support fast water movement through it?

3. How soon will the media clog?

With these questions and using the above table and information, you should be able to find the sweet spot for media. Surface area of 100-450 square feet per cubic foot is what you are looking for.

What folks have to realize is the media that is best has the ability to support the most fish in a given volume of water.

If we look at the 3 questions and now the media, only a few will be able to answer all three and that is the media you want.

They are:

1. 30 ppI foam. However, 10 ppi=275 or 20 ppi=385 is better as it won’t clog as fast. This small difference could mean cleaning your filter about every month or every 6 months to a year! Everybody needs to stop cleaning their filters thoroughly and stop cleaning them too often.

2. Pot Scrubbies.

3. K1 Media (in mesh bags to keep them together).

4. Polypropylene/EVA pads (but these are about the same as pot scrubbies).

Just about anything you put in your filters will work to harbor Beneficial Bacteria, even dirty socks. However, the above may be a better choice.

 

You rock ! A good rock though ,and I would pass you a beer ..It is Friday ??
When others don't like my advice I just think that it does not effect my fish ! I'm not often asking for help or advice so pardon my being flip [my name is really Tom ] but straight dope .Non believers and their lack to comprehend common sense will not kill my fish .
I refuse to defend my OPINIONS and practices ..I let my fish do it for me .. All the pros use sponges .Not one buys squat from Seachem !
I am glad for you that you have turned the corner and welcome you to the simple side of successful keeping ..Now your on the right team and I admire your wanting to help all.. Good luck !
All media must be cleaned ,find one easier to clean then sponges ..

You can lead a keeper to water but you can't make them change it !

 

Are we sure Dr. Tanner didn't send Cichlidude a pallet of assorted Poret foams for Christmas in exchange for his kind words ?







Seriously, great work!

 

I'm glad you posted this so there's somewhere to talk about it. I'm honestly not surprised by that tests results at all (minus the aquarium gravel). I will still use my ceramic rings in the sump I designed for them and the snake tank filter to be honest but it definitely puts the other "super medias" allot closer to where I have always said they would be in relation to the rings after they get a bit dirty. I also really like the fact he did the "cleaning test" and found that a sponge was rendered near un-cycled in 4 squeezes. That piece of research did surprise me and will change the way I maintain the tanks where I do rely on sponge bio.

I did have one issue on version 2 of my snake tanks filter. It was when I tried to run just sponge in it; since he only occasionally bio shocks the tank it would still cause an ammonia spike and foaming, since switching the internals to ceramics that hasn't been the case, however I still have a pretty large sponge "pre filter" and a bunch of porous rock as the substrate so maybe the rings aren't doing what I've always thought they were? I might have to set up some buckets and do some surge testing. Will have to wait till summer though as I don't have spare heaters and it's far too cold here to run that type of test unheated. (Would the test be null if the pumps froze solid for a week?)

Now here's the question about his testing that has me a little tripped up. What is the magic about the gravel that put it above ceramics or matrix? At first I thought maybe he meant general effectiveness of using an undergravel filter but 7.2.5 specifies in a canister. I always thought dirty matrix would essentially be gravel ... 140 is way more than double the matrix and puts rocks near square even with k1, which you know cannot actually be true when the total volume is the same. Did I miss a detail?

Edited: just want to share, I'm not partial to ceramics due to money tied up in or something, you all know I'm one of the thriftiest on the forum. I bought the stuff I use cheap. But I will still be using what I know has been working because if it isn't broke, I have other stuff to fix that is. In my future designs I will play with some sponge but I'm not doing another build ATM.

 

I'm glad you posted this so there's somewhere to talk about it. I'm honestly not surprised by that tests results at all (minus the aquarium gravel). I will still use my ceramic rings in the sump I designed for them and the snake tank filter to be honest but it definitely puts the other "super medias" allot closer to where I have always said they would be in relation to the rings after they get a bit dirty. I also really like the fact he did the "cleaning test" and found that a sponge was rendered near un-cycled in 4 squeezes. That piece of research did surprise me and will change the way I maintain the tanks where I do rely on sponge bio.

I did have one issue on version 2 of my snake tanks filter. It was when I tried to run just sponge in it; since he only occasionally bio shocks the tank it would still cause an ammonia spike and foaming, since switching the internals to ceramics that hasn't been the case, however I still have a pretty large sponge "pre filter" and a bunch of porous rock as the substrate so maybe the rings aren't doing what I've always thought they were? I might have to set up some buckets and do some surge testing. Will have to wait till summer though as I don't have spare heaters and it's far too cold here to run that type of test unheated. (Would the test be null if the pumps froze solid for a week?)

Now here's the question about his testing that has me a little tripped up. What is the magic about the gravel that put it above ceramics or matrix? At first I thought maybe he meant general effectiveness of using an undergravel filter but 7.2.5 specifies in a canister. I always thought dirty matrix would essentially be gravel ... 140 is way more than double the matrix and puts rocks near square even with k1, which you know cannot actually be true when the total volume is the same. Did I miss a detail?

Edited: just want to share, I'm not partial to ceramics due to money tied up in or something, you all know I'm one of the thriftiest on the forum. I bought the stuff I use cheap. But I will still be using what I know has been working because if it isn't broke, I have other stuff to fix that is. In my future designs I will play with some sponge but I'm not doing another build ATM.

Wait until we all learn more. I thought media with the highest surface was best. This has now been proven false. What everyone needs to move to is how much fish your media can support for their bioload.

Here is more info.

What this can translate to is illustrated by the number of fish a typical canister can give crystal clear water with when stocked with some of these media:

• Foam 35 five-inch fish
• Static K1 media 20 five-inch fish
• Ceramic rings, Matrix 4 five-inch fish

These are some huge differences.

Many hobbyists chose to do no mechanical filtration in their canisters. Mechanical filtration is actually only done by one media, namely floss or Polyfil. Mythbuster: foam is a biomedia, not a mechanical filtration media. Using Polyfil as the first filter media will strain out particles and give mechanical filtration. If Polyfil is used in the canister it typically needs to be opened once a week.

For this “uncleaned mechanical filtration” one need only add only one media in a canister doing only one thing, namely biological filtration. That way a hobbyist only needs to open their canisters every six months or so, when the flow slows down.

Note many people use a whole lot of different media in their canisters. One enterprising chap had 6 different media in his canister. This is just rather humorous as everything except the Polyfil does only one thing, namely biological filtration. Each media is just more or less effective than another media at the task.
***
Interesting...

 

I long ago tossed my ceramic rings for my aquaclears in favor of a second sponge ..
Who's laughing now ?
Actually I have been laughing for years as too few care to even just try and see..

 

I long ago tossed my ceramic rings for my aquaclears in favor of a second sponge ..
Who's laughing now ?
Actually I have been laughing for years as too few care to even just try and see..

Remember that song from the Monkeys, "I'm a Believer"? Yeah....

 

Cool... Thanks for helping me understand the research and the anomaly with the surface area of gravel appearing to be significantly inflated. I guess we won't talk about it. I did spend quite a bit of time reading everything available on that site as of 01/02/2020 but I appreciate the auto post anyhow.

As far as believer. I will propagate my belief that I have a dozen+ tanks set up currently, some are on the sponge, others aren't. They all work and drop ammonia just fine. Maybe the sponge can drop enough for 500 mbuna if I stuff my sump full, I don't have 500 mbuna. I actually switched from sponge in one tank because it wasn't doing the job I wanted it to...
Eh I guess I wasted more of my own time here, feel free to copy paste more of it. I don't expect we will actually get into any more detail of filtering with aqaurium gravel and otherwise I found it a good read.

 

Just providing alternate information for anyone. All are free to make their own choice.

 

Wonder what a sponge cut into cubes will do in a hob. I might try that

 

I used a mix of ceramic, polyfil, and an intake sponge in my sumps ever since the start, until a couple of months ago where it was suggested to me by someone in this forum (I forgot your name, I'm sorry!) to use poret foam as a prefilter. So I built a 'portable' corner matten in 2 of my tanks to hide the input pumps. Those things can handle the bioload all on their own, but I still kept the ceramics for redundancy. I did notice though whereas previously weekly nitrates 40+ was not uncommon, now it's rarely higher than 20. (0 even, sometimes. and no plants, but one uses an ATS. No change in feeding, stocking, or maintenance). I don't really know if the nitrifyers 'migrated' to the foam and left the ceramics to the denitrifyers, or this is all just a consistent fluke (I didn't have the heart to test, because 'if it ain't broke...' and all that). So I don't know. Maybe keeping different media might still be a valid idea, because some bacteria may have a preference for ceramics (honestly can't say why this would be. but I don't think people have spent time analysing the surface characteristics of different media aside from the usual 'surface area' parameter), while others may prefer sponges, regardless of surface area. This is probably why no matter what sort of antibiotic (for gram negative, gram positive, aerobes, anaerobes, whatever) I pump in the tank (yes, I'm that kind of person), the cycle remains unfazed, yet I hear from others before, of horror stories of crashes from meds. Probably the other types of nitrifyers just take over those that were lost when medicating. But I guess to most people, the most predominant species of nitrifyers (the ones cichlid's tests likely have tested for) are the ones that matter most and are the ones most reliant on surface area.

Ultimately I'm not advocating for anything, just wanted to share my experiences - and my unscientific attempts to explain them. But it works for me, so..

 

I have a matten corner also bit have had a hob running with it to help cycle media. But once I clean this 20L and tidal filter I might move rings to bottom of tidal and just layer sponges and foam from the highest flow to the lowest flow at the top.

 

Now here's the question about his testing that has me a little tripped up. What is the magic about the gravel that put it above ceramics or matrix? At first I thought maybe he meant general effectiveness of using an undergravel filter but specifies in a canister.

Just the surface area is a little more. It's not recommended to put that in a filter. If you can't see through 1 inch of gravel, you really don't want it in your filter that's all, same as floss (unless you want to polish the water). I've read for hours on that site and I am just baffled. The only site that I have ever found that explains about 99% of Aquarium questions. Not pushing that site in any way, but it's now showing up on Google searches in the last month or so. From what I have researched it came live only less than 6 months ago I think.

 

Just the surface area is a little more. It's not recommended to put that in a filter. If you can't see through 1 inch of gravel, you really don't want it in your filter that's all, same as floss (unless you want to polish the water). I've read for hours on that site and I am just baffled. The only site that I have ever found that explains about 99% of Aquarium questions. Not pushing that site in any way, but it's now showing up on Google searches in the last month or so. From what I have researched it came live only less than 6 months ago I think.

Thanks for looking at the thought on this, this is the conversational quality I imagined we would have. I like the site quite allot.

I completely agree that it would be too restrictive as a filter media and I wouldn't use
It unless maybe I set it up reactor style just for grins, an upward flow would do it justice to keep water flowing I would imagine. It's the measurement method I think might be off giving it the numbers, but with it in the table among side all the others the anomaly at first glance brings a slight discredit to the value of the rest of thenumbers.

From section 7 "The correlation between the test results and the calculated surface area is very significant and means the testing was accurate." Implies that the numbers are still relevant so I looked at each of them as potentially viable. I just did not come up with the same surface area calculation he did and would have put gravel closer to the similarly shaped matrix for effective area after considering the media densities both dimensionally and volumetrically.

Again thanks for sharing the site

 

I think that since gravel is much smaller than Matrix is why it is a little higher. More gravel can fit in the same space that Matrix occupies thus the higher number.

 

5 tanks that use corner matten filters and a 3watt pump in each. These are in my shrimp tanks and I donot forsee cleaning them for a couple of years.
I did put some floss in behind to polish the water as that would be my only complaint so the floss will be removed periodically for now.
I love the look and the efficiency of corner matten filters and now with moss growing on the black foam you can't really see them.

 

So I’ve been thinking a lot about this and have been doing a lot of reading. I will admit I want products like Biohome and matrix to work as advertised as well as the claims of Dr. Kevin Novak. In fact on my 210 gallon build I have invested in the money to make biocenosis clarification baskets for my sump and I have two canister filters full of pond matrix (that I bought years ago). I am also planning to make a plenum and use a kitty litter substrate capped with sand.

It seems to me that with live plants, the goal should be to use a substrate that draws ammonia and nitrate to the roots of the plant for uptake. In my case I’m hoping the plenum and kitty litter will do that. But is am open to other ideas like reverse flow under gravel powered by a canister.

So the question remains since I haven’t finalized things, should I remove the matrix I have from my canisters? I have a 5 gallon bucket full of kaldness K1 I could put in a media bag or I could fill the baskets with foam. I can always sell the matrix (or the K1). I think at this stage I am going to test the BCBs in my sump since I already made them. I can always pull them and replace them if they don’t work.

 

In my opinion, I see no reason to not use the BCB's you already made. Maybe all of Novak's explanations of magnetic permeability and what not is bunk, and a BCB is just a modular form of a deep substrate bed housing de-nitrifing bacteria. Either way, I see more YouTube videos of the BCB's working than not working.

The K1 on the other hand is up to you. I'd rather fill baskets in a canister full of layers of foam sponge. The K1 is more of a moving bed media.

 

In my opinion, I see no reason to not use the BCB's you already made. Maybe all of Novak's explanations of magnetic permeability and what not is bunk, and a BCB is just a modular form of a deep substrate bed housing de-nitrifing bacteria. Either way, I see more YouTube videos of the BCB's working than not working.

The K1 on the other hand is up to you. I'd rather fill baskets in a canister full of layers of foam sponge. The K1 is more of a moving bed media.

Where do you get your foam sponge?

 

As of now, I have only used Aquaclear refill sponge blocks, usually the 3-packs unless I get the AC110 replacement, for my various needs.

I just bought a Marineland Magniflow 360 canister for a super deal, and have been contemplating what to put in it. It has 4 huge media baskets. I figure they hold 2.3 - 2.5 liters of media each

I will either get the cheap "Aquaneat" brand of 20 and 30ppI foam from Amazon, or pony up the dough and make an order with Swiss Tropical for their German made Poret foam in 10-20-30ppi.

I would prefer to buy the Poret, but I must resist the urge to buy up all their cool stuff on the site.

 

So one of the complaints I keep reading about media like biohome or matrix is that the pores get clogged. But everything I have read from proponents of these medias make the statement that mechanical prefiltration is critical. So why is it that critics of biohome and matrix don’t concede this point? It seems the point that the pores in the media being too small for bacteria to colonize seems a much better argument.

 

How does one transition to scrubbier and avoid ammonia spike?

 

I've cleaned my canister filter that uses Pond Matrix on my 55G (and I only do this once every 3 to 4 months, and never seen the Pond Matrix clogged or coated, and if it is it's minimal. The way I have everything set up is that all my sponges filter all the crud before it reaches my bio media. If you install the sponges on top of the Pond Matrix or whatever Bio media ya use then yeah the crud is gonna sit on your bio media, and most likely clog it up.

 

How does one transition to scrubbier and avoid ammonia spike?

You could transition only one tray at a time if you have a canister with multiple trays. Or if you run multiple filters, only change one over at a time. Keep an eye on your parameters and do a water change if necessary.

I've cleaned my canister filter that uses Pond Matrix on my 55 gallon (and I only do this once every 3 to 4 months, and never seen the Pond Matrix clogged or coated, and if it is it's minimal. The way I have everything set up is that all my sponges filter all the crud before it reaches my bio media. If you install the sponges on top of the Pond Matrix or whatever Bio media ya use then yeah the crud is gonna sit on your bio media, and most likely clog it up.

I'm the same way. I ran pond matrix in my canisters for years and they were never clogged. My concern now is that they don't have the internal space for bacteria that Seachem claims they have.

Cichlidude has converted me over to pot scrubbers. Just got my first order of them today! My dog Ellie approves! I am going to put the matrix I have in media bags and throw them in the sump because I have tons of space in there and it certainly can't hurt, but my canisters will be all sponge and pot scrubbers from here on out. I have ordered a pre-filter that is clear and I will put floss in it for mechanical filtration. It will be easy to change and I should be able to leave the canisters alone.

 

Great. The first thing I noticed after I changed out, all at the same time, both filters for media, removed my 'diy nitrate filter', vacuumed gravel, cleaned all glass and did a 50% water change was no cloudy water and no ammonia spike at all! Ammonia is still 0 after 3 weeks, but knowing that bacteria will reproduce in hours on good media, I proved it works by simple research on a web page. First time no cloudy water (up to 3 days) after touching either filter in one year. Good luck also.

Edit- Fish, about 22 community 1"-2.5", one 6" cat, one 6" plecto and about 18 crawdads 1"-3".

 

I just got a new sponge filter. It isn't as finely porous as the previous one I got. It was 8 bucks. Do you think that there is such a thing as a cheap, low quality sponge filter?

 

I just got a new sponge filter. It isn't as finely porous as the previous one I got. It was 8 bucks. Do you think that there is such a thing as a cheap, low quality sponge filter?

Any sponge filter is good if it is sized right.

 

Any sponge filter is good if it is sized right.

Not sure what you mean about size?

Are there special sizes for each size of aquarium? Are there only certain size filters that are effective?

 

Google is your friend.

 

So I’ve been thinking a lot about this and have been doing a lot of reading. I will admit I want products like Biohome and matrix to work as advertised as well as the claims of Dr. Kevin Novak. In fact on my 210 gallon build I have invested in the money to make biocenosis clarification baskets for my sump and I have two canister filters full of pond matrix (that I bought years ago). I am also planning to make a plenum and use a kitty litter substrate capped with sand.

It seems to me that with live plants, the goal should be to use a substrate that draws ammonia and nitrate to the roots of the plant for uptake. In my case I’m hoping the plenum and kitty litter will do that. But is am open to other ideas like reverse flow under gravel powered by a canister.

So the question remains since I haven’t finalized things, should I remove the matrix I have from my canisters? I have a 5 gallon bucket full of kaldness K1 I could put in a media bag or I could fill the baskets with foam. I can always sell the matrix (or the K1). I think at this stage I am going to test the BCBs in my sump since I already made them. I can always pull them and replace them if they don’t work.

My fx6 is packed with loose k1 in the bottom two trays. It has been performing very well for me. You’d be surprised how much actually fits in there when it settles.

 

My fx6 is packed with loose k1 in the bottom two trays. It has been performing very well for me. You’d be surprised how much actually fits in there when it settles.

Glad your K1 is working out for you. Let us know.

 

I am ordering the scrubbies and will take one tray at a time as suggested I have Two canisters full of bio rings. I plan to add 18 2.5" fish this month so I'll keep a eye on the chemistry. I just treated the tank with octozin and it is a seven day treatment. Just changed 75%. And added back two hob filter carbon only and have one fish that has been stressed by another peacock and is lolliing at bottom and has a white spot on his side need to get him out of the tank but other fish have grown quite a bit since their intro eating like horses. Will vacuum and helikto hospitall tank am tomorrow.
am excised to maximize bacteria colony. Thanks for your consideration. I have to remove all structure to get him a job I despise. But all of this is an aside. Owning cichlids turn out to be challenging.but the fish are marvelous.

May introduce metro flaked but hate shut down HOB carbine filtrrss. water crystal clear with polishing filter.

 

A little late to the party here but the statement that foam filters are not mechanical filters baffles me since each 4-6 weeks that I open my Fluval 404 the foams have a lot of debris etc attached to them. If that's not mechanical filtration I don't know what is. All the while my following 3 packed trays of biohome media have no debris or gunk coating them and look as clean as when I put them in months and months ago. Ammonia is 0, Nitrates 0 and Nitrates are always 40 or below. Set me straight in case I mis understood something.

 

You can really consider anything to be mechanical filtration as long as the flow path is smaller than the particle you are trying to filter. If a tree floats down a river and gets stuck in 12” square grate, then I would classify that as mechanical filtration. If a dust mask keeps sawdust out of your lungs, then I would classify that as mechanical filtration.

 

Yes and that is how I understand it and it makes sense.. However the article linked states that foams are a biological filter and not mechanical filters.

 

Yes and that is how I understand it and it makes sense.. However the article linked states that foams are a biological filter and not mechanical filters.

My argument would be that foam is both mechanical and biological.

 

My argument would be that foam is both mechanical and biological.

Most definitely.

 

Foam can be mechanical and biological if BB is present on it. Like a prefilter on the intake, it keeps big particles out but also is a great place for bb to grow. Foam is probably the best filter media there is because it is dual action. I use my foam as mechanical, then have my bio rings for biological, but I know the foam will have BB as well.

 

I see all this arguing about filter media. Just buy aquaclears and run them as they come. Problem solved. I have only ever ran a single filter on any of my tanks.

 

Can't go wrong with an AC, the way it's designed is best for custom media configuration for a HOB IMO.