Reef Discussion
Two thumbs up :D
Okay so I'm back and ready to type lol basically the reasoning behind me deciding to use Matrix is because of the thread over on RC (link: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2526998) and also via recommendation from another reefer whose word is gold to me haha. Basically Siporax and Matrix are an inert sintered glass media that has an immense amount of porosity to allow a huge amount of bacteria growth for de-nitrification and filtration. A lot of the posts that I trust over there are made by someone who works in the industry testing new products so really knows what he's talking about and the exact science behind it all. His screen name is Reefvet and in terms of showing the efficacy and efficiency of both Siporax and Matrix in comparison to live rock he said that through his tests that (if I recall correctly) Siporax has approximately 25x the anaerobic area of live rock. A close second was the Matrix, at approximately 20x the area.
As you can see they're both pretty bloody efficient lol now Siporax is a bit of a pain to get because no one stocks it locally and to buy a decent amount it gets heavy and therefore expensive to ship internationally but Matix is stocked locally and given the close ability it has to Siporax it doesn't matter that much at all. The other awesome thing about both these media is that they don't need replacing!
A couple of video's showing the absorption rates of the media vs some others:
Another quote from Reefvet about the durability:
"Siporax is Sintered glass. It's not a calcium based structure that will deteriorate (though glass is made from Silica, Soda Ash and Limestone, it's far too hard to deteriorate in the given conditions). If you clear the surface by shaking it or even brushing it lightly you'll never need to replace it. It's so porous you'd have a very hard time clogging it and even if surface accumulation of silt / detritus limited it by 50% it's still better than any live rock at supporting beneficial bacteria.
I have run the same 10L of Siporax on one closed system since 2009. It's been washed off but never let dry and it's as effective today as it was in 2009. The system supports a new study every 18-24 months and I generally clean it then."
Now the recommended dose of Matrix is 500ml per 200L (according to them: http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/Matrix.html) but I'm going a little, well waayyy, over that. For my tank ~200L net volume I'm looking to add 6L of the stuff lol and the person recommending it to me runs 16L in 600L lol. Basically it's cool to overdose it as it is really, when it's all boiled down, a very efficient version of live rock so you can't really have too much and I'm mean with such a large output of nutrients being processed it means that you can have a large input there as well! Which is key to a thriving tank :) The thing with these media types, like live rock, is that they take time to seed and through Reefvet's research he found that it takes 90 days for Matrix to have seeded and become functional.
So basically it's just adding a shitload of LR without all that space it takes up, I'm also just going to be running it passively in the sump :) I think that about covers it, if I think of anything else I can add to this!
As you can see they're both pretty bloody efficient lol now Siporax is a bit of a pain to get because no one stocks it locally and to buy a decent amount it gets heavy and therefore expensive to ship internationally but Matix is stocked locally and given the close ability it has to Siporax it doesn't matter that much at all. The other awesome thing about both these media is that they don't need replacing!
A couple of video's showing the absorption rates of the media vs some others:
Another quote from Reefvet about the durability:
"Siporax is Sintered glass. It's not a calcium based structure that will deteriorate (though glass is made from Silica, Soda Ash and Limestone, it's far too hard to deteriorate in the given conditions). If you clear the surface by shaking it or even brushing it lightly you'll never need to replace it. It's so porous you'd have a very hard time clogging it and even if surface accumulation of silt / detritus limited it by 50% it's still better than any live rock at supporting beneficial bacteria.
I have run the same 10L of Siporax on one closed system since 2009. It's been washed off but never let dry and it's as effective today as it was in 2009. The system supports a new study every 18-24 months and I generally clean it then."
Now the recommended dose of Matrix is 500ml per 200L (according to them: http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/Matrix.html) but I'm going a little, well waayyy, over that. For my tank ~200L net volume I'm looking to add 6L of the stuff lol and the person recommending it to me runs 16L in 600L lol. Basically it's cool to overdose it as it is really, when it's all boiled down, a very efficient version of live rock so you can't really have too much and I'm mean with such a large output of nutrients being processed it means that you can have a large input there as well! Which is key to a thriving tank :) The thing with these media types, like live rock, is that they take time to seed and through Reefvet's research he found that it takes 90 days for Matrix to have seeded and become functional.
So basically it's just adding a shitload of LR without all that space it takes up, I'm also just going to be running it passively in the sump :) I think that about covers it, if I think of anything else I can add to this!
From what I know, the materials that Matrix and Siporax are made from is an inert and chemically stable material meaning no potential leaching or degradation of any type. The pores are much smaller which allows for more anaerobic areas vs the large pores of marine pure. I think the porosity is generally much higher in these two as well because of the smaller pore structure and also because everyone is raving about these two and not marine pure lol but on a serious note how can you argue with this as a reason...
Reactor, sump or HOB can all work :) as long as you keep an eye on them all.
Read my above reply :)
Haha from just that photo I can tell who you're talking about! Amazing box of colorful sticks. Don't know the guy but follow his thread closely. Plus the banter that goes on is priceless.From what I know, the materials that Matrix and Siporax are made from is an inert and chemically stable material meaning no potential leaching or degradation of any type. The pores are much smaller which allows for more anaerobic areas vs the large pores of marine pure. I think the porosity is generally much higher in these two as well because of the smaller pore structure and also because everyone is raving about these two and not marine pure lol but on a serious note how can you argue with this as a reason...
View attachment 53125
On the subject I've looked at getting some siporax for a while, defs will be a good addition when I evenually upgrade. Happy with marine pure blocks in my sump atm but the research reefvet did shows with siporax/matrix the tiny pore size is better for the anaerobic bacteria to do its thang.
It is a truly amazing tank! He's as much madman as he is genius haha it's priceless though isn't it!
True that :) I'm keen to get it going in my tank to see what happens!
Related reading, specially the first comment by Gareth Barber, which compares surface ares of some media:
http://www.cermedia.com/marinepure-testimonials.php
http://www.cermedia.com/marinepure-testimonials.php
It's an interesting review but it comes across like a marketing tool rather than something done by someone independently. They also got the surface area's of Siporax and Matrix wrong as Siporax actually has a slight higher surface area.
I completely understand the logic behind the clogging and everything but to say the marine pure doesn't clog or accumulate anything? Come on.
This quote:
"In new blocks, if you put on end in water, you can physically see the water travel up the block, above the surface of the water, the surface tension of the inner pore structure actually pulls water into in.
Note: in medias with very fine inner pore structure that clog, this cannot occur, as it is blocked and does not allow the efficient flow of water carrying nitrate to find oxygen free zones that may contain de-nitrifying bacteria"
Both of the videos posted show the capabilities of the other two doing much better than marine pure.
I'm not denying the effectiveness of marine pure but I still think that Matrix or Siporax would be a more effective choice. Not only due to surface area but also due to the inert nature of sintered glass, this also means no degradation of the media too.
It's really up to anyone to choose what they want to run and how they want to run it. Imma have a read through his blog and decide then how I feel about his review :)
@Wrangy I agree. The debate at that level really becomes marketing material like "mine is better than yours".
They all have a lot of surface area and I would not compare based only on it. Area is not the only aspect to be considered.
I would also consider price, availability, anti-clogging capacity, potential to leech undesirable trace elements and previous experiences from other reefers.
I have used both Matrix and Marine Pure for a couple of years and in multiple tanks, with different goals. My 2 cents:
- Marine Pure really doesn't clog. I have had some under fuge lights and even algae struggles to stick to it. Whenever I shake it, they look like new.
- Most small media - activate carbon, siphorax, purigne,etc - rapidly get covered in organic biofilm. I read multiple theories that state it significatly reduces surface area. In other words, it doesn't clog with detritus, but gets wrapped by organics, which is pretty much the same.
- Marine pure blocks promote a low O2 in the center, which hosts anaerobic bacteria, which are the main responsible for NO3 breakdown in a system without organic carbon. This doesn't happen with MP balls or small cubes.
- I struggle to understand how it is possible for ceramic media to promote low O2 areas.
For these reasons combined, I tend to prefer Marine Pure as a surface area buffer for my tanks.
Having that said, none of them is ground breaking, specially when compared to techniniques like organic carbon dosing and sulfur reactors. Alone, they won't solve the high nitrates problem, that most people are facing when they look for this type of solution.
Finally, many other variables can affect the effectiveness of surface media and it is nearly impossible for hobbysts to provide conclusive evidence, other than anedoctal evidence, as it would require analysis of bacterial behaviour.
For example, one with Deep sand bed (DSB) may have a totally different experience than one with Bare bottom (BB).
They all have a lot of surface area and I would not compare based only on it. Area is not the only aspect to be considered.
I would also consider price, availability, anti-clogging capacity, potential to leech undesirable trace elements and previous experiences from other reefers.
I have used both Matrix and Marine Pure for a couple of years and in multiple tanks, with different goals. My 2 cents:
- Marine Pure really doesn't clog. I have had some under fuge lights and even algae struggles to stick to it. Whenever I shake it, they look like new.
- Most small media - activate carbon, siphorax, purigne,etc - rapidly get covered in organic biofilm. I read multiple theories that state it significatly reduces surface area. In other words, it doesn't clog with detritus, but gets wrapped by organics, which is pretty much the same.
- Marine pure blocks promote a low O2 in the center, which hosts anaerobic bacteria, which are the main responsible for NO3 breakdown in a system without organic carbon. This doesn't happen with MP balls or small cubes.
- I struggle to understand how it is possible for ceramic media to promote low O2 areas.
For these reasons combined, I tend to prefer Marine Pure as a surface area buffer for my tanks.
Having that said, none of them is ground breaking, specially when compared to techniniques like organic carbon dosing and sulfur reactors. Alone, they won't solve the high nitrates problem, that most people are facing when they look for this type of solution.
Finally, many other variables can affect the effectiveness of surface media and it is nearly impossible for hobbysts to provide conclusive evidence, other than anedoctal evidence, as it would require analysis of bacterial behaviour.
For example, one with Deep sand bed (DSB) may have a totally different experience than one with Bare bottom (BB).
Isn't this it?
Does it have to be Professional to be qualified good? as opposed to the "non-professional" version.
so the above for the non professional version ...
the professional version can be found here
Dosage recommendation:
The thing that confuse me ... which box (professional) should I get? 145g or 290g.
The above dosage FAQ doesn't really help as it mention liter, as opposed to gram .. so not sure what's the conversion.
Last edited:
Thanks @slin1977
I assume you meant 290 gram to treat 100 liter? meaning that I probably need 2x290 gram or overdose a bit ... perhaps 3x290 gram.
Which one should I get (recommendation)? or is that personal preference?
Thinking of putting it in a media bag then putting it in the overflow chamber (where the high flow is) then skimmer then live rocks then return chamber then back to DT.
Been doing research on this and seems to attract positive feedbacks so will try to give it a shot along with nano bubbling technique and NoPox dosing.
Thanks for introducing it to the forum @slin1977 :)
Last edited:
Members online
No members online now.