GFO

[zygote2k]

I'm considering using GFO to help eliminate some nuisance macros- what's the best brand to buy?

[jamal]

i have had great luck with the pellet form of the gfo that bulkreef sells and it is iron based in case you have leathers present

[DDiver]

Pura PhosLock

[zygote2k]

i have had great luck with the pellet form of the gfo that bulkreef sells and it is iron based in case you have leathers present

Does GFO harm leathers?

[lhcorals]

I know Pura Complete is not considered a GFO, but it has Pura Phoslock and Carbon, and cation exchangers in it. Its the same as Elite Chemi-Pure, just alot cheaper. It works great in my tank. Nitrates- 10, and Phosphates- undetectable. Not saying it will work for everybody, but worth looking into.

Edited December 28, 2008 by lhcorals

[jamesbuf]

I will say that not all GFO is created equal. Someone gave me half a container of the D-D Rowaphos and just a little bit made a huge dent in my phophate levels. I've used the regular old pelleted GFO before and not had nearly the same results. I just recently bought some of the "high capacity" GFO from bulkreefsupply.com and it looks very similar, if not identicle, to the Rowaphos. I haven't used any yet, but when it comes time to replace my GFO I'll let you know how it holds up.

[Highland Reefer]

+1 BRS products.

[reefhunter]

I use the bulk reef supply stuff too... seems to work great... but what do I know...

[dschflier]

From my experience I find for the cost E-33 Bayoxide, GFO which is the standard in this country to be the best. This is the product most companies use in one of the three forms sold. Pellets, granular or high capacity. Bulk reef uses this, Warner marine and I am sure many others do as well. Testing hasn't been completed for the HC but I was told that in time it will probbably become the next industry standard.

 

Rowaphos which is a ferric hydroxide apparently did a study in berlin which tested against other phosphate removers but from reading this post on reef central, it dosn't appear any GFOs where used. It also appears that for the cost GFOs do the job much more cost effectively.

 

Most of the testing done was for Arsenic removal and the testing has been pretty extensive. In early 2000 the EPA lowerd the permisable arsenic levels in drinking water from 50 ug/L(micrograms per liter) to 10ug/L. Sandia laboritories ran tests to see which products would lower arsenic levels to the new amounts and be most cost effective. E-33 Bayoxide made by bayer and then bought by lanxses did the best in the competition. Mos of the other companies stopped producing the product.

 

I asked why would Phosphates be removed and should there be any correlation between the amounts removed of arsenic. Meaning if the most arsenic is removd should the most Phosphates be removed.

 

I was told there should be a relation and that the company is doing testing for Phosphates specifically.

 

The Moleculer strucure of bayoxide is similer to carbon but with a less developed pore structure and GFOs are man made.