To Purgien or Not

ccradr · #1 12/28/2007, 11:23 PM

Is it worth the extra money and does it real remove what it says it does?

bertoni · #2 12/29/2007, 12:41 AM

I run activated carbon for chemical filtration, and I personally don't see the value in running Purigen. I don't know how well it actually works.

manderx · #3 12/29/2007, 02:35 AM

i like it. according to them it's more selective to just pulling out organics than carbon is which apparently pulls out lots of other (perhaps good) stuff too.

it seems to last a very long time, unlike carbon which is shot in just a few weeks. you know it's time to regenerate/replace when it turns dark.

i frequently notice brighter colors on many of my sps after adding after not using any for some time. especially when placed so that it fluidizes within the bag. i've never used it in a packed force-fed chamber like a phosban reactor.

you can regenerate it with some bleach/decholor. it actually seems more potent after being regeneratd than straight out of the jug.

i've seen bryopsis die outright several times in my tank within a day or two of adding.

JMBoehling · #4 12/29/2007, 10:33 AM

I stopped using Carbon and GFO in my fluidized fliters and started using Purigen only after a good friend and reefer has nothing but great things to say about it. My experience has been extrememly positive with it. I run it through my Two Little Fishes fluidizer on extremely low flow (Maybe 25 gallon an hour)... I am not a fan of regenerating it, as the last time I did it it irritated a couple of my SPS .. Now, I just flush it when it is used up.. I figure it is still less expensive than the carbon and ROWA I was changing every month.

Later,

Jim

ccradr · #5 12/29/2007, 10:34 AM

Does anyone see nitrite or nitrate reduction as it claims?

Boomer · #6 12/29/2007, 12:49 PM

Purigen is fine to use and is a good addition to filtration even if used with carbon as they compliment each other to a degree. It seems to work OK but there is nothing special about as claimed IMHO. Here are some threads on it with Randy' comments in many of them. As far as the nitrite or nitrate reduction, IMHO it is a line of BS.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/search...der=descending

hyperfocal · #7 01/09/2008, 12:57 PM

I started running Purigen in a reactor (low-flow fluidized; the stuff is so buoyant that high-flow is effectively impossible) about six weeks ago. Two days after I started running it, my BTA bubbled-up after months of skinny tentacles; it has remained bubbly since. I've also noticed a gradual improvement in the coloration of certain corals (particularly my A. tenuis and A. sarmentosa, also on my A. echinata and un-ID'd teal Acro). The overall health of my A. sarmentosa has improved dramatically (it's always been the 'problem coral' in my tank).

This is, of course, completely anecdotal and something else could be responsible for the improvements I've seen. Buuuut, it's cheap and easy... so, based on my experience I'm a fan of Purigen.

packer · #8 01/09/2008, 03:21 PM

I run it in a canister filter along with GAC in different trays. I dont know if it is miracle stuff, but agree with Boomer, I think it compliments the GAC. Also strongly agree that it does not reduce nitrate!! If it did that everyone would run tons of it. I also toss it and use new each time.

Percula9 · #9 01/10/2008, 08:59 AM

I think when the company claims it reduces nitrate they mean not directly. By removing organic waste, it prevents that waste from being broken down into nitrates by removing it from the water column.

Randy Holmes-Farley · #10 01/10/2008, 09:07 AM

Yes, that is what Seachem's web site reads, and since that is what it does (bind organics), it would be true to at least some extent.

Engine 7 · #11 01/10/2008, 09:14 AM

Is it supposed to replace GFO as well as GAC?

Randy Holmes-Farley · #12 01/10/2008, 09:26 AM

It will not do that.

mikesommers · #13 01/10/2008, 11:07 AM

Could you mix Purigen and Phosban in a reactor? Im looking at getting this reactor.

http://www.petsolutions.com/Nautilus...884+C1017.aspx

Randy Holmes-Farley · #14 01/10/2008, 11:13 AM

I can't think why not. If you can it may be best to have the purigen just before the GFO, just like using carbon before GFO. That way, the organic binders that are usually cheaper take up organics that might otherwise take up binding sites on the GFO.

mikesommers · #15 01/10/2008, 11:18 AM

Or should I look at using this instead? Im looking for somthing a little more affective on my 56gal tank. I have some pretty sreious hair allgae problems. Only two small fish in the tank and 60lbs of good rock. I have had this tank up for about 14 months. It has been nothing but a battle to get it to act right. It makes no sence to me when I have a 29 gallon tank that is soooo awesome. Both have the same types of filter systems and lights.

http://www.petsolutions.com/FB300-Fl...30824+C19.aspx

Randy Holmes-Farley · #16 01/10/2008, 11:20 AM

I would not look to any organic binding material to solve algae problems (except perhaps cyano problems).

GFO to reduce phosphate is a better way to go.

mikesommers · #17 01/10/2008, 11:29 AM

I have some red slime but it is going away. I just started using TLC Marine S.A.T. Its 100% live bacteria and has wiped out almost all the red slime in about 3 days.

mikesommers · #18 01/10/2008, 11:39 AM

At this point should I take all the rock out and scrub it off in fresh salt water to remove the hair allgae? I recoverd this tank one time allready. The hair allgae destroyed everything in the tank. I made a mistake putting a small puffer and a clown trigger in it to begin with. I got rid of both of them, cleaned the tank and it did good for a few months. Now its back. I just dont understand why I am having so many problems with the 56 but yet the 29 does great. All water is mixed at the same time and is RO/DI with reef crystals.

hyperfocal · #19 01/10/2008, 11:42 AM

I'd be careful running both GFO and Purigen in the same reactor. I tried running them in two reactors in series off the same minijet404, and couldn't get the flow right. The Purigen is so light that the correct amount of flow for the GFO ended up spraying Purigen out of the reactor; the correct flow for the Purigen was far too low for the GFO. I ended up putting a pump on each reactor. I think the problem would be even worse if you put both media in the same reactor.

mikesommers · #20 01/10/2008, 11:51 AM

So do you think I should do the GFO only? I have a hang on the back filter with purgien and chemiPure in it right now. Maby leave that as it is and do the GFO by its self. I have to get something figured out. I cant afford to have all the rock go to waste again.

Randy Holmes-Farley · #21 01/10/2008, 12:07 PM

FWIW, I'd use both of them in a packed bed type of filter, not a tumbling reactor, although many folks use tumbling systems for GFO.

hyperfocal · #22 01/10/2008, 12:12 PM

Yes, to clarify: I'm tumbling.

Well, not personally. But the media in my reactors is

mikesommers · #23 01/10/2008, 12:17 PM

So are you saying to get the Purgien in the pouch so that it is contained? Then put GFO in? I dont see how else you could contain it.

Randy Holmes-Farley · #24 01/10/2008, 04:35 PM

Are you asking me? I'm suggesting that if you have a system where you can hold the media in place, and wish to use both Purigen (or GAC) and GFO, put the Purigen (or GAC) upstream from the GFO if that is possible.

marsh · #25 01/10/2008, 05:09 PM

Randy,

Since this Purigen and GFO topic startedI have been wondering about a forced flow system with relatively high flow such as a Hagen Fluval system using Purigen in one chamber then their ferric oxide based phosphate remover. The Fluval external filters are relatively high flow but they do have a GFO product for them but do not report if they GFO gets pulverized or not. Wondering if anyone has experience with their external cannisters in conjuction with GFO.

Fluval Phospate Remover

Fluval External Cannister