|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|06-08-2016 05:08 AM|
|Pattern8||I think Seachem might have had VATanks black bagged and renditioned him. Poor guy is probably held up in some cell in Guantanamo. Now we'll never know.|
|04-05-2016 12:11 PM|
Three years old thread.. Still interesting..
VATanks.. Are you still there..?
Am -still- Waiting for your analysis on both the Seachem Matrix Vs Pumice..
Have you done the Spectroscopic comparisons ? Material(s) Compositions.. ??
Would love to know you've documented your analysis..
Seachem would hate us.. !! Rest of Plant will Appreciate your work.. Allot..
Thanks for it all..
|02-06-2016 04:28 PM|
Originally Posted by Kubla View Post
|02-06-2016 03:40 PM|
From the Seachem support forums when asked if Matrix is just cleaned and sterilized pumice.
The entire reply with a full explanation is here Seachem Support Forums - Matrix vs Pumice
|02-06-2016 02:13 PM|
Why not just ordinary perlite which you can get from nearly any nursery?
It is cheap enough to discard, and you can throw it out into your garden when done, where it will help aerate your soil.
|02-06-2016 01:36 PM|
3 years to the day and I am still on the edge of my seat!
Did you ever end up melting the samples?
|02-06-2013 10:03 PM|
I would think this would be the important part for it's purpose as biomedia. Even if it isn't exactly pumice, if it is similar enough, then people could probably get similar results using much cheaper horticultural pumice.
|02-06-2013 02:43 AM|
|VAtanks||Unfortunately I am not able to tell, both are silica based but since pumice has such a huge range between 78ish percent all the way to about 89 percent. I can not tell, at this point I couldnt even difinitively say my BBQ grill scrubbers are pumice. and am considering removing them. The only thing I can say for sure is the channels or pores under microscope are very similar. El cheapo microscope though so at this point my two samples are in the hands of a geologist adjunct professor. It was suggested I heat both samples to about 800 degrees and if they flow then they do belong to the glass family of compounds.....but that wouldn't answer is Matrix pumice....|
|02-05-2013 11:40 AM|
|02-05-2013 12:31 AM|
Some things that happen in test conditions, do not necessarily happen in nature, and vice versa. On top of that, since nature is not controllable, it makes things even more complicated.
As I mentioned, DNRA is much less common than denitrification. The amounts of ammonia/ammonium being produced would be much less than nitrites/nitrous oxides that would be produced through the denitrification pathway.
So, let's assume that nitrites are being produced; the amount of it being produced would be dependent on the number of facultative aerobic bacteria, which would be in turn based on the amount of anaerobic space there is in the Matrix biomedia (assuming it exists). This surface area would be greatly outmatched by the surface area that exists in aerobic conditions, so nitrification (production of nitrates) would be much more favoured.
With nitrates being produced, water changes will be required (assuming you do not have a planted aquarium whereby plants are uptaking nitrates...).
To my knowledge, in reef aquariums, the production of nitrates is slowed down through the addition/construction of a plenum.
|02-05-2013 12:23 AM|
|VAtanks||Seems its strictly bacterial related only and only in an anaerobic environment specifically pseudomonas and clostridium bacteria. which brings us back to the zero air zone in the matrix, but my follow on question would be, if this is naturally occuring in nature has it been established in a tank? would seem to me outside of trace elements needing to be refreshed would almost eliminate the need for water changes?|
|02-05-2013 12:13 AM|
|VAtanks||Physics major/Engineer...so chem baffles me. Is DNRA bacterial related or is it just a natural chemical reaction based on water conditions?|
|02-05-2013 12:03 AM|
Regarding your link to the article (not a textbook), it points out that "the importance of DNRA in freshwater sediments appears to be minor relative to DNF."
As I previously mentioned, DNRA is probably rarer than denitrification.
|02-04-2013 11:14 PM|
So basically the end result would be N2 in a crystaline form at the soil/water contact point as a result of DNRA? I did find a few more articles one from a text book from 07, still relavant though
January 2008, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 99-111
Good job Dark, I happen to have gotten into fish tanks not for their beauty but for the science...thanks for fanning the flame.
|02-04-2013 11:00 PM|
Those images show that the process referred to as denitrification reduces nitrates to nitrous oxide (through nitrite) and/or nitrogen gas.
Direct reduction of nitrates to ammonium (ammonia) is done by a process known as "Dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA)"
Here is some good reading for more information regarding DNRA.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|