The Planted Tank Forum banner

seachem matrix bio best ?

26K views 76 replies 27 participants last post by  Pattern8 
#1 ·
just came across their website and saw them stated

" BET surface area measurements indicate that Matrix™ contains nearly 10 times the specific surface area of Substrat Pro, and more than 20 times the specific surface area of MicroMec. "

and

"Matrix contains between 4 to 4.5 times the biologically active surface area of Substrat Pro, and between 8 to 9 times the biologically active surface area of MicroMec."

does that mean matrix have more bio surface area than substrat pro and micromec ?
 
#8 ·
They also make denitrate which is much smaller and functions mostly the same, it supposedly helps reduce nitrates but only if it's used in a low flow application (under 50gph iirc). Much easier to jam into a HOB filter.

I love my Matrix, I don't have any way to prove that it works better than any other bio media but it works well enough. Plus it doesn't seem to stain like some other bio media does which makes it easier to tell when it's actually needing a rinse.
 
#12 ·
Well, isn't it interesting - lol. I also Googled "bulk pumice stone", and sure enough it looks just like Matrix. So then I Googled "Matrix pumice" and found another forum conversation where the same thing was said. That certainly explains the dust! Plus they both float - another giveaway.

So I have 2 questions; (sorry for the thread hijack!) Plain old pumice from a garden center should be aquarium safe if there are no additives listed on the bag, right? Also, since it's pores will harbor nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria, why can't it be used in the substrate? Like placing a layer under MGOCPM, or Black Diamond? If whatever is over the pumice is a thick enough layer, the pumice still wouldn't show after all the smaller particles of the other material fell though the gaps. Or would that be so deep anaerobic problems could start? Just a thought for increasing nitrifying and denitrifying surface area, I don't see why it has to be in a filter to work...(my apologies again, OP, for the derailment)
 
#15 ·
Thanks - I'll stick to putting it behind my Mattenfilters.

Any opinions on what is better - pumice stone or lava rock? I would think the lava rock, having larger "pores", would collect mulm & detritus more easily. But lava rock leaches iron (desirable to me) into the water as I understand it, so I would still use it to tie my anubias and java ferns to (or perhaps it contains iron that the roots can access - I can't remember).

So I will put pumice stone in the filters, and lava rock attached to water column feeding plants. Sounds good?
 
#21 ·
" The first positive impression we had of Matrix was how quickly it cycled. In our new planted tank with ADA Aquasoil, we achieved zero levels of free ammonia from day 5. When using Substrat Pro, we averaged about 14 days and with Bio Rio, about 10 days. "

seems convincing from where it is quoted and the claims by seachem

quoted from :
http://theaquaticgazette.com/2012/03/08/seachem-matrix/
 
#24 ·
I'm the middle of the road for scrubbies. Sure they work well too, but what has always concerned me is how well does it retain bacteria to repopulate after cleaning them over matrix. I also feel matrix allows better flow even after buildup, and I'm big on flow.
 
#27 ·
#28 ·
Well, my Google Chrome blocked my access to page two, saying there was a known malware distributing source on it, and it could infect my computer! (www.momo(something) koi.com I can't remember what it was exactly). But I did read all of page one, which was interesting. I have high bioloads so I'll stick to pumice/Matrix. And I'll take Chrome's advice & skip the rest...
 
#31 ·
That's interesting that you would say that about my tanks - I never have been able to figure out how to judge bioloads. But I have so-so filtration on my 125 (never have been able to figure out how the Mattenfilter rates. My HOB is only rated for an 80g tank, I think. I have 98 actual gallons) and very light planting so far, so the Matrix will help in the meantime while I slowly beef up the plant ratio. I won't bother with more details as I don't want to derail the thread...
 
#40 ·
Matrix is the best de-nitrifying bio media. If you have high NO3 it's probably a good idea, but so are water changes. Whatever gets your planted tank NO3 spec to around 20ppm is good; be it substratpro, lava rock, micromec etc.
I just want to make sure that you meant denitrification in your post.

How is this media achieving localized anaerobic spots within a filter with so much water movement?
 
#34 ·
I have used Matrix in a canister filter as the only filtering media in a reef tank over a longer period with succsess, this tank did not have a proteinskimmer either. The Matrix did the filtering all alone, i did not have any nitrate in this tank when Matrix was used. If i wanted the best possible filter media, i would go for Matrix once again.

Jnad
 
#35 ·
What I wonder about is, pumice or Matrix has small pores. After awhile, it appears to me that the pores are all covered with bio film. Doesn't that nullify the effectiveness of the pores? I could imagine that Matrix is effective when new and clean. But, what about 3 months from now? In three months, wouldn't sponges, lava rock, plastic hair curlers be just as effective?
 
#36 ·
What I wonder about is, pumice or Matrix has small pores. After awhile, it appears to me that the pores are all covered with bio film. Doesn't that nullify the effectiveness of the pores? I could imagine that Matrix is effective when new and clean. But, what about 3 months from now? In three months, wouldn't sponges, lava rock, plastic hair curlers be just as effective?
Seachem claims it does not need to be replaced because the pores are naturally too small for organics to clog, but large enough to be washed to have the old bacteria remains removed. I think it can be rinsed and boiled (several times) to be rendered reusable. I would just avoid the use of any products because of the highly porous nature of pumice stone.
 
#47 ·
Anthony, can you please tell me the difference between nitrification and denitrification? I know I have links that explain this somewhere, but I am feeling so yucky after being out in the cold today that I can't think straight. For the life of me I can't remember what denitrification is...thanks!

PS - congrats again on moderator, in case people haven't noticed!
 
#48 ·
Nitrification is the process of converting ammonia to nitrates, and requires an aerobic environment.

Denitrification is the reverse process; converting from nitrates to nitrogen gas.

That is the general gist of things. There are some bacteria that can carry out more/less steps of each pathway and/or carry the process further (i.e. all the way to nitrogen gas rather than just nitrite, etc).

Also, thank you for your kind words. I look forward to making TPT an enjoyable experience for everyone.
 
#49 ·
I just looked up the matrix product description on seachem's website, and they claim:

"...These macropores are ideally sized for the support of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. This allows Matrix™, unlike other forms of biomedia, to remove nitrate along with ammonia and nitrite, simultaneously and in the same filter. "http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/Matrix.html
 
#51 ·
Its possible. There is anoxic zones in the media. Where there is deplete of oxygen, thus allowing anaerobic bacteria to grow. Aerobic bacteria ( not sure how to spell ) will be on the outer side of the pores, consuming oxygen. That is why deep inside the pores, there is lack of oxygen.
 
#53 ·
Its possible. There is anoxic zones in the media. Where there is deplete of oxygen, thus allowing anaerobic bacteria to grow. Aerobic bacteria ( not sure how to spell ) will be on the outer side of the pores, consuming oxygen. That is why deep inside the pores, there is lack of oxygen.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing; somehow, the media must create localized anaerobic spots for denitrification to occur.

However, what would be the purpose (if anaerobic bacteria truly are present)? Denitrification would take the nitrates that are produced by the aerobic bacteria, and convert back to nitrites...which are then converted back to nitrates by the aerobic bacteria.

On top of this, the aerobic bacteria would be much in excess compared to the anaerobic bacteria, meaning nitrification would be very favoured.
 
#52 ·
I'm hesitant to point this out, as I have no interest in starting another argument about the necessity of bio-media, but because nobody has mentioned it (or I missed it), and cost seems to be a factor in this thread...

Many of us have gone the route of zero bio-media and have perfectly happy plants and fish. While there are a couple valid reasons to use bio-media in a filter, there's plenty of surface area for bacteria to colonize on without adding volcanic rock to the filtration process. Remember, also, that mech-media is *also* bio-media, without exception. Adding bio-media will not increase the amount of beneficial bacteria in the system. It will only provide an area of higher concentration of bb.

Again, there are a couple valid arguments for bio-media, and there are similarly valid arguments to the contrary. Good luck with whatever you decide!
 
#54 ·
This whole pumice talk made me research its debate the last couple days, and I can't find any evidence it'd the same as matrix. There's a lot of suspect it is, and a lot of visual similarity's but if you put it under a microscope it is different. No one really has a technical true answer to what it really is from my readings.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top