Skimmer vs. Carbon

[OgreMkV]

A LFS guy (the store will remain nameless) suggested that a skimmer for a lightly loaded tank like mine may not be necessary. Instead, it may be possible to run carbon briefly (or a small bag continually).

Theoretically, the carbon would take out the same materials that the skimmer would.

Tank
45g Pent, Aquaclear 70 HOB filter, 2 powerheads (one with a sponge filter).
2 true perc clowns
2 yellow clown gobies
1 tail spot blennie
4 snails (which are breeding and making many, many eggs BTW)

4 varities of SPS
1 hammer
1 torch
1 trumpet
1 large acan
several varities of zooanthids.
several mushrooms

 

[Amphiprion]

They don't remove the exact same materials, no. Though carbon is more effective at removing overall concentrations of organic carbon when compared to a protein skimmer.

 

[ToeJam]

Amp such a nice Mod...

I think if you were looking into purchases...going with a skimmer is great idea since you are going SPS.

For more Skimmer details my sig has skimmer break down of info....judge for yourself ..I am sure you will find them to be a very smart good purchase.

 

[Amphiprion]

Amp such a nice Mod...

I think if you were looking into purchases...going with a skimmer is great idea since you are going SPS.

For more Skimmer details my sig has skimmer break down of info....judge for yourself ..I am sure you will find them to be a very smart good purchase.

They do help in many circumstances, as they are also capable of exporting particles and suspended cells, all of which is a form of export in and of itself. I suppose it depends on the end goal. If the end goal is to reduce and remove particles (which include carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus), aerate, etc., then maybe a skimmer is a better choice. If it is for strictly removing dissolved organic carbon, activated carbon is a better choice. If the goal is to get rid of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus, lighted refugia, turf scrubbers, and bacterial-driven sytems are more effective. Each does something a bit different, so it is hard to really compare.

 

[ToeJam]

They do help in many circumstances, as they are also capable of exporting particles and suspended cells, all of which is a form of export in and of itself. I suppose it depends on the end goal. If the end goal is to reduce and remove particles (which include carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus), aerate, etc., then maybe a skimmer is a better choice. If it is for strictly removing dissolved organic carbon, activated carbon is a better choice. If the goal is to get rid of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus, lighted refugia, turf scrubbers, and bacterial-driven sytems are more effective. Each does something a bit different, so it is hard to really compare.

So in english: Carbon will extract the stuff that eventually will turn into finer dissolved crud that the skimmer will pull out?

If that is the 411 you are giving here, it sounds like the combo is ideal to really keep the water changes volume down.

 

[Amphiprion]

Yes, in a nutshell, carbon is much better at getting rid of stuff that has already broken down. Skimmers are much better, on the other hand, at things that have not and are still more particulate and less soluble in nature.

 

[Slappy*McFish]

I use Purigen to supplement my skimmer.

 

[Cerianthus]

It is my belief that carbon is more to ADSORB. not absorb, any ions thru weak ionic bond.
PS skimmer on other hand is to remove protein + other organic molecules.
Protein will eventually break down to its building blocks , Amino acids, which in turn will produce NH3 thru deamination process. As these process continues to takes place in the system, nitrate will accumulate since it is the end product of nitrification process.Thus better remove protein before its denaturization(I think this is right term)

All in all, I would prefer to hook up PS over any carbon. Besides, Carbon may adsorb not just the unwanted ions but also required/necessary ions. For this reason, I never used Carbon in Reef Set Up but always have utilized some sort of PS, even diy PS/modified version, on 10G Nano. If there is a room I would hook up PS.
Depending on amt of livestocks, I may have PS on timer to so that it will run sporatically but the way I stocked the tank with coral and fish and amt of food given, I very seldomly had PS on timer or on redox potential controller. Besides, if memory serves, collection of mud/foam reaching the collection cup with organic matter were not 24/7/365. I would noticed it will collect at max in the beginning and eventually as tank water was well polished, sporadic collection occurred.

 

[Amphiprion]

Yes, carbon, purigen, GFO, etc. actually adsorb various molecules and ions. What "necessary ions" does carbon actually adsorb? Most testing has shown that protein skimmers remove far more valuable ions than carbon, especially calcium carbonate. Removal by carbon is usually limited to most organic or organically complexed molecules/ions. I would personally use carbon in any circumstances--even in those where a skimmer wouldn't be used.

 

[OgreMkV]

Yes, carbon, purigen, GFO, etc. actually adsorb various molecules and ions. What "necessary ions" does carbon actually adsorb? Most testing has shown that protein skimmers remove far more valuable ions than carbon, especially calcium carbonate. Removal by carbon is usually limited to most organic or organically complexed molecules/ions. I would personally use carbon in any circumstances--even in those where a skimmer wouldn't be used.

That's pretty much what I was going for. The long chain aminos and proteins can be picked up by the corals. But I've got enough problems keeping calcium and magnesium high enough... I certainly don't want them pulled out.

I'll stick with carbon for now. My tank has very limited room for a skimmer anyway.