Re: [RML] Fluidized bed vs. Wet/dry

Scott.Hunt at mailhost.dpie.gov.au
Wed, 28 May 1997 8:40:45 +1000

>But wet/dry filters are extremely dependant on the air around them! A friend
>of mine has killed all bacteria in such a long running wet/dry filter with
>smoking in that room. The bacteria were killed and in the following a lot
>of the fishes were killed, until he found out the reason for it.

Please tell more Karsten.

Whilst I have read that cigarette smoke is not good for fish. I smoke around
some of my tanks and I have not had any problems. That is except for the
occasional cases of yellow fin, egg defect, stunted fry and gill cancer. ;-)
;-)

Whilst I know your talking about the filter bacteria rather than the fish, I'd
be interested in any comments on this subject.

Cheers.
Scott Hunt

rainbowfish-owner#064#pcug.org.au - SMTPGATE at WT400 on 27/05/97 04:55:50 PM
To: rainbowfish#064#pcug.org.au - SMTPGATE at WT400
cc:
Subject: Re: [RML] Fluidized bed vs. Wet/dry

Sorry, what are "Fluidized bed filters"? Can anyone explain to me, the
way they work?

> Sure it does a great job of keeping Ammonia and Nitrite down, but does
> nothing (at least that I've heard) for Nitrate.

I think there's no normal filter that does anything against Nitrate.
Nitrate can be reduced by bacteria, that are living without any oxygen!
So there are special Nitrate-filters, but they are running without any
oxygen and the bacteria have to be feed with alcohol.

Additionally I think the wet/dry filters do the best job on reducing
Ammonia and Nitrite compared with any other filter. (except the fluidized bed
filters, I don't know)
But wet/dry filters are extremely dependant on the air around them! A friend
of mine has killed all bacteria in such a long running wet/dry filter with
smoking in that room. The bacteria were killed and in the following a lot
of the fishes were killed, until he found out the reason for it.

But for the oxygen-liking bacteria, that transform the Nitrate to Nitrate,
the wet/dry filters do the best job.

Karsten