wow than i see this message, seems like youre know what youre talkin bout, maybe they will work in the endActually, with these 'catalyst' pads, it should appear to workI guess it's some kind of polymer — a source of organic carbon.
The aquarium is depleted of energy that could be obtained from the oxidation of organic carbon in food (Cellular respiration). Fish consume most of this energy (around 80%?), leaving little available for heterotrophic bacteria or archaea to thrive.
If we supplement the system with organic carbon, microbial life will increase in population. Building biomass involves binding nitrates (and phosphates!) into microbial cells. Various sources of organic carbon can be used: vodka, sugar, glycerin, polymers (like tapioca or PCL), commercial products, or DIY alternatives (Reef Central forum thread). In saltwater systems, a protein skimmer removes most of the excess biomass.
However, the cure can be worse than the disease. A large additional surface area (not just inside a 'magic brick') is required in the filter to accumulate biomass, and this area must be cleaned regularly. Water quality can deteriorate and become unstable, potentially making fish more susceptible to diseases.
I’ve tested this approach myself, and I find it better to use selective nitrate ion-exchange resins (such as Purolite A520E or PA202),
regenerated with salt, to remove nitrates and DOC if you can aquire them in reasonable quantities. Now I just use drip system.
If someone claims they achieved full denitrification to gaseous nitrogen, I would test phosphate levels — there should be plenty of it left!
Maxspect Nano Tech Anaerobic Blocks.
- Thread starter HUKIT
- Start date
Well, I have no business commenting on this product because I only heard of it because of this thread; I have not even read the ad copy and blurbs for it, and frankly have no intention of doing so.
T
triamond
is much more of a techie than I am, and so I find it interesting that, after playing with "selective nitrate ion-exchange resins...regenerated with salt" to maintain water quality, he has come full circle and maintains his water quality by changing it via continuous drip. Why? Could it be that it's just plain better?
As aquarists, we all have to strike a balance between cost, effectiveness and ease of use when we decide how to keep our water in good shape. Every time a manufacturer announces a new Next Big Thing, we are assaulted by the Big M...Marketing...telling us that we need it and why we can't get by without it. In this case...and, again, I am just repeating stuff I've read in this thread...they are calling this new wunderkind product a "catalyst" pad...but also telling us it requires replacement every 2 months! Does nobody see the hypocrisy in that statement? If it is indeed a catalyst...it should be permanent, but of course that wouldn't be as lucrative for the makers.
I think the first step is deciding whether we want to be fish nerds or tech nerds. Fish nerds want to keep fish (duh!) and select a water-maintenance regime and technology which facilitates that goal. Tech nerds seem to want to keep fish essentially as poop dispensers, to justify more/better filters, gear and chemicals.
Easy question for most of us to answer, but a tricky one for some.
As aquarists, we all have to strike a balance between cost, effectiveness and ease of use when we decide how to keep our water in good shape. Every time a manufacturer announces a new Next Big Thing, we are assaulted by the Big M...Marketing...telling us that we need it and why we can't get by without it. In this case...and, again, I am just repeating stuff I've read in this thread...they are calling this new wunderkind product a "catalyst" pad...but also telling us it requires replacement every 2 months! Does nobody see the hypocrisy in that statement? If it is indeed a catalyst...it should be permanent, but of course that wouldn't be as lucrative for the makers.
I think the first step is deciding whether we want to be fish nerds or tech nerds. Fish nerds want to keep fish (duh!) and select a water-maintenance regime and technology which facilitates that goal. Tech nerds seem to want to keep fish essentially as poop dispensers, to justify more/better filters, gear and chemicals.
Easy question for most of us to answer, but a tricky one for some.
Actually, with these 'catalyst' pads, it should appear to work
The aquarium is depleted of energy that could be obtained from the oxidation of organic carbon in food (Cellular respiration). Fish consume most of this energy (around 80%?), leaving little available for heterotrophic bacteria or archaea to thrive.
If we supplement the system with organic carbon, microbial life will increase in population. Building biomass involves binding nitrates (and phosphates!) into microbial cells. Various sources of organic carbon can be used: vodka, sugar, glycerin, polymers (like tapioca or PCL), commercial products, or DIY alternatives (Reef Central forum thread). In saltwater systems, a protein skimmer removes most of the excess biomass.
However, the cure can be worse than the disease. A large additional surface area (not just inside a 'magic brick') is required in the filter to accumulate biomass, and this area must be cleaned regularly. Water quality can deteriorate and become unstable, potentially making fish more susceptible to diseases.
I’ve tested this approach myself, and I find it better to use selective nitrate ion-exchange resins (such as Purolite A520E or PA202),
regenerated with salt, to remove nitrates and DOC if you can aquire them in reasonable quantities. Now I just use drip system.
If someone claims they achieved full denitrification to gaseous nitrogen, I would test phosphate levels — there should be plenty of it left!
Thank you for the detailed reply. So with regards to the replacement media how often do you think it would last? As the carbon source depletes and if becomes less effective, after you replace the media does it take time to re-start?
The amount of added carbon in the form of this 'catalyst' (assuming the substance contains 50% carbon) should be close to the weight of the feed — if you want to incorporate all nitrates from the food into biomass. This, of course, depends on many factors.
So, you won’t see much of a difference unless you’re feeding close to the equivalent weight of this 'catalyst' over a period of two months.
It takes some time for the polymer to degrade, depending on the substance.
Just test this stuff and share the results — and then think of a constant drip system.
These blocks should be ok for putting a hot pot on in the kitchen.
So, you won’t see much of a difference unless you’re feeding close to the equivalent weight of this 'catalyst' over a period of two months.
It takes some time for the polymer to degrade, depending on the substance.
Just test this stuff and share the results — and then think of a constant drip system.
These blocks should be ok for putting a hot pot on in the kitchen.
I've had 120 liters of Seachem Pond Matrix in the sump of my Moba setup for 5 months now and I believe it has made a positive, though small difference. I just rinsed all of the pond matrix in tank water last night to clean it, and then placed it back in the sump.
Will putting a source of organic carbon in my setup such as these catalyst pads help my pond matrix convert nitrate to gaseous nitrogen?Actually, with these 'catalyst' pads, it should appear to work
I have seen other hobbyist comment on other forums that Matrix does work and some mentioned it doesn’t. If you had to quantify a number would that be 5-10ppm reduction?
Seachem Matrix is 100% pumice, according to Seachem’s own Safety Data Sheet
(Pumice 1332-09-8, EC No. 310-127-6, 100%)
The marketing claims about its denitrifying properties are misleading. In reality, it’s a poor, overpriced biological filtration medium compared to alternatives like sponge or Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBR).
True denitrification to gaseous nitrogen is a complex process that requires very specific anaerobic conditions—conditions that cannot be achieved in typical aquariums or ponds.
Adding an external carbon source may help reduce nitrates and phosphates, but this is not true denitrification. It often leads to water quality issues and system instability. It’s not worth the risk.
(Pumice 1332-09-8, EC No. 310-127-6, 100%)
The marketing claims about its denitrifying properties are misleading. In reality, it’s a poor, overpriced biological filtration medium compared to alternatives like sponge or Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBR).
True denitrification to gaseous nitrogen is a complex process that requires very specific anaerobic conditions—conditions that cannot be achieved in typical aquariums or ponds.
Adding an external carbon source may help reduce nitrates and phosphates, but this is not true denitrification. It often leads to water quality issues and system instability. It’s not worth the risk.
I use a Lamotte Spintouch photometer for my tanks since I got one in Oct '24. I've done tests on my 750gal setup an average of 3.6 times per week from then to present day and keep the readings in a spreadsheet.
I just looked quickly through the readings and eyeballing the history it looks like the nitrates build up more slowly around 2.5 months after putting in the Pond Matrix, but it's difficult to be certain given the changes.
1. Nov 12, 2024: I put in 120 liters of Pond Matrix when I had thirteen ~3"-4.5" (TL) moba in the tank.
2. Dec 18, 2024: I put in eleven more ~3" Moba in the tank.
3. May 25, 2025: all Moba are 4.5"-8" in size and are fed around 30% more than when they were first put in my tank.
I'm going to look at the spreadsheet again in another 5 months and hopefully have a more firm interpretation but I'm attaching the spreadsheet and you're welcome to draw your own conclusion if someone wants to look at it. The readings are in ppm, except pH. Here they are (had to convert to .pdf): photometer readings
