Granular or Pellet?

[kaboom]

I've been using Rowaphos for a few years and would like to try your product for the cost effective advantage. My question is this, which is a better absorber, Granular or pellet? I will be using it in a fluidized reactor. Thanks

[Myka]

I emailed them a similar question. The answer was that the High Capacity GFO absorbs about 2x as much as the pellet or regular granular making it the most cost effective to use. I'm currently using the HC GFO in my reactor, it is WAAAAY less dusty than RowaPhos. It seems to work about the same or maybe a tad better than RowaPhos tsp to tsp.

If you actually want them to answer your question, you are better off emailing them.

[kaboom]

I wonder how the 2x affectiveness is measured? If that's a true claim, you would think that it would be flying off the shelves. Really I am not looking something that will out perform Rowaphos, just something cheaper with equivalent results. Question I need clarification is not the different grades of GFO but rather the partical size, granular or pellets. Is one more absorbent and/or longer lasting?

[Myka]

It wouldn't be hard to measure the effectiveness. The effectivenss of most GFOs is written right on the labels. To answer your question, pellet will adsorb only slightly more than the same volume of granular, but that is because pellet is heavier. Weight-wise, they absorb about the same amount. I'm willing to bet that their regular GFOs are about equivalent to something like PuraLock (or is it PuraPhos?), which doesn't work nearly as good as Rowa.

The HC GFO is cheaper than Rowa with equivalent (possibly a bit better) results. Plus you save on shipping because you don't need as much as the regular GFO.

Check this page of BRS's out: http://www.bulkreefsupply.com/a9/Granular-Ferric-Oxide-(GFO)-Instructions/article_info.html

[snarkys]

I wonder how the 2x affectiveness is measured? If that's a true claim, you would think that it would be flying off the shelves. Really I am not looking something that will out perform Rowaphos, just something cheaper with equivalent results. Question I need clarification is not the different grades of GFO but rather the partical size, granular or pellets. Is one more absorbent and/or longer lasting?

It is "ruffly" twice as effective as the other two . About 1.9 times the typical granules.

The effectiveness isn't a number we just came up with : )
This products main purpose is for removing arsenic from drinking water for human consumption. It is highly regulated and tested for both quality and effectiveness. The products ability to remove phosphate is closely tied to amount of iron oxide it contains. The HC product is about twice as heavy/dense as the other two and therefor contains around twice as much iron oxide for the same volume.

all that said, it is about twice as expensive as well. The main benefit in my eyes is that it is much harder and less prone to attrition and the creation of fines (dust) in both transport around the world to your home and inside your reactor.

[snarkys]

I've been using Rowaphos for a few years and would like to try your product for the cost effective advantage. My question is this, which is a better absorber, Granular or pellet? I will be using it in a fluidized reactor. Thanks


pellets will function very similar to the granules but will out preform them in every meaningful way by just a bit. between these two i would choose pellets every time.

you can read more about this here. http://www.bulkreefsupply.com/faq.php?cID=2

[Myka]

I didn't think you guys would reply on here. That's great! :)

[snarkys]

glad to be of service : )

[kaboom]

Thanks for the clarification, that really helps.