What are the new Xport products from Brightwell Aquatics?

[atcaw94]

Originally Posted by FragIt Dan

That's 150grams/300Gallons tank water right? Just making sure .

I figure I have around 120 gal or so of NWV, here's what the directions say on their site. So being as my nitrates are 50+, I read this as I'm actually using too little. Correct?

In systems with an initial [NO3] of <40 ppm, begin with a ratio of 150 g Xport-NO3 per 120 US-gallons (454 L) in system (increase this mass by 10% for every 10 ppm NO3 in excess of 40 ppm). Denitrification will typically begin within one week; rate of denitrification increases with time. If corals or other invertebrates appear to react negatively to the use of Xport-NO3, it may be an indication that NO3 is being removed too aggressively; decrease amount of Xport-NO3 used by 50% and continue use until [NO3] falls within desired range.

[atcaw94]

Originally Posted by thebanker

Tagging along here. I saw an ad for these products, and needless to say I'm curious. I don't think people should discount these products before they are vetted and proven in the public's tanks. (Randy, your opinions are the exception here, since you are a chemist)

I'm not saying these products work or don't work, but biopellets were met with similar skepticism when they were first discussed.

Anyway, this looks interesting. I wonder how frequently one needs to change out the media. My last experience with Brightwell PhosphatR resin had me a little disappointed, because it created a drastic PO4 drop, and needed to be regenerated after 24 hours or so of use.

According to the site:
Replace ~25% of the total Xport-NO3 employed every 3 - 4 months in high-bioload systems, and every 6 - 8 months in low-nutrient systems.

[layer3switchguy]

Tagging along.. Brightwell's products, while well marketed have never worked well in my tank. I will be curious to see how this new system performs..

[atcaw94]

Well, I didn't have a media bag so I put the media in the reactor. The media doesn't tumble at all, if you turn up the flow it looks like it just breaks it apart. It seems if the media just sits there, it would eventually just clump up. I don't know if I should just give it a week as is, or go buy a media bag and just throw it in the sump. I emailed Brightwell yesterday but have not heard back yet. If I don't see at least some reduction in a week or so I think I"ll just go back to trying the biopellets as I was ready to mod my reactor with the funnel mod anyway.
I don't know if it helps any, but I attached pics of the media in the reactor and how I have it set up off of my manifold. I have the UV turned off and the return off of the manifold going to the skimmer section.

[atcaw94]

Here is the reply I got back from Brightwell:

Good day Mr. Jenkins,
Thank you for contacting us. The material should not tumble, as forcing it to do so will cause wear and deterioration. Maximum performance will be obtained by placing it into a reactor or canister filter such that the material is in a static, non-moving state, with laminar, uniform flow of aquarium water through the media. Flow rate can be in the realm of 100 gph to begin. In terms of the mass to begin with, the media will gradually increase in denitrifying efficiency, therefore it’s fine to place all of the media into the vessel from the beginning; in other words, there will not be an immediate drop of nitrate to 0 ppm.

[sirreal63]

This product appears to be very similar to Sera Sipromax concept or Eheim Substrat Pro, with the addition of his NO3 carbon dosing product and his PO4 GFO product and of course MB7 to supply what nature already supplies in copious quantities.

I am trying to keep an open mind here, but isn't this just a way to sell highly marked up products that are already on the market? The NO3 product appears to be little more than a liquid carbon and the PO4 just a repackaged HCGFO? What am I missing here?

WTH is NanoIntelex Technology? I may be wrong here but it sounds like the same old shuffle, repackage something with a shiny new name and take money from unsuspecting people. I do not see anything new in these products, is there and I just have not been able to find it?

[billsreef]

Jack,

I expect you are not missing a thing.

[sirreal63]

Thanks Bill,
I give Chris credit for his marketing genius, something I know very well, I have been doing it since the early 80's in one form or another, but I hate to see yet another way to fool aquarists. I am sure he has applied for a copywrite on the term NanoIntellex Technology. LOL

[FragIt Dan]

Originally Posted by sirreal63

This product appears to be very similar to Sera Sipromax concept or Eheim Substrat Pro, with the addition of his NO3 carbon dosing product and his PO4 GFO product and of course MB7 to supply what nature already supplies in copious quantities.

I am trying to keep an open mind here, but isn't this just a way to sell highly marked up products that are already on the market? The NO3 product appears to be little more than a liquid carbon and the PO4 just a repackaged HCGFO? What am I missing here?

WTH is NanoIntelex Technology? I may be wrong here but it sounds like the same old shuffle, repackage something with a shiny new name and take money from unsuspecting people. I do not see anything new in these products, is there and I just have not been able to find it?

I asked Chris directly about the XPort products and whether or not they were just variants of Carbon dosing and GFO... his answer (as I understood it) was rather clear in that they were not. I come from a technical background (employed as a marine biologist) and was discussing things at a non-layman's level. I appreciate the skepticism out there and don't yet offer an opinion on these products, just passing along the information that Chris has provided. My hopes with this thread are twofold... Those of us trying them out:

1) can share info so that we are indeed using them as intended - to give them the best chance for success.
2) can provide a consensus on feedback as to the efficacy, and ultimately give a reasonable and fair review.

I am a scientist and know that my testing of them is anything but scientific, so hopefully there are enough of us trying them out and following this thread to get some sort of consensus. I will try to provide information for everyone to judge themselves, rather than interpret the results myself. So far everyone's comments have been pretty constructive (albeit precautionary ), so thanks for the heads up.
Dan

[sirreal63]

One thing is for sure, even if they were just repackaged carbon and HCGFO they will work. I have little doubt that what he is selling will work, but suspect that it is already proven technology. Many of us here do the same thing at a fraction of the price being charged for fancy packaging and shiny names. It could very well end up being that you replaced one product with the same product, with the exception of the XPort media.

I find it very hard to believe that he invented some super scientific cutting edge technology in his basement. Dan I suspect that if you were speaking to him on a scientific level, you were saying things he did not fully comprehend. He won't come here ever to discuss things in his products because there are actual scientists and chemists here that would refute his "discoveries", you are included in that list. I also have no doubt that he does come here anonymously and sees what is said in these threads. If his products were genuinely new and cutting edge, they would be patented, but if they were, then the ingredients might need to be public knowledge. I don't think I have seen any of his products that are patented, maybe there are some, but I don't recall ever seeing any of them state that. Why?

I give you tons of credit for trying these products out and reporting the findings here. I have been tempted to try the Sera Siporax but haven't had the need yet. I saw a thread a few months back that got me to thinking about it, but cannot find it now. Oh well, it is hard to be old and heavily medicated. I look forward to your findings and won't clutter this thread any more. :-)

It is through someone trying a product that understanding and truth comes to light. I think it will work, but I don't think it is anything new, just polished. :-)

[billsreef]

The same claims were made about Kent products when he was working for them. At that point in time, Kent was also generally known as "copy Kent" in the industry. Has he actually come up something new this time, I don't know, but as far as I know it would be a first. He is indeed a master of marketing, but much of that marketing also tends to be scientific babble that sounds good to the layman and leaves much to be desired to the pros.

[FragIt Dan]

Time will tell . Unfortunately I am not doing real 'science' here, there are way too many variables to account for and I really don't have the time or energy to do run proper controls (maybe I will set something up at work at some point in time). Hopefully enough anecdotal evidence comes to light we can make some sort of judgement.
The media is ceramic based, so that gives me a bit of confidence it is not simply 'hyper activated' gfo. There are some products mentioned on this thread I am not familiar with so can't comment on whether the XPort media is a copy of it, but it seems odd that Chris would go out of his way to say 'XPort is like nothing else on the market'.
Thanks again for all the feedback, I'll keep everyone posted. I am expecting the XPort NO3 and PO4 to arrive today or tomorrow,
Dan

[j.p. harrington]

hey dan not trying to jack the thread but i wonder if these brightwell products are doing the same thing that the Coral-Shop line of products that have finally made it to the USA are doing theyve got there phosphate and nitrate removers in a liquid form instead of a media form or am i completely misunderstanding what the brightwell products are doing?
heres the links to the products im refering to
http://www.finsreef.com/xcart/produc...cat=294&page=1
http://www.finsreef.com/xcart/produc...cat=294&page=1

as said not trying to take away from the thread just curious

[bertoni]

The phosphate remover is iron-based, and the other product is a carbon source. I don't know anything about how a liquid iron-based product would work, although I don't like the sound of their description. The carbohydrate product might be fine.

It's not completely clear to me how the Brightwell products are supposed to work, so I'm not sure that I can compare them to the CS line.

[FragIt Dan]

Originally Posted by j.p. harrington

hey dan not trying to jack the thread but i wonder if these brightwell products are doing the same thing that the Coral-Shop line of products that have finally made it to the USA are doing theyve got there phosphate and nitrate removers in a liquid form instead of a media form or am i completely misunderstanding what the brightwell products are doing?
heres the links to the products im refering to
http://www.finsreef.com/xcart/produc...cat=294&page=1
http://www.finsreef.com/xcart/produc...cat=294&page=1

as said not trying to take away from the thread just curious

No need to worry about jacking the thread. +1 on Bertoni's comments... it appears the products you are referencing, along with BA's new stuff, and indeed GFO, all accomplish the same goal through analogous Fe based mechanisms. I am sure Randy would be better to explain them so I wont make a fool of myslef , particularly on the phosphate topic.
The Coral-Shop phosphate reducer appears to use a combination iron/flocculant approach. This would concern me for a couple of reasons (other than the scary warnings on the instructions). First, the phosphate is not actually removed from your system except that which is caught in your mechanical filtration, which I suspect would be a small percentage. If my assumption is correct, it would leave a build up of phosphate rich flocculant particles in your tank, which I would be worried would eventually deteriorate and release phosphate (but I don't really know if this would happen, it is just a guess). You also need to dose regularly, much like the alumina based solutions for phosphate reduction. Second, the flocculant, even if it were not to release phosphate back in your tank, would potentially settle on your corals. Although this could be remedied, it is a step in the wrong direction from GFO, IMS. I can see the phosphate product potentially useful in other situations, just not mine.
For me, it comes down to ease of use and robustness (difficult to screw up). In the end I think there are sooooo many ways to accomplish a low nutrient system you just need to find what works for you.
I am hopeful that the XPort stuff will work 'better' for me than my EtOH/GFO regime, but I will always be on the lookout for something that will work better so am open to your suggestions of the Coral-Shop products. Having read their directions over I don't think they are a step in the right direction for my situation. The iron based phosphate one sounds down-right scary to me.
As for a comparison to the XPort products, I have only received my BIO version of the XPort so can't really comment on the other stuff other than what I have been told by Chris. It/they are a solid, consumable media with a large surface area. How it achieves a low nutrient system, although interesting to me, is not what I am primarily concerned about. I simply want to find something that reliably achieves that goal, is not overly expensive, and is robust enough to require maintenance no more than monthly. Again, there are ways to achieve this other than the XPort products, I am just going to give them a try to see .
Dan
PS - That Coral-Shop phosphate product treats 'DPHOS Phosphates'... makes me suspicious when manufacturers put descriptors on things that are not standard. You don't really know what they mean, or what the product actually does.

[FragIt Dan]

Here are pics of the new Xport Products from Brightwell Aquatics:

XPort all.jpg

XPort BIO.jpg XPort NO3.jpg XPort PO4.jpg

Last night I rinsed the NO3 and PO4 media with RODI, rinsed with Tank water, poured the suggested dose of MicroBactor7 and submersed in a bucket with tank water at room temperature (my BIO media has been treated the same way and has been running in my canisters for a few days now). I will place the NO3 and PO4 media into my canisters tonight, after the suggested 24hrs seeding period has elapsed.

Comments on Xport BIO:
See my post earlier in this thread

Comments on Xport NO3:
If you look closely at the pic it has little yellow flecks embedded in the foam matrix. Any guesses as to what these are? I assume they are the active component in the NO3 uptake and the foam is just a media to suspend them in, but this is just a guess.

Comments on XPort PO4:
I put the some of my BRS GFO in the first pic for reference (not that I am implying it is GFO ). Although Chris said the PO4 product is not GFO based, I have a feeling it is "FO" based. Although I have not done any sort of proper analyses, I suspect the PO4 product is 'croutonized' (credit to tkeracer619 for coining that term!) GFO, perhaps with a bit of a kick for improved performance. It does claim it will not release PO4 back into the water, so perhaps it has some other component to it other than the standard ferric oxide.
I should have been more clear on my question to Chris ('is it GFO based?'... I really should have said 'is it FO based?'). Having said that, it may not be a bad thing, I am just a little disappointed. I have not run the numbers for cost relative to other products (to figure out cost/g PO4 adsorbed), so it may still be worthwhile, and it is, at minimum, a different media format not requiring fluidizing which may work better in canisters.

General comments:
I verified the weight of the media and it was as advertised (a while back I bought some Ca at my LFS listed as an 800g bottle... well the 3 of them all contained between 630 and 680g each so now I actually check!).

One criticism though... some physical deterioration occurred to the media between BA and my receiving dock. Although packaged well, there is a substantial amount of powder in the bottom of each of the bags (I assume from movement during shipping), perhaps around 5% by weight. It would be nice if they packed a bit extra in the bag so that you got a proper amount of USABLE media. Also, I could not find any guidelines on the starting dose of the PO4 product, so I just used the base guidelines for GFO and will check with my Hannah colorimeter for the first few days to make sure my phosphates are not too low.

As always, suggestions/feedback and constructive criticism are not just welcomed... they are appriciated .
Dan

[Habib]

I have the bad habit of not throwing things away and if I do then suddenly out of the blue I need it.

I might have the Bio resembling stuff laying around, obtained it more than 10 years ago.


Dan, would the yellow specks melt , carbonize or burn if held in a flame?

[FragIt Dan]

Originally Posted by Habib

I have the bad habit of not throwing things away and if I do then suddenly out of the blue I need it.

I might have the Bio resembling stuff laying around, obtained it more than 10 years ago.

Dan, would the yellow specks melt , carbonize or burn if held in a flame?

Ohhh, good question! Not often i get to play with flame with my fish tanks... Heading home for lunch... I will let you know what I find out... in a WELL ventilated area
Dan

[Habib]

Originally Posted by BurnIt Dan

..... I will let you know what I find out... in a WELL ventilated area
Dan

[BigKahuna]

Originally Posted by FragIt Dan

Comments on XPort PO4:
I put the some of my BRS GFO in the first pic for reference (not that I am implying it is GFO ). Although Chris said the PO4 product is not GFO based, I have a feeling it is "FO" based. Although I have not done any sort of proper analyses, I suspect the PO4 product is 'croutonized' (credit to tkeracer619 for coining that term!) GFO, perhaps with a bit of a kick for improved performance. It does claim it will not release PO4 back into the water, so perhaps it has some other component to it other than the standard ferric oxide.
I should have been more clear on my question to Chris ('is it GFO based?'... I really should have said 'is it FO based?'). Having said that, it may not be a bad thing, I am just a little disappointed. I have not run the numbers for cost relative to other products (to figure out cost/g PO4 adsorbed), so it may still be worthwhile, and it is, at minimum, a different media format not requiring fluidizing which may work better in canisters.

I read somewhere on these forums that the PO4x4 product contained only Iron Hydroxide while GFO contains both Iron Hydroxide and Ironoxide which doesn't bind much PO4 at all. Essentially the Ironoxide ends up as filler to the active ingredient of Iron Hydroxide. This XPort PO4 might do the same by including more of the Iron Hydroxide to bind more pound for pound vs regular GFO. For the record I'm no chemist and am just going by what I've read elsewhere here on RC while I was researching PO4x4.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Originally Posted by BigKahuna

I read somewhere on these forums that the PO4x4 product contained only Iron Hydroxide while GFO contains both Iron Hydroxide and Ironoxide which doesn't bind much PO4 at all. Essentially the Ironoxide ends up as filler to the active ingredient of Iron Hydroxide. This XPort PO4 might do the same by including more of the Iron Hydroxide to bind more pound for pound vs regular GFO. For the record I'm no chemist and am just going by what I've read elsewhere here on RC while I was researching PO4x4.

Well, it is more complicated than that, and I certainly do not know what is in every product. However, all of these sorts of products bind phosphate only at the solid/water interface. So in that sense,the interior of all of these materials is wasted, regardless of the chemical form.

That is why the physical form is so important, providing a lot of surface area.

Further, the nature of the surface of a solid is not always the same as the interior. Solid metallic iron, for example, will have an oxide/ hydroxide surface after exposure to air and water.

Also, the crystalline structure of the same exact chemical can bind phosphate differently, so not all iron oxides and hydroxides are equivalent to other crystal structures with the same basic chemical formula

This result is just like aragonite and calcite which have different properties even though both are calcium carbonate.

[BigKahuna]

Randy, thanks for the info. These things always seem more complicated than they appear on the surface, no pun intended. The reasons I decided to try the PO4x4 were that even if it isn't all that much more effective at PO4 binding at least the encapsulation in the polymer/resin makes for less discoloration when changing it out and less potential to grind it down and release fines into the tank.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It's a fine product to try and use. I have nothing against it (at least that I know of yet )

[FragIt Dan]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

It's a fine product to try and use. I have nothing against it (at least that I know of yet )

. Having spent a good portion of the last few days reading up on your other posts on BA's products, I can appreciate your cynicism . Glad to see you hold true to science and are not heading into this with any bias. Caution perhaps, but not bias.

Too busy at lunch to burn anything... thought i would at least post to let you guys know I wasn't passed out on the floor of my workshop

BurnIt Dan

[Habib]

Originally Posted by FragIt Dan

. .......

Too busy at lunch to burn anything... thought i would at least post to let you guys know I wasn't passed out on the floor of my workshop

BurnIt Dan

I was only joking.