Purigen reviews please

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

patryuji

Aquarium Advice FINatic
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
681
Location
Erie, CO
Lets here your experiences on this filtering media. I have seen a few people post about having it and how clear the water is but does anyone have a full review? Anyone use it in an uncycled tank? How does it affect GH, KH, PO3/PO4?
 
I have not used it and am leery of it because of the claim that it removes ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. I need the first two to feed my bacterial colonies and the third I have no trouble keeping under control with my water changing regime. It would interfere with a cycle, for sure. I am happy with the filter media currently available, so to me, I don't want to fix what isn't broken!

Maybe I am misinterpreting its benefits, so someone will hopefully chime in here with a testimonial.
 
Well, that is why I want to hear a review of long term use of the stuff.

It appears (based on what I have read from seachem's site) that it would actually remove ALL DOCs from the water but does not filter out most minerals (organic compounds are significantly larger than simple mineral compounds). No nitrate might hurt the plants though...

In a non-planted tank it sounds like the perfect filtering media to use. It doesn't wear out (you simply treat it to refresh it to new status) and the fish will never be stressed from NH3/NH4, NO2, or NO3. Purigen is cheaper than bio-spira and you may not have even the short spike experienced with bio-spira. I would rather not have to grow any bacteria at all if possible as then there is never the worry of a catastrophic failure (death of the bacteria colony). You could medicate the main tank if necessary without worry. How about if you could do the water changes 1/2 as frequently as you currently do. May not save much time for the person with a single 29gallon tank but if you had a few 90 gallon tanks, a 55 gallon tank, and a couple of 29 gallon tanks the time saved could be significant not to mention the water saved (with the multi-tank example).

I did read someone's indications that within 2-3 days of use the water was as clear as if they had used a diatom filter.
 
A tank that naturally cycles is more healthy then one where you are removing the ammo/ites/ates from it. Once a tank is naturally cycled, it provides a very safe and stable environment for fish to live in. What happens when the Purigen is "full" and can not absorb any further? You would get spikes all over the place. Also there is more to water changes than just removing nitrates.

A lot of media and additives promote the ability to be lazy. When it comes down to it, no water additive or filter media is a replacement for good maintenence.
 
grimlock3000 said:
A tank that naturally cycles is more healthy then one where you are removing the ammo/ites/ates from it. Once a tank is naturally cycled, it provides a very safe and stable environment for fish to live in. What happens when the Purigen is "full" and can not absorb any further? You would get spikes all over the place. Also there is more to water changes than just removing nitrates.

A lot of media and additives promote the ability to be lazy. When it comes down to it, no water additive or filter media is a replacement for good maintenence.

You simply swap in some fresh purigen and then treat the old purigen to regenerate it back to new condition (according to the information from seachem's website).

http://www.seachem.com/en_products/product_pages/016_purigen.html

What happens when your bio-filter dies off and you get spikes all over the place with a tank full of live animals?

A filtering media could be considered to be good maintenance. Without first hand experience and qualitative data you cannot make the assertion that the water quality would be automatically worse with this filtering media as opposed to having a tank with nothing but a bacterial filtering colony.

Why bother using filter pads to trap particles? Shouldn't you just keep all material in the tank to allow bacteria to grow to decay the dead material and only change the water?

Would a filterless tank where someone does waterchanges every day be healthier than a massively filtered tank with waterchanges every two weeks?
 
I guess it is worth a try for someone who finds changing water to be a chore and wants to find an alternative, but I personally enjoy changing water and seeing the difference in the tanks, even though I do it twice a week in some tanks.

The things that can cause a massive bacteria die-off are fortunately pretty rare, at least for me. I have gone the past year without such an event in my four tanks. I would imagine using this product in lieu of cycling would make it much easier to have a spike, because you would really have to be on top of it.

A filterless tank has a lack of water movement, which is not an ideal environment to keep many fish in, so the filter does more than just remove floating particles, but I see what you are getting at, Patryuji, and the same benefit might be experienced from doing daily water changes versus massive filtration with water changes every two weeks. I have seen a drastic reduction in incidence of illness and disease and stress in my fish since I have adopted a very frequent water changing regimen, and I am reluctant to go back. I have a knee-jerk reaction to corner cutting products, so forgive my skepticism.
 
That is why I want to see the reviews from people who have actually tried it.

I must admit that I was so used to having a tank on the edge that it almost feels "odd" to change the water only weekly.

I asked the questions that I specifically asked not because I was planning to let the water sit for months on end or that I am even tired of changing water as often as I do. Really I want to know if it is more beneficial to use this product (with a standard maintenance regimen) with no other changes.

Really the bacteria die-off that must be associated with this product is a concern that I have as well, otherwise I would already be describing my experience with the product instead of asking for the experiences of others. Perhaps when used in moderation (or in decreasing amounts over time) it can be used to help cycle a tank with no fish stress from any spikes in disolved compounds in the water.
 
Now I am on edge waiting to see if someone has used it! It is an interesting idea, so I will stay out of it and see if someone can offer a review. :wink:
 
You simply swap in some fresh purigen and then treat the old purigen to regenerate it back to new condition (according to the information from seachem's website).

http://www.seachem.com/en_products/product_pages/016_purigen.html

I've read the website, I looked into adding this to my tank a while ago. They make no claim of removing all ammo/ites/ates from the water, they simply state that is traps waste to prevent the cycle from ever happening.

What happens when your bio-filter dies off and you get spikes all over the place with a tank full of live animals?

Then you have bigger issues then worrying about if your filter additive can keep the tank alive.

A filtering media could be considered to be good maintenance. Without first hand experience and qualitative data you cannot make the assertion that the water quality would be automatically worse with this filtering media as opposed to having a tank with nothing but a bacterial filtering colony.

Filtration media and absorbitive media are different. Many, many people would tell you that once a tank establishes itself without the use of chemicals, it is more stable overall then one that was established with chemicals. The goal is to have healthy fish, and the more the tank takes care of itself the better.

Why bother using filter pads to trap particles? Shouldn't you just keep all material in the tank to allow bacteria to grow to decay the dead material and only change the water?

This works prefectly fine in nature. In planted tanks, people do leave all the poop down in the substrate for the plants to recycle. Without plants a aquarium eco system is not as balanced and you need to remove the waste. Even with plants you still need to do water changes to maintain trace elements. In nature the movement and flow of new rainwater and groundwater does this.

Would a filterless tank where someone does waterchanges every day be healthier than a massively filtered tank with waterchanges every two weeks?

As stated earlier in the thread, there are other issues than not having a filter on a tank. I have seen some very pretty Betta in little tiny bowls that had water changes every two days...

That is why I want to see the reviews from people who have actually tried it.

Search around here, at www.cichlid-forum.com, and www.fishgeeks.com along with google.com. There is a lot of info about this out there. Most of it is positive. I was going to use it myself until I found out that it is an absorbitive. The product is not meant to help cycle a tank, though I do think it would not be a bad idea when used correctly.
 
Just figured I would drag this post back from the dead :) Today i was at the LFS and they had two 100ml boxes of Purigen for less than $3 each. That is way under retail, so I bought both of them. I am currently using one in my cycling marine tank instead of carbon. I am curious as to how quickly it will darken as it absorbs from the water...
 
I don't do water changes and I use Purigen in a small pouch.. I have done 1 13 gallon water change in 9 months... I test maybe once a month... I top off weekly.

I'm lucky I guess..
 
I've been debating whether or not I want to try purigen in my cycled tank. If it kills off the ammo/ites/ates then wouldnt my beneficial bacteria starve and decrease in population? (prolly not with the way my two new ottos are poopin') :p

Also, Could I possibly use it at the same time as carbon?
ex: one filter with carbon, one filter with purigen.

I only want the stuff for crystal crystal crystal clear water
Not to keep me from doing water changes. I too enjoy changing my water.

-Dan
 
OK people, I used carbon briefly, then switched to Purigen and have been using it happily over a year. I use about 2.6 cups in my 42 hex tank - half in the canister, and half in the HOB.

I get no "spikes" whatsoever when using this product.

It is a superior substitution for carbon. It has less of an impact on trace elements than carbon does. It also lasts WAY longer. It's pure white and turns dark brown as it exhausts, so it's easy to tell when it needs replaced.

Like carbon, it absorbs dissolved organics that would otherwise break down into ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, etc. It does not absorb these compounds directly.

It does NOT in any way affect the bacterial cycle. With fish in your tank, you will still get ammonia from fish waste and purigen won't absorb that. It will break down to nitrite then nitrate, so there will be nitrogen for your plants.

Like carbon, when Purigen is full it simply stops absorbing. It doesn't leech anything back into the water (neither does carbon). This is a myth that continually perpetuates.

It is not a substitute for water changes. Again, it absorbs no nitrate from the "fish" portion of the bacterial cycle.

It is NOT an "excuse to be lazy," or "a replacement for good maintenance." It works VERY well at absorbing dissolved organics, clearing the water, and helping to keep it clean.

tank_082804.jpg


Good lord, sometimes I swear people would go as far as to say to run only a pump without any media and do 100% water changes twice a day!

Sorry if I sound disdainful, but I'm a guy who likes equipment. :) If I try something and it doesn't work as expected, I don't advocate it. When I try something out and it works great, it drives me crazy to see people who haven't even tried it start shooting it down and making unsubstiantiated claims against it.
 
Back
Top Bottom