UV-Sterilization, What Do You Think

[Biollante]

Hi,

UV-sterilization devices, I like them, just not every circumstance.

What do you think?

If you use UV-sterilization devices, how, when and where do you use them?

Biollante

[Oreo]

I voted yes - 24/7 because I still am but I'm clearly going to have to make some changes based on my UV-Fe reaction test results. Not sure what those changes will be just yet. (Too much new equipment to get installed & not enough time.)

[dutchy]

I also voted yes and use it 24/7. Reason: Another little hammer to battle algae. Also that it has a benificiary effect on ORP.

regards,
dutchy

[Philosophos]

For me it's when I have a problem.

Elegance is being able to achieve more in a simple way. I see UV sterilizers as elegant for their ability to clean up a mess, but I do not see a functioning elegant tank as requiring one constantly. The ideal is to be able to do without, but not have to sacrifice in a noticeable way. I think a good tank does this.

[Tug]

No, only because I know very little about them. I wouldn't say they don't work. Zappers kill mosquitoes, but there are other solutions focused more on the cause. Dan found this link on the Krib that explains them some, http://faq.thekrib.com/filters.html#sterilization but what are we zapping and are there other ways of dealing with ORP and such? Cheap and effective ways.

[dutchy]

For me it's when I have a problem.

Elegance is being able to achieve more in a simple way. The ideal is to be able to do without, but not have to sacrifice in a noticeable way. I think a good tank does this.

Some people say the same about CO2. Do you use it? Why? You can do without. ;)

regards,
dutchy

[Oreo]

I think UV is like a pH controller for CO2. Sure, you can do it without one and just use a drop checker but that pH controller is there to save your ass if you slip up. Same with the UV. I could exercise meticulous quarantine procedures, give all my new plants a bleach dip, and have excellent control over my nutrient / light balance but that UV is there to save my ass if I slip up. It's saved me a number of times when one fish was sick. I can be relatively sure that the problem doesn't migrate through the water column to other fish. It buys me a few days time to notice and move the sick fish to a hospital tank before my whole population crashes.

[Philosophos]

Some people say the same about CO2. Do you use it? Why? You can do without. ;)

regards,
dutchy

I can do without with certain plants, and I do. I don't strap CO2 to a tank unless I've got a species that depends on it in order to look the way I want for that situation. The idea is to be able to perform to a required standard with less, not to hold yourself back.

[csmith]

For me it's when I have a problem.

Elegance is being able to achieve more in a simple way. I see UV sterilizers as elegant for their ability to clean up a mess, but I do not see a functioning elegant tank as requiring one constantly. The ideal is to be able to do without, but not have to sacrifice in a noticeable way. I think a good tank does this.

My answer is no, but with some of the same justification. I've had two outbreaks of ich and both were handled in due time with some patience and ParaGuard. Did it affect the rest of the tank? Sure, but not in anyway not recoverable. Perhaps if I were to have a major bout with something nasty my vote would change, but until then it's just another piece of equipment I can make it without.

[Oreo]

This debate always seems to go in circles though. We know what the UV does & does not do. It's there for those who choose to use it and for those who choose not to and still achieve success good for them. I think we can all agree there is no harm in using UV, albeit with some question currently about how it affects chellated iron in the water column.

[Biollante]

Hi,

Ich is actually one of those ailments that UV-sterilization is not particularly useful, generally temperature and water quality is effective. :gw

An 80-micron filter between tanks is an effective protection against transfer among tanks on a common system. :)

Biollante

[Tug]

I for one, am glad to see this topic discussed openly. Some of us do not know what they do and do not do effectively. Come on, 24/7? What do you know that I don't? Enlighten us.
This debate always seems to go in circles though. We know what the UV does & does not do.

[Oreo]

Please forgive my poor choice of words. What I meant was that generally speaking, what a UV light does for an aquarium is well documented. It seemed to me that the conversation had fallen to competition between high-tech and low-tech philosophies for which neither are right or wrong.

[dutchy]

Maybe this article is useful:

http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/AquariumUVSterilization.html

regards,
dutchy

[Tug]

Thanks for the link dutchy. I'll give it a go and try to understand the importance of ORP. In the meantime, is there a simple explanation for how UV filters show a direct relationship to improved redox balance? To quote my favorite question looking for a causal relationship, "if we wash our hair tonight, will the sun rise tomorrow?"

[Philosophos]

Bio and I are moving our discussion from here: http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/7285-Whitish-Cloudy-Water?p=50915#post50915

Over to here. I'm going to quote Biollante's last post in an attempt to reduce the frustrating tab-switching thing that happens during these moves.


Hi Dan,

Yes, I am saying that most UV-sterilizers are relatively ineffective against bacteria. :)

Perhaps I did not have all the information. :p

I assume that whenever we answer these questions we do not have all the information. That does make me vulnerable to those not interested so much in helping the person asking the question as trying to appear smarter or forward some silly agenda. :rolleyes:

In this case, Steven said he has a 96-liter (25-US gallon) tank {post #1}, had purchased a 5-watt UV-sterilizer; he did not specify the brand or the pump used {post #6}.

I have no way of verifying anyone's statements, I take them at face value and unless they beggar reason, assuming they are true, I answer based on my experience, with the base assumption unless otherwise stated that they are hobbyists and the equipment is appropriate to hobbyists.

A 5-watt UV-sterilizer is sufficient for most hobbyist purposes in a 96-liter (25-gallons) tank. {In my always humble potted plant opinion.}

I am hard pressed to believe that a 5-watt hobbyist UV-sterilizer is going to produce the 1,900 to 24,000-µW sec/cm2 of 257.3 nanometer ultraviolet radiation required according to your referenced chart to produce a 90% kill rate. I suspect that chart gives air or atmospheric kill rates. I accept that it is possible that a person could get high kill rates with the 5-watt UV-sterilizer if the allowed enough dwell time.

I use a couple of 400-watt commercial UV-sterilizers and I can toast just about anything, but for practical everyday operation the common bacteria kill rate is under 30 percent.

In any situation where we are establishing or inoculating microbes, we bypass or do not use UV, because we are trying to establish the population as quickly as possible. In my ever humble potted plant opinion that is the bacterial bloom situation. You are free to have another opinion.

I do get the snarky bit, I am not playing your game, this is polite conversation with the intention of assisting the person asking the questions. I have another thread where we can discuss the various issues.

Biollante

My reply is in the works, including maybe a gimpy little table or formula to make some guesses at UV sterilizer requirements in order to be efficient.

[Oreo]

To be semantically correct, UV does not "kill" bacteria it "sterilizes", as in makes it unable to reproduce. Chlorine "kills" bacteria.

What Biolante said above is more or less correct that UV dwell time means everything with regards to how much & what makes it through the UV. There are a couple things to consider. First is that aquarium water "turbidity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbidity) or ability to transmit light varies greatly day to day and from one aquarium to another. Watt for watt, not all UV fixtures are created equal either. However, in an aquarium we have the advantage of recirculation to help out where overall wattage and first pass dwell time usually aren't enough to sterilize the tougher stuff. Figuring out how effective any particular system is without a standardized set of bacteriological tests is about as accurate as having your palm read. For our hobby those dwell-time / kill charts are a crude reference at best. If the charts are meant for water treatment they're probably developed using water with <.3NTU (the MDE acceptable tap-water turbidity limit in Maryland) and probably more like .05ntu (your typical bottled distilled water) whereas my aquarium water typically runs 1.5ntu on a great day and more like 3.0+ avg.

-Jason
(your local municipal water treatment expert royal delux, at your service. ;) )

[bluedragon]

After reading this thread looks like i could use one too. I have found one for sale
Aqua Ultraviolet UV Advantage 2000+ 15Watt and my tank is 55 gallon. Is it enough for my tank? It is good UV, I need your suggestion.
thank you
Regards
NN

[Oreo]

What are you trying to achieve by adding UV? That will determine how much is enough. That sounds like plenty to stop greenwater but things like ich require a pretty beefy setup.

[dutchy]

After reading this thread looks like i could use one too. I have found one for sale
Aqua Ultraviolet UV Advantage 2000+ 15Watt and my tank is 55 gallon. Is it enough for my tank? It is good UV, I need your suggestion.
thank you
Regards
NN

To let your UV be effective you need a certain amount of flow, or better said, gallons of flow per Watt. If you read the article in the link I provided before you will know everything you need.

regards,
dutchy

[bluedragon]

What are you trying to achieve by adding UV? That will determine how much is enough. That sounds like plenty to stop greenwater but things like ich require a pretty beefy setup.
I have found Coralife Turbo-Twist UV Sterilizers for sale also it is 18w
it says:
Its triple-treatment time fully utilizes all the available UV output of the lamp and ensures that disease-causing pathogens cannot reproduce, thus decreasing the possibility of a disease outbreak in your system. And that is the reason I would like to get one. And also do you know how often I should change the UV bulbs (if i have to replace)
Thank you
NN

[dutchy]

Thanks for the link dutchy. I'll give it a go and try to understand the importance of ORP. In the meantime, is there a simple explanation for how UV filters show a direct relationship to improved redox balance? To quote my favorite question looking for a causal relationship, "if we wash our hair tonight, will the sun rise tomorrow?"

Quote from http://americanaquariumproducts.com/Redox_Potential.html
the addition of UV Sterilizers can play an important role for a balanced aquatic Redox Potential as newer studies have proven that UV Sterilization increases immunity by adding electrons.

Don't shoot the messenger. ;)
regards,
dutchy

[Oreo]

I had the 18w turbo twist (and upgraded to a 25w Aqua.) It lasted about a year and then developed leaks. It requires a proprietary bulb also. When i picked up a generic replacement bulb from the local fish store it had the right pin connections but the ceramic base was about a millimeter too big to fit the turbo twist housing. Beyond that, the whole "twist = 3x contact time" is total BS. It's a gimmick. Contact time = Internal volume / rate of flow. Period. Furthermore, the bulb design & the quarts glass sleeve design of the turbo twist don't allow the most efficient transmission of the UV into the water. The best design is a straight-tube bulb inside a narrow quarts sleeve.

The UV bulbs can last about a year but just like any fluorescent bulb their brightness decreases with age. I'd recommend replacing UV bulbs about every 8 months. Just as important is keeping the quarts sleeve clean. For whatever reason mine develops a sortof brown calcification coating over time so I use some CLR on it about ever 3 months.

[Philosophos]

Now for my reply to what I quoted from Biollante earlier, but mostly just crap about how to figure out if they work.

I completely understand getting new evidence that changes our opinions. I wouldn't be here if it didn't happen... in fact I like this place mostly because it does.

What I saw back on my earlier link from that thread was:

[quote=http://faq.thekrib.com/filters.html#sterilization[/quote]

"Martin Moe cites 35,000 to 100,000 microwatts per second per square centimeter as the norm, which works out to roughly 10 to 25 gallons per hour per watt (or less for units not operating at peak efficiency)."

Which is pretty believable given typical flow rates and the fact that the other page cites a 14.5 second dwell time, but 1/5th to 1/10th the amount of light on average.

In general, I think it'd be a good step forward to take a shot at quantifying the requirements for a UV sterilizer to be useful. I don't think there's any way to meaningfully comment on UV sterilization until we can quantify exactly what any given model of sterilizer is doing. Naturally this is an open discussion, so I'm quite open to working with anyone who has anything to add that will increase its accuracy.

For lack of a better compilation, I'm going to work off this table:
http://www.enhance-it.com/energiestable.htm

You'll notice that this table speaks of cm^2 which is kind of inconvenient. I would propose that the inner diameter of the chamber surrounding the UV sterilizer be averaged with the outer diameter of the bulb or its encasing. Turbidity should not make a huge impact over the distance of perhaps an inch or two from the bulb at most. Naturally flow rate is going to make a difference, so tube diameter and lph/gph matters. That being said I am not a physicist, if anyone cares to refine my flow rates then go right ahead. All of this is starting out working with a straight pass-through system with a round inner and outer casing. If you have a different system and can figure out the average distance from the bulb along with the volume of the path that the water is taking, then you can plug in your own values as needed using some basic geometry. Feel free to post any modified method here; something for quirky internal shapes like the Aquarium Products “Turbo Twist” would be great (kinda figured the twist was BS). I can patch variations in as 1.2, 1.3, etc.

For format, I'm leaving the equations in a format that determines the total microwatts of exposure. Dwell time vs. intensity is completely open for debate

The idea is that by the end of this, we have a set of formulas that can roughly determine the efficiency of various UV sterilizers based on a few measurements. The math is going to be a little bloated until things like sterilization potential being constant regardless of whether duration or intensity change to reach the same level of total exposure.

So that everyone's on the same page, here are the variables that will be used in the following formulas.

0.1)

A = Average perimeter of the flow chamber's cross-section
C = cm/s flow
E = Total microwatts of exposure
L= Length of flow chamber
I= inner radius of flow chamber
O= outer radius of flow chamber
M = ml/s flow
P = Average area of the path diameter
Pi = 3.141592 (to 6 digits for aesthetic reasons)
S= dwell time in seconds
W = bulb wattage as microwatts

So then, I think a basic question would be average distance from the bulb so that we know the average level of exposure to UV radiation. The usual perimiter = pi*r with a little averaging.

1.1) Calculating the average diameter for two cylinders:

A=Pi*(O+I)/2

Next, figuring out the area of a cross section along the diameter will allow us to calculate volume and interpret flow rates easier.

2.1) Calculating the area of a cross section of the chamber for two cylinders:

P=(O^2-I^2)*Pi

And now based off that we can use a value of L/H, converted here to ml/s for convenience, as a way to figure out flow rate as cm/s which can then be compared later to the average distance from the bulb.

3.1) Calculating cm/s flow rate from ml/s and diameter (L/h divided by 3.6 for cm/s):

C=M/P

Finally it's time to see if those watts add up in relation to everything else. Anyone who's a light nut can feel free to further clarify the variation between the UV output various bulbs can provide, as well as compensating for spectrum loss over time.

4.1) Calculating average microwatts of exposure (Watts/1,000,000 for uW):

E=W/(A*L*C)

To compare this number to the aforementioned chart, simply multiply the chart numbers by 14.5 or
divide these numbers by the same amount.

If you play with the numbers, you'll notice that the uW exposure falls at a very fast rate with flow increases (as Oreo said, dwell time is critical), and that this variable is easier (cost, availability, DIY effort etc.) to increase by larger amounts than any other variables. At the same time though, what of bacteria doubling times and the equilibrium of sterilization vs. growth? This is something else that needs examining. Right now though, I need to go dump some HCl on some discontinued Turface then get on with my day. Maybe I'll get back to it, maybe someone else can fill in some of the gaps. Odds are this whole thing will change its face before I'm done with it, be it on my own time or on this forum.

Oh, I made up a spreadsheet that does what's described here. It's pretty basic, but it saves a lot of time. If anyone wants a copy, PM me with your e-mail and let me know what file format works for you. If anyone knows of one that this forum will accept, I'll post it here.

[Biollante]

Hi Dan, All,

I will write more tonight or tomorrow, real life interrupting. :(

A couple of things.

Nice work, I would certainly appreciate one of your spreadsheets, thank you. :cool:

Do not underestimate factors such as turbidity, water quality in general, I speak from experience as well as some good studies out there. Filtering prior to passing through the sterilizer is a big issue as is the method and placement of the bulb relative to the flow.

I think you err when assuming averaging the diameters of the tubes; I seem to recall from the days of my misspent youth a couple of formulas. :)

Dwell times as I pointed out are indeed critical, we very flow rates to accommodate kill rates.

At least in the aquaculture community we refer to “kill rates” as in most cases, it is not neither desirable nor necessary to sterilize the water. As I understand it, we use 90% kill rate as an expression of sufficient reduction that the population will not be able to colonize or sustain numbers likely to cause harm to a reasonably healthy population. :)

I do not really disagree with the claimed numbers for instance my highly engineered 400 watt UV-sterilizer does a pretty spectacular job at a flow rate of 40-42 gallons per minute (they claim 45 gpm), but we use clarifying, before and after as well as significant filtration.

Anyway look forward to more stimulating conversation later; it really beats the snarky stuff.

Biollante

[Tug]

Maybe I'm just being dense. The article by Carl Strohmeyer has a lot of information on UV filters and explains ORP. But I don't see the relationship between ORP and UVC. The author's test's seam to be just as dependent on DO and electrolytes. I'm just not convinced the stated relationship exists without an explanation. How does it add electrons?

[DaBub]

Maybe I'm just being dense. The article by Carl Strohmeyer has a lot of information on UV filters and explains ORP. But I don't see the relationship between ORP and UVC. The author's test's seam to be just as dependent on DO and electrolytes. I'm just not convinced the stated relationship exists without an explanation. How does it add electrons?

Me too, Tug. ;) :D

Dan, what type or size uv do you use?

Have you measured the efficiency against the claims?

[Biollante]

Hi,

Tug, DaBub and a couple of others have asked some questions I would like to give a shot at answering. :)

I am going to ask the Plant Guru Team to look away, avoid your profanity-laced responses, and forget I mentioned ORP :eek: while writing about the water column.

UV-sterilizers, not to be confused with UV-Ozone generators, have an odd affect on ORP.

Let me simplify ORP (Oxygen Redox Potential) as a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen your water can hold. ;)

Let me further simplify ORP as a “pollution index” (Chris Walster, in the Summer 97 issue of Koi Health Quarterly si the best source I have.

UV-sterilizers may initially lower ORP values, but as the dead things in the water are removed essentially dissolved organic carbon (DOC), the water quality will increase. In commercial or higher end systems we use “clarifiers” to remove the debris rather than adding the load to the filtration systems. Keeping the extra load out of the filters allows for smaller filters and/or less maintenance.

Biollante

[Biollante]

Hi,

I have also gotten a couple of emails and see another thread started regarding what a UV-sterilizer is. :)

A UV-sterilizer that using ultraviolet radiation damages or destroys the DNA of cells exposed.

In general, any living cell floating in the water column by the application of sufficient radiation is killed.

Thankfully, most of the microbes we like are not supposed to be in the water column they reside in our filters, in or critters guts, in, on or around our plants and in or on our substrates.

Still there is the real world and sometimes we make the judgment that sterile water is not desirable. :)

Dan of Philosophos fame and I have a difference of opinion, that the main purpose of UV-sterilizers are to kill bacteria, generally I consider them more for their ability to keep various alga and fungi in check.

Indeed most problems that would require drastic actions are all generally avoidable via good practices, most importantly the quarantine, sanitize or sterilize rule. After that, maintaining good water conditions.

In post #11, I advise that though UV-Sterilization with enough power and proper dwell time can destroy Ich in one part of the life cycle, there are less drastic means available.

I contend, and stand by my advice in another thread that bacterial blooms should not be dealt with via UV-sterilizers. Further, I contend and stand by the opinion that most hobbyist UV-sterilizers are not up to the task of killing everything, actually sterilizing the water column. In particular, various bacteria are more difficult to kill than most free-floating alga. :gw

Over the years, I have used a number of UV-sterilizers and for most purposes; well-maintained units are suitable for most hobbyist purposes. I tend to use a bypass valve to control the flow "dwell time" and to avoid over sterilizing the water.

Biollante

[Oreo]

One little nit there Biollante,

When you say most hobbyist UV-Serilizers are not up to the stask of actually sterilizing the water column I am reminded of some of the larger more expensive UV units being sold for aquariums. Perhaps they don't fall into your definition of "hobbyist" level equipment, (and I'll tend to agree) but if a person were motivated to pull out the big UV guns, very high wattage systems are available to us. Now, when I think of "sterilize the water column", I'm only thinking of the water directly exiting the UV unit since lots of bacteria live everywhere else in the system as you mentioned.

Funny though... I use a bypass valve to control the flow to ensure I'm allowing enough dwell time to completely sterilize the water passing through the UV.

[Tug]

Allow me to over simplify how UV filters benefit ORP. Dead things are removed with a filter and UVC is what killed them. I'm more then a little suspicious of articles like the one by Carl Strohmeyer when they try to imply more then the very simple explanation given. It would seam then, that the main focus should not be ORP or DOC, but what these filters can harm and how badly they are harmed and how/if these things have an effect on Fe availability.

Are UV filters very successful at killing fungi? Molds would seam to be unharmed by most hobbyist grade UV-Serilizers, I think? Doesn't the chlorine in the tap water kill most of this stuff before it even reaches the fish bowl.

www.steribeam.com/articles/AW-UVcongr2001.pdf

[Philosophos]

DaBub, I don't have one with me right now; it's up in Canada. To be honest, I haven't needed one for years and that's why I haven't had it shipped to me. I'm lucky enough to have dedicated quarantine tanks and heavily seeded filters at my disposal any time I need them. Outside of that, nothing fixes up a tank like a few water changes if appropriate. I bought a 32w turbo twist way back; it was the best price/efficiency for the least headache.

Biollante, I think UV sterilizers can be used for any number of things. If it's nasty, alive and in the column it's worth giving a zap. Let me know what you think needs changing in my formulas, the spreadsheet is on its way.

[Biollante]

Hi Tug, Dan, All,

Tug and Dan make excellent points. :cool:

As with much of life, there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

Dan you are in the “Yes, when I have a problem” group, my attitude about activated carbon and all kinds of stuff. [For the record, I am in the “Yes, a few hours at least 1 day a week” group.]
I completely agree that UV-sterilization is good for use with nasties anytime, though often there are better solutions available and depends on the efficiency of the device itself.

{ORP in the water column alert, Plant Guru Team, avert your eyes.} :o

With good practices and high water quality in an indoor aquarium the odds of “needing” a UV-sterilizer is minimal.

I am going to give some ORP numbers that I learned this from others, but have verified through my own experience. ORP values are typically expressed in millivolts, mV.{I am doing this on the fly, from memory, so cut me some slack.}

{I think most of this comes from Chris Walster’s excellent article in the Summer 1997 issue of Koi Health Quarterly, the numbers below or based on my observations so any errors are mine}


700-750-mV sterilizes water in 20 minutes or so, a good number for swimming pools.
575-700-mV results in serious harm to fish within 10 minutes or so.
475-550-mV high-level use of Potassium permanganate kills parasites, destroys (oxidizes organic products); an excellent way to clean pipes and tubing, turn off filtration, this level will severely damage or destroy biological filters. Fish exposure should be limited to a couple of hours per week.
400-450-mV often accomplished with the use of Potassium permanganate or ozone, though I have a 450-gallon tank that routinely exceeds 430-mV for a couple of hours a day and several others that reach 405-420-mV daily. Snails and a number of other critters do not do well in these tanks.
280-400-mV is very good to excellent water quality, excellent fish health, great plant growth little algae some primitive plants have problems in the upper end of this range. Snails do not do well above 320-mV or so.
200-260-mV green water, slime (bio-films) and so forth, fish health is compromised, fish losses increase and snails breed wildly. UV-sterilization really helps. (Though Potassium permanganate, massive water changes and cleaning the dad-gummed filters makes a lot of sense.
150-200-mV nasty, algae, slimy goo, smells bad, major work required, fish health is poor.


Tug’s point that there are alternatives is excellent. In fact molds and fungi should not get into our tanks, though for those of us with outdoor tanks we are at the mercy of the winds, to a lesser extent those with indoor tanks also are subject to outside influence and the is no better defense in my always humble potted-plant opinion then good water quality and that comes from good practices.

Good practices:


quarantine, sanitize or sterilize.
Sufficient filtration, mechanical and biological, proper maintenance.
Adequate circulation, eliminate dead spots
reasonable stocking levels, not over feeding
water changes
All the stuff everyone here is always talking about.

:cool:
Biollante

[Biollante]

One little nit there Biollante,

When you say most hobbyist UV-Serilizers are not up to the stask of actually sterilizing the water column I am reminded of some of the larger more expensive UV units being sold for aquariums. Perhaps they don't fall into your definition of "hobbyist" level equipment, (and I'll tend to agree) but if a person were motivated to pull out the big UV guns, very high wattage systems are available to us. Now, when I think of "sterilize the water column", I'm only thinking of the water directly exiting the UV unit since lots of bacteria live everywhere else in the system as you mentioned.

Funny though... I use a bypass valve to control the flow to ensure I'm allowing enough dwell time to completely sterilize the water passing through the UV.

Hi,

Without pickers of nit, we would not have nice cotton products. I accept your nit! :)

I confess I was thinking of many of the cheaper hobby UV-sterilizers of the not too distant past. I have had a number of people bugging me on the same issue. I looked up the device Steven purchased and I have to admit that they do seem to be superior to the devices I was familiar.

I have been offered three newer nicer, well maintained "hobbyist" UV-sterilizers. This morning I began a 160-gallon batch of infusorians and a 100-gallon batch of green water. I will split up and try the devices in appropriate sized containers; I will try holding the devices to their listed specifications and then see what rate they actually work. I do not claim this is a fair test since they will be operating worst-case situations and as is constantly pointed out, I do not own a white (or any other color) lab coat, so any observations I make or not valid. :rolleyes:

It is odd I know, but we have found that by whatever method it is possible to be “too clean.” Plus philosophically I am simply a “less is more” kind of evil plant monster. :cool:

Biollante

[BigFlusher]

Hi,

Without pickers of nit, we would not have nice cotton products. I accept your nit! :)

I have been offered three newer nicer, well maintained "hobbyist" UV-sterilizers.

Biollante

Loaned, loaned as in to be returned "newer nicer, well maintained "hobbyist" UV-sterilizers", right? :D Emphasis on Nice &, Newer, returned in same condition! :p

Maybe Dan has a little too much faith in the technology and Biollante, too little.

Joe

[Wet]

(I do not know much about nor think necessary UV. But I do find it interesting in that Purigen/super clear water kind of way.)

Question: if one believes UV affects both algae as well as desirable things like certain micronutrients and bacteria, and so some run it only half the day, why run it during the photoperiod instead of at night? Wouldn't it be smarter to run the UV at night and dose once it is off/when lights come on?

[Biollante]

(I do not know much about nor think necessary UV. But I do find it interesting in that Purigen/super clear water kind of way.)

Question: if one believes UV affects both algae as well as desirable things like certain micronutrients and bacteria, and so some run it only half the day, why run it during the photoperiod instead of at night? Wouldn't it be smarter to run the UV at night and dose once it is off/when lights come on?

Hi,

I know there are people that think that UV should be used overnight or 24X7.

I know people that think UV is a waste of time; I thought about giving that as a poll option, I was in that camp for quite a while.

The more I think about it the more things I realize virtues attributed to UV are by other means easily accomplished. Tug is having an effect on my thinking here. :eek: I suspect a dose of Potassium permanganate every now and then is probably more effective and a whole lot cheaper. :p

Dan, I think maybe I better let others deal with the arithmetic, http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/6/m006p295.pdf, see if this helps. :rolleyes:

Biollante

[ThingWhatSpawnedLC]

It is a reasonable precaution.

I think my little submersed 5-watt may be causing Bio a bit of a change. :p

After all what are mother in laws for if not to lend a uv-sterilizer every now and then. :rolleyes:

TWSLC

[Biollante]

Hi Dan, All,

Okay as the ThingWhatSpawnedTheLoudCreature, aka, “Mom” pointed out in her own charming way, she loaned me her fairly new JBJ Submariner 5 Watt UV Sterilizer/Clarifier (Model UVF-5) that usually resides in an odd bow faced, 40-gallon “planted aquarium” tank.
http://www.marinedepot.com/JBJ_In_Tank_Submariner_UV_Sterilizer_Clarifier_Les s_Than_8_Watt_UV_Sterilizers-JBJ_Lighting-JB4121-FIUVUUOS-vi.html
http://www.seaquestmarine.com/JBJ_Submariner_5_Watt_UV_Sterilizer_UVF_5_p/jbj_uvf5.htm

I mentioned yesterday that I started 160-gallon batch of infusorians and a 100-gallon batch of green water they will take a week or better to be fully up to speed. :D

What I did not mention was Friday evening I filled an empty 20-long aquarium with water (~75-liter) from a well-established aquarium (ORP of 290-mV), plopped in an air stone attached to a small air pump and added 3-pounds (1.4 kilograms) of sugar. I added another 2-pound (0.9 kilograms) of sugar this morning. :eek:

By 3:00 pm MST, the tank was 20-gallons of frothy nearly milk white soup. I dropped Mom’s 5 Watt UV Sterilizer in the “soup.” I had cleaned it and replaced the filters. I set the flow rate, by actual measurement, to about 100-gallons per hour (380-liters per hour).

At 7:00 pm MST, I am amazed the solution is no longer opaque. I may have to clean the filter.

Given the bacterial cloud, means extreme turbidity and still the population is being significantly reduced.

I just may have to change my mind about the bacterial part. :o

Biollante

[Tug]

Oreo has posted some interesting findings. Oreo and all those who are finding answers to questions like this one, dedicated hobbyists are the back bone of science. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZi8TXtRRYg) Keeping us all well informed with their unslanted views. A UV filter is a tool. There's always a right way and a wrong way to use one. Thank you for hashing this out.
Anyone still not convinced the UV light is removing my iron residual? When in doubt, Communicate! :cool:

[Oreo]

Thanks Tug. :)

I noticed another big thing today. Not a scientifically based trial result by any stretch but based on my own personal experience I'm again, convinced...

Before I upgraded my UV from the 18w turbo-twist to the 25w aqua I noticed I'd get these small bumps on my fingers after cleaning the filters or having my hands in the tank water for more then a few seconds. After a lot of asking around and research I discovered that there is such a thing as "Fish Tuberculosis" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_tuberculosis) and these rashes I had on my fingers were a common symptom. I had these bumps for about a year, my wife too. Then I upgraded my UV light and slowed the flow through down substantially. (UV running 24/7) Slowly the rash on my fingers went away and I haven't had a problem since, or in about a year. Here I go turning my UV light off for about a week to test it's effect on iron residual and I got those damn bumps on my fingers again.

I don't mind anyone questioning that particular observation since it wasn't a controlled experiment per-say but I've seen enough to know and be convinced. If I could find a way to totally eradicate it from my aquarium I would but that fish-TB stuff is very hard to kill. For persistant cases in humans you're looking at antibiotic treatment for months sometimes a year. I've tried treating my aquarium and my fish separately and together but the one thing that has kept that stuff in check over the last year was blasting the bejesus out of the water column with powerful UV.

[Philosophos]

Bio, that's bizzare. I looked over the JBJ 5w specs and tried it out in my chart; it looked like it wouldn't work by a long shot at anything possible within product dimension/flow rate ranges. I thought you'd need at least 2.5x the wattage or 2/5 the flow rate (btw, I tried that paper you sent; that was similar to the other method I was considering, results very similar to chart but my spreadsheet program rounds in funny places). I wonder if re-exposure within a certain period is worth anything? Maybe something else happened?

Oreo, you're the first person I've ever heard directly from as having gotten fish TB/granulomas; usually it's just a statistic laying around. I thought it Usually it required having a compromised immune system? Did the other symptoms fit at all? (http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/management/Lawler_Mycobacterium_fish_tuberculosis_FAQ.html)

[Biollante]

Hi Dan, All,

I am stunned.

The JBJ Submariner 5 Watt UV Sterilizer/Clarifier (Model UVF-5) has performed beyond any level of expectation I had in an inherently unfair test. :)

I am going to withdraw my opinions regarding all “hobbyist” UV-sterilizers. :eek:

Dan it certainly is the repeated cycling through the sterilizer, destroying enough bacteria to exceed the reproduction rate. As I noted before I cannot speak to your arithmetic, though I have someone who is going to explain it (so they say) to me this afternoon. Also explain a couple of other (apparent) misstatements I made earlier in this discussion. :o

In the case of this overmatched little sterilizer, it has required regular cleaning; the filter clogs with bacteria carcasses, “sleeve” requires cleaning, as an aside, I will say I am impressed with the ease of cleaning on the JBL. The turbidity was well beyond my ability to measure and turbidity is a major factor in “kill rate.” I estimate the turbidity is reduced more than half. :)

Two add to the “unfairness” of the test I continue to add 2-pounds (0.9-kilogram) sugar, the equivalent of not fixing any underlying problems.

What can I say I was wrong, again. :p I am happy to learn... :)

I know the intelligentsia here do not approve of regular folk trying things and what I did may not be scientific, but it is a start, given the things at hand. No I do not think I am smarter than Einstein, but I am curious, I do not always understand what is happening, but I put it out for discussion, without regard to whether they support my previously held view or not.

"These fools think they are smarter than Einstein..." – Plantbrain (Plantbrain being Tom Barr’s APC Nom de plume) from Wet’s signature, a nice junior high-level bullying tactic.

Biollante

[Oreo]

Other symptoms? Not other then the bumps on my fingers. I must admit, at times I have been careless with putting my hands in the aquarium with a scrape or a cut. I do not have a weakened immune system and I have been tested for the typical things- HIV, etc. Also, I have not had a bacteria culture done to confirm 100% that fish-tb is what I've got / had. I did go see a dermatologist at one point but by the time my appointment came around the bumps had healed so it was of no value.

The first tip I got about what the bumps might be was from a guy working at my local fish store who said he had the same thing and he had been treated by a doctor who diagnosed it as fish-TB. It leads me to believe that every tank in the store is infected with fish-TB and any time I bring something new home it reinfects my aquarium. Not a big deal with the UV light blazing away to kill it off but I might have to find another, safer LFS if I'm going to be turning the UV down.

That's a good link though Philosophos. Thanks.

[hbosman]

I have only had 3 instances of green water since 2004 and that was because I moved to much of the substrate by uprooting most or, all of the plants. I now just make it a point to not disrupt more than 25 % of the substrate between weekly water changes. If I stick with this, the UV unit would sit on the shelf not being used. I haven't had disease out breaks either so, I don't have justification to buy a UV unit.

[Philosophos]

Bio, I'll applaud you for being plain and honest. I think we may both be wrong in our premise; neither of us gave the product enough respect quite possibly. True, it wasn't heavy controls and scientific, maybe it was something else, but that's an easy experiment for others to repeat. Maybe you could post your culturing method in detail? A few repeats is all it takes to make a general observation good enough to serve as an example.

If it takes care of fish TB then there's an added value. I've seen this condition go through a tank slowly, killing one fish after the next over a very long period of time. A little stress increases susceptibility, and by the time you notice the wasting it's too late. Maybe it's not proven in theory, but it's not bad practice for the same reason that we're encouraged to dose macros and micros far apart.

[Biollante]

Hi Dan,

My standard method of culturing water column bacteria is to take a gallon (3.8-liter) of water from the tank, if I have a dirty sponge; I place sponges around most of my tanks as well as on most intakes, and wring the sponge out into the container. I generally place mulm and/or pluck a few leaves and toss them in the container. Then I add 4-tablespoons (~48-grams) granulated sugar, I do not measure carefully. :o Usually within a couple of hours, the bacterial bloom becomes visible. Aerate with an air stone or a good shake or stir every now and then, 2 or 3-tablespoons of sugar every day or so and they will look like a gallon of milk. :cool:

For these purposes, I wanted a clean run, so I took 20-gallons from a 60-gallon tank coming due the next day for a water change. The tanks principal function is breeding snails, copepods, flat worms and so forth; it is a bit “dirty.” I pulled the water from the middle of the tank; I filtered the intake with 25-ppi sponge and the output with a 40-micon bag. I added an air stone powered with a small air pump. I used about 3-pounds granulated sugar (1.4 kilograms), I stirred the tank rather vigorously with a wooden spoon to dissolve the sugar. I think I got the arithmetic wrong, normally I would have used about 2-pounds. :o

I thought I had overdone the water filtering, after 2-hours I had not seen any indication of a bloom; typically I begin seeing the first indications after an hour or two.

The next morning it looked somewhat anemic but it was starting to bloom. It took another day but by the following afternoon, it was a frothy white little bacterial heaven.

More later… I got an education this afternoon...:eek:

Biollante

[Philosophos]

I'll give it a try some time; perhaps working out some standard temp, filtration, etc. that roughly simulates a tank but is easily reproducible would be good. There are a lot of questions about nitrifying bacteria sensitivity in aquaria as a whole; everyone wants to know if that new product or procedure is going to hurt their bacteria.

[Jim Miller]

Under the heading of "bigger hammer" and since the JBJ units are the same physical size whether 5W or 13W (sizes from their user manual) and since a few dollars isn't an issue (whew!) any reason not to get the 13W unit?

Also any idea whether an Aqua inline unit (Classic 25) presents a noticeable flow restriction to an otherwise HTH300/RG reactor encumbered Eheim 2078 output to avoid hanging something in the tank?

Thanks!

Jim

[Biollante]

Hi Jim,

Sorry I do not know how I missed this.:o

I see no reason not to get the larger (higher wattage) UV lamp that would give more options.:)

I have no idea what the flow restrictions from the Aqua inline unit, the problem I see is the need for slowing the flow, increasing dwell time for particular problems.

Biollante

[Jim Miller]

Thanks

Jim

[2wheelsx2]

I got the JBJ 13 w unit and have been very happy with it. It helped eradicate 2 cases of ich that I didn't spot (one because of poor quarantine and a second because I forgot to quarantine believe it or not). However, I'm not happy with the big black box in the tank and am considering going to an inline Pentair Aquatics module.

[Matt F.]

I've only used a UV one time. The only time I used one was when I first set up my tank and I had a bad GDA outbreak that took over the tank. I did a 3 day brownout, hooked up the UV, dosed plenty of glut after cleaning everything, and followed it up with multiple water changes. The combo worked. No more crazy GDA. Just a little towards the end of the week.

I hear it's good for green water, too. Not sure about pathogens, though.

[clearwater]

Ultra Violet rays damage the cell structure of many of the creatures unfortunate enough to pass through them. If, your bulb is less than six months old and the dwell time is set correctly. Basically, my 8 watt unit has an average dwell of 5 seconds (approx), I replace the bulb every 9 months and I have never had an outbreak of anything in the 20 years I have employed this technology. In nature the sun plays the role of uv sterilizer, so adding this equipment hardly violates any code of 'natural only' in fact, based on that thinking, uv radiation should be a requirement of any 'natural aquarium'.