FarmerTy Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi ARC, I've decided to document my usage of the UV sterilizer I got my hands on. It's an Aqua UV 57 watt sterilizer with a built-in quartz sleeve wiper. The wiper helps keep algal/bacterial growth off the quartz sleeve so that the UV can better penetrate and treat the water. Aqua UV has one of the better reputations in the industry for building great UV units that will last, won't leak, and are well-designed to do the job they were intended... unlike those cheapy $50-$100 units that don't last or are not effective. I'll insert a stock picture in a bit of the unit for those visually-minded people like myself. So I talked to an AquaUV sterlizer rep today and discussed my tank setup and asked them the preferred flow rate for reducing pathogens and parasites, particularly ich and marine velvet. They were unfamiliar with marine velvet (I told the rep it was okay, I'm VERY familiar with marine velvet by now) but told me that to kill protozoans the size of ich, that the suggested flowrate would be around 1000-1200 gph to be most effective. That's good to know as I was afraid I would have to pull out the reeflo hammerhead pump and rework my chiller and return line plumbing to get that monster back under the stand so I could run 2100 gph that it stated on the chart. Thankfully, I can just keep running my Sicce Syncra 12 and just tap into the main return line to get roughly that 1000-1200 gph instead. It may be a tad slower but that should be fine... that'll just help contact time. Naturally I don't want it too slow or I can overheat the unit and cause parts to fail. I went ahead and ordered a new UV bulb and since this model had the wiper built in to clean the quartz tube, I went ahead and ordered a replacement rubber wiper and sealed nut as well to replace the ones on the used unit I bought. Better safe than sorry since it's used. I might aim to plumb it sometime this weekend, just got to take a good look at my setup and see how I can incorporate it the easiest without having to redo too much of the plumbing. I'll report back my results with running UV. I look at it as very similar to the reasons why I run a skimmer. I know that the skimmer doesn't remove all the dissolved organic carbon (DOC), bacteria, and proteins that pass through my system, but it removes a large percentage of them. I know that the skimmer is indiscriminate and may remove some good bacteria or perhaps skim out some good trace elements, but it also removes a lot of the stuff I don't want in my system as well. Overall, I think it's advantages outweigh the negatives. For UV, I see it the same. I know it won't kill every ich protozoa in its tomonts and theronts stages (free swimming stages of ich), but it will remove a large percentage of them. I know it's an indiscriminate killer and will kill the good plankton in the water as well as the bad pathogens and bacteria. Overall, I think the advantages outweigh the negatives. I will have a reduced ability for plague-like populations of ich protozoa in my tank and sadly, I may lose some good plankton in the process. It'll keep my film algae under control and possibly bacterial and dinoflagellate based populations as well. That may help ease issues such as cyanobacteria or dinos (dinoflagellates) from overtaking my tank. Heck, marine velvet is actually a dinoflagellate and if it can reduce any potential population booms, I won't turn away from that benefit either. Anyways, as always, I'll document my experiment as best as I can. Wish me luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+olaggie01 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Would running the output of the UV into your skimmer chamber be beneficial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 Would running the output of the UV into your skimmer chamber be beneficial?I'm not really sure to be honest. I don't see much literature suggesting that but I could see its potential benefits. Basically, you could remove the "deactivated" bacteria, dinos, and plankton before it dies and rots in the tank. I'll look into it a bit more and report back. Was this just an idea you had or did you run across the idea somewhere? I could see it playing out very similar to using biopellets, however biopellets are producing live bacteria while UV is deactivating bacteria. I know we route the biopellet reactor effluent to the skimmer to help remove all the bacteria created and export their uptake of nitrate, phosphate, and carbon from the system. This will also help the system not get overwhelmed with bacteria. I'm just curious the benefits of routing the UV effluent to the skimmer. I wonder if it really matters but I'll research a bit and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 @%$)! You beat me to it Ty! (Kinda ) I am glad to see you document this as it's important for aquarists to see how effective or ineffective different configurations work and from my research almost all the info on UV sterilizors and ich is on the freshwater species not the saltwater species which, from what I can tell, is more difficult to kill. I'm talking with a Veterinarian that has advanced classes in fish pathology doing something similar with multiple systems to evaluate how a UV is plumbed affects it's efficiency with controlling Ich but at the pace we're going it'll be next year before we have results. For what it's worth the best performance I've seen over the years is to have a UV on it's own loop with a supply pump behind and at the bottom of a display tank at one end of a system and the return at the top at the opposite end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardlaw Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I ran a very large version of this sterilizer on a 3000 gal koi pond to improve clarity and reduce algae. Obviously it was very different, but we ran it at times when aeration rates were very low and the effects weren't noticeable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardlaw Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Let me clarify. It worked very well in regards to clarity. I don't think it matters where you discharge is my vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thanks for the input Wardlaw! I'm curious, what was the reasoning behind running it when aeration rates were low? Aw Tim! Sorry, I didn't mean to take your thunder! Maybe we can work collaboratively on the UV research and help clarify (pun-intended!) it's usefulness. Is the veterinarian running a full-scale experiment with the intent on running several variables of plumbing setups to test for the effectiveness of UV in each setup? Is this like a lab-scale type of an experiment or will he/she be just aiming to implement these plumbing setups on to an existing water system and monitoring the levels found in the system? Are they studying this for freshwater or saltwater? I'm very interested in the results. For your observation of it being most effective when the plumbed separately with the pump at the bottom of the display, what exactly were you seeing in that configuration versus others that you observed it being more effective? I don't have direct experience with UV so any information is much appreciated. That is the same configuration the manufacturer recommends which makes sense, but if it is just a slight increase in effectiveness, then I'd rather just plumb directly into my return line instead. The unit is oversized anyways for my system so hopefully that'll account for the less efficient method of plumbing while allowing me to not have to throw a pump in the display and have tubing/plumbing running up and out the back, which would be unsightly for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I've used UV's for clearing algae in ponds to and a small one works very well as algae only needs a fraction of the exposure rate that is needed to kill Cryptocaryon irritans, the salt water ich parasite. Over the years I have tried various configurations and seen various configurations, and in my experience the best odds of controlling ich is with the configuration I mentioned above and in my opinion completely remove the parasite from a system. The argument being if the cysts that are formed on the rock, those where they are exposed to abrasion by fish and other herbavores are less likely to survive while the cycts away from the lighted surfaces are more likely to survive and release larva so having a pump behind the rock should be sucking up a higher percentage of the larva and having the return at the surface on the opposite side should create a current that is pushing larva towards the intake pump. But this is just anecdotal and the reason I was motivated to seek out someone with credentials on fish pathology was to thoroughly document the effectiveness of different configurations and hopefully eliminate much of the guesswork and reduce some of the controversy over a UV sterilizers effectiveness in controlling ich in aquaria. But I want to emphasize it is much better to quarantine everything so you don't get ich in a system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Ty, apologize all you want I'll never forgive you for stealing my idea! The experiment as it stands right now is to have four identical systems, one control without a UV sterilizer and 3 with three different UV/plumbing configurations all four stocked with the same number and species of fish that had all been quarantined and sacrificial specimens checked for any sign of parasite before added to the test systems (gill tissue would be checked under a microscope). A separate tank would have specimens of the same species inoculated and each of the four test systems would receive sick fish at the same time. To hopefully eliminate the aggression variable the contaminated fish would be introduced to the sumps of each system. This will also be additional data to help determine if there is a better survival rate based on where the pump is located that feeds the UV if contaminated specimens in the sump of one or two systems survive but the specimens in the main tank die. What will certainly through a wrench in the experiment is if any or all of the specimens in the control system survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 That's awesome! My kind of experiment there! Keep us posted! I'll give you the scoop on my next experiment and let you steal the thunder on that one? Eye for an eye? [emoji12] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardlaw Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thanks for the input Wardlaw! I'm curious, what was the reasoning behind running it when aeration rates were low? Aw Tim! Sorry, I didn't mean to take your thunder! Maybe we can work collaboratively on the UV research and help clarify (pun-intended!) it's usefulness. Is the veterinarian running a full-scale experiment with the intent on running several variables of plumbing setups to test for the effectiveness of UV in each setup? Is this like a lab-scale type of an experiment or will he/she be just aiming to implement these plumbing setups on to an existing water system and monitoring the levels found in the system? Are they studying this for freshwater or saltwater? I'm very interested in the results. For your observation of it being most effective when the plumbed separately with the pump at the bottom of the display, what exactly were you seeing in that configuration versus others that you observed it being more effective? I don't have direct experience with UV so any information is much appreciated. That is the same configuration the manufacturer recommends which makes sense, but if it is just a slight increase in effectiveness, then I'd rather just plumb directly into my return line instead. The unit is oversized anyways for my system so hopefully that'll account for the less efficient method of plumbing while allowing me to not have to throw a pump in the display and have tubing/plumbing running up and out the back, which would be unsightly for me. I was just commenting because it seemed you were going down the path of death to organisms equals lower 02 rates or that expelling the dead microorganisms straight to the skimmer would be beneficial. I seem to think it doesn't really matter. I just wanted you to know that I had experienced examples of 0 fish issues due to lowered 02 and it was at a time when we had little to zero aeration in the pond which would have been the time lower 93 rates would have become more evident really quickly. Sorry to go astray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gig 'em @ NDstructible Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 When I saw the title of this thread I thought to myself, "gee, that looks like a probable Ty thread!" And my theory stands correct ? I agree that plumbing in the UV effluent into the skimmer will have little to no effect. When you take into account the numbers of bacterial species in the form of biofilms on the rock, glass, sand, etc vs. the number of bacteria that will be killed going through your low-flow UV filter, it's pretty negligible and wouldn't really cause an influx of bio-available nutrients to the water column. There will be die off, but hardly anything you could observe in a tank of your size. Still interested if you see any changes with the addition of your UV filter. Mainly I'm interested to see what will happen with your clams and sponges in the tank if they are at all negatively affected by the reduction in water bound life forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I'm just going to take devils advocate position here, because no one else will. The UV sterilizer will at best have negligible effects and at worst nuke your water column biota. Can I support that with facts? No. Do I even really believe my position? No. But this is the internet, someone has to take the con position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 I appreciate you jumping on the grenade for the Internet community Victoly! I like the input Gig'em. It makes sense when you put it that way. Of course I'm behind it! Who else is dumb enough to experiment on thousands of dollars of livestock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gig 'em @ NDstructible Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I'll jump on the devils advocate bandwagon too and theorize that a UV filter in a well established reef tank will have negligible effects on the system as a whole. I think UV filters are much more effective in ponds and freshwater tanks where the microbiodiversity is less extensive and therefore certain aggressive species are more likely to flourish, reproduce, and become an issue. Reef ecosystems on the other hand are incredibly diverse, especially in the microbial realm, and there is more balance between species. It is a bit harder for microbes to dominate in this system unless an extreme incident or condition exists that provides the potential for a certain species to thrive. Like you've said before, ich exists in your tank, but only prospers when stress reduces the immunity of your fish opening a door for it to grow.Basically, there is a healthy balance that evens the playing field making a UV filter a pretty weak tool in the reef, especially in your tank Ty. I still encourage you to proceed with your experiment and I hope you can prove me wrong in one way or another! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 I like your thorough assessment. I think it has a lot of validity. But you obviously haven't watched enough movies, else you'd know that you only need one person to jump on the live grenade. Did you see anyone else jump on the grenade in Captain America? Nope, just the creepy scrawny version of Captain America... who must have been related to skinny arms Rob Lowe. Kidding aside. I think you give my system a little more credit than it deserves for being a well established reef system. It only hit it's first birthday this past January and most of the first year was mired in the salinity debacle and super high nitrates. Throw a little marine velvet in there and the removal of the fish bioload and the resultant cyano bloom/algal bloom and I'll be the first to admit it's not in rock steady mode just yet. Luckily, all parameters are in line and most everything is happy and growing. The colors aren't quite there yet but I know that it is just a function of time. Once the fish are reintroduced to the tank, I'll have another major swing in stability and will have to wait for everything to normalize again. Once my fish are added back in and the system goes back to normal, I'll count from there one year and if no other cycles or swings happen, then I'll consider it stable. I think, just like a skimmer, the UV will be most useful while starting up a tank and before it reaches stability. Afterwards, though there is less of a need for it, it will switch to the role of passive emergency role instead of active duty. What I mean by that is I'll still have it running full time, just like my skimmer, but by then, the stability of the tank will probably render it slightly less useful and it will be useful if I have some type of emergency spike of bacteria or parasites. Same thing as my skimmer for the most part... though not a perfect comparison, it is highly useful when I first start up the tank but by the time my system is stable, I'm sure it's pulling out less waste because I will have developed all the micro fauna and pods/clean up crew to handle most of the wastes naturally. The skimmer will go to default passive mode as well and really be there to remove some wastes but really it's going to be useful for emergency type scenarios only if/when they pop up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reburn Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Forgive me if I missed this being discussed. Ty, What does flow rate does your biopellet reactor run at? Would it worth thinking about to run the UV sterilizer after the biopellet reactor. This would allow for you to utilize an existing manifold leg and flow. Also as I haven't run a biopellet reactor this is all based on what I have read but the purpose of running your biopellets into your skimmer is to remove excess bacteria. Since your removing them anyways I wouldn't see that it would hurt to kill them first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 The flow on my biopellet reactor isn't much at all. Probably 200 gph at the most so it's going to be not enough flow for the UV. That's not a bad idea at all if the gph's matched up better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reburn Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 So I jumped onto Aqua Ultra Violet's website to look at the flow rates. This is what I found. In salt water reef environments choose a UV that matches your flow rate per hour in the 30,000 or 45,000 columns of our chart. Flow rates in the 75,000 and 90,000 columns will destroy the planktonic food supply for the reef. 30,000 µw/cm2 (EOL) 3200 gph 45,000 µw/cm2 (EOL) 2133 gph 60,000 µw/cm2 (EOL) 1600 gph 75,000 µw/cm2 (EOL) 1280 gph 90,000 µw/cm2 (EOL) 1066 gph Some rough calculations. 275 total water Volume x 5 times turnover through sump = 1375 gph I would bet this is approximately what you are actually getting after your head loss and stuff on your sicce HF12. I would put the sterilizer on the output of the return before the manifold to maximize gph flow through. This should give you 2500-1500 gph flow through on the sterilizer and keep you where you want to be on the chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reburn Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I pulled this off emperor aquatics website. Since I'm not an ick expert I don't know if these figures are correct. I have seen some websites claim down to 72mws and up to 180mws All microorganisms are not the same. They each require a different exposure time of UV light (UV Dose). The size, biological makeup, and life cycle of each microorganism are critical factors in determining the required UV Dose. For example, Bacteria are often many times smaller than protozoa and therefore require less UV dose (shorter exposure time and/or less UV light intensity). Fin rot is a common bacteria and is very small. It requires a UV dose of 11,000 µws/cm2 (Microwatt Seconds per Square Centimeters a unit of measurement). Marine Ich, on the other hand, is one of the largest protozoa and will require a higher UV dose than most microorganisms you will encounter in the home aquarium. It requires 180,000 µws/cm2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 so what you're saying that as spec'd, the UV ty selected will not be effective at ich removal? If so, VINDICATION! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reburn Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 What I'm saying is if the figures are correct no aquarium sterilizer I have found quickly on the market is designed to do 180,000 micro watts without over heating. And at 180 it's going to nuke everything else. So yes you are VINDICATED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gig 'em @ NDstructible Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I think when most things are considered, UV sterilizers in a reef aquarium aren't very useful tools, which is why we don't see them very often in reef systems. I think they are good at controlling certain bacterial and algal blooms in the water and will help keep your water plenty clear, but when it comes to preventing the return of larger pathogens and parasites, it falls short. In the end you're most likely going to be eliminating a lot of free floating microbes that your corals, clams, and sponges use for food. To me it seems like a pretty low cost:benefit ratio, but again, I am hoping to see some tangible results from your attempt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 I've read the emperor aquatics recommended flowrate and their recommendation of 180,000 micro watts to kill protozoan such as ich. I've looked at AquaUVs ratings to kill protozoan and they have it at 90,000 microwatts. Since I'm using their unit, I went with their recommendation. I called just to confirm for my tank size and the tech recommended 1,000-1,200 gph so that's what I'll run with. Sadly, neither one of them supply research to backup their recommendations so I'll have to trust AquaUVs recommendation for now until we get some results from Timfish's veterinarian friend. I don't think we can be conclusive of anything yet as to its ability or lack of ability to destroy pathogens and parasites yet. You'd be surprised too how many tanks actually use UV. Take a look a couple of the bigger reef setups on the larger forums and read their equipment list. You'd be a little surprised at the number that run UV. While that is not conclusive in itself, I typically aim to do the same things that successful tanks do... especially if I'm trying to mimic them. Anyways, I don't think there will be tangible results from my experiment. There's not enough control over the experiment nor do I have the proper equipment to pull any usable data, like protozoan/bacteria counts, so my results will be mostly anecdotal. It's still fun to do though so I'll share my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gig 'em @ NDstructible Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Yeah I've see a lot of the nice big tanks on RCA with UV and a lot of the tanks on the "tank of the month" with UV. But honestly, I chalk it up to who those people are. The people whose tanks make the tank of the month list are usually nice tanks with large expensive coral colonies, top of the line equipment, and lots of equipment. These guys obviously aren't hurting for money so most of them own all the doo-dads and bells and whistles. Why not have a UV filter if you have everything else?! Did those go need UV filters? Eh, probably not. Could they afford it and possibly add some kind of benefit in the future without hurting the corals? Sure sure. So they added it. Was it the UV that made the tank nice, or was it the nice tank owner who added the UV? Just my theory on that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.