Discussion in 'Fish Diseases' started by martygary, Sep 28, 2012.
Join 3reef now to remove this notice and enjoy 3reef content with less ads. 3reef membership is free.
My flow is perfect with what the uvs call for. Ive got a 9 watt snd a 18 watt.
I'm in the crowd of UV believers,I myself have seen drastic improvements with the addition of a UV.Most noticable was the daily cleaning of my glass changed to about once a week,cyano cleared up,and everything in general just looked better/healthier.
My thoughts on the dispute about them not being selective and destroying both good and bad things is in agreement with the others."oh,it's gonna sterilize my pods!It's gonna kill my good bacterias!".Yup they will,but only what passes though it,the unit is Not gonna suck every pod through it and thier reproduction rates typically outweigh the small amount that do go through it.
Same with bacteria concerns,yeah,it'll wipe out what goes through,but very little of the bacteria you want is free floating in the water column,most of the bacteria that we need to be concerned about is colonized on and in your rock and substrate.
The debate on a waste of energy and adding a heat load varies,if you live in a hot area,then yes,I would agree,the heatload may very well outweigh the benefits.But living in Ohio,I just look at it as less work my heater has to do
Freefloating parasites and algae spores are another benefit.Will it get everything?No.Will it help?Yes.
I've ran one for a year now and have seen nothing but good come from using it.I've had no negative issues that I am aware of.
I also used UV for air and water sterilization in my field of work for many years,have been to schools on them and seen both the benefits and downsides.
IMO,are they required?No.Have I seen more good than bad from them?Yes.
I highly doubt the U.V. got rid of your Cyano. Cyano are on the rocks, substrate, etc. growing. You would have to pass the rocks through the unit to sterilize the cyano living on it. You would only sterilize some of the cyano spores/cells that are water born, which may reduce some of the spread of the cyano. The cyano on the rocks will not be affected at all. Will it help??Maybe but lowering your nutrient levels is the only way to get control of it.I am sure using a U.V. made your water much more clear but we automatically assume when something looks cleaner its healthier.Is it??????
I'm not claiming that it improved my nutrient problem that caused the cyano to begin with,i'm claiming that it aided in my maintenance against fighting it.I just mention the good bacteria colonizes on rocks,why would I think any different of cyano?Thats like saying that it'll will remove gha,which it won't,but coupled with good husbandry it will aid in the speading of spores,hence,helping in the fight against it.It won't cure or stop ich either,but it will help with the freefloating stages,AGIAN,it will NOT get all,but it will absolutely help.
You are splitting hairs here Vinny,where's evidence of damage or harm caused by the use of uv?My testimonial is my evidence in the good that can come from using one.
And mine is from the success of not using one.LOL ;D
Here is some good info/evidence.My argument really is not that U.V. sterilizers are necessarily bad for your tank; rather they are unnecesary in a properly maintained tank where good husbandry is practiced.Because there are alot of unknowns I prefer the KISS method with my system.
U.V. light is indiscriminate in the destruction of free-floating micro-organisms. It kills "good guys" as well as bad. These beneficial microbes are absolutely necessary in almost all captive environments. For this reason: 1) Initial, break-in periods of new aquatic set-ups are run without the U.V being turned on. 2) It is suggested that U.V.s be left off in conjunction with some therapeutic treatments and used with others.
Organisms maintained in a "well-filtered", strongly U.V. sterilized system seem to develop a type of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Like the boy-in-a-bubble, organisms kept in an almost sterile environment seem to lose their ability to ward off infectious diseases. Now, let me explain the qualifiers placed upon the terms above. A) There are no captive systems that result in 100% effective kill of all micro-organisms. B) This loss of apparent immunity occurs over long periods of time in a highly variable, non-selective manner. C) This "syndrome has, to my knowledge, never been scientifically documented; therefore my use of the word comes from my personal and second-hand experiences.
U.V. purification is widely used in many industries; medical, recreational swimming, alcoholic beverages and drinking water among others.
U.V. light is a natural part of electro-magnetic-radiation (EMR) produced by the sun. U.V. lamps generate more of these frequencies of light at a low cost.
There are sizes, fittings and models of U.V.s for virtually any aquatic application; aquaria, pools, ponds and recirculating multiple tank systems.
The water going through the U.V. sterilizer should first be run through biological filtration and mechanically filtered to remove particulates. Allowing air bubbles or any solid matter to pass through the contact chamber is contra-indicated. For this reason, using an air-lift system as a means of moving water through the U.V. is a bad idea. It is suggested that if a heat-exchanger and/or separate chemical filtration is utilized that these come before the U.V.. In other words, the U.V. system should be the last part of the filtration system to have water passed through before returning to the live-holding systems.
The reasons for this are several and mostly obvious. The most important are:
1) To remove as much "other stuff" from the water so that the U.V> radiation will operate with highest efficiency.
2) Beneficial microbes will be preserved and their activity promoted.
An Idealized Filtration System
Dwell time, the amount of time a given quantity of water is exposed to a given concentration of radiation may be calculated at about twenty gallons per hour flow per watt U.V.. This value or more watts per unit unit is adequate for providing a good kill rate per pass and will substantially reduce planktonic micro-organisms and organics concentrations.
The beneficial effects of U.V. are enhanced by utilizing the filter system order described above and by arranging for as complete a circulation pattern as possible in your live-holding system.
More vigorous flows are not necessarily to be avoided, but reducing dwell time will result in loss of efficiency per pass. This might lead to increased spread of infectious disease.
Passing all the water in the system though the filter mechanisms once or more an hour is ideal.
Most U.V. lamps are engineered to operate at around 72 degrees Fahrenheit. Cooler water systems or systems with debris or pressure that might damage the lamps can be fitted with sleeves of quartz of Teflon.
These jackets require periodic inspection and cleaning as for the lamps in tropical systems that come in direct contact with the water.
Regular, routine up-keep is necessary to assure peak performance.
Sleeves &/or bulbs should be removed from their contact chambers and cleaned once a month or so. Generally, this can be accomplished by simply wiping with a clean, dry cloth or towel. If necessary, slime may be removed by wiping with rubbing alcohol.
This is the reason I asked if cleaner actually means healthier.
I saw a table today that showed the dosage required to kill a variety of organisms. The values were in uW-s/cm2 - or - microwatt-seconds per square centimeter - to kill 99.999% of the organisms that pass through it.
A typical 40W UV sterilizer will produce about 15,000 uW-s/cm2 at a flow rate of around 50 gpm. Some will vary up or down based on the housing design. Obviously, to get the most efficiency, you want to turn your tank over as much as possible to get as many of those swimmers to pass through the sterilizer as possible.
Well heck, 50 gpm = 3000 gph, that would turn over even a large tank more than enough.
The problem? That flow rate is, as mentioned, for 15,000 uW-s/cm2. Ich requires 330,000 uW-s/cm2 to kill it. That means that to get a killing dose, a typical 40W UV sterilizer could only be run at about 2.27 gpm or roughly 136 gph. Maybe enough for a nano.
Separate names with a comma.