How Do You Feel About UV Sterilizers

[NoSchwag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6960825#post6960825 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley

I love my UV in a SPS tank, it helps with the pathogens and breaks P bonds for my skimmer.

You think UV breaks C-O-P bonds?

I have no idea. I am the furthest thing from a scientist (or a reefkeeper for that matter) I just know how to follow instructions. And all of what I'm talking about comes from something I have read somewhere.

Let me see if I can dig up some quotes to maybe help what I am trying to say...

 

[jbrown11352]

What is the best method for calculating the uv size on your tank? Also how much flow?

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6967766#post6967766 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NoSchwag
I have no idea. I am the furthest thing from a scientist (or a reefkeeper for that matter)

I hear ya. Me, too. That's why I was speculating and questioning your reasoning. But, since neither of us have the facts, isn't that leading the blind with the blind? On a side note, this is turning out to be an interesting discussion. Thanks for everyone that has contributed.

 

[NoSchwag]

Basically this is what I consider fact..


"UV will/can break the bonds on organic phosphates, leaving you with testable inorganic orthophosphates."

"The UV will kill and burn off the algae floating around, but, as they decompose they are just going to release the phosphate back into the water - back to square one again."

"Almost without exception those coral chemicals are highly photoreactive and break down when exposed to UV."

"The UV is breaking P bonds and feeding water borne bacteria and phyto."

"UV's will control Ick. Period"

"I know UV will liberate at lot of P. BUT is that form of P one that's easily skimmable?

Also on the inorganic, wouldn't keeping it in suspension, available to get to the skimmer, and then using wet skimming to export it?"

"Most closed systems will mimic mesotrophic or eutrophic conditions. The P they leak is the preferred food for phyto.
Depending on the conditions of the system and the type of "reef" you compare it to. It's a lot harder to duplicate oligotrophic conditions in a closed system."

"I never worry about parasites, my skimmer works better."

"algae is coming from water soluble nutrients in the system - P - and if you don't have your exports and sinks in place, UV can liberate more of that water soluble P by destroying water borne bacteria and phyto."

 

[NoSchwag]

here's a good one...

"I would think a UV sterilizer will actually promote more coralline simply because the total phosphate in your system can be kept much lower since orthophosphate can be sequestered."

"I am assuming phyto/algae. Sterilizes phyto and waterborne algae along with converting organic phosphate to orthophosphate. More AOC is produced. Just to make sure I am following.

guess that is a pretty good method at keeping corals well fed, heh? "

From..

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479092&highlight=uv

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

This is how I would feel about it...

"UV will/can break the bonds on organic phosphates, leaving you with testable inorganic orthophosphates."
But, then you have to have something like an algal scrubber to use these phophates. Natural methods of organic phosphate breakdown happens in the tank. To me, a waste of money to get a UV for this reason alone.

"The UV will kill and burn off the algae floating around, but, as they decompose they are just going to release the phosphate back into the water - back to square one again."
Self Explanitory

"Almost without exception those coral chemicals are highly photoreactive and break down when exposed to UV."
I assume you are talking about allelopathic coral chemicals. How much chemical warfare really goes on in an aquarium? Aren't SPS corals supposed to only slightly exude a chemical defense/offense if any? Now, a UV on a "leather" tank would almost seem to be essential. We all know that Sarcophyton, Sinularia, etc are quite allelopathic for being a coral.

"The UV is breaking P bonds and feeding water borne bacteria and phyto."
That's what I meant earlier by saying the UV is helping to increase your bacteria population. But, on the other hand, "water borne bacteria and phyto" are also killed by the UV. Kind of a lose/lose situation I would think

"UV's will control Ick. Period"
IF it passes through the UV. The bulk of Ich's lifespan is in the rockwork/substrate and in the host. It is only shortly in the water column. And for it to not be able to swim down, you would need some pretty serious flow through the tank to get it to the UV and a high powered UV to see any noticable effects quickly. Of course, effects are effects and it is more of a matter of how quickly you want it to happen

"I know UV will liberate at lot of P. BUT is that form of P one that's easily skimmable?

Also on the inorganic, wouldn't keeping it in suspension, available to get to the skimmer, and then using wet skimming to export it?"
This could be my ignorance here, but I thought a skimmer took out more complex organic compounds then simple ones like nitrates and phophates. Isn't that the reason why our skimmate is that nasty color and the top of the bubbles collect detritus?

"Most closed systems will mimic mesotrophic or eutrophic conditions. The P they leak is the preferred food for phyto.
Depending on the conditions of the system and the type of "reef" you compare it to. It's a lot harder to duplicate oligotrophic conditions in a closed system."
I guess it depends on what you want out of your system. Clams and SPS eat phytoplankton, so is phosphate really that bad if all it does is power your phytoplankton?

"I never worry about parasites, my skimmer works better."
I'm a little confused on this one :lmao:

"algae is coming from water soluble nutrients in the system - P - and if you don't have your exports and sinks in place, UV can liberate more of that water soluble P by destroying water borne bacteria and phyto."
Isn't that basically saying you don't need a UV filter if your tank is running correctly? Also UV can't "liberate water solulable P by destroyinh water borne bacteria and phyto" because it just breaks right back down into phosphates. See the second quote.

NoSchwag (and others), please feel free to post all comments. I'm quite eager to read them

*Note: This is my question/reasoning for a home aquarium use of UV. Not a commercial use.

 

[G-money]

I'll start by saying I use a 40W Emporer UV on my 120 gallon reef tank.

I strongly disagree that UV is more practical for large systems. Just taking my 40W on 120 gallons (which is probably a low-ball dose of UV), you can do the math to calculate how much you would need in a public saltwater aquarium. Couple that with the fraction of total water volume that you could effectively put through it and I'd argue that UVs are indeed more effective, more practical and more efficient on smaller systems where effects are much more localized.

Next, while I am not a chemist, such isn't required to know that low wavelegth light has more energy than higher wavelength. UV light does have enough energy to breakdown organic molecules. If it didn't, it wouldn't be detrimental to life. Even though I don't have a good reference other than the 18 months I've used UV, I can tell you that the same skimmer I ran for 2 years before UV yields more skimmate with UV run simultaneously.

Third, even though I might be indescriminantly zapping the hapless creatures that pass through the UV unit, I've never seen a coral show decreased interest in something that is dead vs something alive. Meaning, if they have the opportuinity, corals are still going to eat whatever it is that has been killed/damaged by the UV - unless you can prove to me that UV-fried doesn't "taste" as good. Granted, killing the critters probably decreases their fecundity (potential numbers), but I'll take it.

Also, unlike ozone, there are no realistic dangers in overdosage or environmental exposure. That's the main reason I chose UV over ozone. UV gives you the same general oxidizing effects as ozone, though less intense and with other (what I consider) benefits. Such as it basically makes carbon usage obsolete. There's another source of P out of your system....

You know, it's like skimming. Some folks are real worried about skimming removing trace minerals. Sometimes you have to take the (what some people consider) bad with the good. Some people think they can safely remove trace minerals (since salt mixes have magnitudes more than NSW in the first place). Much like some people feel they can indescriminantly zap the things that pass through the UV.

It all boils down to your philosophy. If you're the guy who needs your sandbed so you can increase the system's biodiversity, then you will naturally be anti-UV in all likelihood. If you are the guy who skims like mad, thinks sand is really fish tank litter and has found that your corals and fish do just fine with your trace mineral and microflora/fauna pillaging, then UV is an atractive option. The choice to use UV or not is yours, but it is a valid one.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Does anyone have any articles or research that has been done on UV Sterilization and its true effectiveness?

UV at 254 nm kills by being absorbed by DNA, and the bacteria die. Stephen Spotte has a lengthy discussion of that effect in several of his books, including detailed studies on the effectiveness.

As to the organic phosphate breakdown hypothesis, let's just say that I am skeptical.

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968275#post6968275 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis L. Stevens
"Almost without exception those coral chemicals are highly photoreactive and break down when exposed to UV."
I assume you are talking about allelopathic coral chemicals. How much chemical warfare really goes on in an aquarium? Aren't SPS corals supposed to only slightly exude a chemical defense/offense if any? Now, a UV on a "leather" tank would almost seem to be essential. We all know that Sarcophyton, Sinularia, etc are quite allelopathic for being a coral.

I call myth on this one.

Stony corals are just as capable at chemical competition, and the few studies on this have found certain ones [Goniopora, I know] to be highly competitive through alleopathy.

Nevermind being as affected by these chemicals as any other.

The `stony corals don't compete in alleopathy' is, in my reading, a myth. I can get you a couple references tonight, if desired

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968328#post6968328 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by G-money
It all boils down to your philosophy. If you're the guy who needs your sandbed so you can increase the system's biodiversity, then you will naturally be anti-UV in all likelihood. If you are the guy who skims like mad, thinks sand is really fish tank litter and has found that your corals and fish do just fine with your trace mineral and microflora/fauna pillaging, then UV is an atractive option. The choice to use UV or not is yours, but it is a valid one.

You know, I couldn't have said it any better myself. I guess I'm the sand bed kind of guy.

The only thing that I worry about is this thread dying because of what was said in your first sentence in the quote. "It all boils down to your philosophy." :thumbsup:

Edit: Though I'm a sand bed guy, I'm trying to keep an open mind and an unbiased opinion on this.

 

[NoSchwag]

"But, then you have to have something like an algal scrubber to use these phophates." Natural methods of organic phosphate breakdown happens in the tank. To me, a waste of money to get a UV for this reason alone.

Wet skimming with a becket.

"Self Explanitory "

Wet skimming with a becket

"I assume you are talking about allelopathic coral chemicals. How much chemical warfare really goes on in an aquarium? Aren't SPS corals supposed to only slightly exude a chemical"

Ask weatherman

"That's what I meant earlier by saying the UV is helping to increase your bacteria population. But, on the other hand, "water borne bacteria and phyto" are also killed by the UV. Kind of a lose/lose situation I would think"

Wet skimming with a becket


"IF it passes through the UV. The bulk of Ich's lifespan is in the rockwork/substrate and in the host. It is only shortly in the water column. And for it to not be able to swim down, you would need some pretty serious flow through the tank to get it to the UV and a high powered UV to see any noticable effects quickly. Of course, effects are effects and it is more of a matter of how quickly you want it to happen"

Get a properly sized UV with contact time to kill protozins, and have a ton of flow (see BB tank).. ALL ick medication works when the ick is waterborne.


"This could be my ignorance here, but I thought a skimmer took out more complex organic compounds then simple ones like nitrates and phophates. Isn't that the reason why our skimmate is that nasty color and the top of the bubbles collect detritus?"

You need to wet skim with a becket.. That Dry foam isn'y cutting it.

"I guess it depends on what you want out of your system. Clams and SPS eat phytoplankton, so is phosphate really that bad if all it does is power your phytoplankton?"

No it's great because my skimmer harvests that phyto. I dont keep clams, I don't care about it. But I do beleve my tank produces enouh for everything to be happy.

"I'm a little confused on this one :lmao:"

Talk to the guy I quoted..

"Isn't that basically saying you don't need a UV filter if your tank is running correctly? Also UV can't "liberate water solulable P by destroyinh water borne bacteria and phyto" because it just breaks right back down into phosphates. See the second quote."

Wet skimming with a becket

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968360#post6968360 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
UV at 254 nm kills by being absorbed by DNA, and the bacteria die. Stephen Spotte has a lengthy discussion of that effect in several of his books, including detailed studies on the effectiveness.

I'll have to check that one out

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968384#post6968384 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
The `stony corals don't compete in alleopathy' is, in my reading, a myth. I can get you a couple references tonight, if desired

I didn't say they don't comepete. I know that LPS will, but truthfully, I'm not sure how much SPS would/do.

BTW, please bring anything and everything to the table. I love to read this stuff. Even if it is slightly off topic

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

NoSchwag, I love the responses! :lmao: If most of the problems can be solved by "wet skimming with a beckett", then why run a UV at all? And you can't answer that with "wet skimming with a becket"

 

[NoSchwag]

As to the organic phosphate breakdown hypothesis, let's just say that I am skeptical.

I searched thru enough posts to know you are..

Now I see for myself the amount of phyto my skimmer removes. I would think that it's being fed by something, no?

 

[NoSchwag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968446#post6968446 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis L. Stevens
NoSchwag, I love the responses! :lmao: If most of the problems can be solved by "wet skimming with a beckett", then why run a UV at all? And you can't answer that with "wet skimming with a becket"

There is no NEED for a uv, again ask weatherman.

I got one because it was recommended by a few people.

ALL you NEED is wet skimming with a becket and enough flow to get it there (see BB tank)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Now I see for myself the amount of phyto my skimmer removes. I would think that it's being fed by something, no?

How does that relate to a UV breaking organo-phosphate bonds?

 

[NoSchwag]

P.S. I don't do waterchanges.

 

[NoSchwag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968480#post6968480 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
Now I see for myself the amount of phyto my skimmer removes. I would think that it's being fed by something, no?

How does that relate to a UV breaking organo-phosphate bonds?

The phyto takes it up and then is harvested by wet skimming with a becket.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968458#post6968458 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NoSchwag
There is no NEED for a uv, again ask weatherman.

I got one because it was recommended by a few people.

Oh okay, I thought you leaned more towards UV because of a specific detail and not a recommendation. Though there are a lot of benefits that your tank has experienced, have you noticed any visible pit falls?

 

[G-money]

Oh gee, this was posted as I was posting above. I'd be happy to address some of these.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968275#post6968275 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis L. Stevens
But, then you have to have something like an algal scrubber to use these phophates. Natural methods of organic phosphate breakdown happens in the tank.

Let me start out by saying that I'm going to bet you like your DSB? Organic phosphate is not broken down into nothing in your tank. At best, it becomes inorganic and reassimilated organically. Unless you remove it by harvesting biomass, precipitating with kalk (or other), or skimming, it's indeed in your tank forever - either as biomass, detritus or a mineral precipitate.

"The UV will kill and burn off the algae floating around, but, as they decompose they are just going to release the phosphate back into the water - back to square one again."
Self Explanitory

I'm stumped here. I have no algae growth in my tank (save a few growths of Halimeda) and no sand for P to sink into. Where is all this phosphate going when my only methods of nutrieNt processing are UV and skimmer? I have an idea... Conversely, where does it go when it's allowed to settle into the sand?


FWIW, allelopathy has been shown in stony corals. I can find references if you like - or you can Google.

That's what I meant earlier by saying the UV is helping to increase your bacteria population. But, on the other hand, "water borne bacteria and phyto" are also killed by the UV. Kind of a lose/lose situation I would think

Would you rather have your P tied up in bacteria and other planktonic algae (all very skimmable) or other algaes that are unsightly and can overgrow coral?


Never had ick with or without UV, so I can't comment on that one.

"I know UV will liberate at lot of P. BUT is that form of P one that's easily skimmable?

This could be my ignorance here, but I thought a skimmer took out more complex organic compounds then simple ones like nitrates and phophates. Isn't that the reason why our skimmate is that nasty color and the top of the bubbles collect detritus?

Something's susceptibility to being skimmed is basically just a function of whether or not it is amphipathic (both hyrophobic and hydrophilic), can be imbedded in the "walls" of a bubble, and pushed out of the system. To my knowledge, only very large particles would be difficult to skim. Consequently, there is no more effective use of a skimmer than to get the bubbles to pop at the top and "throw" the associated water into the cup. Wet skimming rules...IMO of course.

I guess it depends on what you want out of your system. Clams and SPS eat phytoplankton, so is phosphate really that bad if all it does is power your phytoplankton?

Eeegh...SPS do not eat phyto. Phosphate is an antagonist to calcification. Meso and Eutrophic waters have reservoirs of phosphate. That's enough for me to know what's right.