How Do You Feel About UV Sterilizers

[Travis L. Stevens]

I just want to gather a consensus of how people feel about the implication of UV Sterilizers and why. I'll lead by bringing how I feel about it to the table.

:thumbdown: Personally, for the average, private, home aquarium a UV Sterilizer is pretty much worthless. Our small water capacity systems seem to have a higher concentration of life. Beneficial and detremental. Microscopic and visible. Adding a UV Sterilizer not only kills off a good portion of this life, but it seems to me to be relatively ineffective because of the lower turnover rates that go through these systems. I really think these small scale UV Sterilzers should be done away with and let hobbyist keep his money for a rainy day (or an upgrade).

:thumbsup: On the other hand, in public aquariums, wholesalers, and fish stores, this should be something that should be bread and butter. The bigger the better. Too many things come in and go out of these facilities to risk having one infected specimen infect a whole system regardless of preventive methods such as quarintine.

:hmm2: Though that is how I feel on the extreme ends, there is a grey area. Large, private displays. And by large, I'm talking, oh say, 500 gallon minimum. This one is optional. You will most likely have a large livestock population and a lot of money invested in it. So, having a large UV Sterilizer would be more of a preventive investment.

How do you all feel?

 

[madmax7774]

granted my experience is limited, but my own experience tells me....

granted my experience is limited, but my own experience tells me....

I bought an 9 watt sterilizer awhile ago, because I had a nasty algea bloom. In 24 hours the water was crystal clear. I plumbed mine with a low flow pump so that the water traviling through it goes reasonably slow to prolong exposure time. Everything in my tank was just dropped right in from the LFS, because I don't have a convenient quarentine setup. It works exceptionally well for my needs. It keeps the water noticably clearer. If can afford one, and are inclined to have one, I say go for it. Personally, I think are great. For me they defiantely made a big difference.
John

 

[Steven Pro]

They are not a good value for hobbyists. They are largely ineffective for anything other than green water blooms. And, they lead to a false sense of security. Although, I do feel the idea that UV's kill too many "good" things in a reef display is overstated.

For commercial operations, I would use UV along with ozone.

 

[Julio]

if you are looking to clear up yoru water they work, i use one on my quarentine tank only, but not on my reef. Too many beneficial things to kill. I ratehr run ozone for a few hours a week.

 

[ReefHotSpot]

Personally, I think UV is horrible for a home reef system. Fish System? Do it because you need all the help you can get but reef is another story. 1-if you have a reef system at home it should be stable enough that you can have a powder blue (or other magnets) without too much trouble. 2--All systems are lame compared to what we are trying to the environment we are trying to create. What we're striving for in a reef system is stability and balance and we never reach it because we are human and do this hobby for pleasure. More pleasure anyone? We stock too early or get excited about having something that we really shouldn't have in the tank and put it in anyway. A UV system upsets any sort of natural balance which that live rock you imported is trying to create. Oh--and their expensive and extremely difficult to size and lose about 3% of their efficiency per month and they are another thing that can break and they are another thing that can catch fire and they are another thing that can melt and they are another thing isn't going to work properly. Patience. It is truly a cure for many things and finder of lost souls, my brother. woops samuel L jackson got in my head for a moment.

 

[ReefHotSpot]

Oh, by the way, I highly recommend ozone plummed into the skimmer. It makes them soooooo much more efficient and it rarely kills much of anything in a home setting. It really takes something like a 2 min dwell time before it becomes effective at parasite control but it works wonders with my RK2s.

 

[NoSchwag]

How do you all feel?

I love my UV in a SPS tank, it helps with the pathogens and breaks P bonds for my skimmer. No ick on my fish and clear water are just a bonus.

I don't know what "good stuff" it kills, but I do know I have 1023034795 pods under my starboard.

 

[boyohboy2]

How I feel..... isn't it somewhat contradictory that ppl keep saying the aquarium UV unit is ineffective for what it does, AND it kills off too many "good stuffs"??

I mean if it does kill off lota "good stuffs", whatever those are supposed to be, then the UV has to be effective .... if the UV is ineffective then it won't kill off too much "good stuffs", will it?!

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

boyohboy2, It's ineffectiveness is mainly due to an aquarists choice of too small of a UV filter. Though they kill most of the things that pass through, it barely cycles through the water at all compared to a sump, refugium, and/or skimmer. But, looking at it from your point of view, then yes it is very effective

NoSchwag, though it does help break down those pesky pathogens and parasites, wouldn't your fish be able to do this on their own with a healthy and stress-free immune system? Also, wouldn't breaking down the proteins in your aquarium actually hinder skimmer performance? Skimmers take out proteins before they get a chance to break down through the nitrogen cycle. Effectively, instead of increasing skimmer performance, you are decreasing it, but increasing bacterial performance instead, technically. But, I would suspect that you are making your bacterial population more dense and healthy for a heavier bioload. Just an assumption.

Steven Pro, redrunblue, I definitely agree that running ozone would be far more efficient. But, it too, is also an indiscreminant killer. In general and on the long haul, wouldn't running an algal scrubber be far more efficient. After all, it only take a cheap light to make it grow, and you can often sell excess to people. It might not take things out as quickly as some sort of mechanical device, but it completely removes a lot of unwanted organic compounds and leaves the single/multi celled organisms alive in your tank (beneficial and detrimental)

 

[fgarvine]

quarantine only...

 

[Steven Pro]

For commercial operations, I would use UV along with ozone.

Steven Pro, redrunblue, I definitely agree that running ozone would be far more efficient. But, it too, is also an indiscreminant killer. In general and on the long haul, wouldn't running an algal scrubber be far more efficient. After all, it only take a cheap light to make it grow, and you can often sell excess to people. It might not take things out as quickly as some sort of mechanical device, but it completely removes a lot of unwanted organic compounds and leaves the single/multi celled organisms alive in your tank (beneficial and detrimental)

In a commercial operation like a wholesale facility or even retail operation, why would you be concerned about killing "good" stuff. Most commercial operations are bare bottom tanks with little to nothing else live in them other than the animals for safe.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6959371#post6959371 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
In a commercial operation like a wholesale facility or even retail operation, why would you be concerned about killing "good" stuff. Most commercial operations are bare bottom tanks with little to nothing else live in them other than the animals for safe.

Well, that's why I highly recommend UV Sterilizers and/or Ozone. One infected fish could contaminate a whole system that could be worth $10,000+ in livestock on the commercial side of it.

FWIW, I originally meant to leave O3 out of the picture for this discussion, but I guess it's unavoidable

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, very few reef aquarists use ozone in a fashion that kills most parasites. Too little and too short of a contact time.

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?

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

I know that you renowned (spelling?) "professionals" , Randy Holmes-Farley and Steven Pro, like to stay away from debate but would you care to elaborate in detail your personal opinions on them?

psst... I won't let this turn into a BB vs DSB debate. Just curious how people feel.

 

[Crusty Old Shellback]

I run both, 250 mg hr ozone in my skimmer and 2 X 36 W UV steralizers on my sump return. I have about 550 G actual water volume in my system.

Why do I run them? First because they came with the system I bought. Second because when I did run the tank for a few months without them, my water got cloudy. After turning them back on, my water has cleared up.

I also have a high fish load of some expensive fish due to their size and want to insure that they stay health. Every little bit helps. I don't know about them killing off alage unless it's floating in the water as I have a hair alage problem right now but that's due to nutreients. I feed heavy. I too have a ton of pods living in my tank and I have a lot of pod eaters in there as well.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6961511#post6961511 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by blown63chevy
Why do I run them? First because they came with the system I bought. Second because when I did run the tank for a few months without them, my water got cloudy. After turning them back on, my water has cleared up.

Why do you think that happened? (That could be read really rude. But I mean it as a serious question in a tone of curiosity.)

I would speculate that you have ran the UV Sterilizer and/or Ozone so long that it has killed off, or at least surpressed, the population of a specific organism (bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton, etc). And either that organism was needed to keep a different organism from having a population boom, or the organism that is suppressed is just getting its population back up to par at the expense of another organism. Could the excess nutrients in the water be causing a bloom when you turn off the extra equipment since you could be missing the link that would normally use that nutrients that the Ozone and/or UV Sterilizer is supressing? If you turned off the equipment, would the cloudiness eventually go away? Would the excess nutrients also decline?

 

[Crusty Old Shellback]

I'm not for sure why. Now I'll have to think some.

It may have been partly due to the tank going thru a mini cycle after being reset up after the move. I did have some low ORP readings as well as a amoina spike. I also had the alage growing in the tank with the equipment off. I'm still trying to figure it all out.

I do not have a phosopate test kit and that may be my main problem, which I'm sure it is, along with the high nitrates. As I said, I have some large fish, and they have big poop so I know that's just adding to the problems. I'm not too worried about it right now as I'll be tearing down the tank again to finaly move it into it's final spot.

At that time, I'll probably rinse out the sand and pressure wash the rocks to get rid of the alage and other undersiables. Then I'll keep a close watch on things and do my water changes more often.

The person I got the setup from had been running it as a FOWLR for three years and had the equipment on it. It's still mostly a FOWLR other than a few corals I have moved into it due to they out grew my other tank.

Maybe if I did more frequent water changes, I wouldn't need them. I'm currently doing about 150 G a month with NSW and may step up to 200 G a month.

Funny thing is, I have a 7 year old tank that is doing great. It's packed with corals, is very simple in setup, no UV or ozone, and I don't really notice the yellowing of the water except after I do a water change. It too has some hair alage growing in it as well but not to the same extent. I just pull it out when I do my water changes.

Maybe it's in my RO top off which I get from two different sources??

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

Thank you for the response blown63chevy. Being a regular lounge poster, I knew you wouldn't take it out of context, but thank you. The last thing I ever want to do is start a flame war.... ....butthead *tries to look innocent*

Does anyone have any articles or research that has been done on UV Sterilization and its true effectiveness? I feel pretty strongly on my opinions on UV, but I would love to be disproven by someone setting the facts straight or thinking outside of the box.

 

[Crusty Old Shellback]

NP

From what I've read, it seems that you either need a high power UV or a very slow flow for them to be highly useful. I have the high power but I know my flow is a little high going thru it right now.

 

[NoSchwag]

NoSchwag, though it does help break down those pesky pathogens and parasites, wouldn't your fish be able to do this on their own with a healthy and stress-free immune system?

Fish, sure. What about SPS corals?

Also, wouldn't breaking down the proteins in your aquarium actually hinder skimmer performance? Skimmers take out proteins before they get a chance to break down through the nitrogen cycle. Effectively, instead of increasing skimmer performance, you are decreasing it, but increasing bacterial performance instead, technically.

I think it depends on the way you are running your skimmer. From what I got, The UV breaks organic bonds which is taken up by bacteria and phyto. My skimmer harvests that because it's skimming wet. (not wet skimmate)

But, I would suspect that you are making your bacterial population more dense and healthy for a heavier bioload. Just an assumption.

I believe I am trying to lower the bacterial population to try to get it closer to NSW levels.