Strong UV and Carbon Dosing

FlyPenFly

FlyPenFly

SPS Killer
Setup a new system about a month ago around 65 gallons.

No matter how much media I run, I can't get phosphates below .19. I even have a HOG 1x algae scrubber that has thick growth. I have a suspicion I may need to replace the 1 inch sand bed which came from an older system but it has so many copepods I'm loathe to do so.

I have a CPR Mini reactor that I plan to run some BRS bio pellets in. I've been debating running vinegar but then I have to pickup a dosing pump and I'd rather just use the eqpt I have right now. Even with this level of po4 I'm getting very healthy growth on all my SPS with good coloration. I'm adding the biopellets to try to see if my growth rates will even go up higher with reduce po4.

Anyways, I typically run a 36 watt Turbo Twist UV in the sump on a low flow enough pump that I know it's keeping the water column pretty clean of ich and it keeps the water crystal clear.

I'm debating if it would be bad to keep the UV running or maybe I should only run it for a few hours a day with bio pellets.

I know that there's been research done that biopellets produce a higher bacteria count in the water column. I imagine killing that bacteria with UV will be counter-productive in reducing phosphates...

The system is running a XP1000 SSS skimmer.

Thoughts?
 
interesting:

One concerning point in the experiment described in Fig. 7 involves the role that the UV sterilizer might play in influencing bacterial levels; Are we killing significant numbers of bacteria by UV treatment, thus suppressing population growth? The UV sterilizer in use is a 57W flow-through model from Aqua Ultraviolet. In order to probe this question, we re-ran the "week-in-the-life" experiment with the UV sterilizer off, but the skimmer on continuously, Fig. 8. The observed bacteria/mL values over the course of 5 days fluctuated between 60K and 90K (~ 50% change) for this particular time period. Thus, there did not appear to be any significant bacteria population increase in the water column when the UV sterilizer was off, and it is probably safe to conclude that the UV sterilizer does not have a significant effect on the bacteria population levels in the tank's water column.

...
Conclusions:

UV sterilization does not significantly influence aquarium water column bacteria populations.
There is substantial fluctuation (20-50%) in the measured water column bacteria populations over a several-day time scale in aquaria.
Click to expand...

source:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
 
Biopellets tend to grow bacteria on the pellet itself, and the tumbling pulls them off into the water column for removal by skimmer or coral food. That's the common theory anyway. So if it's in the water column alive or dead I don't think it maters much for coral food, a skimmer might pull dead bacteria out easier. Either way nitrates will be reduced long term and phosphates to some degree. For phosphates I found vodka dosing reduces PO4 the most or a vodka sugar vinegar mix. I run several systems with biopellets(self regulating more or less) and a uv with no issues. Nitrates are low but phosphates still need gfo to stay acceptable. If you already have a dosing pump start at around 1ml per 100g a day for a week and see what happens. For liquid dosing manual works pretty well for the start up as well. Biopellets are more set it and forget it though.
 
Those whose opinions I trust don't feel pellets are a very good source of carbon. One reason has to do with how readily available the carbon is for the bacteria to use; in other words there is most benefit using carbon in its simplest form, and not one bound up.
 
as long as you are able to grow the ATS, there is a phosphate problem. algae is not a good export method for phosphates. they are good at converting inorganic phosphates to organic phosphates, but they do not really bind that many. the ATS growing is proof that there are enough phosphates for the organism to grow, thus enough inorganic phosphates to show up on a test kit.

i like to use strong UV's on systems. they should have only enough flow through them as the skimmer can process. the output for the UV should also be directly into the input for the skimmer. any organics broken down or killed by the UV have a chance to be immediately removed by the skimmer before being dumped into the rest of the system to decompose and fuel the ATS, or whatever the phosphate remover de jour is.

G~
 
Last edited:
i have always just made my own skimmers. i like high pressure skimmers instead of the low pressure needle wheel type skimmers. the use of eductors or becketts for the air injection method. i had a 40w Gamma UV on the last skimmer. the skimmer processed only about 350gph, and that was with a Mag 12 doing the pushing. i picked the 40w gamma because it had a 1.5" inlet and outlet. i was able to run the main drain from the system through the UV, then have it dump directly into the skimmer intake. if i had a submersible UV, i would have mounted the UV directly to the pump input for the skimmer. the pump should have been able to handle this without being starved with all of the back pressure from the eductor.

G~
 
Have you considered a gfo reactor? I use biopellets which do a great job of keeping nitrates 0, but then lack of nitrates can become a limiting factor is eliminating more phosphates.
 
Reefin' Dude said:
i have always just made my own skimmers. i like high pressure skimmers instead of the low pressure needle wheel type skimmers. the use of eductors or becketts for the air injection method. i had a 40w Gamma UV on the last skimmer. the skimmer processed only about 350gph, and that was with a Mag 12 doing the pushing. i picked the 40w gamma because it had a 1.5" inlet and outlet. i was able to run the main drain from the system through the UV, then have it dump directly into the skimmer intake. if i had a submersible UV, i would have mounted the UV directly to the pump input for the skimmer. the pump should have been able to handle this without being starved with all of the back pressure from the eductor.

G~
Click to expand...

So just a well matched skimmer and uv unit? Other than siphoning detritus out, you use nothing else to break down or export nutrients?
 
nope, nothing else. all of the problems we have with nutrients all come from us not removing detritus before it starts breaking down and releasing nitrates and phosphates. remove the detritus, you remove the problem from the source. if you can keep track of all of the detritus, then you can fine tune the system to the trophic level one wants. remove all detritus as fast as you can, then an oligotrophic system is accomplished. keep some fish poo as a pet, and you can have a more eutrophic system.

what other nutrient export would you need?

G~
 
klwheat said:
Have you considered a gfo reactor? I use biopellets which do a great job of keeping nitrates 0, but then lack of nitrates can become a limiting factor is eliminating more phosphates.
Click to expand...

GFO is an after the fact phosphate remover. it like algae is not going after the phosphates where they come from the detritus. they are only able to bind phosphates that have already become available from the breakdown of detritus. just remove the detritus before it can break down, then there is no reason to have algae, GFO, or any other phosphate remover de jour.

G~
 
have you looked into your rocks? possibly coming from there. Live rocks is your best biological filtration. You shouldn't be having hair algae and such with good live rocks. I agree with UV 110%. It will definitely eliminate algae spores in the water columns and keep it tip top cleaned.
 
FYI, I don't believe it's possible for you to kill a bacteria population by running UV. UV only affects the water column. You will have abundance in the rocks and they will multiple at a rate even UV can't completely destroyed.
 
in order for bacteria to multiply there must be resources for it to feed on. being composed of calcium carbonate, there is going to be phosphates in the LR. no way around it. the more phosphate bound to the calcium carbonate the more resources for bacteria to feed on. the more detritus formed, the more nutrients that can become available to algae.

the bacteria will purge LR of phosphates as long as there is ample flow around the LR to remove the resulting bacterial flock from the process.

G~
 
The only in depth study I've seen shows that even a 56 watt UV won't really affect water column bacteria one way or another. After a certain threshold is reached a skimmer will keep bacteria populations at a certain level. Turning on/off the UV had no effect.
 
UV also destroys amino acids. I just dont think UV is right on a reef tank, but my personal opinion.
 
a 56 Watt UV for a 65 gallon tank? That is a disaster waiting to happen.

UV helps tremendously with your problem and it will not affect beneficial bacteria. I run UV's in all of my reef tanks and they are all the better for it.

For 65 gallon, I can't see anything over 20-25 watts. That is a lot for that gallon of tank still. I wouldn't dare run what you are contemplating.
 
huh? the UV will either kill the bacteria or it will not. it does not differentiate between "good" and "bad". if the bacteria go through the UV, then the bacteria are affected. the amount of wattage is irrelevant. it has more to do with the amount of flow through the UV. the next question is, whether the bacteria in the water column is the bacteria we want in the first place. :D why are they there, if it is because the nutrient levels are high enough to support them there, then the problem is not the bacteria, it is the maintenance being performed on the system. it is the bacteria feeding on the detritus that is releasing the free inorganic nutrients into the water column for free floating bacteria to feed on. if this were not the case, than carbon dosing would not work.

G~
 
If the wattage is irrelevant, then why do they offer a range of wattages?

It is not irrelevant, you do not need that high power of UV for that size of tank.

If wattage is irrelevant, then why do we adjust our LED's for power output? Why do you not take a Radion Pro and put it on 100% intensity all day long? You will kill everything you have.
 
there are other things to kill besides bacteria and algae. Protozoa and Fungi require higher dose rates than algae and bacteria. you can either slow the flow way down or go with more wattage.

a dosage chart with various pathogens.

as for the LED's, unless they are putting out more light output than the sun at the equator, then there is no real reason not to run them at 100%. in the wild the corals can handle a lot more light than what we put at them. why do we have issues then? ;)

G~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BigEZ77
How Many Days To Run UV When Adding A New Fish?
Replies
3
Views
643
leebca
L
K
Carbon Dosing causes STN/RTN?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Timfish
Timfish
Radicaljbr
Monitoring and dosing
Replies
1
Views
191
Uncle99
Uncle99
B
UV sterilizer.
Replies
2
Views
654
Batman222b
B
FishMann
Heating a 240
Replies
3
Views
83
FishMann
FishMann
Back
Top