jazzman7838
New member
I don't think that they would say that. They'd be wrong if they did. Anyway, don't you think a more relevant source of that info would be, I don't know, maybe the NOAA itself? The guy never worked for them.
UV Sterilizers
- Thread starter StlScott
- Start date
I don't think that they would say that. They'd be wrong if they did. Anyway, don't you think a more relevant source of that info would be, I don't know, maybe the NOAA itself? The guy never worked for them.
You are right a UV is not needed...neither is GAC/carbon dosing/skimming/ etc... UV gives you a safety net. One can argue that they do nothing for fish disease...yet...how does one explain the disappearance of the disease when UV is added? Even one member who was against UV added em and low and behold... healthier fish... Then again...bumble bees can't fly either. :hmm2:
funny argument really... UV users state over and over: I added one and the ick went away... then one argues back: does not matter that your fish no longer have ick, your water is clearer etc... they don't work...:hmm1:
There has to be something there as to a reason why when one adds a UV the appearance of ick goes away for people(or is controlled and even with new additions never becomes a problem)...I believe from what I have read it is mostly due to better water quality and lower stress levels in the fish provide more natural resistance. If that is the case, then to me it seems the UV is great for fish... Now the benefits perhaps do not transfer over to someone that keeps lots of coral and little to no fish in their tank.
Last edited:
LMAO...ok show me the proof.
jazzman7838
New member
Show me the proof I'm not a NASA astronaut with legal moon rocks. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have that he is? An avatar? Good yarns? Email the NOAA if you are interested in proof. Anything I say is just the word of an anonymous Internet poster anyhow.
Yes the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim... If your gonna call someone a liar about who he was, it is best to prove your claims to be true. BTW, the avatar was made by another member for him.
And why are you derailing this thread with this?
Last edited:
Now the benefits perhaps do not transfer over to someone that keeps lots of coral and little to no fish in their tank.
Well I don't think there are many benefits if any in fish disease control in a recirculating system ; beyond perhaps a short term reduction in parasite density with a large uv unit.
It only effects what passes through it that is small enough to be affected by the amount of radiation the particular unit is delivering; at a cost to anything desireable that also passes through it.
There is no plausible eplanation for claims of enhanced fish health via other effects that I can find ; the opposite could easily be true.
BTW, I keep over 40 fish,some s delicate species and some "ich magnets", disease free. Most are over 6 years old and several are over 9 years old.
Well I don't think there are many benefits if any in fish disease control in a recirculating system ; beyond perhaps a short term reduction in parasite density with a large uv unit.
It only effects what passes through it that is small enough to be affected by the amount of radiation the particular unit is delivering; at a cost to anything desireable that also passes through it.
There is no plausible eplanation for claims of enhanced fish health via other effects that I can find ; the opposite could easily be true.
BTW, I keep over 40 fish,some s delicate species and some "ich magnets", disease free. Most are over 6 years old and several are over 9 years old.
Your opinions are contradictory to experiences of people in this thread and many others.
I trust you have kept disease free fish, I believe you are excellent at husbandry and deserve praise for your success.
I have been running tanks with UV since the early 90's and I don't have problems with ick or diseased fish. I did have ick before I got an UV and also found it happen in my wife's biocube I set up for her(also no UV). Experience shows me they have a profound effect.
What the effect is, dunno really.. results matter more for me than the explanation behind it.
Last edited:
Big E
Premium Member
There's some good info in this thread..........
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1010554
This link has some sizing info, ect.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/intro...4/1/Introduction-to-UV-sterilizers/Page1.html
This book could be helpful in getting facts straight-----
"The Ultraviolet Disinfection Handbook"
The book description--
With the explosion of interest in UV disinfection, the USEPA fully mandates the use of UV disinfection in the new LT2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules. This Handbook is designed to provide a practical introduction to the subject of UV disinfection and UV reactors. This Handbook will be of value to engineering and scientific consultants, water treatment operators and managers, government regulatory staff, and students and faculty members in undergraduate science and engineering programs. Terminology is carefully defined and essential references are included.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1010554
This link has some sizing info, ect.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/intro...4/1/Introduction-to-UV-sterilizers/Page1.html
This book could be helpful in getting facts straight-----
"The Ultraviolet Disinfection Handbook"
The book description--
With the explosion of interest in UV disinfection, the USEPA fully mandates the use of UV disinfection in the new LT2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules. This Handbook is designed to provide a practical introduction to the subject of UV disinfection and UV reactors. This Handbook will be of value to engineering and scientific consultants, water treatment operators and managers, government regulatory staff, and students and faculty members in undergraduate science and engineering programs. Terminology is carefully defined and essential references are included.
elegance coral
They call me EC
I agree that UV's are not needed in our well established home aquariums. The fish are well adjusted to their environment, well fed, and suffer little stress or physical damage. These fish are typically healthy and well equipped to fight of infections and parasites. Commercial systems are completely different. There's a good reason why most, if not all, commercial fish systems run UV. They do help to keep down infections and parasites in these systems. I've seen it for myself multiple times. When there's a system where newly imported fish are constantly being added, and the UV goes down, large numbers of fish begin to die. People running these types of systems want to save a buck where ever they can. They simply would not go through the expense of running UV's if these devices were not paying for themselves by reducing fish loss.
Your opinions are contradictory to experiences of people in this thread and many others.
I trust you have kept disease free fish, I believe you are excellent at husbandry and deserve praise for your success.
Thanks, but it doesn't change what uvs do and don't do. I'm not contradicting anyone's opinion if they wish to use them. Just examining: how they work, what they do and don't and experiences.
They don't cure ich or other fish diseases spread by waterborne pathogens in recirculating systems and are not a good substitute for methods that do work.
They do kill what passes through them indiscriminately( harmful and beneficial ) depending on the size of the organism, dwell time and wattage.
.
To the extent that they may produce oxidants; those oxidants, O3 etc, will breakup organics potentially releasing harmful substances like metals those organics may be holding or may help gac remove them. If they overproduce ozone and other oxidants , tissue will burn. So if very large units with wavelengths effective in oxidant production are used orp monitoringseems prudent.
They do not do the same things skimming or gac or gfo do. In fact each of those things perform different functions.
They may temporarily reduce the density of populations of organisms in the water in a recircualting system and have little downside on a fish only system,where organics and free metals matter less than a coral tank but not in lieu of effective disease control methods.
They have little benefit beyond clearing the water and perhaps short term density reduction of planktonic organisms for better or worse. There are potential downsides in some aquariums from the alteration of naturally occurring organics. Heat can also be an issue.
With respect to disease control :
Sprung and Delbeek in The Reef Aquarium vol 3:
"... The use of uv radiation in aquaculture is most effective in sterilization of raw water supplies and discharges into recieving waters, both of which are single pass applications..."
In reference to recirullating closed systems ( aquariums);
..it can not be relied upon to guarantee that disease problems wont' occur. The reasons for this is simple : the pathogens continue to reproduce in the aquarium . Even if the uv sterlizer achieves a 100% kill rate ,it is limited by the rate of flow through the sterilizer..."
I can see using them on a quarantine tank or even a fish only tank, particularly one with lots of turnover of specimens where temporary reductions of waterborne pathogens might be helpful . But even in these situations they are not needed nor a substitute for proper treatments such as tank transfer methods,et alia.They may be an easy half measure.
I trust you have kept disease free fish, I believe you are excellent at husbandry and deserve praise for your success.
Thanks, but it doesn't change what uvs do and don't do. I'm not contradicting anyone's opinion if they wish to use them. Just examining: how they work, what they do and don't and experiences.
They don't cure ich or other fish diseases spread by waterborne pathogens in recirculating systems and are not a good substitute for methods that do work.
They do kill what passes through them indiscriminately( harmful and beneficial ) depending on the size of the organism, dwell time and wattage.
.
To the extent that they may produce oxidants; those oxidants, O3 etc, will breakup organics potentially releasing harmful substances like metals those organics may be holding or may help gac remove them. If they overproduce ozone and other oxidants , tissue will burn. So if very large units with wavelengths effective in oxidant production are used orp monitoringseems prudent.
They do not do the same things skimming or gac or gfo do. In fact each of those things perform different functions.
They may temporarily reduce the density of populations of organisms in the water in a recircualting system and have little downside on a fish only system,where organics and free metals matter less than a coral tank but not in lieu of effective disease control methods.
They have little benefit beyond clearing the water and perhaps short term density reduction of planktonic organisms for better or worse. There are potential downsides in some aquariums from the alteration of naturally occurring organics. Heat can also be an issue.
With respect to disease control :
Sprung and Delbeek in The Reef Aquarium vol 3:
"... The use of uv radiation in aquaculture is most effective in sterilization of raw water supplies and discharges into recieving waters, both of which are single pass applications..."
In reference to recirullating closed systems ( aquariums);
..it can not be relied upon to guarantee that disease problems wont' occur. The reasons for this is simple : the pathogens continue to reproduce in the aquarium . Even if the uv sterlizer achieves a 100% kill rate ,it is limited by the rate of flow through the sterilizer..."
I can see using them on a quarantine tank or even a fish only tank, particularly one with lots of turnover of specimens where temporary reductions of waterborne pathogens might be helpful . But even in these situations they are not needed nor a substitute for proper treatments such as tank transfer methods,et alia.They may be an easy half measure.
Last edited:
It is not about necessarily curing v improving the fishes immunity to being affected by the ick through what it does to the water. There is never any guarantee that a treatment will work hundred percent many other factors may influence outcome. It is very good odds that the uv properly size and with correct flow will contol the fish having an outbeak of ick or other problem. results from users running one properly confirm their benefit. Do you have anything to prove that which your suggesting about organics drawbacks and metals? Just because they are most effective in single pass aplications does not make them inefective in a loop from return to tank. Skimmers are most effective set up certain ways. The are also still effective if not set up ideally though. Now recirculating through sump is a bad idea.
Big E
Premium Member
I believe you have to be at 185nm or below to do this. The UV units are designed in the 200nm-300nm range, suitable to kill harmful bacteria & microbes.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/pdfs/guide_lt2_uvguidance.pdf
"2.4.2.2 Lamp Output
The light that LP and LPHO lamps emit is essentially monochromatic at 253.7 nm
(Figure 2.13a) in the ultraviolet range and is near the maximum of the microbial action spectrum.
These lamps also emit small amounts of light at 185, 313, 365, 405, 436, and 546 nm due to higher energy electron transition in the mercury. Lamp output at 185 nm promotes ozone formation.
Because ozone is corrosive, toxic, and absorbs UV light, LP and LPHO lamps used in
water disinfections applications are manufactured to reduce the output at 185nm."
Here's some info to what Elegance Coral shared--
recirculation systems in fish aquaculture---
http://www.emperoraquatics.com/aquaculture-recirculation-systems.php
Thanks for the link Ed.
That's the point I was making earlier but couldn't recall the exact wavelength information.
I don't think the typical uvs we use do much oxidant production or increase orp/redox; and, said so earlier. Hence I qualified the argument with the phrase "to the extent that they may produce oxidants" since I didn't know the specifics of the unit in question.
Yet that seems to be the basis for the persistent claim that enhanced redox from a uv improves the fish's immune systems which I don't think is plausible either and have no idea how a plausible argument on how that might occur could be made. If a unit with the proper wavelength was used the organics destroyed would release whatever was bound to them including metals.
They will kill desireable planktonic organisms right along with harmful ones but won't eliminate either in a recirculating sytem.
Fortunately, most of the ammonia oxidizing and heterotrophic denitrifying bacteria are benthic( they live primarily on surfaces so they are not significantly impacted impacted by uv) as most of them would never pass through it. However, many of the bacteria and parasites that effect fish and invertebrates don't live in the water column either but reproduce and live out thier life cycle on the fish's skin or internally.
That's the point I was making earlier but couldn't recall the exact wavelength information.
I don't think the typical uvs we use do much oxidant production or increase orp/redox; and, said so earlier. Hence I qualified the argument with the phrase "to the extent that they may produce oxidants" since I didn't know the specifics of the unit in question.
Yet that seems to be the basis for the persistent claim that enhanced redox from a uv improves the fish's immune systems which I don't think is plausible either and have no idea how a plausible argument on how that might occur could be made. If a unit with the proper wavelength was used the organics destroyed would release whatever was bound to them including metals.
They will kill desireable planktonic organisms right along with harmful ones but won't eliminate either in a recirculating sytem.
Fortunately, most of the ammonia oxidizing and heterotrophic denitrifying bacteria are benthic( they live primarily on surfaces so they are not significantly impacted impacted by uv) as most of them would never pass through it. However, many of the bacteria and parasites that effect fish and invertebrates don't live in the water column either but reproduce and live out thier life cycle on the fish's skin or internally.
Scanned through some ofthe EPA manual cited in Ed's post ; great resource. Thanks again. It seems the optimum wavelength for biological control is 260 nm dropping off at 230 and 300 to near 0 effect. Most lamps used for water disinfection target those levels but do produce small amounts in lower and higher ranges as well whih don't pentetrate the water very well.
The radiation does not kill them... it alters dna and stops reproduction...UV are not there on our aquariums to make a system completely sterile...they are used to keep better balance of organics and organisms in the water. Why would anyone want to strip the water of all life...that is not the goal.
UV also increases skimmer output. Increased export of organics and organisms can be seen(skimmate can increase drastically) when one goes from zero UV to installing one on a system who's skimmer is not already running at max(too small).
The radiation does not kill them... it alters dna and stops reproduction...UV are not there on our aquariums to make a system completely sterile
The life cycle of bacteria(bacteria tend to colonize) and other microfauna is generally short ;if they don't die outright or reproduce or heal they die; same with many other micro organisms ; the difference in the wording is semantics.
I've read about about the dna effect but chose the word kill to help simplify the concept.
Why would anyone want to strip the water of all life...that is not the goal.
The suggestion of stripping the water of all life are your words not mine. I do not use sterilizing techniques on my aquariums.
they are used to keep better balance of organics and organisms in the water.
If the impacts are unmeasured , how would you know what's dieing and not or how organics are or are not being altered? Why do you think dead bacteria and other microfauna provide a "better balance" than live ones?
Killing bacteria and other microfuana is not a goal of mine. They are at the bottom of the food chain as many other organisms feed on them. I prefer a rich food web for the corals and other animals in my aquariums.
How would a uv sterilizer differentiate good and bad organisms and organics" to keep better balance of organics and organisms in the water"?It will kill the good, the bad based on the size of the organisms and the proportion of radiation dosed. Won't it?
UV also increases skimmer output. Increased export of organics and organisms can be seen(skimmate can increase drastically) when one goes from zero UV to installing one on a system who's skimmer is not already running at max(too small).
How do they do uvs do that? Reducing bacterial populations and/ or phytoplankton won't do that.
Many who encourage higher densities of live bacteria via organic carbon dosing do experience enhanced skimmate production , since live bacteria fit the amphipathic profile well . Bacteria metabolize organics, nutrients and metals that are unskimmable when not bound to organics.
Skimmers trap amphipathic matter in the air water interface( the space between the bubbles). Live bacteria fit this profile as they have some charges that are attracted to water( hydrophylic) and and others that are repelled by it ( hyrdorphobic) ,that is they are amphipathic.
Most aquariums have excess metals from foods and supplements. Fortunately, they bind to refractory organics and are non toxic in these forms. Free metals on the other hand are deadly at very low levels to corals and other invertbrates. Reducing organics including bacteria and phytoplankton limits the binding sites available.
Big E
Premium Member
Yes,concerning altering DNA & reproduction........ that's all in that epa sterilization manual link I posted.
As far as the idea of increasing skimmer output I have only read Bomber saying that. I have't been able to find any scientific studies anwhere supporting this, nor any other reputable people explaining what is actually happening on a molecular level.
I would think Aqua UV or Emperor would make this very visible to the public since almost everyone that runs a marine reef runs a skimmer, but I see nothing from them supporting those claims.
swcc,
If you can direct to some reputable info on this please post some links. I'd like to learn more.
I can only tell you what I have seen as well as others that report the same thing. Bomber is correct. Plenty of uv discussions out there where someone mentions that skimmate increased adding uv.... I think someone even mentioned it in a link you provided earlier in this thread. Considering the size to tank relationship most have with their skimmers as well as just not paying attention, I can see why it is not noticed by most.
Similar threads
