Help - From those who have a UV Sterilizer

[Guest Bemmer]

Hey guys and gals,

I just installed my 57w Aqua UV Sterilizer. I am running it with a Mag5 pump via a 1/2 hose intake and 3/4 hose output. The pump is pulling the water from the sump and send it through the sterilizer and pushing it back into the main tank. My question is for the initial startup period how long should I run the sterilizer for the first couple of days to two weeks before I can run it 24/7?

[dzekunoi]

I run mine 24/7 from the very beginning - was this a mistake?

[Guest Bemmer]

I run mine 24/7 from the very beginning - was this a mistake?

 

I remember Chip saying something about not running it continously when it is first set up. i don't know why, though.

[jason the filter freak]

On my brakish tanks they got run 24/7 I regret not keeping one for my saltwater tank

[ReeferMan]

He said this because if you have water that isnt clear and then all of a sudden clears up, then you have more light shinning through because the water is clearer and it can fry you corals. I would acclimate it like you would MH lights

[Ne0eN]

My feeling is that the difference in light transmission would not be that great as to require light acclimation. Also, the water would clear up gradually and not instantly.

 

Does anyone acclimate their corals after a water change?

 

-- Rob

[ReeferMan]

You don't Rob?

[Ne0eN]

LOL

[DEEPBLUE]

24/7/365.

 

ERIC

[flowerseller]

He said this because if you have water that isnt clear and then all of a sudden clears up, then you have more light shinning through because the water is clearer and it can fry you corals. I would acclimate it like you would MH lights

The winner.......

 

Your water will become noticably clearer ( can happen in a very short time depending on size of tank/unit and flow thru unit) and it can cause bleaching with the sudden clarity.

I tend to error on the side of caution considering the expense I have in my system's citizens.

 

Rob,

The water coming from my tank during a 10g water exchange is actually clearer than the new sea water I exchange it with.

 

After the intial 7-10 days, I run it 24/7/363.

 

A new or lightly stocked tank I would turn it on and go.

 

Bemmer,

if you have the wiper unit, watch it for leakes and that wiper will not clean the inside of the quartz sleeve which can become cloudy inside by the bulb.

[Guest Bemmer]

Okay, so on it goes...I am home most days so I can watch the lights as it relates to the corals and over exposure. Thanks for the help and explaination.

[Ne0eN]

 

The water coming from my tank during a 10g water exchange is actually clearer than the new sea water I exchange it with.

 

 

Hmm... Chip, I could save a ton of money on salt and water bills if I just came over and used your 'old' water. How many gallons do you change? I would need about 75g every month.

 

 

-- Rob

[Guest Bemmer]

A new or lightly stocked tank I would turn it on and go.

 

Bemmer,

if you have the wiper unit, watch it for leakes and that wiper will not clean the inside of the quartz sleeve which can become cloudy inside by the bulb.

 

Chip,

My tank is fairly new with mostly coral frags.

 

I do have the wiper on the unit so I will keep an eye out for leaking at the bottom of the unit, as I have it mounted vertically. Does it really matter thatt the inside of the sleeve is not clean as long as the bulb is?

[flowerseller]

I'm not familiar with your particular unit but the wiper does not clean the bulb itself. It wipes the outside of the quartz sleeve (the side that makes contact with the water itself) that the bulb is inside of. Personally, I think the wiper is useless but that's my opinion and some swear by it.

Another thing to look for is that upon water flow start up the UV unit does not trap an air bubble inside itself due to the way it's mounted.

For example, mine is mounted verticle with the outflow tilted slightly higher than the inflow which allows any bubbles to rise and flow out. Make sense?

[jamesbuf]

Hey guys and gals,

I just installed my 57w Aqua UV Sterilizer. I am running it with a Mag5 pump via a 1/2 hose intake and 3/4 hose output. The pump is pulling the water from the sump and send it through the sterilizer and pushing it back into the main tank. My question is for the initial startup period how long should I run the sterilizer for the first couple of days to two weeks before I can run it 24/7?

 

So you're just running a mag5 on that size unit? If you look at http://www.aquaultraviolet.com/uvsizingchart.php it states that the sterilizer will offer the 90K microwatts/cm needed to kill parasites, even when pumping 1066 gallons per hour through it. So the mag5 is pushing the water up and back into the main tank, so with 3-4 feet the mag5 has to push the water up, it will only be pumping around 300gallons per hour through the unit and back into the tank. This will definitly kill anything that flows through the unit since this will probably offer well over 150K of exposure, but will that slow flow of exposure cause the water to heat up?? Instead of running the output to the main tank, I would just run that water back into the sump to increase the flow through the unit. It should still be waaaay more exposure to kill anything in the water. Thiamine dimers are a SOB!!!

Please keep me informed on this issue because I was considering buying the same unit ( http://www.thatpetplace.com/Products/KW/F6...9/Itemdy00.aspx ), and I was only going to be pumping around 500 gallons through it and was seriously concerned about heating the water.

[Guest Bemmer]

Hey James,

I contacted AQUA to find out what is the right amount of flow through the 57w UV with wiper. They suggested between 300-350gph. I think I am actually closer to 250gph with the hose running across the sump (5.5 feet), through the UV unit and up to the top of the main tank (4 feet). I do not notice any issues with heat. But then again it is dumping into a tank that holds 225 and the entire water volume for the system is 450+ so that small amount of water will not make a difference in the overall temp of my tank.

[Sharkb8]

Actually, some experts (notably, at wetwebmedia) recommend not EVER using a UV light to sterilize water. Why? Sterilized water is just that, sterilized, dead, devoid of life, including good life, such as good bacteria. Nobody knows how long you have to run one of these to completely sterilize water because we simply don't know all the forms of life found in the marine environment (reference to Dr. Hood, I think, who is attempting to sequence microorganisms from salt water collected in various ocean environments to catalogue everything found). Further, the mechanism of action of UV (increasing DNA strand breaks and thus chromosomal reproduction failure) is not immediate. The effect may require various amounts of time depending on the microorganism, etc.

 

However, if you have large particulates and want to get them at least under control, I would use it for that purpose only. Once the water is clear again, discontinue use. Prolonged use will simply kill everything in your tank (eventually, given an infinite amount of time), run up your electric bill, and be expensive interms of replacement bulb costs, etc. Killing bugs is generally good outside a tank, but in a tank, some of them bugs is good bugs! (well, there's good bugs outside the tank too, but that's for another thread . . .)

 

Another thing to think about, re flow rate, while you may be bombarding everything flowing along the surface of your triple helix tube, the stuff flowing in the middle of the triple helix tube may get less UV exposure, etc. so that there's actually a gradient of UV intensity between the surface of the triple helix tube and the center of the same tube. Whether any particular flow rate will "kill" everything depends on 1) the microorganism targeted (most of which we don't know or haven't been characterized), 2) flow rate, 3) intensity of the UV, and 3) probably other factors I can't think of right now (dispersion of flow channels within the water tube?). In sum, UV application is a total guess, as are many things in this hobby. Do what feels right and whatever seems to make the water clearer in the time you want it to.

 

And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread . . .

 

[flowerseller]

And on the flip side, you've got Bozos like me who have been using it for a dozen or so years and

think everyone should use it. I've even upgraded to larger watt units along the way.

[Sharkb8]

And on the flip side, you've got Bozos like me who have been using it for a dozen or so years and

think everyone should use it. I've even upgraded to larger watt units along the way.

 

 

Oh, no, no. I definitely did not mean my opinion to imply that those who disagree and have used UV devices are "Bozos." Definitely not. If you've seen good results, then by all means, continue to do what works. My opinion is simply . . . one person's opinion, that's all. After all, there's been no "scientific" study on how UV exposure effects health of fish or water that I know of . . . Doesn't mean it doesn't work. Some of the largest public and private aquariums use the same technology to clarify their water. I was simply attempting to offer an alternative viewpoint and food for further thought. I think the issue isn't quite as simple as this thread may lead one to believe. I think its actually pretty complex when you get down to the biochemistry of it. But really, in the end, all that matters is what works in real life, right?

 

If your fish are smiling and doing the end zone dance when you flip the UV light on, then please do not let my opinions and rantings and ravings stop the music

[jason the filter freak]

And on the flip side, you've got Bozos like me who have been using it for a dozen or so years and

think everyone should use it. I've even upgraded to larger watt units along the way.

 

I too see it as a complete guess, but considering the amout of water alot of us have running though chemical and mechanical filtration, such a diatom filters, filter floss, carbon, phosban, what skimmer pull out etc, alot is removed from the water anyway, won't the majority of useful micro/macro organisms living in the sand bed, on the LR, corals, fish, and the tank it's self sustain it's own benifical self

[flowerseller]

Oh, no, no. I definitely did not mean my opinion to imply that those who disagree and have used UV devices are "Bozos." Definitely not. If you've seen good results, then by all means, continue to do what works. My opinion is simply . . . one person's opinion, that's all. After all, there's been no "scientific" study on how UV exposure effects health of fish or water that I know of . . . Doesn't mean it doesn't work. Some of the largest public and private aquariums use the same technology to clarify their water. I was simply attempting to offer an alternative viewpoint and food for further thought. I think the issue isn't quite as simple as this thread may lead one to believe. I think its actually pretty complex when you get down to the biochemistry of it. But really, in the end, all that matters is what works in real life, right?

 

If your fish are smiling and doing the end zone dance when you flip the UV light on, then please do not let my opinions and rantings and ravings stop the music

 

No offense taken.

In my immediate family (we have 3 boys), we use the term Bozo rather frequently and loosely.

Many here may not even know who Bozo is but I do because I live with four of them.

 

I have a high volume downdraft skimmer that untill I cleaned it a week ago had tons of feather dusters living in the skimmer box itself. You'd think the skimmer would have skimmed it out (or the UV kill it) before they could settle and grow.

[jamesbuf]

Hey James,

I contacted AQUA to find out what is the right amount of flow through the 57w UV with wiper. They suggested between 300-350gph. I think I am actually closer to 250gph with the hose running across the sump (5.5 feet), through the UV unit and up to the top of the main tank (4 feet). I do not notice any issues with heat. But then again it is dumping into a tank that holds 225 and the entire water volume for the system is 450+ so that small amount of water will not make a difference in the overall temp of my tank.

 

Thats odd. Thats contradictory to what they had posted on their website. If they claim 90K at 1100gph, then how high will it be at only 300gph?? I don't care what the critics say, that'll kill anything that runs thru the unit. Simple organisms don't have the repairing micromolecules that humans have. We have the capability to repair thiamine dimers, protazoa don't. And with an organism that has such a short life span, it will make a difference in our tiny ecosystems.

[Sharkb8]

I don't care what the critics say, that'll kill anything that runs thru the unit. Simple organisms don't have the repairing micromolecules that humans have. We have the capability to repair thiamine dimers, protazoa don't. And with an organism that has such a short life span, it will make a difference in our tiny ecosystems.

 

Hmm, you mean "thymine dimers" of course, such as cylobutane derivatives of pyrimadines, etc.

 

Protists (eukaryotes) can and do repair these covalent DNA modifications, but perhaps not as efficiently as humans. Further, "sensitivity to UVR among aquatic phagotrophic protists is species-specific and . . . different cell targets are affected differently among species."

 

For a small study on this, see,

 

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=ge...5&page=0450

 

micromolecules . . . DNA repair enzymes, such as listed here

 

http://www.cgal.icnet.uk/DNA_Repair_Genes.html

 

DNA repair mechanisms are a fascinating chapter in most biochemistry texts. Of course, I dreaded this topic when I had to slog through it all. Now, I look back with fond memories . . . That's why I like this hobby so much. So many times it brings up topics like this that are interesting, to me anyway. But, I am wierd. So I should stop now because I'm probably the only one that finds this such a great topic

[jamesbuf]

Speak for yourself. I'm a science nerd myself. I was a double major in Information Technology and Genetics back in undergrad. I quit the genetics halfway when I realized I was insane for doing both. I'm currently in Physician Assistant grad school, so I know a decent ammount of this bio stuff too. Its funny that I was trying to dumben-down some things (like saying macromolecule) because I didn't want to get too technical, and I just now read your profile name. Am I weird since I actually found those links interesting to read? Makes sense that organisms with a higher % of adjacent Thiamines would allow for more Thiamine diamer........duh!!! I wish some scientists would actually get together and perform a species specific test like this on just ich and its variants. I'll bet you its out there, it just might be on the net.

[dzekunoi]

But, I am wierd. So I should stop now because I'm probably the only one that finds this such a great topic

No, you are not alone. I love this topic as well.

BUT it's professional for me too - I'm a molecular biologist.

 

 

 

And as for UV sterilizer - I use it, I like it and I do believe it does good.