PDA

View Full Version : UV Sterilizer


KevinsHVAC
12/02/2016, 06:44 AM
I would like to know your thoughts on this product. Has anyone used this before? I have a total volume system of about 280-290. I like this because I can just stick it in the sump vs having to re-plumb everything.

http://www.fishtanksdirect.com/deep-blue-35-watt-submersible-uv-sterilizer-adb12935.aspx

luvreefs23
12/02/2016, 08:23 AM
To small for a 280 gallon tank

BlackTip
12/02/2016, 08:26 AM
Emperor Aquatic 80W is what you need. Anything less than that size is useless for your tank size.

HippieSmell
12/02/2016, 08:40 AM
Emperor Aquatic 80W is what you need. Anything less than that size is useless for your tank size.

+1. I've got it on my 320 gallon and it works a treat.

KevinsHVAC
12/02/2016, 08:41 AM
Emperor Aquatic 80W is what you need. Anything less than that size is useless for your tank size.

Wowza, 800.00, and for 600g? Is there anything smaller and cheaper I can use?

KevinsHVAC
12/02/2016, 08:45 AM
+1. I've got it on my 320 gallon and it works a treat.

Adding this to my xmas list with the new Neptune Apex might send my wife in to cardiac arrest. Ill keep my eye open for a used one....lol

slief
12/02/2016, 08:52 AM
That is absolute garbage and a complete waste. Don't bother. Emperor makes good UV's but they are now owned by Pentaire and their support is worthless. Nobody there knows a darn thing about marine aquariums and if you needed sound advice from them, you would be misinformed. They also have a very limited distribution channel which means parts are harder to find and cost much more.

I strongly suggest AquaUV. They are the industry standard and the best. They also manufacturer their own bulbs and if you call there, you can always reach a well informed support person. Their parts are widely distributed unlike EA meaning you can always get AquaUV bulbs and parts from a wide range of resellers. Their bubls also last longer than the competitors and you get a UV filter that provides great contact time with higher flow rates. I use an AquaUV 114 watt UV for my 480g display with a 700 gallon overall volume.
For your size setup I would suggest the AquaUV Classic 57 watt. I change my bulbs once a year as recommended. You can usually find good pricing on them through Pond dealers if you are looking to save some money.

http://www.aquaultraviolet.com/products/uvsterilizers/classic/57watt

BlackTip
12/02/2016, 09:02 AM
Wowza, 800.00, and for 600g? Is there anything smaller and cheaper I can use?

The 600g is the maximum theatrical size, which doesn't mean much. What you want to look at is the manufacturer recommended flow rate. The recommend flow rate is 450g per hour, that is in the lab with clean water and equipment. In practice, you want lower rate than that. I run mine with a dedicated Sicce 1.5 at approximately 320g per hour. Total water volume is about 340g. So, 1x turn over per hour.

KevinsHVAC
12/02/2016, 09:06 AM
Sweet, excellent info guys! Thank you very much!

BlackTip
12/02/2016, 09:08 AM
That is absolute garbage and a complete waste. Don't bother. Emperor makes good UV's but they are now owned by Pentaire and their support is worthless. Nobody there knows a darn thing about marine aquariums and if you needed sound advice from them, you would be misinformed. They also have a very limited distribution channel which means parts are harder to find and cost much more.


http://www.aquaultraviolet.com/products/uvsterilizers/classic/57watt

That is a shame. Before I bought, I called with technical questions. The questions were forwarded to the engineering department, and I got a call from an engineer a day later. I talked with an engineer for almost 30 min. He was very knowledgeable, answered all of my questions, and took time explain to me many things.

HippieSmell
12/02/2016, 09:09 AM
The 600g is the maximum theatrical size, which doesn't mean much. What you want to look at is the manufacturer recommended flow rate. The recommend flow rate is 450g per hour, that is in the lab with clean water and equipment. In practice, you want lower rate than that. I run mine with a dedicated Sicce 1.5 at approximately 320g per hour. Total water volume is about 340g. So, 1x turn over per hour.
I think that's the flow rate for green water, actually. 400 is what I run mine at.

KevinsHVAC
12/02/2016, 09:12 AM
Also one other thing, I am running a BRS dual reactor, GFO in one side and carbon in the other. I saw on one of the BRS week 14 TV shows that using carbon will help cut down on the size of the UV lamp. Your thoughts on this?

HippieSmell
12/02/2016, 09:15 AM
That is absolute garbage and a complete waste. Don't bother. Emperor makes good UV's but they are now owned by Pentaire and their support is worthless. Nobody there knows a darn thing about marine aquariums and if you needed sound advice from them, you would be misinformed. They also have a very limited distribution channel which means parts are harder to find and cost much more.

I didn't realize I was so screwed!:lol:

Bulbs and o-rings are sold at bulkreef supply. Not exactly a boutique shop.

KevinsHVAC
12/02/2016, 09:15 AM
And in regards to re-plumbing, I didn't realize I can just use a separate pump for the UV, I for whatever reason thought I had to T it off and use a valve to control flow. But like you guys said I can just get a pump rated for it.

HippieSmell
12/02/2016, 09:20 AM
And in regards to re-plumbing, I didn't realize I can just use a separate pump for the UV, I for whatever reason thought I had to T it off and use a valve to control flow. But like you guys said I can just get a pump rated for it.

You can, but directly plumbed in front of your skimmer is best. Organics break down and have a chance to be skimmed out immediately.

slief
12/02/2016, 09:21 AM
[QUOTE=BlackTip;24845054]The 600g is the maximum theatrical size, which doesn't mean much. What you want to look at is the manufacturer recommended flow rate. The recommend flow rate is 450g per hour, that is in the lab with clean water and equipment./QUOTE]

And that is the issue with EA! That is over 180,000 w/cm2 which is NOT an appropriate sterilization rate for a marine aquarium. That rate is a sterilization rate for "green water"/ponds which is what pretty much all of their research is based on. That is WAY too slow of a rate for a reef tank and for a UV that size, the flow should be at least double for a reef. 90,000 w/cm2 is the higher sterilization rate that is safe for a reef and even at that, there will be an impact on pod life but at the rates EA is suggesting, Pods and other life will be killed when passing through the filter.

BlackTip
12/02/2016, 09:31 AM
[QUOTE=BlackTip;24845054]The 600g is the maximum theatrical size, which doesn't mean much. What you want to look at is the manufacturer recommended flow rate. The recommend flow rate is 450g per hour, that is in the lab with clean water and equipment./QUOTE]

And that is the issue with EA! That is over 180,000 w/cm2 which is NOT an appropriate sterilization rate for a marine aquarium. That rate is a sterilization rate for "green water"/ponds which is what pretty much all of their research is based on. That is WAY too slow of a rate for a reef tank and for a UV that size, the flow should be at least double for a reef. 90,000 w/cm2 is the higher sterilization rate that is safe for a reef and even at that, there will be an impact on pod life but at the rates EA is suggesting, Pods and other life will be killed when passing through the filter.


Interesting, I need to read more on that.

Very quick look online at AquaUV 115W. The manufacturer suggested flow rate is 1300g per hour for 90,000 uw/cm2, and 700g per hour for salt water tank. That means the manufacturer suggest to run it at 180,000 uw/cm2 for salt water tank - same as Emperor Aquatic. I don't know whether they consider salt water tank fish only or reef.

slief
12/02/2016, 09:58 AM
[QUOTE=slief;24845087]


Interesting, I need to read more on that.

Very quick look online at AquaUV 115W. The manufacturer suggested flow rate is 1300g per hour for 90,000 uw/cm2, and 700g per hour for salt water tank. That means the manufacturer suggest to run it at 180,000 uw/cm2 for salt water tank - same as Emperor Aquatic. I don't know whether they consider salt water tank fish only or reef.

Not sure if I am misunderstanding your reply. AquaUV recommends 1300 GPH at 90,000 w/cm2 (max sterilization rate) for salt water. Not 180,000 w/cm2 (EOL). The 114 watt is rated for up to a 700 gallon system. EA's recommendations for all their UV's are all at 180,000 w/cm2 which is a typical green water sterilization rate which is where most of EA's testing was done. I've never seen any white papers or supporting documentation from them on marine aquariums. 180,000 w/cm2 not a typical marine sterilization rate and while it's an OK rate for a pond, it's not needed at those rates either in pond applications. Also, I wouldn't run a UV filter on a reef at 90,000 w/cm2 full time. In a fish only system, sure. I prefer someplace closer to 60,000 as it has virtually no impact on pods or other micro life in our reefs. Granted 90,000 will have little impact on plankton or micro life in our reefs too but it still will have some impact.

Reality is that UV's have little impact on ich in our aquariums since they will never come in contact with all the free floating parasites. As such, one has to look at why we use UV's in a reef to begin with. My position based on experience is that when used properly, they do wonders for water clarity. They reduce algae growth by oxidizing water born algae. They reduce cyano bacteria and eliminate bacterial blooms. They can reduce the spread or slow down the spread of ich and other parasites that are in the water column but that really isn't why I use them because the impact a UV will have on that is negligible. Especially in the midst of an outbreak. That said, I am a firm believer in running UV's on marine aquariums including reefs. I've been using them for well over 20 years. I can tell when it's time to change my bulbs just by changes in the algae growth and or the presence of cyano in my system as well as water clarity.

BlackTip
12/02/2016, 10:16 AM
I got the information from http://www.marinedepot.com/Aqua_UV_114_Watt_2_inch_UV_Sterilizer_UV_Sterilizers_for_Aquariums-Aqua_Ultraviolet-AV2351-FIUV-vi.html

After I read it more carefully, you are right. From the bottom of the page, I thought it said 700g per hour for salt water tank. Odd place to add this piece of information right next to the flow rate chart.

I agree with you that UV, when used properly, is very beneficial. Also, the right dose can kill almost anything including ich, but a very large UV will be needed.

slief
12/02/2016, 10:39 AM
I agree with you that UV, when used properly, is very beneficial. Also, the right dose can kill almost anything including ich, but a very large UV will be needed.

Problem with using a UV for ich is that you can never kill all the parasites. Most of them fall into the substrate as opposed to remaining in the water column. Once in the substrate, they will remain there until they are ready to host again and once in the water column, they will find a host long before they all make it into the UV. You may be able to reduce the population in the water column but the UV sterilizer will never eradicate them and the ich issue will inevitably persist. Thus the reason why most of us agree that a UV sterilizer is not the answer to an ich issue and will not prevent an outbreak either. That said, if a UV sterilizer is setup between two tanks, it can be useful in preventing the spread from one tank to the next if the flow rates are low enough.

BlackTip
12/02/2016, 10:47 AM
Problem with using a UV for ich is that you can never kill all the parasites. Most of them fall into the substrate as opposed to remaining in the water column. Once in the substrate, they will remain there until they are ready to host again and once in the water column, they will find a host long before they all make it into the UV. You may be able to reduce the population in the water column but the UV sterilizer will never eradicate them and the ich issue will inevitably persist. Thus the reason why most of us agree that a UV sterilizer is not the answer to an ich issue and will not prevent an outbreak either. That said, if a UV sterilizer is setup between two tanks, it can be useful in preventing the spread from one tank to the next if the flow rates are low enough.


Again, we are in agreement. What I meant to say, and my understanding from a conversation with a UV engineer, is that UV can kill ich parasite at a very high dose when the parasite passes through. The dose required for marine ich is much higher than fresh water ich and requires very large UV that is not a hobby grade. In our tank, of course, it is not possible to have all parasites to pass through the UV, for all reasons you mentioned.

slief
12/02/2016, 11:11 AM
Again, we are in agreement. What I meant to say, and my understanding from a conversation with a UV engineer, is that UV can kill ich parasite at a very high dose when the parasite passes through. The dose required for marine ich is much higher than fresh water ich and requires very large UV that is not a hobby grade. In our tank, of course, it is not possible to have all parasites to pass through the UV, for all reasons you mentioned.

Yep. We are clearly on the same page then! :beer:

HippieSmell
12/02/2016, 12:23 PM
If we can't eliminate ich using UV, why are we worried about eliminating plankton?

slief
12/02/2016, 12:53 PM
If we can't eliminate ich using UV, why are we worried about eliminating plankton?

The UV can reduce populations of smaller pods. It's also an oxidizer so having the flow rates too low will impact other things in the water that corals feed on. The slower the flow rate, the greater the impact. It's kind of a debatable subject as to how great the impact but there are recommended flow rates for marine aquariums and I stick to those flow rates. Why reduce the tanks foods sources if you don't need to yet can still reap the benefits of the UV sterilizer?

HippieSmell
12/02/2016, 07:18 PM
The UV can reduce populations of smaller pods. It's also an oxidizer so having the flow rates too low will impact other things in the water that corals feed on. The slower the flow rate, the greater the impact. It's kind of a debatable subject as to how great the impact but there are recommended flow rates for marine aquariums and I stick to those flow rates. Why reduce the tanks foods sources if you don't need to yet can still reap the benefits of the UV sterilizer?
Does it reduce pods? Apparently, it doesn't even reduce bacterial populations according to an Advanced Aquarist article.

Growth rate of a population is impacted the most (by far) by the age of reproduction, not by the number of offspring. So, an organism that reproduces at an early age, such as bacteria, has a rate of reproduction that apparently outpaces the sterilizer's ability to impact the total population number. The fact that the bacteria eventually become sterilized has no appreciable impact on total population. Whether or not this holds true for pods is unknown to me, but the fact that pods aren't always in the water column leads me to believe they'll be OK.

You say the lower the flow rate, the more oxidation there will be. I don't see how this is true. Assuming there is a limit to how much any given volume of water can be oxidized, there must be a limit where dwell time no longer has an impact. Therefore, any increase in flow rate will actually oxidize a higher percentage of system water, up to a point where the bulb wattage becomes the limiting factor.

slief
12/02/2016, 09:40 PM
Does it reduce pods? Apparently, it doesn't even reduce bacterial populations according to an Advanced Aquarist article.

Growth rate of a population is impacted the most (by far) by the age of reproduction, not by the number of offspring. So, an organism that reproduces at an early age, such as bacteria, has a rate of reproduction that apparently outpaces the sterilizer's ability to impact the total population number. The fact that the bacteria eventually become sterilized has no appreciable impact on total population. Whether or not this holds true for pods is unknown to me, but the fact that pods aren't always in the water column leads me to believe they'll be OK.

You say the lower the flow rate, the more oxidation there will be. I don't see how this is true. Assuming there is a limit to how much any given volume of water can be oxidized, there must be a limit where dwell time no longer has an impact. Therefore, any increase in flow rate will actually oxidize a higher percentage of system water, up to a point where the bulb wattage becomes the limiting factor.

I think you misunderstood the article. A UV will not impact denitrifying bacteria or good bacteria because that bacteria resides primarily within the substatre. It absolutely does impact waterborne bacteria.

Contact time has a direct impact on oxidation and sterilization rates. The lower the flow, the greater the contact time. It's not rocket science. I would suggest you do some reading on how UV's work and their uses in water filtration including but not limited to water purification, pond applications etc. While water purification UV's use more powerful and or different wavelength bulbs, there is much to be learned from that becaue the principles are the same.

Regarding pods and other life passing through the filter, since you don't believe me, I would suggest calling AquaUV. They are experts who have done their case studies and research. They are one of the most weill respected UV sterilzer manufacturers in the industry and will be happy to spend time on the phone explaining it to you and will most certainly confirm what I've stated above. I've spent enough time on the phone with them myself and have been using UV Sterilzers for over 20 years. There is a reason why companies such as AquaUV don't recommend running too low of a flow rate in our applications. I'd suggest asking EA as well but since Pentaire took over, there doesn't seem to be anybody there who knows anything about marine and reef aquariums anymore.

HippieSmell
12/03/2016, 09:35 PM
I think you misunderstood the article. A UV will not impact denitrifying bacteria or good bacteria because that bacteria resides primarily within the substatre. It absolutely does impact waterborne bacteria.

Contact time has a direct impact on oxidation and sterilization rates. The lower the flow, the greater the contact time. It's not rocket science. I would suggest you do some reading on how UV's work and their uses in water filtration including but not limited to water purification, pond applications etc. While water purification UV's use more powerful and or different wavelength bulbs, there is much to be learned from that becaue the principles are the same.

Regarding pods and other life passing through the filter, since you don't believe me, I would suggest calling AquaUV. They are experts who have done their case studies and research. They are one of the most weill respected UV sterilzer manufacturers in the industry and will be happy to spend time on the phone explaining it to you and will most certainly confirm what I've stated above. I've spent enough time on the phone with them myself and have been using UV Sterilzers for over 20 years. There is a reason why companies such as AquaUV don't recommend running too low of a flow rate in our applications. I'd suggest asking EA as well but since Pentaire took over, there doesn't seem to be anybody there who knows anything about marine and reef aquariums anymore.
No, the Advanced Aquarist article was measuring bacteria in the water column. See for yourself: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

Oxidation is not a matter of simply slowing down flow rates and getting "more" oxidation. Any molecule has a chance to be oxidized governed by probability. The rate of oxidation is dictated by the bulb wattage, not flow rates. More wattage increases the probability of oxidation as the water flows through the UV. Decreasing flow rates will increase the probability of that water getting oxidized, but the TOTAL amount of oxidation remains the same. In fact, if you slow the flow rate enough, total oxidation will decrease, because there's a higher percentage already oxidized in the chamber and can't be oxidized further.

Sterilization is the same thing. There's a CHANCE that an organism will become sterilized as it passes through the UV. Slowing the flow rate increases that chance. But, slower rates can't keep up with the explosive growth rates of bacteria. I'm not sure what the growth rates of pods are, but I don't see too many going over the overflow.

I would like to point out that I'm concerned with closed, circulating systems. Sterilizers used to treat water flowing from an external source to a closed system are different, and flow rates are more important.

slief
12/04/2016, 12:21 AM
No, the Advanced Aquarist article was measuring bacteria in the water column. See for yourself: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

Oxidation is not a matter of simply slowing down flow rates and getting "more" oxidation. Any molecule has a chance to be oxidized governed by probability. The rate of oxidation is dictated by the bulb wattage, not flow rates. More wattage increases the probability of oxidation as the water flows through the UV. Decreasing flow rates will increase the probability of that water getting oxidized, but the TOTAL amount of oxidation remains the same. In fact, if you slow the flow rate enough, total oxidation will decrease, because there's a higher percentage already oxidized in the chamber and can't be oxidized further.

Sterilization is the same thing. There's a CHANCE that an organism will become sterilized as it passes through the UV. Slowing the flow rate increases that chance. But, slower rates can't keep up with the explosive growth rates of bacteria. I'm not sure what the growth rates of pods are, but I don't see too many going over the overflow.

I would like to point out that I'm concerned with closed, circulating systems. Sterilizers used to treat water flowing from an external source to a closed system are different, and flow rates are more important.

Interesting article. I had not read that one up until now. I know (informally) some of the authors and will reach out to them as it raised some questions in my mind pertaining to their results and bacteria targets. It's long been proven for example that UV sterilizers are very effective in eliminating and preventing bacterial blooms as an example which leaves plenty of reason for questions. They mentioned a 57 watt AquaUV but they don't mention flow (unless I missed it) and it appears they tested on a 175 gallon system which is well within the range for that sterilizer. Anyhow, it certainly was an interesting read but I have to question some aspects or at least would like to have a better understanding of their flow and testing targets beyond just the size of the bacteria.

"Oxidation is not a matter of simply slowing down flow rates and getting "more" oxidation. Any molecule has a chance to be oxidized governed by probability. "

Logic would stand to reason that slowing the flow rate down increases the chance or probability of oxidation. While it may be true that some bacteria reproduce fast or faster than the sterilzer can oxidize or kill them, that is certainly not the case for all bacteria. I have seen immediate impacts on Cyano bacteria for example or they typical bacterial blooms what ever type of bacteria those may be. I am not an expert or even close to it when it comes to bacteria but I do have a lot of experience with UV sterilizers and have seen evidence of their effectiveness with my own eyes on different bacteria forms as mentioned above. That said, bacteria isn't really the prime reason for using a UV. It is one reason but oxidizing organic compounds for water clarity is a key one. It's impact on algae forms in the water column falls into that equation also. I won't touch on parasites as that is not something I really use them for. That said, I'd love to get an expert from AquaUV to chime in here regarding bacteria and other life forms because I do believe that flow rates have a direct correlation to their effectiveness when it comes to smaller forms of life whether it's water born bacteria, pods or even some planktonic forms of life.

You mention pods going over the overflow. The best location for a UV on an aquarium is on a closed loop and not on the return side or cicultaing in or out of the sump. While they are similar, closed loop is generally more effective. Especially where high flow return pumps are concerned. Also the location of the closed loop intake is relevant when it comes to pods since they are generally placed closer to the bottom of the tank where pods tend to congregate compared to the overflow which is located near the waters surface and not a preferred location of pods.

Anyhow, you do raise some interesting points. While your points and the article raise questions in my mind, the discussion is interesting none the less.

DamonG
12/04/2016, 01:10 PM
Ok, this discussion made me go clean up my AquaUV 57 watt unit.. So slief(here I go again asking, but on a student topic), help me out with this one please..The question that I never fully understood with their units, and it made more sense to me from reading this thread, is the flow.. So my system is approximately 240 gallons.. With that unit, for clarity, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd want to be pumping at least 4 times that 240? Which rounding, is about 1000 gph? Is that correct?

The EA unit I had was easy, but I never really, fully understood the ratings in the aqua uv instructions. So when I moved,I just never reconnected it.. However, my water is fairly clear, but if I can get it even clearer, that would be awesome!



From note 5.. rip note 7

slief
12/04/2016, 01:52 PM
Does it reduce pods? Apparently, it doesn't even reduce bacterial populations according to an Advanced Aquarist article.

Growth rate of a population is impacted the most (by far) by the age of reproduction, not by the number of offspring. So, an organism that reproduces at an early age, such as bacteria, has a rate of reproduction that apparently outpaces the sterilizer's ability to impact the total population number. The fact that the bacteria eventually become sterilized has no appreciable impact on total population. Whether or not this holds true for pods is unknown to me, but the fact that pods aren't always in the water column leads me to believe they'll be OK.

You say the lower the flow rate, the more oxidation there will be. I don't see how this is true. Assuming there is a limit to how much any given volume of water can be oxidized, there must be a limit where dwell time no longer has an impact. Therefore, any increase in flow rate will actually oxidize a higher percentage of system water, up to a point where the bulb wattage becomes the limiting factor.

My best advice if you want to question things would be to talk to a manufacturer of UV sterilzers. I'd start with AquaUV since they also manufacture their own bulbs and have invested heavily in case studies, testing etc. You can easily reach somebody there who knows about marine tanks and will spend all the time you want on the phone explaining things much better than I can. I'd think they know what they are talking about regardless of Advanced Aquarists test on bacteria populations.


Hmmm.. Seems your most recent reply is now gone?? Weird..

HippieSmell
12/04/2016, 06:48 PM
My best advice if you want to question things would be to talk to a manufacturer of UV sterilzers. I'd start with AquaUV since they also manufacture their own bulbs and have invested heavily in case studies, testing etc. You can easily reach somebody there who knows about marine tanks and will spend all the time you want on the phone explaining things much better than I can. I'd think they know what they are talking about regardless of Advanced Aquarists test on bacteria populations.


Hmmm.. Seems your most recent reply is now gone?? Weird..
My recent post is still there for me. It would be interesting for an Aqua UV rep or expert to make an appearance on the forum. Pull some strings!

slief
12/04/2016, 07:53 PM
My recent post is still there for me. It would be interesting for an Aqua UV rep or expert to make an appearance on the forum. Pull some strings!

Weird. I don't see it anymore. Funny you mention the AquaUV rep chiming in. I was thinking the same thing and was considering reaching out to them for that very thing. Obviously I am a big proponent of UV and AquaUV for that matter. My comments are based largely on my experiences as well as my research and conversations with their reps. I am not immune to being wrong and as I said, you raise some interesting questions. It would certainly be great for them to chime in and I will see what I can do. It's a real shame they aren't a sponsor here. They would be a great asset to the community. They really do do their research and we could all learn from them. If I have time tomorrow, I will reach out to them and see if I can convince them to chime in.