UV or Ozone

[VegasMike]

How many of you run UV and/or Ozone?

I am trying to decide what to do. I have a large Emperor Aquatics unit (65 watts) that I can run on this new 350 gallon Fish/softie tank.

How much heat do they add and is it worth the trouble to use it?

[Travis L. Stevens]

I don't use either, but if I did, I would use Ozone.

[I like Triggers]

I use a UV on my 225, and I didnt notice any heat change at all. I ran the same UV on my 80 and never saw any difference in heat either. As far as water clarity, it helped quite a bit.

[seamonkey2]

ozone all the way, I have used both and ozone is the way to go

IMO

Jose

[billsreef]

UV only sterilizes what passes through the unit, excellent for creating a sterile barrier for multiple tanks on a shared sump, but limited in effect for a single tank. Ozone on the other hand, has benefits to overall water quality that UV does not, as well as sterilizing any water passing through the unit ;)

[cayars]

Your wet/dry, your protein skimmer and other filters only work on what passes through them also. So I'm not sure how this would be a negative for UV either. Most "cleaners" only "clean" what goes directly though them.

Why would you say UV is limited in effect for a single tank? That makes no sense at all.

Obviously the less total water volume the more effective the UV unit will be per watt. Most people really don't install these units correct and have them running from the sump which is not the way you want it since it's only going to get top skimmed water and you want the "deep" water.

To install a UV unit the correct way to get it's benefit you want to pull water from down near the bottom of the tank (opposite of overflow). It's also super important to match the flow (test yourself with a stopwatch and 5 gallon bucket) of water through the UV based on what you are trying to kill (algea, bacteria, parasites). If you just throw it inline without "proper setup" you're just wasting money. You also don't want to go by pump specs because it won't match your "real world". What you see from the pump will probably be half of the rated "spec". For example to get the flow I needed for my UV to kill parasites I needed 290gph. I had to use a 950gph (pondmaster) to get 285gph. The original pump sold to me to "match" my needs was a Mag Drive 500 gph pump but it only did 176gph in my setup. For me I got lucky because I was able to switch my sump pump out with the Mag Drive and use the Pondmaster for my UV. The added benefit is that I have more water flow in the tank besides the powerheads.

I'd say most people would get more overall benefit from UV then Ozone but it really depends on what you're trying to do as they are different.

Carlo

[XtrmCHoPZ]

Cayars....Im having a hard time understanding why you used a 950gph pump to have 285gph going through your UV??????!!!! To me THAT doesnt make sense at all??? How do u figure that all pump specs are wrong and only half?? Lets take my Eheim 1262, its rated at 898gph, are you saying in real life it only does 450gph? I dont understand you reasoning?



Id have to say that MOST people, including friends that I have, use their UV's in such a way that they do absolutely nothing. I agree 100% that flow rate is of utmost importance. If you have water rushing throught the unit theres no way it will kill anything, it needs to have dwell time to adequately expose the UV radiation to the organism.

Ive never used an Ozone unit but from what I understand they are superiot to all but the biggest baddest UV's. For one, an Ozone unit doesnt rely on stuff passing directly through it to work. They inject ozone into skimmers or reactors and from what I understand actually change the makeup of the water, in affect sterilizing it. If this is wrong feel free to correct me!

[cayars]

I don't remember exactly what the pump is tested with but I think it's 1.5" inch tubing at 0' height. So by me using 3/4" tubing along with 30" of head height I will of course have less flow then that specified by the manufacture.

The UV unit itself as well as the nozzle at the end of the tubing will restrict flow a little bit too. For the particular UV unit I'm running the Corallife TurboTwist 12X 36 watt I need no more then 290gph running through the unit for parasite control.

So what I did was setup a 5 gallon bucket on a latter equal to the height of the tank and timed how long it took to fill to the 5 gallon mark. I ran the tests a few times and it consistently took between 63 to 65 seconds to fill. Then it's just a matter of some simple math. 5 gallons / 65 = gallons per second * 60 = gallons per minute * 60 = gallons per hour or 5/65*3600=276.9 and 5/63*3600=285.7. I'm close to where I want to be at 63 seconds. I'd rather be on the lower side of the gallons per hour pumped and make sure I'm killing off what I'm trying to kill then be on the higher side and not achieving what I want.

Manufactures almost always overate the pumps compared to what you will get from them in real use. If you DEPEND on a certain flow you need to test it and adjust as needed.

Personally, I'm not a fan of ozone. I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages you get by them and I'm concerned over the toxicity of ozone and its byproducts to both humans and the reef aquarium inhabitants. You really need to carefully monitor ozone constantly and shouldn't just drop a unit inline without proper care and monitoring.

In my oppinion there is just to much that can go wrong with ozone in a closed environment to make it worth it long term. i.e. how long do you go before you change out the activated carbon filtering the effluent output of the reactor? Do you have digital ORP meter, etc...

I just think Ozone is overkill and not needed. Good water chemistry and circulation combined with protein skimming and UV (if needed) will give you the same or better water quality without any health concerns.

I'm not a fan of technology that has the potential to kill/injure the fish, coral and humans living in the tank & house if not working/monitored correctly ESPECIALLY when alternatives exist. I'm not saying Ozone can't be used but I believe anyone using it should truly understand the technology and it's effects on humans and should make use of other safer technologies first.

You have a misunderstanding (as most people) as to what ozone is and what it does for the tank. It's not really a sterilizer. You couldn't for example use it to kill parasites like you could a UV unit.

BTW, I agree with you and would go even farther and say most people don't fully get the use out of most of their equipment they already have. How many people do you think actually look at gallon flow on their protein skimmers? They just hook them up. Here's what I mean.

If you're running a protein skimmer in your sump or wet/dry, do you dump back into the sump? Are you processing the same water over and over and allowing other water to pass right past your protein skimmer? If so you aren't getting full use of your protein skimmer. Ideally you want to make sure all water passes through it without being able to bypass it. This is easier said then done for some people.

If you presently do run the protein skimmer in your wet/dry and can't control the amount of actual flow through the skimmer then how much flow do you have going through the sump itself? Would you be better turning over the water 2 times per hour or 10 times per hour? How do you know?

Just a few things to think about. Sometimes a little change in setup makes a world of difference in the equipment you already have. :)

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8475340#post8475340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cayars
Your wet/dry, your protein skimmer and other filters only work on what passes through them also. So I'm not sure how this would be a negative for UV either. Most "cleaners" only "clean" what goes directly though them.

Why would you say UV is limited in effect for a single tank? That makes no sense at all.


With parasites in a tank, they can reproduce and reinfect the fish quite easily within the tank without ever having been passed through the UV. Even with a properly set up UV, it will not eliminate a parasite problem within a tank. It can reduce overall numbers, but not eliminate. A properly set up ozone reactor will actually do the same. However, I wouldn't reley on one of those either for sterilization purposes in a single tank set up either. Preventitive steps such as using QT for new livestock is much more efficient.

As for the negatives to ozone, again proper set up is key, like with the UV. Carbon on the effluent water and air will take care of removing any excess free ozone and problematic breakdown compounds. Also not running the ozone at higher rates than is actually needed. Yes ozone needs to be respected, but it doesn't need to be scary stuff ;)

[cayars]

I agree with you Bill on the fact that QT is required and that UV won't solve a parasite problem by itself but can be of help to reducing the number of parasites. BTW, I wasn't implying that if you run UV you won't have parasites.

However, I'm not sure I'd agree with you on the fact that ozone can actually do the same. From my chemistry & medical background I wouldn't think this to be the case. I'm not saying it can't but only that I don't recall it being able to kill parasites. I know "hospital grade" ozone devices will kill off bacteria, mold, and mildew, can eliminates spores, yeast, and fungus, and inactivates viruses and cysts but I don't recall the effectiveness of killing parasites. I know this was/is an issue in the medical field last I read up on them and this is with high priced medical grade devices. If these issues exist in the medical field then I'd say they would surely be present in the low-budget devices we have available for use in our tanks.

I don't know of any long term testing or studies on the use of ozone in salt water environments which I'd think would be different then using purified water in the medical field. So just quoting the effects of "ozone" when taken from medical journals and such probably don't correlate well in our environments as they are different.

I agree that proper setup of ozone is key to it being safe and effective but I just happen to think people don't really understand what ozone can and can't do and considering what it can do and what the possible risks are to running it safely it just isn't worth the effort for what you get from it UNLESS you have a ORP meter and use/monitor it and know what to expect from it.

Also worth noticing is that ozone acts as a microflocculant aiding in the removal of minerals such as calcium, iron and manganese, etc and we work hard to keep many of our minerals up in the tank so it could be somewhat counter productive. I'm not saying I would never run an ozone unit but I would try other methods first and make sure to be doing everything else first to have good quality water. Too many people try and use UV/ozone as a bandaid so they don't need to do as many water changes and other things and this is just bad. It's an additonal "tool" and should be treated as such and not as a replacement for other things you SHOULD be doing like water changes.

Just my 2 cents and probably worth the same amount. :)

I do not want to come off as an "expert" on this matter in any way/shape or form as I am not. I probably know a lot more then most people on this but sometimes a little knowledge is a "dangerous thing". :)

I do think I now want to do some research on ozone use in salt water environments so if anyone has any material or good docs/studies do me a favor and PM me the info. I'd very much appreciate it.

Carlo

[billsreef]

Carlo,

I don't have any links handy for you, but if you do a google search on ozone and aquaculture you will find some good reading ;) I've never looked at the medical literature on ozone, but it's use in aquaculture has a long record. The aquaculture applications typically have it injected into a reactor in such a way as to oxidize anything in the reactor, including parasites :D You are right about it having an effect on minerals, it will oxidize those too.

[cayars]

I've been doing a little bit of research on it in the aquaculture front. Not much but a tad bit (gotta wait for the kids to go to bed to be able to settle in and do some serious reading).

Let me ask this based on what you said. Does it only kill off things in the reactor itself (more or less the same result as UV) or the water itself in the tank that hasn't been through the reactor also?

What does it do to pods? As an example if you have a Green Manderin are you going to be killing off the pod population also? If so in your experience is it going to be worse on the pods then the UV will be?

Would you personally (based on your knowledge) run UV and/or Ozone with a Manderin?

I appreciate your time and answers.

[cayars]

Did some fare amount of reading on ozone in salt water environments and I'm going back to my initial view of ozone.

After much reading I happened to come across the following links here on this forum and this matches what else I've been reading.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/rhf/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/rhf/index.php

A few highlights:

Reef aquarists typically use up to about 0.3 ppm ozone in the "contact chamber" and have contact times on the order of a few seconds before the water passes into the aquarium. This value of 0.3 ppm ozone is based on adding ozone at a rate of 100 mg/hour (a typical addition rate suggested by ozone generator manufacturers for a tank of about 200 gallons) to a contact chamber (like a skimmer) that has a flow of 333 L/h; 100 mg/h / 333 L/h = 0.3 mg/L). Higher flow rates, lower ozone addition rates or incomplete transfer of the ozone into the water will give lower ozone concentrations in the contact chamber or skimmer.

Fortunately for aquarists, many of ozone's benefits, such as increased water clarity and decreased yellowness, can be attained without the ORP reaching excessive values. Often the water can become visibly clearer (to the point where the aquarist simply no longer notices the water in a normal sized aquarium) with the ORP hardly above 300 mV.

In a marine mammal pool, for example, it was found that disinfection with 4 ppm ozone with a 30 minute contact time (a disinfection level much higher than is typically used in reef aquaria) did not reduce the pool's total organic carbon (TOC) (~13 ppm TOC), while the use of granular activated carbon (GAC) did reduce it by 37%.

Bacteria and other organisms suspended in water can be killed by adequate exposure to ozone. That process is widely used to disinfect drinking water and wastewater in a variety of applications. The doses and exposures of ozone required for disinfection, however, are quite high. They are higher than are used in reef aquarium applications, where typical doses of ozone range up to about 0.3 ppm in typical contact chambers, and last for only a few seconds. Consequently, aquarists must be careful when translating disinfection literature to reef aquarium effects.

In a recent study of a recirculating seawater system, the dosing of 0.52 ppm of ozone was tested for its ability to decrease the system's bacterial load. That dose is similar to a 300 mg/hr ozone unit applied to a typical small skimmer flow rate of 150 gallons per hour (568 L/h). In this experiment, the levels of suspended bacteria (both Vibrio and coliform) were analyzed in a variety of locations (intake, pre-ozone, post-ozone, pre-tank, and post-tank). In no case was there a statistically significant reduction in bacteria. Even the addition of a venturi injector to the contact chamber did not adequately help (although it trended toward fewer bacteria, the result was not statistically significant). For comparison purposes, at higher ozone concentrations and contact times (5.3 ppm ozone for 240 minutes), Vibrio vulnificus is easily killed, with fewer than one in a hundred million of the initial bacteria remaining.

It seem reasonable to conclude from such literature studies that most bacteria that enter the ozone reaction chamber in a typical reef aquarium application will not be killed by ozone or its byproducts. If killing bacteria in the water column is a goal, then a UV (ultraviolet) sterilizer may be more useful.

There has been extensive analysis of the amount of ozone needed to kill the human pathogen Cryptosporidia parvum in freshwater. Most such studies are looking for significant disinfection, but some data points show the effects at lower doses and contact times, and some researchers have developed models that suggest the amount of killing at any dose/time combination. For example, at 22° C approximately 63% of the organisms would be expected to be killed at 1 ppm ozone with a contact time of one minute. The contact times and concentrations are inversely related, so at a contact time of six seconds, the required dose to kill 63% is on the order of 10 ppm ozone. At 0.3 ppm ozone and a six second contact time, typical for the high end of reef ozone applications, less than 5% of the organisms would be expected to be killed. (added by Carlo, this is in Freshwater)

Ozone has many effects when used in a reef aquarium. The most useful of these is the degradation of organic materials. Most importantly, and quite coincidently and fortunately for aquarists, the colored organic pigments in marine aquaria are very sensitive to ozone. For this reason, ozone can remove seawater's color quite readily, and much more effectively than it removes the overall load of organic material. Its effects on water clarity described by most aquarists range from minimal to very dramatic, with most aquarists reporting significant beneficial effects.
-------
So based on everything I previously knew about the uses of ozone and what I read concerning it's specifics in salt water applications and by looking at specs for different units I'd have to call Ozone a "clarifier" at best. Testing hasn't proved it can kill off significant amounts of bacteria let alone parasites so it wouldn't be of any help with ich. I mention ich because some people think it can help solve an ich problem like a UV (setup correctly) can by killing of many (probably not all) of the parasites.

One thing I did change my mind on however. I wouldn't be overly concerned about any health issues from using ozone in the aquarium since the levels being used are very, very low compared to what I initially thought and what it would take to really hurt you or your family members. You should be able to notice the telltail smell way earlier then it could build up to do any serious damage.

More or less it seems the main benefit of Ozone are the breakdown of organics in the water and achieving "clearer" water. Of course it's been suggested that part of this is also due to the fact that you will be running carbon after the Ozone (and keeping it fresh). So if you need "clearer" water you might want to just try using a good Carbon product in a "reaction chamber" and see if this does the trick before getting into Ozone. At least do your own reading and base your decisions on some knowledge of what it can and can't do before spending the time and investment on it to make sure it's really what you're looking for.

Carlo

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8479815#post8479815 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cayars
I've been doing a little bit of research on it in the aquaculture front. Not much but a tad bit (gotta wait for the kids to go to bed to be able to settle in and do some serious reading).


I know that routine all too well :D

On the Mandarin subject, I wouldn't run a UV or even ozone in a manner suitable for sterilization purposes. I would howver run sufficient ozone for water clarification purposes. I like to run reef tanks in very plankton friendly manners, this means very little filtraiton of any kind that would inhibit planktonic organisms. For disease control, I'm firmly in the camp of QT, QT and QT ;) It's far more effective in the long run ;)

You've done some good digging on the subject ;) Hobbyists typically do not run ozone in the most effective manner, ie skimmers with short contact time. One of the things going on is that large organic molecules get broken down into small ones, not removed but just broken down. Some point to this as a drawback, but carbon is more efficient at pulling out some of those smaller organic molecules, making the carbon more efficient, and is the biggest reason (IMO) to run carbon on the effluent water.

[cayars]

I think I already new the answer to the UV/Mandarin question but thought I'd throw it out for an expert "double check". I had turned it off pretty much right before I had made the post asking about it.

I presently have it setup on it's own sucking water down near the sandbed at 285gph (specs say 290gph for parasite control assuming a new bulb). Now what I'm thinking to avoid killing pods which the Manderin needs I could leave it setup the way it presently is but increase the flow.

The specs for the unit say 290gph for parasites, 680 gps for Algea and 1550 for Bacteria. I'm thinking that the bulb will diminish to about 60% effectiveness over time (not long enough) so if I figure that into my flow rates and wanted to target Algea I could shoot for 680*0.6=408 gph which will keep me above 290 so I should NOT be killing off the pods and it gives me some breathing room on changing out the UV bulb.

Does my thinking sound correct to you? Does this sound like a better use of UV for an environment with a manderin to you? Any other recommendations you would make on it's setup?

One other question. If targetting algea would it be best to pull water from the bottom or from the top of the tank or does it not matter as much? I could probably plumb it back inline from the sump instead of hanging on the back, but I'd have to make sure I have the gph running high enough which probably wouldn't be the case without getting a bigger pump but that's something I'll have to figure out myself.

I of course could move it off the system completely and install it on one of the QT tanks. With a barebottom QT tank and 36 watts this would be quite effective for parasite "control" for that type of system but I'm sure I would have to run far less then 290 gph for a small QT tank or water would be quirting out of the tank. :)

[billsreef]

Pods eat algae ;) So I'd do without the UV on the reef altogether. :)

[cayars]

Doh, I knew that.

Looks like I might want to setup a Nano reef for the Manderin and then I've got a good reason/tank for some Seahorses.

Or maybe my QT setup just got a new piece of equipment. Tough call. :)

[billsreef]

I like the way you rationalize :D

You'll need to set up some pod cultures to, for the mandarin and the future seahorses ;)

[cayars]

I just added a 30" HOB fuge at present but I've been adding "bottled" pods just to make sure. I've got 200lbs of Live Rock so I don't think they will go hungry in the tank as it stands now but all bets are off with the UV (impulse purchase) which is why it's not being used at the moment.

I think I'm talking myself into a large nano tank. Shouldn't be too expensive as I have everything needed except the tank itself and I've got some good "seasoned" rock to use for it. Good excuse for the "horses" anyway. :)

Any personal advise/links for setting up pod cultures or would you just follow the suggested method normally seen on the sites where you can by the "starter kits"?

It just occured to me I totally jacked VegasMike's thread. Sorry about that Mike.

Carlo

[billsreef]

There's a really good sticky thread in the breeding forum on culturing pods, etc. The long and short of it, culture some nutritious phytoplankton to feed the pods and culture the pods in a bucket or tank with gentle airation.

As for Mike, I'm sure between the two of us that he got more information than he bargained for :D

[cayars]

Thanks for all the info Bill. The culturing didn't sound to hard but I will surely go find the sticky and read up on it.

Yea, as for the pods it does go along with the "downside" of UV/Ozone or at least is something anyone using either technology should be aware of, so I didn't side track the thread "too much". :)

So Mike, what did you decide if anything or do you still have questions that haven't been answered/covered yet?