Ozone/UV

[mufret]

There are a couple of issues with both ozone and UV use but both can be benefical.

Ozone can cause problems if over used and in most of our systems there is no need for the monster 200 to 300mg units that are routinely sold. I've found that a good 25 to 50mg unit is all that most of us really need and it's safer because you have a much smaller chance of "overdosing" the system. As has been stated, an ORP controller will help but "chasing ORP" shouldn't be the goal. Ozone will make your water much clearer and this can significantly help your lighting as it will increase your PAR numbers. To combat the issues that Mike W described (ozone will degrade rubber and some plastics), I use a small second skimmer to run the ozone through. Those old airstone skimmers work great for this purpose!

The biggest issue with UV is the additional heat and maintenance that they require. While not as efficient as ozone in keeping water "clear" they will help in fighting free floating algae and parasites.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

To add what mufret said, UV will have yearly maintenance costs (ie- replacing the UV bulb). Whereas with ozone, your setup cost will be your operating costs, as there is really nothing to replace. There may be efforts, ie- in recharging the air dryer, etc, but the sue of these is arguable.

If using both, something to consider is that the UV will "deactivate" the ozone by breaking that highly unstable trivalent bond between between the oxygen atoms. So you can inject ozone into the water before it goes into the uv. That being said, I have no idea what ozone will do you a typical PVC housing on a UV sterilizer. It will probably wreck it in short order.

I would suggest ozone every time before UV, but children in the house, and other condition may merit the other approach.

 

[cameron]

Holy crap Panda! Where is that plus rep button these days? I did not know that. I may setup my ozone this time in front of my UV rather than my skimmer.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Yeah, UV will do a lot of good things. Like dechlorinate water also. If you put it in front of the uv, just watch for degradation of the plastic, o rings, etc.

 

[james s_]

Im leaning towards the UV now. Cost may be subsantially higher as far as bulb replacement goes. Around $100 annualy. The unit Im buying is a 57W with a wiper slide that cleans the glass without taking the unit apart.So maintenece should be easier in that respect.

A 57w UV is rated up to like 225 gallons. My system will be 800 so am I still wasting my money? A bigger unit like the 114w or the 120w adds substantial revolving costs which I would like to avoid.

Heres the unit...

http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem%7EidProduct%7EAV2283.html">http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~idProduct~AV2283.html
</a>

 

[jmaneyapanda]

46bfinga;112816 wrote: Im leaning towards the UV now. Cost may be subsantially higher as far as bulb replacement goes. Around $100 annualy. The unit Im buying is a 57W with a wiper slide that cleans the glass without taking the unit apart.So maintenece should be easier in that respect.

A 57w UV is rated up to like 225 gallons. My system will be 800 so am I still wasting my money? A bigger unit like the 114w or the 120w adds substantial revolving costs which I would like to avoid.

Heres the unit...

http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem%7EidProduct%7EAV2283.html">http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~idProduct~AV2283.html
</a>[/QUOTE]

What is your purpose for using this? Disease control? Clear water? I wouldnt necessarily count on that wiper doing a lot. The bulb will heat the quartz tube quite a bit, and the calcium will crystallize on it. You'll need in the order of vinegar to get it off, the wiper won't do much (in my experience).

The bottom line is, you could use a 4 watt UV if you have the water goping through it slow enough. It depends how much of whatever prupose you are looking for. I know that didnt make much sense, but in my opinion, size rating a UV is silly.

 

[dannybradley]

Cameron- I'm going to start an iodine thread and post everything I think I know and try to back it up with some references.

 

[james s_]

jmaneyapanda;112837 wrote: What is your purpose for using this? Disease control? Clear water? I wouldnt necessarily count on that wiper doing a lot. The bulb will heat the quartz tube quite a bit, and the calcium will crystallize on it. You'll need in the order of vinegar to get it off, the wiper won't do much (in my experience).

The bottom line is, you could use a 4 watt UV if you have the water goping through it slow enough. It depends how much of whatever prupose you are looking for. I know that didnt make much sense, but in my opinion, size rating a UV is silly.

So what gph should I run the 57watt at on my system. I plan on running a 1" drain to the UV then drain it into my sump.My purpose if using the UV would be clear water and maybe algae control. I have never used one so Im not sure what to expect.

 

[cameron]

jmaneyapanda;112837 wrote: The bottom line is, you could use a 4 watt UV if you have the water goping through it slow enough. It depends how much of whatever prupose you are looking for. I know that didnt make much sense, but in my opinion, size rating a UV is silly.

Agree. The speed really determines how much UV you need. The larger you get, the more flow and the faster you can nuke the incoming water column but slow it down and it works just as well. You may also want to consider a large filter in front of the UV. UV lighting hitting larger particles can effect their performance.

 

[james s_]

The UV im getting has a 2" in/out but I was going to reduce it to 1" and throw a ball valve on it to control the flow. What gph should I run it? I was thinking around 100gph or so.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

46bfinga;112951 wrote: The UV im getting has a 2" in/out but I was going to reduce it to 1" and throw a ball valve on it to control the flow. What gph should I run it? I was thinking around 100gph or so.

I cant really answer that question without knowing more about the uV bulb. What is the exposure (in microwatts/cm2)? This will let you calculate what flow you want. To kill algae, virus, bacteria, and other "simple" items, you'll need only realtively low exposure (probably 15,000 to 30,000 microwatts/cm2). You will probably be able to get this with MASSIVE flow through a 57 watt sterilizer (but again, I dont know, without knowing the bulb specs). However, to kill protozoans or molds, you'll need a significantly higher exposure (in the order of 350,000 microwatts/cm2) to kill these bugs. This is where most people go wrong with their UV. They dont get the necessary exposure, and dont kill the target pathogens. You can get this exposure by bumping the wattage, or by slowing the flow.

But, anyway, to make a long story longer, I *THINK* you'll be able to run a much higher flow through that 57 watt and still kill algae. I even think 100 GPH would give the needed exposure to kill anything that goes through at all, but dont hold me to that.

 

[cameron]

I slowed mine down to about 175gph on a 36w. I want ich dead (100k microwatts) along with other parasites. I don't know if you can go too slow in a UV, but I can't really think of a reason.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Cameron;112983 wrote: I slowed mine down to about 175gph on a 36w. I want ich dead (100k microwatts) along with other parasites. I don't know if you can go too slow in a UV, but I can't really think of a reason.

There are only 2 downsides I can think of- 1) the slower the flow, the slower the tank turn-through, and 2) the longer the water sits in the UV, the more possible to be heated (which can create ancillary conditions, such a lime buildup on the quartz sleeve). Minor drawback- even negligible when compared to the benefits, in my opinion.

 

[skriz]

Didn't Dana Riddle address this?

 

[jmaneyapanda]

I dont think Dana Riddle, maybe Tom Wyatt, but I dont recall. Dana Riddle does mostly coral biology.

 

[cameron]

Too bad someone hasn't developed a nice solid closed loop system for filtration. I could certainly see a particle filtration (foam pads say), dose a little ozone, then into UV, onto the skimmer, denitrification, then into GFO, Carbon, Purigen, then into the heating/cooling element, injection from calcium reactor with dolomite, into the fuge, back into the tank. You could do it via a sump, but imagine if a system like this was designed and balanced for the home aquaria where you plug one end into the drain or pump and the other into the return. Change the media periodically and bam done.

Anyone know the progression in the professional setups like at the atlanta aquarium?

 

[skriz]

Tom wyatt! That's it, he discussed how you can go too slowly through uv. I just can't remember exactly how it went though. Does anyone have any notes from the meeting?

 

[skriz]

Cameron;113001 wrote: Too bad someone hasn't developed a nice solid closed loop system for filtration. I could certainly see a particle filtration (foam pads say), dose a little ozone, then into UV, onto the skimmer, denitrification, then into GFO, Carbon, Purigen, then into the heating/cooling element, injection from calcium reactor with dolomite, into the fuge, back into the tank. You could do it via a sump, but imagine if a system like this was designed and balanced for the home aquaria where you plug one end into the drain or pump and the other into the return. Change the media periodically and bam done.

Anyone know the progression in the professional setups like at the atlanta aquarium?

I've been working on something like this. Except I did not have uv in the plans, but it wouldn't be too difficult to incorporate into the system. I'll post something if I ever get it figured out just right.

 

[cameron]

Really looking forward to seeing it. I planned on my next house to have vats that did this, but would much prefer a closed system as much as is possible anyway.

 

[james s_]

I have seen a guy that had an acrylic sump that was broken down into seperate compartments for different types of media. It had around 4-5 different chambers.I will have to try and find it again.

I dont see why a closed loop like that could not be accomplished with a little planning and a large enough pump to get it thru all the stages. But all in all I think it would be a plumbing nightmare. I dunno maybe Im wrong.