Properly sizing UV Sterilizers

[oil_fan]

Agreed...very good info!!

 

[rbredding]

mojo;440981 wrote: Yeah- what he said - I don't think I'd ever consider running a UV from a return pump, except maybe in a small system. Just use a powerhead to power the UV.

I guess I didn't ask the question right..

case in point:

I've got a UV that will require 30 gph for the exposure to kill ICH, what size aquarium is that sufficient on? will it work on a 90 gallon aquarium, where it will theoretically treat 1/3 of the water column every hour or should that UV be used on a much smaller system like a 30 where it will treat the entire water column every hour..
?

(did I do a better job of asking it that time?)

 

[weaglereefer]

I think he said that 1x turnover per hour is what you want, so it'd be sufficient for a 30g aquarium if the 30gph is the rate calculated to kill ICH AND that is the reason you're using it.

 

[mojo]

Right - I wouldn't recommend going over a 30g tank for that size UV...

 

[rbredding]

mojo;441417 wrote: Right - I wouldn't recommend going over a 30g tank for that size UV...

for killing ich, anyway...

 

[itsamyheff]

I have a older aquanetics q25il. Only thing I have been able to read is 45,000 uWs/cm2 at 250 gal/per hour, and 15,000 uWs/cm2 at 500 gal/per hour. The company is out of business. So, do you think this uv is under rated for a 150 gal. The label claims it is rated for a 150gal. But the #'s are not in check with your list.

 

[itsamyheff]

It also has 500 gal/per hour max. So maybe able to put a smaller pump? What do you think? I am running a 250 gal/per hour now.

 

[mojo]

itsamyheff;441663 wrote: I have a older aquanetics q25il. Only thing I have been able to read is 45,000 uWs/cm2 at 250 gal/per hour, and 15,000 uWs/cm2 at 500 gal/per hour. The company is out of business. So, do you think this uv is underrated for a 150 gal. The label claims it is rated for a 150gal. But the #'s are not in check with your list.

The numbers won't be in check with my list - all manufacturers overrate their sterilizers.

In order to get 336,000 uWs/cm2, you'd need to push 33 gph through the sterlizer, so I'd rate it for a 30 gallon tank if you want it to be effective against Ich.

 

[itsamyheff]

Wow, thanks.

 

[oz]

What a great thread. One question that hasn't been raised yet:

What are everyone's thoughts on running the UV lamp 24/7 vs. say 8 or 12hrs a day?

I am thinking if you have an issue (ich/algae) run it 24x7 and then 8-12 to maintain the desired condition. Thoughts?

 

[oz]

Also, via the Emporer http://www.emperoraquatics-aquarium.com/smarthouv.php">site</a> - They seem to be targeting alge killing at 30,000 uWs and Protozoa 180,000 µWs/cm². If Ich death = 336,000 you would still need to cut their recommended flow for these sterilizers in half to accomodate that.

Unless you are really stressing your system with rock/sand changes or incorporating stress inducing animals, Ich seems to stay at bay for the most part. So you could go .5X turnover during any Ich situations and then 1x for normal day to day sterilization. For larger systems the difference between .5x and 1x can be $1000!

 

[oz]

Last but not least - interesting UV numbers from Emperor to compare against the original chart....http://www.emperoraquatics.com/microorganisms_uv-dose.php">Link</a>.

[IMG]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/cozment/Microorganism_UVDose_Chart.jpg alt="" />

 

[tsunami]

Thanks Oz. I wonder if their UV sterilizer's are any good. Any thoughts?

 

[skriz]

Tsunami;453777 wrote: Thanks Oz. I wonder if their UV sterilizer's are any good. Any thoughts?

Any good? These are the best units on the market..period.

These are what the pros use, and for good reason. I hated UV until I saw these in action. The other brands are just too weak to be effective. The emperor UV's are very powerful, emitting much more UV (2-3 times as much) as the competition.

 

[mojo]

Skriz;453785 wrote: The other brands are just too weak to be effective.

This may be pedantic, but that's the point of this thread. UV is UV. Radiation is radiation. Different brands may be less efficient, but if you have the proper flow, they are just as effective.

I assure you that the DNA being broken up by UV radiation doesn't know or care if it's coming from an Emperor or AquaUV sterilizer, or if that sterilizer is efficient - only if there's enough power there to do it's job. How efficiently that's done is a different story.

 

[skriz]

mojo;453826 wrote: This may be pedantic, but that's the point of this thread. UV is UV. Radiation is radiation. Different brands may be less efficient, but if you have the proper flow, they are just as effective.

I assure you that the DNA being broken up by UV radiation doesn't know or care if it's coming from an Emperor or AquaUV sterilizer, or if that sterilizer is efficient - only if there's enough power there to do it's job. How efficiently that's done is a different story.

True, but are the other manufacturers delivering the power? I don't think they are.

It's tough to compare UV's without seeing and using them. I look at an Emperor 50w UV that's 6" in diameter compared to an Aqua UV 57w unit that's only 2" in diameter; that tells me that there's a big difference between the 2 units. Could it be that Emperor is making huge units to make them seem more powerful? Sure, I can't deny that possibility. But, I have seen and used many different brands of UV's and have hated them all. The only one that impressed me is the Emperor unit.

The same is present in car audio. Cheap amps are rated at very high wattages. High-end amps are rated at very low wattages. The high-end amps, even with their low wattage ratings, will out perform the cheapies all day long. I'm betting that if IASCA had a UV competition, we'd see the same thing with UV's

I see a lot of people waste money on undersized or underpowered UV's. Why? Because they're widely available and inexpensive.

I've wasted money plenty of times trying to save a buck. I've learned that you're going to spend the money one way or another; beit with fish loss or extra manual labor to keep the tank clean. So, if you have the chance to do it right, take it and do it right.

Now I'll add that I have not use every brand on the market.

 

[james s_]

What advantage is a 6" PVC over a 2"? It seems like the 2" would keep the water closer to the UV lamp and would kill more stuff... maybe its just me? Honestly I don't even know if my UV does anything....I mean how do you test for that sort of thing?

 

[skriz]

James S.;453831 wrote: What advantage is a 6" PVC over a 2"? It seems like the 2" would keep the water closer to the UV lamp and would kill more stuff... maybe its just me? Honestly I don't even know if my UV does anything....I mean how do you test for that sort of thing?

It shows the effective "kill zone". One brand is only strong enough to pulverize with 2", the other is strong enough for 6".

Maybe Mojo is used to working with 2".. :lol2:

We've set up tanks with these monster UV's. They have been remarkably clear and free from much algae. One day after a cleaning, the UV on one of these tanks got unplugged. It took 2 days for the algae to cover the glass so you could see through it. It was amazing. Now with the UV back on, back to clear water and only a light coating on the glass.

 

[mojo]

Skriz;453830 wrote: The same is present in car audio. Cheap amps are rated at very high wattages. High-end amps are rated at very low wattages. The high-end amps, even with their low wattage ratings, will out perform the cheapies all day long.

There's a big difference between cheap amps and cheap UV's, though. UV deliver one thing- a specific range of UV radiation. The only variable between models is the dosage applied to the water as it moves through the sterilizer. With an amp, there's wattage, efficiency, signal-to-noise, ratings at different frequencies, etc, etc - far more variables.

That's the beauty of the uWs/cm2 measurement - it's a quantifiable way to measure the effectiveness of a sterilizer. It shouldn't matter if the unit is 6" diameter or 1" diameter - that single number in the end is the only result that matters. Some units will be more or less efficient.

I'm not saying Emperor is or isn't the best - just that it's no more or less effective than anything else when applied correctly.

http://www.viperuv.com/aquaviperuvs.htm">http://www.viperuv.com/aquaviperuvs.htm</a>[/QUOTE]

Ok....? It's a higher end line that AquaUV makes. They're not the biggest or the most powerful. And just like any other model, it all comes down to the numbers.

 

[ichthyoid]

mojo;463910 wrote: Oh right - read this thread, too: http://www.atlantareefclub.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36805">http://www.atlantareefclub.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36805</a>[/QUOTE]


Chris, I have a couple of concerns with the data presented on Aqua UV's sizing chart:

1) I did not see a reference to their recommended dosages,

2) I did find a reference to a recommended dosage for human drinking water, issued by the US Public Health Service of 16,000 microwatt*seconds/square centimeter, (also apparently adopted as a world standard).
[IMG]http://enaqua.com/enweb/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=11">http://enaqua.com/enweb/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=11</a>
(see bottom of page)

3) I find it interesting that our drinking water can be protected by a UV dosage 21 times lower than that required to keep a fish from getting sick.

3) The chart that you kindly provided (I assume copied and pasted) shows the UV required for many different organisms to be [B]99.999%[/B] effective for a [B]single pass[/B] through the sterilizer (technically this should be 99.9995+/-%, or log 10^6, but I won't pick their statistics apart).

4) The above kill efficacy exceeds almost any medical/pharmacological treatment efficacy rate that I am aware of. If our medicines were required to meet this degree of efficacy, antibiotics would have never made it to market! (check with your boss/Mrs.-lol)

5) If I remember statistics correctly, the number posted by Aqua UV would indicate:
-a dosage of 1/4 that (84,000microW*s/cm^2), would yield a [B]95+% kill[/B]
[B]-[/B]a dosage of 1/16 that (21,000microW*s/cm^2), would yield a [B]69+% kill[/B]
(this lower dose in good agreement with the US Public Health dose above)

Based on this, I believe that it is invalid to say that a lower powered unit is ineffective, but very valid to say that it will require multiple passes for the [B]same degree[/B] of efficacy. Being that, in general, our tanks are closed systems, the application of lower powered UV is valid with certain caveats (ie-keep the bulbs changed regularly, and keep the flow through them reasonable).

Also-

6) This subject gave me reason to research a little deeper, and I found at least one reference to a theory that UV simply boosts the RedOx potential of water thus enhancing the fishes resistance and/or weakening the pathogens. This theory would seem to lend credence to the statements by IAMRIT and others, that good water quality is key. I can also attest that this [B]is[/B] important from my early days in the hobby, when water quality was not always viewed to be as important as it is now, and we had fewer/less effective methods to address such. Disease was [B]much[/B] more of an issue.
[IMG]http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Ich.html">http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Ich.html</a>
(second paragraph from the bottom

I have used the same Aquanetics UV sterilizers for well over 20 years with good results. I feel confident that there are others that can attest to good efficacy, with otherwise 'underpowered' units. I have no doubt that the choice of higher intensity UV is a great solution, and gives much peace of mind. Higher powered units may be used at much higher flow rates, which is a definite plus as well. These units also provide a much greater 'margin of safety' with regard to the inevitable decrease in output over time.

I hope that what I have shown here has been of some benefit. I also hope that those possessing smaller/lower powered units do not abandon them, but realize their utility, albeit in a more limited context. If I have overlooked anything and/or made mistakes, I apologize in advance, as I am typing this 'on the fly' and without review. Thanks-