I received no answer to my questions
Is UV actually viable for parasite management?
- Thread starter gumblue
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That is the piont I was trying to make .How can you possibly know that the entire volume is circulating , because of dead areas in the tank with no circulation to stir it up , or negative pressure to draw it into the volume of the tank. As to filter that is what manufacturers sometimes to describe the actual bulb which during my research I discovered. I don't like it myself but am trying to communicate so everyone understands . When you state Effective wattage is not considered by " most ". That's like saying "They " as the best measurement you are arguing against the very mathematical equation required and set up by those that are in the field presumably people with more knowledge than I have which is why when I make a statement it is not my opinion but from research. My only downfall was not stating that in the beginning , and sounding like a know it all allen . But UV is a filter if you consider the body of the canister ( to me ). Is it worth trashing me about wording ? Its not mine . Effective wattage is the actual UV-C rating which is key ( here we go again ) the " dose " so its UV-c Rating volume of the body of the filter and the flow rate that determines that . You can go and find that . I am not going to feed you. These are terms used by the I assume engineers / developers of the product not mine. I personally am glad someone is trying to make a universal language surrounding it all . I am well aware of how a UV light , filter works . That is the point ich has to pass through in a certain stage of its development . Flukes are a totally different animal . Immune to a UV This is all gleaned from members here that I trust , and I wish I could coax them into chiming in . One Member in particular Paul B stated UV's don't even belong in the reefing hobby.
allenk4
Active Member
Arguing from a position of authority is silly in this realm for us common folk. You don’t need to be a Parasitologist to read and understand.
This is why I deferred to established Truths in the hobby.
-Fallow period of 6 weeks without fish will kill off All Ich, as it requires a fish host during the trophont stage.
-If you follow this Fallow/QT process with every potential carrier of each of the three stages of the Ich Life Cycle…you cannot get Ich in your tank
Remember this Fallow Period is for every single item that you introduce to the system. Fish, CUC, Coral, Sand, Rock, everything. No sharing of nets, acclimation boxes, buckets, between the QT and DT.
Just trying to be helpful, not argue with you.
allenk4
Active Member
I promise you, 100% of your display water makes it thru the sump. Sprinkle some food into the tank and specifically observe these "dead zones" you are referring to.
A there are manufacturers that produce filters that incorporate UV. Continue to refer to it as a ‘filter’ if that’s your preference.
The ‘rating’ for a specific UV unit does not have anything to do with the volume of the container it is drawing water from. It only considers the required dose vs exposure time:
UV Dose (mJ/cm²) = UV Intensity (mW/cm²) × Exposure Time (seconds)
The suggestions you see from online sellers are suggestions that seem to be based on standard system recirculation rates. You would need to contact them directly to confirm.
There is really no need to make this more complicated.
UV won’t kill Ich that’s already on your fish
100% of your water will flow thru your UV, regardless of the pump flow
Well all can say is that there is a well known very knowledgeable member who thinks Otherwise . I as I have said before am only the messenger. Possibly there is an article by him about it I will look
The exposure time calculation is part of the UV canister volume. I found an excellent article by Ronan Granger aquaj cund is the site just goggle Dose rate for an aquarium UV filter . He calls it a wet chamber volume which would contribute to the GPH . This is an actual calculating site that I have not seen before . As an example even though I have fallen out of love with AI I used it to design a UV system Which helped me choose a UV system, and required pump needed. if I decide to get one . This is for a stand alone system where there is separate lines for different applications . AI calculated pressure loss due to fittings , and valves ect. What I forgot about is that you need a bypass to service it . o isolation valves are part of it as well . Even though Everything I have said so far is others opinions , I have done extensive research surrounding the issue . That is why I have gathered the opinions , and knowledge from more experienced , and knowledgeable people than I . I see you have the Words UV intensity . You must know that refers to a UV-C bulb output which on most manufacturers sites is not published. Most when they state say 40 watts that is not the UV-C output . Without creating another tangent I have found that it translates into about half , Assuming a UV-C bulb is used. I already said I don't like the reference to a bulb as a filter again was just trying to explain things so others get a feel for what they read on manufacturers sites. I know what state an so should everyone by now know when it is vulnerable . Obviously your fish does not flow through the UV. The statement I made as to the entire volume of the tank water was to make people aware hat proper application is needed. I do remember one member saying that they wonder about them hiding in the sand where they go through the life cycle without floating around free in the water hence why quite a few say that is the reason you can only control them .
How Many Times do I have To say That I don't Pretend to be an Authority . I failed to mention my position I will ask forgiveness again in the hopes that the membership will forgive me . I am glad that you finally came clean yourself, refreshing . So you are doing the same thing as I am . If this has any positive result I hope it encourages others to do their own research , and specifically surrounding the not so obvious facts . You do have to be educated in aspects to be able to understand . Hence my research that I tried to be as thorough as I could , and my posts where I asked for input. I encourage others to do the same and only accept it as fact if there are those that have done it or educated in it extensively . Even History has been recorded in a slanted view
allenk4
Active Member
I believe you may have misinterpreted the knowledge that knowledgeable member conveyed.
But, I am willing to learn. As I indicated, I’m not a Parasitologist; my information is from several sources via the Google Machine.
allenk4
Active Member
I believe you are dramatically overthinking this.
You say you have "done extensive research" but still argue that Ich doesn’t have a pelagic stage! I fear all your research has done is to infect you with a case of Dunning-Krueger effect.
Trying to "science this’’ topic by choking the life out of it is a waste of your time. Buy the largest unit you can afford; that will fit where you have room and install it. Run it at the "Parasite Flow Rate" and move on with it.
Yes, there are marine diseases like Uronema that are believed to be "free living" and can exist without a host fish. I have been specifically referring to Marine Ich.
allenk4
Active Member
"Came Clean" ? That would require being ‘Dirty’ at some point. I refuse your assertion.
All I have done here is to state widely accepted facts, while you wiggle about saying that some ‘respected member’ says Ich ‘hides in the sand’. Yes…but you have a minimal grasp on the widely available information, clinging to scraps of opinion that fit the narrative you try to construct. At least read about and understand the lifecycle of Ich before working about calculating the flow rate thru the UV unit you might buy in the future.
All reputable marine UV manufacturers make their UV-C numbers available. If you are lazy, BRS provides that data as well.
‘Doing your own research’ is overrated. It’s fun, but overrated, if you seek the best outcome.
All you have done is set yourself up as an expert , ignored research . and science by saying buy a sledge hammer to kill a fly. Have you eliminated ich yourself ? Then you should talk to Jay Hemdal and tell him he is wasting his time, and is misleading us . BRS sells stuff I like their videos but they have been wrong before . Know please do that so I don't have to read your posts , and carry your case by starting your own post and open up yourself to comments by others. If you don't then I and everyone will know you
allenk4
Active Member
1. Never claimed to be a Parasitologist
2. UV is hardly a “Sledgehammer"
3. Cannot confirm without a Tank DNA Test from Aquabiomics
4. Jay Hemdal would agree that with radical measures…Ich can indeed be eliminated. I have previously described the required process
5. I referenced BRS, because they list manufacturer information within their UV product listings
6. Relax
2. UV is hardly a “Sledgehammer"
3. Cannot confirm without a Tank DNA Test from Aquabiomics
4. Jay Hemdal would agree that with radical measures…Ich can indeed be eliminated. I have previously described the required process
5. I referenced BRS, because they list manufacturer information within their UV product listings
6. Relax
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Ultimate Member
Partner Member 2027
Excellence Award
R2R App User
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
I’ll just make one comment here. In any tank system, not all water passes through the filter system. It’s a classic problem in math called the stirred tank.
If one is adding and removing water from a stirred tank (like a reef aquarium), there is always some water and its contents that is never removed. In this context, that means some never passes through the UV.
Does that matter for using a UV? Probably not, but I wanted to address the assertion made above that 100% of tank water passes through it.
If one is adding and removing water from a stirred tank (like a reef aquarium), there is always some water and its contents that is never removed. In this context, that means some never passes through the UV.
Does that matter for using a UV? Probably not, but I wanted to address the assertion made above that 100% of tank water passes through it.
Gregg @ ADP
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 3,960
- Location
- Chicago
- What state or country do you live in
- Illinois
All I know is that I haven’t touched a UV sterilizer in over 20 years. Has always seemed like a waste of electricity to me, for exactly the reason Randy pointed out.
allenk4
Active Member
I agree with RHF in theory, but in the practical application of a closed system, such as an aquarium, this is virtually impossible.
"In a closed system, 100% of the contents will not always pass through the filter eventually, because fluid dynamics, dead zones, and bypass paths can trap some fluid permanently. [1]"
Some will point to areas where detritus collects in their system, but the particulate was carried to that spot by moving within the water column.
There is some math involved, due to the mixing previously described. For example an aquarium system with 100 gallons of water and a pump that’s running at 400 GPM, you would assume that 100% of the water molecules would flow thru the pump every 15 minutes. Because of the mixing effect mentioned…it actually takes an hour and 45 minutes.
https://www.hamzasreef.com/Contents/Calculators/PumpTurnover.php
Waiting for the response from those who notice that the stated turnover is
"99.9%" in the linked calculator.
For purposes described by the OP of "parasite management", that last .1% is inconsequential.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 10,111
- Reaction score
- 16,897
You asked earlier for logic and here for a response.
The cited differential pressure citation is not at all relevant.
In any case your logic only holds in a perfect mixing situation for a one time dose. An aquarium with an active multiplying pathogen is neither.
The calculator you linked is based on an ideal mathematical perfect homogeneous mixing model, no stratification, no dead zones, no bypass paths, and removal of a single dose starting at time zero. It is the wrong model.
Moreover, it does not take into account free swimming organisms that react to flow, current, light, and other stimuli, and are not evenly distributed.
The free swimmers, hiding spots, and multiplying organisms already break the logic. Your n-passes math assumes every gallon has roughly equal odds of getting swept through each pass. It doesn't hold in a non ideal system, one with rock, varied flow patterns, striations, eddies, and nearly dead zones.
You pointed to detritus collecting in low-flow areas, but got it backwards. Detritus proves those spots see less flow than the tank average, or there wouldn't be detritus there. You can't use "eventually it all cycles through" and "flow carried the detritus there and left it" as the same argument, they are opposing.
A real aquarium, with flow patterns, multiplying organisms, and a UV doing n-turns per hour, is nowhere near an ideal mixing model based on a tracer added at time zero and tracked through n-turns for homogeneous mixing. The 99.9% number is meaningless. Real world, the number will be a fraction of that.
I hope that helps settle the question.
So you wont post it I am so surprised Jay Said This? Radical ? What does that mean ? Sledge Hammer refers to you saying install the largest UV you can fit in . Just Post your Findings for all to Enjoy
I searched you out , discovered you have the same arguments / statements from respected members saying the same thing as I did especially about all the volume passing through. If I ever suffer with this dilemma I will refer to my planned system that I have drawn out and install one separately to do my own actual attempt. My planned system involves having preset separate lines for the correct flow with valves that only require opening them with out having to reset and check for GPD . and of course a bypass for service. I however decided that I don't want to bother with eliminating algae if its only on the glass since I like feeding my fish with it as I scrape it off , and have a Marineland water clarifier to catch what is missed . That of course will not collect it all . Hopefully the fish or worms/ snails will enjoy it. If it becomes a pest that I will have it ready . Also considering a scrubber in the future as I like building things . We have managed to alienate another member by arguing back , and forth which I don't like. Or me if it makes you feel betterSo you wont post it I am so surprised Jay Said This? Radical ? What does that mean ? Sledge Hammer refers to you saying install the largest UV you can fit in . Just Post your Findings for all to Enjoy
Similar threads
