Negative effects of oversized UV to micro biome

[Smoke-Town]

This is more about microbiology than equipment but wasn't sure if it should still go here.

I've searched threads about oversized UV and basic consensus is that additional heat is the only downside to oversized UV. I'd like to believe that as that's an easy fix... but there is no way that's correct.

More cellular damage will be done to more complex organisms as the intensity and dwell time increases. We see that easily as everyone knows to decrease the flow rate to sterilize pests like ich which are obviously more complex and protected than algae.

So let's say we have a 100g tank and add an 80 watt UV to it. This being 3 times oversized for that tank would then be able to handle 3 times heavier flow rate to have the same contact time that the hobby has come to agree on for algae and pests

So the question is if you do this, will you achieve 3 times better algae and pest control, or will you just wipe out your micro biome faster? Copepods, amphipods and all sorts of bacteria good and bad?

And what if you use the standard recommended flow rate on the same uv and tank... is it just business as usual with excess electrical consumption or will the water spend too much time in UV chamber at a lower flow rate and sterilize more microfauna than I want it to?

 

[dangles]

Brace yourself…

Anecdotes and pseudo-science are coming

But yeah I’ve wondered the same thing.

 

[Reefer911]

Good question as I’m running water so slowly through my uv that I’m achieving very close to the 280,000 μWs/cm2 that seems to be the new recommendation, or at least new to me

I dose bacteria weekly but I am also wondering about phyto and the good bacteria with such an increased dwell time

 

[Smoke-Town]

Brace yourself…

Anecdotes and pseudo-science are coming

But yeah I’ve wondered the same thing.

Yes probably. But hopefully some real science comes too. The guy from Aquabiomics says he can identify tank that uses uv instantly as a whole genus of microbes don't show up in those tests. I wonder how different those tests would be at 1 watt per gallon 24/7. That answer would probably help get us an idea. Someone out there has to be going crazy with UV and I'd like to add a second one to my other return line

 

[Smoke-Town]

No one either experience on this huh?

 

[GARRIGA]

The guy from Aquabiomics says he can identify tank that uses uv instantly as a whole genus of microbes don't show up in those tests.

Recall in the 70s how the clinical method wasn't effective and going natural might be abetter approach. Don't recall exactly what clinical might have been at that time but thinking about it today it might mean not letting fish build an immunity to low concentrations vs seeking to give them an environment devoid of all harm. Perhaps judicious use of UV to maintain vs eradicate the future and new inroads into testing the micro components of life in our box of water can help determine where that fine line between maintenance and eradication lies or for guys like myself not wanting to science the crap out of my enjoyment just shut it off for X amount of hours and dose bacteria back occasionally although no bottle I know of contains all the species we seek and why live rock seems to provide better results then dry plus bacteria in a bottle.

To UV or not UV might keep us up at night being the eventual real problem.