Running UV after Carbon?

[ReefLab]

I'm just wondering if there would be any drawback to running a carbon reactor in series with a UV sterilizer.

Red Sea recommends 250-400gph per 50g of carbon and a UV sterilizer im looking at recommends 400gph for 90000uw/cm2. Seems like it works out perfect since carbon would get the water really clear, enhancing the effectiveness of UV and it would also reduce the strain on my return pump's manifold.

Thoughts?

 

[lapin]

As long as carbon dust does not make its way into the UV and coat the crystal it should be fine.

 

[MarsWulf5]

I'm just wondering if there would be any drawback to running a carbon reactor in series with a UV sterilizer.

Red Sea recommends 250-400gph per 50g of carbon and a UV sterilizer im looking at recommends 400gph for 90000uw/cm2. Seems like it works out perfect since carbon would get the water really clear, enhancing the effectiveness of UV and it would also reduce the strain on my return pump's manifold.

Thoughts?

Wondering how this worked out for you? I dont want to plumb into my return and slow that flow. I have a Sicce 1.5 for a dual carbon and GFO reactor. Was thinking to use the same pump for both the UV and Carbon Reactor. I know the UV sterilizer slows down the flow... As dose the carbon and GFO reactor. I'm only getting about 60g/HR coming out of the dual reactor with the Sicce 1.5 in the sump with only a foot of head to the reactor. How did the inline scheme work out for you?

 

[ReefLab]

Wondering how this worked out for you? I dont want to plumb into my return and slow that flow. I have a Sicce 1.5 for a dual carbon and GFO reactor. Was thinking to use the same pump for both the UV and Carbon Reactor. I know the UV sterilizer slows down the flow... As dose the carbon and GFO reactor. I'm only getting about 60g/HR coming out of the dual reactor with the Sicce 1.5 in the sump with only a foot of head to the reactor. How did the inline scheme work out for you?

Sorry, I ended up getting a Reef Octopus varios-2 to run it by itself and I run the carbon off of a manifold.
If you’re only getting 60g/hr with that pump you definitely won’t want to run UV also on that pump. But I don’t see any harm in using carbon in series with UV. Just made more sense for me because of my sump layout

 

[MarsWulf5]

Sorry, I ended up getting a Reef Octopus varios-2 to run it by itself and I run the carbon off of a manifold.
If you’re only getting 60g/hr with that pump you definitely won’t want to run UV also on that pump. But I don’t see any harm in using carbon in series with UV. Just made more sense for me because of my sump layout

Think I'm gonna try running the Sicce 1.5 straight to the UV and then the reactor - and crank it up to full speed. See if it works out or not. $60 for two mounting brackets is killing me. what the heck?

Thanks for the reply. Much obliged.

 

[jaihutcherson]

I agree there might not technically be any draw back to running the two together. However, for me, the draw back would be not having the adjustability to each of my filters individually. That’s a mouthful! Lol meaning, there are times I want high flow to my UV filter (algae) and sometime low flow (bacteria bloom), there are times I want my GFO or carbon full flow and other times I don’t (GFO vs Dinos). So, running anything inline limits my ability to control how my water column can be treated. Just my 2 cents.... oh, a simple manifold with 3 outputs can be made, mounted, and plumbed in for under $15 from Lowe’s or Home Depot parts. Here is the latest I built .....

 

[ca1ore]

I would not do it. Carbon invariably results in clogging and flow reduction so you risk variable flow through the UV.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

We used Aquanetics System Packs back in the 80'same to 90's with great results for aquarium stores. They had carbon before the U.V. as a design plan. The systems worked great for water clarity and disease suppression in large holding systems. Works great for home systems as well!

 

[MarsWulf5]

I would not do it. Carbon invariably results in clogging and flow reduction so you risk variable flow through the UV.

Yes, you are very much correct. Bad idea. Theres the reactor slow down and variability - and I'm also dealing with the head pressure of a 4ft verticle UV. Any suggestions on a Sicce pump size that will give me 157-260 GPH running in and out of the sump with about say 8ish feet of 1" tubing... (Is it better to go 3/4 inch tube?) Someone said they were using a Sicce 2.0. I'm using this to manage ich - that got into my DT after 10 months of quarantining my fish with copper and Hannah checker... So, I need that slow yet effective flow rate.

Plumping into the manifold will slow my tank turn over without a larger return pump - also water takes the path of least resistance ... So there needs to be a valve after the manifold to create resistance so the water flows through the manifold extensions.

Id rather just do an additional pump for now - and worry about putting in the manifold and maybe a bigger return pump later.

Think I should go with the 2.0?

 

[Arabyps]

I only run the algae scrubber (Rain2) off the manifold. My UV has a dedicated 400 GPH pump located in/out in the return chamber to make sure most particulates are gone. Carbon is Seachem Matrix in a Lifeguard reactor. Matrix carbon lasts a long time with minimal breakdown into the water column.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Clogging the media...that is what scheduling maintenance is for. Seriously what item of a reef tank does not require monitoring and maintenance? Besides carbon is only effective so long before required replacement.