Wattage vs parasites

[Zbutcher]

Hey everyone,

I can't seem to find a proper answer for this so I am hoping someone hear knows.

When it comes to UV sterilizers, is there a specific wattage that is required in order to sterilize parasites? Or any wattage works, it's just the weaker the wattage the lengthier the contact time needs to be?

So my situation is this, I wanted to order a 55watt sterilizer but because of supply and demand issues they won't have it until June and I already ordered it from the store but their inventory messed up so it said they had one in stock but didn't. So I have a choice of either going with a 40 watt normal UV sterilizer (Lifegard Aquatics Pro-MAX Ultraviolet Sterilizer - 40 Watt) or waiting for the 55 watt (Lifegard Aquatics Pro-MAX Ultraviolet Sterilizer - 55 Watt Amalgam bulb). Not sure the diff between the amalgam and not.

Regardless is it better to wait or is the 40 more then sufficient? I have also verified they have the 40 in stock. It is only 30 dollars cheaper then then the 55 as well.

Thanks everyone.

 

[threebuoys]

Unless you have an emergency situation you believe will be helped, I would wait for the higher wattage.

To answer your question directly, the efficiency of the device is a combination of wattage and duration of exposure. Crypto reproduces at a slow rate, while algae and bacteria in the water column reproduce at a fast rate ( some double every 20 minutes or so). My recommendation is to run the unit at the fastest rate and at the highest wattage. The fast rate gets the rapidly reproducing bacteria, while multiple short passes over the course of say an hour are cumulative for the slower reproducing crypto protozoans.

 

[vetteguy53081]

Hey everyone,

I can't seem to find a proper answer for this so I am hoping someone hear knows.

When it comes to UV sterilizers, is there a specific wattage that is required in order to sterilize parasites? Or any wattage works, it's just the weaker the wattage the lengthier the contact time needs to be?

So my situation is this, I wanted to order a 55watt sterilizer but because of supply and demand issues they won't have it until June and I already ordered it from the store but their inventory messed up so it said they had one in stock but didn't. So I have a choice of either going with a 40 watt normal UV sterilizer (Lifegard Aquatics Pro-MAX Ultraviolet Sterilizer - 40 Watt) or waiting for the 55 watt (Lifegard Aquatics Pro-MAX Ultraviolet Sterilizer - 55 Watt Amalgam bulb). Not sure the diff between the amalgam and not.

Regardless is it better to wait or is the 40 more then sufficient? I have also verified they have the 40 in stock. It is only 30 dollars cheaper then then the 55 as well.

Thanks everyone.

UV units work best in FW versus saltwater tanks but still effective mainly for bacteria and algae opposed to parasites but each time water with algae/ bacteria/parasites pass over the bulb, it is irradiated with its wavelength. So answer is contact with UV and not bulb.
Higher wattage will offer more killing power as well as the required flow rate must be slow that it makes contact with organisms and offers contact time for radiation. Higher wattage on larger aquariums (40 W+) are necessary on larger tanks. Longer bulbs increase contact time with parasites and something to consider when looking at various units

 

[Zbutcher]

Unless you have an emergency situation you believe will be helped, I would wait for the higher wattage.

To answer your question directly, the efficiency of the device is a combination of wattage and duration of exposure. Crypto reproduces at a slow rate, while algae and bacteria in the water column reproduce at a fast rate ( some double every 20 minutes or so). My recommendation is to run the unit at the fastest rate and at the highest wattage. The fast rate gets the rapidly reproducing bacteria, while multiple short passes over the course of say an hour are cumulative for the slower reproducing crypto protozoans.

dang really?

Yeah I only need it for parasite control. No algae issues or bacterial problems.

Would it change anything that the 55watt is only 2 ft long and the 40 watts is 3 feet long?

 

[Zbutcher]

UV units work best in FW versus saltwater tanks but still effective mainly for bacteria and algae opposed to parasites but each time water with algae/ bacteria/parasites pass over the bulb, it is irradiated with its wavelength. So answer id contact with UV and not bulb.
Higher wattage will offer more killing power as well as the required flow rate must be slow that it makes contact with organisms and offers contact time for radiation. Higher wattage on larger aquariums (40 W+) are necessary on larger tanks. Longer bulbs increase contact time with parasites and something to consider when looking at various units

So it's interesting you say that because the 55watt is only 2 feet long and the 40 watt is 3 feet long

 

[vetteguy53081]

So it's interesting you say that because the 55watt is only 2 feet long and the 40 watt is 3 feet long

Depends on manufacturer. Emperor aquatics, lifeguard aquatics and aqua UV tend to use longer bulbs

 

[MnFish1]

Unless you have an emergency situation you believe will be helped, I would wait for the higher wattage.

To answer your question directly, the efficiency of the device is a combination of wattage and duration of exposure. Crypto reproduces at a slow rate, while algae and bacteria in the water column reproduce at a fast rate ( some double every 20 minutes or so). My recommendation is to run the unit at the fastest rate and at the highest wattage. The fast rate gets the rapidly reproducing bacteria, while multiple short passes over the course of say an hour are cumulative for the slower reproducing crypto protozoans.

I guess I am not sure this is entirely true. The higher wattage is certainly 'the best' - I do not agree that there is any clear set flow. It is my understanding that slower flow with longer exposure time is BEST for algae - and parasites. Bacterial 'overgrowths' should not be 'common' - and of course one could always speed up the flow if there was a bacterial overgrowth.

Here is a chart from another thread on R2R - there are many - but hopefully will give you an idea. I would strongly recommend you call the manufacturer of the device you are wanting/have decided to purchase - and ask them.

https://media.cdn.bulkreefsupply.com/media/wysiwyg/PDFs/SMARTUV_Instructions_07.pdf

 

[threebuoys]

I've watched the BRS videos on this topic and while they are much better equipped than I to do experiments of this nature, I think factors other than what they consider may enter into the equations.

This is something I shared a while back ( yes, much of this are my unproven ideas, the articles I reference pointed me in this direction):

Germicidal UV Dose UV Irradiation Dosage Table ​

Germicidal UV dose table shows the UV dose needed to inactivate germs

www.americanairandwater.com


quote:

"Please note that many variables (air flow, humidity, distance of microorganism to the UV light, irradiation time) take place in a real world environment that make actual calculating of the UV dosage very difficult. However, it is proven that UV light will kill any DNA-based microorganism given enough UV dosage. UV breaks down DNA on a cumulative basis. Therefore, as air circulates through the ductwork of an HVAC system containing an UV light, the UV light continuously disinfects the air. If a microorganism is not effectively deactivated on the first pass through the ductwork, the UV light will continue to break its DNA down on subsequent passes. Microorganisms do not sit in a static environment in HVAC systems except on coils which can be exposed to UV light also. Microorganisms multiply rapidly if not controlled. The UV light helps to reduce airborne microorganisms from the indoor environment."



While this info was developed based on HVAC systems, I think the similarities to a closed aquarium system is noteworthy.

I would love to see some documentation that describe exactly how the tests that determined that different flow ratesfor crypto erradication were proven. All I've seen has been based on open systems such as those in municipal or industrial water plants.

Below are comments I've posted elsewhere. I certainly don't have scientific proof for my theory either, but anecdotally, I've been very satisfied with my experience. Sorry to be long winded below, and in any case, UV sterlization is definitely beneficial


"My thoughts FWIW.....keep it simple and cheap, don't over engineer to fix what's probably inconsequential issues.

Plumb it directly in the return line to the tank. No need to buy a second pump or add additional plumbing.

Run UV full time, why wait until a problem occurs?

Run at whatever flow rate you desire for the return to tank, don't worry about altering the speed to accommodate the UV.

I have read the various opinions/recommendations about flow. Some say it depends on what problem you are trying to solve. For example, the reproduction rate of certain bacteria that causes cloudiness in the water column is to double every 20 minutes or less. Additionally, bacteria are "killed" at much lower UV dosage that protozoans. In that case, the higher flow rate will more than keep up with the bacteria population explosion and aid in water clarity.

Some feel that a slower rate will be more effective in fighting parasites. Likewise, algae in the water column can be tackled by UV, and since it reproduces more slowly, why use a fast flow rate.

In either case, the UV alters the DNA of single cell life to prevent reproduction.

I view it a bit like exposure to the sun's UV rays. If every 5 minutes of sun I get is followed by 5 minutes of shade, I'm still gonna get sunburned if I'm exposed too long. Likewise for the bacteria. If I have a flow rate of say 5 to 10 times tank volume per hour, then the parasites I'm trying to target are still getting exposed to 6 to 12 minutes of UV every hour while the bacteria with the rapid reproduction rate are still getting exposure before they are able to double in population in 20 minutes.

I can turn off the power to the sterilizer if I get concerned that I'm using too much UV (to extend bulb life perhaps), but so far that's not a problem. I can also plug it into a receptacle/switch shared with the return pump to make sure it is turned off anytime no water flow.

A lot of room for different opinions based on individual experience. In any case, I recommend the use of a UV sterilizer and look for the cheapest you can buy. Again, they are really very simple and most of the products on the market, high or low priced, use the same replacement bulbs.

"If you are able to find documented flow rates, as opposed to suggested flow rates by vendors (of which I have seen many), I would also like to see it. All I've been able to find with reasonable documentation are flow rates in municipal water treatment plants. Of course that is a much different environment. Not only is the scale of operation in a much bigger universe, but a major difference is the water treatment plants are not closed systems as our aquariums are. Hence, my recommendation for rapid turnover. Water treatment plants keep each ounce of water in continuous exposure for a longer period of time which destroys all pests before the water is distributed to their customers. We on the other hand return the water into a closed system where it can be immediately reinfected by what is there. Some of the bad bacteria we fight to remove from the water column (often those responsible for bacteria blooms) have a documented reproductive doubling rate of less than 20 minutes. So, the best way to fight that is to have a cycle that flows 100 percent of the water in less than 20 minutes. Other pests, larger than 1 cell may require longer exposure which in a closed system is accomplished by repeated passes in the smaller UV devices we have available rather than one that might be multiple meters long. I wish I could offer a scientific study to validate what I'm saying, but I haven't found it yet. My logic may be flawed, but I believe the 5 - 10 water turnovers an hour in a closed system is the best way to match what happens in industrial water plants. And so far, I have been very pleased with my experience which as I've pointed out is anecdotal at best."


A recent thread shared a study conducted in China concerning UV dosages for aquariums which you might find useful.

Finally, Cryptocaryon UV dosage data

Screenshots because I don't want to deal with removing watermarks. Values are in the range previously guesstimated. One interesting tidbit though: Another important finding was that the theronts exposed to UV doses lower than the minimum lethal dose also lost their ability to infect fish...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[MnFish1]

I've watched the BRS videos on this topic and while they are much better equipped than I to do experiments of this nature, I think factors other than what they consider may enter into the equations.

This is something I shared a while back ( yes, much of this are my unproven ideas, the articles I reference pointed me in this direction):

Germicidal UV Dose UV Irradiation Dosage Table ​

Germicidal UV dose table shows the UV dose needed to inactivate germs

www.americanairandwater.com


quote:

"Please note that many variables (air flow, humidity, distance of microorganism to the UV light, irradiation time) take place in a real world environment that make actual calculating of the UV dosage very difficult. However, it is proven that UV light will kill any DNA-based microorganism given enough UV dosage. UV breaks down DNA on a cumulative basis. Therefore, as air circulates through the ductwork of an HVAC system containing an UV light, the UV light continuously disinfects the air. If a microorganism is not effectively deactivated on the first pass through the ductwork, the UV light will continue to break its DNA down on subsequent passes. Microorganisms do not sit in a static environment in HVAC systems except on coils which can be exposed to UV light also. Microorganisms multiply rapidly if not controlled. The UV light helps to reduce airborne microorganisms from the indoor environment."



While this info was developed based on HVAC systems, I think the similarities to a closed aquarium system is noteworthy.

I would love to see some documentation that describe exactly how the tests that determined that different flow ratesfor crypto erradication were proven. All I've seen has been based on open systems such as those in municipal or industrial water plants.

Below are comments I've posted elsewhere. I certainly don't have scientific proof for my theory either, but anecdotally, I've been very satisfied with my experience. Sorry to be long winded below, and in any case, UV sterlization is definitely beneficial


"My thoughts FWIW.....keep it simple and cheap, don't over engineer to fix what's probably inconsequential issues.

Plumb it directly in the return line to the tank. No need to buy a second pump or add additional plumbing.

Run UV full time, why wait until a problem occurs?

Run at whatever flow rate you desire for the return to tank, don't worry about altering the speed to accommodate the UV.

I have read the various opinions/recommendations about flow. Some say it depends on what problem you are trying to solve. For example, the reproduction rate of certain bacteria that causes cloudiness in the water column is to double every 20 minutes or less. Additionally, bacteria are "killed" at much lower UV dosage that protozoans. In that case, the higher flow rate will more than keep up with the bacteria population explosion and aid in water clarity.

Some feel that a slower rate will be more effective in fighting parasites. Likewise, algae in the water column can be tackled by UV, and since it reproduces more slowly, why use a fast flow rate.

In either case, the UV alters the DNA of single cell life to prevent reproduction.

I view it a bit like exposure to the sun's UV rays. If every 5 minutes of sun I get is followed by 5 minutes of shade, I'm still gonna get sunburned if I'm exposed too long. Likewise for the bacteria. If I have a flow rate of say 5 to 10 times tank volume per hour, then the parasites I'm trying to target are still getting exposed to 6 to 12 minutes of UV every hour while the bacteria with the rapid reproduction rate are still getting exposure before they are able to double in population in 20 minutes.

I can turn off the power to the sterilizer if I get concerned that I'm using too much UV (to extend bulb life perhaps), but so far that's not a problem. I can also plug it into a receptacle/switch shared with the return pump to make sure it is turned off anytime no water flow.

A lot of room for different opinions based on individual experience. In any case, I recommend the use of a UV sterilizer and look for the cheapest you can buy. Again, they are really very simple and most of the products on the market, high or low priced, use the same replacement bulbs.

"If you are able to find documented flow rates, as opposed to suggested flow rates by vendors (of which I have seen many), I would also like to see it. All I've been able to find with reasonable documentation are flow rates in municipal water treatment plants. Of course that is a much different environment. Not only is the scale of operation in a much bigger universe, but a major difference is the water treatment plants are not closed systems as our aquariums are. Hence, my recommendation for rapid turnover. Water treatment plants keep each ounce of water in continuous exposure for a longer period of time which destroys all pests before the water is distributed to their customers. We on the other hand return the water into a closed system where it can be immediately reinfected by what is there. Some of the bad bacteria we fight to remove from the water column (often those responsible for bacteria blooms) have a documented reproductive doubling rate of less than 20 minutes. So, the best way to fight that is to have a cycle that flows 100 percent of the water in less than 20 minutes. Other pests, larger than 1 cell may require longer exposure which in a closed system is accomplished by repeated passes in the smaller UV devices we have available rather than one that might be multiple meters long. I wish I could offer a scientific study to validate what I'm saying, but I haven't found it yet. My logic may be flawed, but I believe the 5 - 10 water turnovers an hour in a closed system is the best way to match what happens in industrial water plants. And so far, I have been very pleased with my experience which as I've pointed out is anecdotal at best."


A recent thread shared a study conducted in China concerning UV dosages for aquariums which you might find useful.

Finally, Cryptocaryon UV dosage data

Screenshots because I don't want to deal with removing watermarks. Values are in the range previously guesstimated. One interesting tidbit though: Another important finding was that the theronts exposed to UV doses lower than the minimum lethal dose also lost their ability to infect fish...

www.reef2reef.com

That part about decreased infectivity was the (most) interesting part - I was wondering if 'multiple hits' actually affected them. Thanks alot. PS - I looked all the science - and you're right there are many more variables - so much so - that I have decided UV is 'not for me' as a parasite/algae killer