# UV Sterilizer opinions



## jontom (May 12, 2006)

Hi everybody,

I'm hoping to gain some opinions on the use of UV Sterilizers. I've been fighting an algae bloom for some time now. I've read where UV sterilizers are good for clearing them as well as other potential problems.

Before I go spending $200.00 on one of these things (I have a 46 Gallon bowfront, about 6 - 7 weeks old) I wanted to see if they work as I've read on the internet. 

I appreciate any feedback.


----------



## akos (Dec 14, 2005)

I have the 9W turbo twist ~$70. Works well for Green Water and kills bacteria that travels through it. Doesn't do much for other algae, as it can only kill what passes through it (at the correct flow rate). You have to make sure you match up the flow rate of your pump/filter and the sterilizer. I'm glad I got one, but its definitely not required.


----------



## jontom (May 12, 2006)

Thanks for replying...hopefully there would be directions on how to match the flow rates. I'm not as concerned yet with other types of algae, but the green water is driving me crazy. I'm hoping to be able to see into my tank again.


----------



## akos (Dec 14, 2005)

This is from one of the sites, basically if the water flows through the UV too fast it won't get enough contact time to zap whatever it is that is travelling through it. So if you have a very strong pump, you would need a more powerful UV unit.

UV Size Dimensions Barbed Fittings Flow Rate Aquarium Size (gallons) 
9W 11" x 2-7/8" 1/2" or 5/8" 100-200 gph up to 125 
18W 13-1/2" x 5-1/2" 5/8" or 1" 200-300 gph up to 250 
36W 20-1/2" x 6" 5/8" or 1" 400-1200 gph up to 500 

I have a 46gallon and the 9W unit, worked great. The water was crystal clear after 3 days. In my setup I have an eheim 2215 ->UV-> CO2 reactor->tank. I ended up getting another filter to make sure I had enough circulation in the tank , plus extra filtration can't hurt. I know that the UV is considered a bandaid and not a real solution to the nutrient imbalance (green water), but it sure is nice to have one.

EDIT: You do have to make sure to balance things out, otherwise you will have other kinds of algae showing up that will not go away with the UV.


----------



## jontom (May 12, 2006)

If I understand what your saying, the sterilizer doesn't have a pump with it. I will have to look at it at my LFS to see how it hooks up. Right now I just run two penguin filters, one for up to 50 gallons and one for about 20 gallons. I also have a 46 gallon tank. I need to be sure I don't need to purchase anything else.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I have a 72g bowfront and use the 9w turbo twist as well. 
There is no downside to using it. I have mine on 24/7 and my plants are great. 

The slower flow rate is required to kill pathogens, while a faster flow rate in most cases will still kill the floating algae causing your GW. 

It's a win, win.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Owning both a 9w UV sterilizer and a vortex diatom filter i can honestly say that i have found far more uses for my diatom filter then for my UV sterilizer. 

The UV does kill things that pass through it, but IMO its a pain to operate. Also anything that it does kill just fouls your tank.

A vortex diatom filter on the other hand will also remove green water (in a matter of hours), and bacteria from your water, can be left running continuously AND packages up all the stuff it kills inside the filter cartridge - i.e. polishes your water. The only down side is you have to deal with annoying dusty diatomaceous earth.

Another plus about diatom filters is they are only ~60$ (online) vs 200$ for the UV. 

If you do decide to get the diatom filter, only get the Vortex brand, since the other brands may not be continual use brands.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

_The UV does kill things that pass through it, but IMO its a pain to operate. Also anything that it does kill just fouls your tank._

I have no idea what you are talking about. There is noting to operate. I've had mine running for about 6 months and have done nothing. Not sure what you mean it fouls the water. That is completely untrue.

UV are about $70 to $80 for a tank up to 125 gallonsn not $200.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

houseofcards:
If you kill off an entire tank full of GW a massive water change is recommended immediately afterwards to remove all the dead algae cells. This is done to prevent the tank from becoming anaerobic as the algae is broken down by bacteria in the tank. However, if you have a diatom filter all the algae cells are neatly trapped inside your filter where you can easily dispose of them before they break down all over your tank and in the substrate etc...

When i said it was a pain, i was thinking about my experience with the bulbs being a pain to replace. They break inside the container extremely easily and are ridiculously expensive to replace. Also some don't come with pumps and need to be outfitted with the correct pump which is irritating and more expensive due to shipping.

In fact, even at 70 or 80$ diatom filters are STILL cheaper then UV filters. 200$ is the store price like i said in my other post.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

_If you kill off an entire tank full of GW a massive water change is recommended immediately afterwards to remove all the dead algae cells._
I don't know about you, but many people change approximately 50% of their water on a weekly basis which takes all of 10 minutes with a python, so I'm not sure why that is a chore.

Bulb replacement is once in 6 months and it's like pulling out a lightbulb, so I still don't get where your going. Look this is my experience, but the UV is probably the easiest piece of equipment to have because there really isn't anything to do but watch your fish thru crystal clear water. I've never heard of a UV fouling water. I thought it was the opposite.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I’m not arguing with your opinion houseofcards. I just posted my experience with both of them and i have found the diatom filter to be one of the worthiest pieces of equipment i own.

It gives you:
-Amazing filtration of the finest and smallest particles. 
-Removes algae spores and bacterial blooms (i.e. does the UV's job)
-Is cheaper
-Can be used as a vacuum cleaner so you can suck up wastes/algae from the tank with the tube.
-Not hard to use
-Constantly polishes water by REMOVING particles 

It only has the drawback of using diatom powder which can be irritating to load into it.

IMO it is better then the UV filter because it does all these extra jobs for you that i mentioned above vs the UV which only kills bacteria and algae and leaves them to float around the tank.

Does UV work? Sure it works. Its an amazing piece of equipment. Which would i rather have? Well i would rather have the one that does the job of the UV and the jobs that the diatom filter does, in other words the diatom filter.

Why would you pay more for equipment that does less jobs, when those jobs are actually needed? Why would you want dead cells floating around your tank and rotting? 

If you like the UV i have no problem with that, hell all i'm doing by responding to this post is articulating my opinion that for ME the diatom filter is the best bang for your buck. When someone wants to know why he should spend 200$ (at the petstore) on a UV filter I feel its my duty to inform him of my experiences and other options out there. If you love the UV, well that is great, i'm sure its worth it for you. But i would rather have the Diatom filter under any situation.

Additionally, what do you mean by this? “I don't know about you, but many people change approximately 50% of their water on a weekly basis which takes all of 10 minutes with a python, so I'm not sure why that is a chore.” Are you trying to cast doubt on my dedication to my tank because i think changing the water is a "chore?", or are you saying my opinion has no relevance or validity? If you have a different opinion then say it, don’t go through and make this thread into an attack on other’s opinions.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

_Why would you pay more for equipment that does less jobs, when those jobs are actually needed? Why would you want dead cells floating around your tank and rotting? _
If I have dead cells rotting in my tank, I'll take it any day. All my fish are healthy and my tank is crystal clean with pearling everynite and it's been that way for 8 months.

Of course your opinion counts, but you made a point about doing a water change after the UV kills everything (which by-the-way I never did a special water change after my bout with GW) but constant water changes are a given for most high-light planted tank people so I'm not sure why you would need a water change after the UV kills everything if your going to change the water anyway within a week's time.


----------



## yxberia (Apr 19, 2005)

I have a cheap ATMAN II - 11 watt UVC in my 4 feet planted tank. I use it to control BBA growth. UVC 12 hours a day + SAE does the job well. I would say UVC is worth a try. Just make sure the UV tube is Power Compact type and flow rate is moderate - the slower the better. 

IMHO, you need not a powerful UVC for larger tank. A little investment in smaller water pump + small UVC will do the job of bigger UVC + bigger water pump.


----------



## jontom (May 12, 2006)

I appreciate everyones opinions. I did by a Coralife 18V Turbo Twist UV Sterilizer and a Penguin Powerhead to run it last night. Expensive for me, but worth it if it works. I should know in a few days.

I have read where water changes are recommended initially when running one of these sterilizers to clear out the dead algae. I will do that in a day or so to see what happens. I'll let everyone know.


----------



## akos (Dec 14, 2005)

I think the 18W is probably an overkill, but it will certainly do the job. 

As for water changes after greenwater, you guys are right in that it should be done, but on the otherhand, its a one time thing. After you have your UV running you will never have green water again, so water changes shouldn't be an issue. I know diatomic and UVs both work, for me the UV route seemed like less maintenance and its a small piece of equipment that tucks away neatly under the cabinet. No extra hoses hanging in the tank is always a good thing for me. 

Keep us posted with your GW.


----------



## jontom (May 12, 2006)

Well, its been around 36 hours now and the UV Sterilizer seems to be doing its job. When I got home last night (after about 24hrs) the water was much less green. It was more of a milky white (dead algae?), which I expected from different sources I read on the net.

I did about a 30% water change and can almost see the back of my tank. Still cloudy, but considering the short time I've had it on its pretty
heartening. I'm thinking the sterilizer is a good investment for me. 

Hopefully by the end of the weekend (and probably another water change) my tank should be pretty clear.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

jontom,

That's good to hear. If it's working correctly it will be so clear after a while you won't be able to tell their is water even when viewing from the sides. 
If you leave it running as you'll see their is nothing to do, but sit back and watch your tank.


----------



## yxberia (Apr 19, 2005)

Running UV non-stop or too long can have adverse effect in planted tank. I would advise not to exceed 12 hours a day. 2 main concerns:

1. Bulb life - UV bulb is expensive.
2. UV will destroy trace element.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

yxberia said:


> Running UV non-stop or too long can have adverse effect in planted tank. I would advise not to exceed 12 hours a day. 2 main concerns:


That is really untrue. I've been running my UV 24/7 for 8 months and never changed the bulb and my plants could not look better.


----------



## yxberia (Apr 19, 2005)

For more good evidence, you might wanna ask "unirdna" & visit the link I've posted last year (Cyberia is my sign-in). 

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/g...ent-conclusion-3.html?highlight=trace+element

http://www.priva.ca/newsletter/news-...tionwater.html


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

yxberia said:


> For more good evidence, you might wanna ask "unirdna" & visit the link I've posted last year


Well I once asked Seachem what effect UV would have on their FE supplement in this thread:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/seachem/14801-flourish-iron-and-uv.html

So after using a UV sterilizer for 8 months and having red rotala and purple aromatica at the end of the day I have to believe the UV sterlizer really doesn't hurt anything except floating algae and other pathogens that harm your fish.


----------



## jontom (May 12, 2006)

As an update, I purchased a UV Sterilizer, 18w Coralife Turbo Twist, the night I first posted about them, hooked it up and after less than two weeks and a few water changes, my water is almost crystal clear.

I am very pleased with the results. We'll see if it has any adverse effects on my plants. So far, other than my new anubis sort of melting away, everything's been good. I don't believe the sterilizer had anything to do with it,though. One stem with a leaf remains and seems healthy for now, all the others disintegrated at the stem (2 or 3, I don't remember).

I'd be curious if anyone has an explanation for that happening?


----------



## spcyamada (May 13, 2005)

*Cool.*

I have the 9w version of the turbotwist and I have to say that it works very well. What I did to see quick results was doing a 50% water change then use the sterilizer. The setup took me about 15 minutes provided I had the proper parts needed to hook it up. I have a Fluval 404 and my LFs didn't sell the adapters. The part about changing 50% water is not needed, but my water was crystal clear in only 3 days. I'm not sure why I didn't buy this sooner rather than having to wait till I had a GW outbreak. I've not seen any ill-effects to the plants because of issues dealing with iron when having the UV sterilizer on (knock on wood). Just remember to monitor the flow rate of the pump/filter that you're using to ensure that you have an appropiate flow rate to kill algae.

As for your poor anubias, how did you manage to kill that? Just kidding. Maybe it's dying because it's still acclimating to the new tank enviroment. As long as the rhizome is still healthy, new shoots may sprout. Try putting it in a different tank and test your current tank's water parameters. I've had anubias leaves do the samething in the past so I just changed tanks. Well, goodluck!


----------



## Maurici (May 31, 2004)

Hi,
I've some doubts about using this alternative to avoid illness to our fishes or plants. I'm afraid that we often apply "cooking prescriptions" that really work but we faced the act without a minimum of critical or asking to us about its sense.
- Are you sure that eliminate spores and unicellular algae and bacteria has no a half term wrong effect for our tanks?
- I think is possible we are eliminating also beneficial bacteria, isn't it?
- Don't you think that maintaining an artificial ecosystem isolated from harmful propagules can also act like a bubble effect decreasing the answer capacity of plants and fishes to fight new alien?
- Don't you think we are eliminating an essential step of the nutritional chain? In nature all of organisms have a role, managing the microscopic world of the ecosystem inside the tank in a brutal and indiscriminating way I fear that we mistakes. 
We usually belive that we possess the wright information to "solve" many problems of the nature; it's seems to me a quite human and little intelligent insolence.
I don't want to give lessons to anybody, I'm sorry if I seem so presumptuous, I only want to participate you that if I can find some answers to these personal restlessnesses which convinces me I will be more in agreement for the UV use that I'm at this moment.


----------



## spcyamada (May 13, 2005)

*Nature?*

I agree with you that the methods we employ to take care of our fish and plants is unnatural. Having said this, I would like to also point out that the aquarium is not a natural habitat. It's certainly not a vast pond, stream, or lake that continually readjusts itself with the natural occurances of our world. Regardless of how hard we try to make a natural looking enviroment for our plants and animals, ultimately it is man-made and thus unnatural.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the question of eliminating beneficial bacteria. Are you talking about the beneficial bacteria in the substrate or the filter? Both are not harmed since a sterilizer usually comes after the filter. The bacteria in the substrate shouldn't be affected unless your UV sterilizer takes water from directly under the gravel. The bubble effect you speak of in my opinion doesn't really matter. It's not like we have gathered a plethora of plants and fish where none exist in nature to evolve immunities to disease. Besides, isn't it the point of hobbyists to control their tank's enviroment to be quarantined from "harmful propagules"?

In regards to your question about us "eliminating the essential step", I think that if you're are a hobbyist, we must ultimately accept this fact. I don't think the addition of a UV sterilizer eliminates any step in the aquarium enviroment. First of all, if you want to talk about the natural nutritional chain, let's start with the food we must add to keep our fish alive. We know that if we don't feed the fish, they will die. In nature, fish find food or perish. When we buy fish, we don't expect it to find food because we control what they eat. This essential step is already missing from the chain. If we want to keep a planted tank, we can't expect it to flourish without our help. All that we can do is try our best to create an enviroment that can support the plants we want to grow. Some of us live in places where a certain plant simply could not thrive unless in the carefully controlled enviroment of our tanks.

So don't think that you've been presumptuous or taught anyone a lesson because we are all students in this hobby. It's just one learning experience after another.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I agree with Spycamada. 

An aquarium is not a natural system. It needs artificial methods to help it succeed. A perfect example is a reef system. These need to be incredibily prisitine and look at all the equipment that goes into keeping the fish and coral happy (protein skimmer, calcuim, ro water, sump, a ton of chemicals and of course a UV) In most aquariums the amount of "fish" mass is far greater than what would occur in nature in the same square footage. Many algae problems stem from this because it means more waste from both food and poop. Bottom line is that I've been running a UV 9w on my 72g for about 9 months and my tank has no issues. The fish never get sick and the plants all look great. Remember the UV only affects things floating in the water column and does not affect the biofilter one bit.


----------



## Maurici (May 31, 2004)

Hi spycamada, let me explain a little bit better than I've had.


spcyamada said:


> Regardless of how hard we try to make a natural looking enviroment for our plants and animals, ultimately it is man-made and thus unnatural.


 I agree, it would be a mistake to expect mounting something-like natural.


spcyamada said:


> Are you talking about the beneficial bacteria in the substrate or the filter?


 No, the water column is full of bacteria, not only substract or filter, there is a continuous interchange of cells between substracts (also plants, glasses, wood ...) and water.


spcyamada said:


> The bubble effect you speak of in my opinion doesn't really matter. It's not like we have gathered a plethora of plants and fish where none exist in nature to evolve immunities to disease.


 I can't agree with you because our fishes and plants come from cultures which are controlled with ferts and medicines to diminish to the maximum the commercial losses before arriving at the last user, the hobbyist. Is clear that commercial fishes are, sometimes, not so strong as wild ones and many of them suffer illness unknown for them in nature perhaps by debilitating its own capacities due to medicine abuse or by selection on culture of weak genotypes which survive by the chemical support.


spcyamada said:


> I don't think the addition of a UV sterilizer eliminates any step in the aquarium enviroment.


 I'm not as sure as you that the direct relation between the two levels (plants and fishes) and ours as unique food supplier is ultimately unevoke. If I'm not wrong there is a enormous diverse microscopic world (eg. algae, bacteria and fungi) inside and not ever attached to a fixed material. Here is the suspect, you know there is a part of the food we added and the dead parts of organisms which remain there and which entry in a chemical turnover after decomposers work. Is that part of this step, a part of the biological treatment of organic compounds, that I think can also be affected by the UV treatment. But how much? I ignore it and, of course, is not an evident or clearly bad loss which crash the system spectacularly, I only call something in question to consider reasons in a wide vision of the tank evolution with time and to consider when we approach other questions as instability of the aquarium.


----------



## spcyamada (May 13, 2005)

*Dude*

hmmm. everything is full of bacteria. there is no easy way of getting rid of all bacteria in the fish tank. even with the uv sterilizer on, whatever beneficial bacteria that you are referring to present in the water column and not in the substrate or filter that you say is found on "plants, glasses, wood", won't be 100% killed. trust me dude, there will still be bacteria.

the reason i feel that this bubble effect doesn't matter is because even though most of our fish and plants are bought from a commercial dealer, these fish still exist in nature. like i said earlier, it's not like we have collected all the fish in the world and placed them in a breeding pool where there is no more opportunity for genetic permutation. if you are so concerned about this bubble effect, then why keep a fish tank? why not just be content with looking at fish in a local stream instead of keeping them in a tank that you assume is weakening the genetics of fish and plants? and honestly, if i only cared about a strong genotype when selecting a fish, there wouldn't be many freshwater fish that i'd want to buy. i think many of us care more about the phenotype rather than the genotype.

i can tell that you are very concerned with the bacteria in your tank. if you have alot of negative feelings about using a UV sterilizer, then simply do not buy or use a UV sterilizer. it's fairly apparent that no amount of convincing that you seek to ease your restless mind about other people purchasing a UV sterilizer will change your disposition otherwise. all that we can offer is our real life experience with a UV sterilizer that so far, in my tanks atleast, have had no adverse effects.

goodluck with your research on the issue. i am looking forward to your results.


----------



## Maurici (May 31, 2004)

Hi, 
I share with you the interest on learning about this subject. You know my purpose is no convince anybody to avoid this apparatus, I'm stimulated in this case to write about something different as "it works" or "how much cost" if is a discussion post. In this sense approaches as I've observed a notably reduction in illness or I've observed a reduction of yellow coloration, for instance, are indeed much more useful in a practical way than my theoretical thinkings about bacteria, but having no experienced the item I thought interesting to open also this kind of contributions faced from a biologist.


----------



## jontom (May 12, 2006)

This discussion livened up a bit since I last posted.

I appreciate all your comments, spcyamada, and fortunately my anubis is not yet dead. It still has one leaf that so far has remained healthy. I would love to put it in another tank to see how it does, but I currently only have one. I am hoping that you are right and all it did was go through an adjustment phase. I'll probably know in the next few days.

Maurici, while I do appreciate your concerns, I agree with Spcyamada and Houseofcards. I think by having the live plants, we all want as natural an environment as we can afford, but the fact is is that it is not a natural environment. Also, I want something that looks nice in my living room and fish that I can see clearly, not as shadows through a murky green gloom. I researched the pro's and con's online fairly heavily before deciding to purchase a UV Sterilizer and it worked for me. It worked very very well. 

Anyway, my water is clear, my plants and fish so far seem to be thriving, my wife is no longer thinking I should tear it down since it looks so bad in our living room, and I enjoy it. It definitely works for me.

Thank you for all your comments


----------

