UV sterilizers are not effective and we should all stop using them, Right?

[Daniel76]

I'm confused. What exactly doesn't work about UV? There is a ton of peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of UV against a wide range of microorganisms (to determine appropriate dosages, flow rates, etc.). UV is used extensively outside of the aquaria industry for reduction of microorganisms. Obviously, it would only be effective against microorganisms suspended in the bulk water and in a closed system the UV must be appropriately sized in terms of turnover and dosages, but I'm not sure what about their effectiveness is in question.

If the OP is truly concerned about confirmation bias, then he shouldn't begin by asserting that UV doesn't work and then refute any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that they do have benefits for some applications when properly employed.

https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/6/m006p295.pdf

Here you go.

 

[Daniel76]

I have a small, self-contained UV sterilizer(Green Killing Machine) that I have used several times when I had a bacterial bloom. It usually clears it up in 24 hours.

OK great, so UV sterilizers are seemingly good at clearing up bacterial blooms.
That's not what they are marketed to use for.

 

[GlassMunky]

OK great, so UV sterilizers are seemingly good at clearing up bacterial blooms.
That's not what they are marketed to use for.

Actually they are... that’s like 50% of their claims...
you’re just willfully ignoring things to be argumentative at this point.

 

[Zach W]

Are you limiting this discussion to UV's effectiveness on fish based diseases? I am not well versed in current research into this area, but you have admitted to UV being effective against bacterial blooms and countless people have success with UV against dinos, myself included. I just want some clarification on exactly what you are arguing because it seems that we have some scope creep going on here.

Also, peer-reviewed articles are not the end all be all. Just look back to where Wakefield publish his article on the correlation between autism and vaccines. This was published in a peer reviewed journal (Lancet) and it took 12 years to be retracted, and deemed scientifically invalid.

 

[jschultzbass]

A properly sized UV with the correct flow rate for what you want (parasite vs general polishing) will help. It does not cure ich out of a tank even when sized properly. It reduces the number of free floating ich parasites after they spawn which should help fish from being overcome but will not "get rid" of ich. As far as polishing water and helping with dinos and forms of algae that free float it will definitely help (again, with proper contact time, ie flow rate). It is scientifically proven that at the the correct contact time (usually measured in microwatts/cm^2) it emits a germicidal ray which alters or disrupts the DNA of RNA of single celled organisms. Why is there even an argument here? This is common scientific knowledge. The OP is trolling just to troll.

 

[jschultzbass]

BRStv Investigates and Bulk Reef Supply YouTube Videos - Bulk Reef Supply

A collection of videos and accompanying articles around a variety of saltwater aquarium-focused topics from our YouTube channels.

www.bulkreefsupply.com

 

[CuzzA]

https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/6/m006p295.pdf

Here you go.

The 80's called and want their reefing research back. Lol

 

[Waboss]

Anything I "know" is anecdotal, but with that being said, for me, I'm keeping mine on my tank. I've run one for years now, and the one time I stopped, literally all my fish died within a week, based on how quickly they all died, and the symptoms they had, I suspect either velvet or brook. Now I'm not saying that UV "protected" them, but coincidence or not, it makes sense to me to keep it running (plus it does keep my water very clear and might help with dinos too).

 

[hart24601]

There is nothing wrong with wanting studies and referencing them, but one has to be very careful how those studies are interpreted. The media is notoriously bad about this, as they take a line or two out of context to make a headline that is totally fasle, but it's easy for anyone to draw those conclusions that are not really there.

I don't find the age of the study to be problematic, and in fact it really echos how we treat UV in our systems now when it comes to disease (not dino or blooms as we have covered). The article's main point when it comes to UV with disease is that UV alone can not totally irradiate disease or pathogen, however this is well accepted in the hobby.

Most people run UV not in an attempt to totally irradiate all potential pathogens (bacteria, fungi, parasites…) but to simply reduce their numbers - hopefully giving the fish's system a reprise especially with parasites, and time to build immunity. That study doesn't touch on these issues, and one can't infer from this study the UV would not be effective for this purpose as it will vary between species and type of pathogen and also species of fish. You can google scholar search for salter ich immunity (use the scientific name) and see there are a lot of studies in that area.

I would like to see more studies with UV and specific pathogens in aquaculture, however again, one would still have to be very careful trying to interpret those results to our home systems. I personally am not sure of UV's value when it comes to pathogen reduction, but it's benefits for dinos can be amazing, and honestly I think for us in the hobby the effectiveness against some dino species is far more valuable than fish pathogen.

 

[CavalierReef]

For my purposes, anecdotal evidence is adequate and my "peers" have reviewed this sufficiently on this site. I need some assistance finding the proper sizing (wattage/flow) of UV for my 32 gallon Biocube. There is a video of a mini UV "sterilizer" installed in-line on a 29g by Reefthuz. That doesn't seem to me to have enough wattage or contact time to be very useful. Thoughts?

 

[Foothill Corals]

https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/6/m006p295.pdf

Here you go.

That data is 40 years old.

 

[RichReef]

I run an ATS. One of the side effects is a yellow tint in the water which could be seen in a white bucket. The UV cleared that up and a noticeable increase in water clarity.

 

[snorklr]

and the claim by the unnamed public aquarium that their fish mortality rates remained the same was from 1970...think there might be a few other reasons why fish were dying in a public aquarium 50 years ago? did you ever see a public aquarium 50 years ago?

 

[Kayvon]

I used it for dinos and it worked. I lazily left it on for a few months and I'm certain it's the reason I eliminated ich

 

[ironman187]

This has to be a troll post. To that end I don't believe the OP has anything of value to add. I'll just leave this here for any objective peron who cares to read it. I also highly reccomend you don't keep feeding the troll by commenting further. Just let the thread die.

Normally I don't use Wikipedia as a source because it's wildly innacurate on many topics, but in this case there are at least 9 credible sources cited for the claims that UV kills micro-organisms and clarifies water. Add to that the fact that people in the hobby are finding noticeable differences in both algae and bacteria blooms after installing a UV sterilizer, it's a pretty open and shut case. UV sterilizers can, infact, have a positive effect on one's system if used correctly.

Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Victoria M]

@Daniel76 so what prompted you to ask this question? I thought it was maybe rhetorical?

 

[S2G]

 

[Robert M]

Can anyone provide something other than this article which states:

"mortality rates among exhibit fishes at a public aquarium were unchanged by installation of a UV sterilizer that lowered the total bacteria at the contact site by 98 %."

@Daniel76, your original premise is that UV sterilizers reduce bacteria by 98% but do not affect mortality. Now I'm not sure what you're arguing--is it that UV sterilizers kill 98% of bacteria and no algae (e.g. dinos)? Seems like you're throwing your hands up in the air to say we know nothing. In fact, there are many peer-reviewed studies that show the effects of UV light on all sorts of life including bacteria and algae (see links). So since we have peer-reviewed studies that 270nm light kills algae, we have UV sterilizers that produce 270nm light, and we have people who claim that using UV light sterilizers eliminates their algae problem, it seems like we can logically conclude that UV sterilizers reduce algae.

 

[Daniel76]

This has to be a troll post. To that end I don't believe the OP has anything of value to add. I'll just leave this here for any objective peron who cares to read it. I also highly reccomend you don't keep feeding the troll by commenting further. Just let the thread die.

Normally I don't use Wikipedia as a source because it's wildly innacurate on many topics, but in this case there are at least 9 credible sources cited for the claims that UV kills micro-organisms and clarifies water. Add to that the fact that people in the hobby are finding noticeable differences in both algae and bacteria blooms after installing a UV sterilizer, it's a pretty open and shut case. UV sterilizers can, infact, have a positive effect on one's system if used correctly.

Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Well there is also this:

What Does a UV Sterilizer Do? Is It Worth it?

Find out what you can accomplish with the proper use of a UV sterilizer.

www.google.com.au

Look it's fine that you're labelling me as a troll. I'm just a little disappointed that in a hobby that is pretty much a live chemistry and biology experiment happening in front of us, the moment someone comes on here and says "my standard for differentiating fact from conjecture is a little different to yours and no amount of additional conjecture will change my mind" isn't a bad thing.

 

[B7Joe]

Here is a link to an article about a peer reviewed, scientific study on the impact of UV sterilization systems on home aquaria, if anyone is interested: