All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 05:00 
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3712
Location: WA
Gender: Male
Fishwrangler

You might find this interesting :) viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3846&hilit=redox


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
    Advertisement
 
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 06:13 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Jan 9th, '09, 06:16
Posts: 18
Gender: Male
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri
Thanks Sleepe; very interesting indeed.

http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com ... ntial.html
http://americanaquariumproducts.com/Aqu ... ation.html

A fascinating read and I recommend both to anyone who has ever considered using UV. Interestingly enough, this has helped me to understand some of the data I observed using the ORP probe on my YSI-5200 at my last job. The UV's (three 80W high output Emperor Aq's) were not powered on for the first 6-weeks of operation of the system. I routinely viewed the data logs, and though I no longer work there and consequently do not have access to the data, I did see a dramatic change (increase) in the ORP readings. But I will admit, at the time we had been having so many problems with the sonde that I figured the change in reading were related to the correction that problem. Now I know what was happening!

And after reading this, I can say UV would likely be a boon to any AP system regardless of indoor/outdoor or food/ornamental.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 06:30 
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3712
Location: WA
Gender: Male
:)
I only noticed that when I put the UV on, and was bypassing a slow flow through it, the amount of water that had gone through when I switched it off could not have equalled the total volume of the pond, yet it cleared and seemed 'fresher'.
It could possibly have detrimental effects during cycling, but once established I doubt it imho.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 07:55 
fishwrangler wrote:
Myself and a few other members here, as well of dozens of other people who have taken to the internet to discuss their AP systems use ornamental fish as well as "pet" reptiles and amphibians to power their systems.

A relevant point Wrangler... and an assumption on my part... :oops:

Quote:
Claiming that use of UV will kill of your growbed colony illustrates your misconception of how the technology works. If it killed of the beneficial bacteria in a growbed, then by the same logic it would kill of the aquaria biofilter- it does not.

There seems to be some debate, and confusion, about this.... even by yourself ...

Quote:
except that UV does not discriminate between harmful microbes and beneficial ones (e.g. nitrifying bacteria).


I freely admit to not having utilised UV steralisers to any great extent... but those that have done so have used them to clear algae, and only for limited periods... again in the belief that they can have a detremental affect on beneficial bacteria...

I'm open to persuasion, and will re-read & digest the links provided by Sleepe...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 09:27 
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3712
Location: WA
Gender: Male
Rupe

I think we would both agree that if this is to be used there are a few things that people should be wary of.
Its not something that I would recommend for a cycling system and it should be made clear that the placement should be on the return to the FT. Flow has to be suited to power of the UV, I certainly can't afford the spanky ones Fishwrangler used :) Unless fish biomass is very high it would not need to be used continuously. There is also the matter of the detrius if wiping out algal bloom, which needs to be got rid of (the gb's might handle this but you need to be careful).

The reason I found the redox thing interesting is that it is measurable, description from the aquaculture dictionary.

"A word derived from a combination of the words Reduction and Oxidation. The REDOX measurement, in millivolts, is a measure of the potential of the water for oxidation or reduction processes. The higher the reading, the higher the availability of oxidising agents in the water. Optimum levels of oxidising and reduction agents occur at around 300 mV. And this is regarded to be the approximate REDOX level of very good quality water (e.g. for salmonids). REDOX level in excess of 500mV may prove toxic to life over prolonged periods, and REDOX levels of over 600mV are often maintained in systems where oxidising agents (such as ozone) are used to disinfect water. Low REDOX levels are a sign of poor water quality as the amount of oxidising compounds in the water is low, which limits the breakdown of organic matter."

I assume that UV, if the article is to be believed, generates small amounts of ozone. Which would push redox levels up a small amount. The UV itself is also killing anything living but basically within the UV chamber.
I certainly think it is worth exploring.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 10:25 
Humm... I'd be prepared to concede a place for UV steralisers attached to isolation/treatment tanks... to aid pathogen removal.... although not completely convinced as to their effectiveness...

There's no discussion of water temperature... IMO... an essential element of pathogen control/treatment...

It's probably just as easy to water change and dump "infected" water... but could be of use...

I'm still reading through and trying to make sense of things.... much of what he quotes come from other articles he himself has posted on the site...

And some statements are IMO wrong...
Quote:
Here are a few oxidizers: ozone (O3), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), chlorine (Cl2) and chloramines (NH2Cl).

Not correct… chloromines are formed by the oxidisation of ammonia


... or have been extrapolated from studies related to "humans".... and particularly focus on aquaria keeping and associated water changes...

Interestingly, he does make reference to natural systems, plant "filters"... and the inherent "natural" balancing..... sounds a lot like aquaponics to me... :wink:
Quote:
Also the growth of plants, especially with strong roots in a sandy substrate allows for de-nitrification/Redox reduction. This is an area where Veggie Filters in Ponds shine in their ability to maintain excellent bio parameters.

Quote:
A UV Sterilizer is one more predictable and proven tool here (when properly installed), but also not a cure all to otherwise poor conditions. UVs work two ways in my research; [1] they morph oxygen (O2) molecules into Ozone (O3), the O3 quickly degrades, the UV then [2] transfers electrons to substances, thus reducing.
.... so by using a UV Sterilizer (which has safely contained UVC radiation), you break down radicals such as Ozone in your aquarium.


Don't get it... use a UV steraliser to morph oxygen into Ozone (which breaks down quickly anyway... as noted)... so that you can break down the ozone radicals you've created.... :dontknow:

And the UV doesn't transfer electrons to substances.... abundant free oxide ions interact with other positively charged ions (usually metals) to achieve recombination of molecules..

Production of ozone will enhance the availability of free oxide ions... and a UV unit will provide Ozone... but so will an ozone generator.... which is more effective... :dontknow:


Quote:
The basics of Redox are really not that hard to understand and are easily applied; that is knowing that a high bio load can have a downward effect on a good Redox while water changes, additional mineralization, UV Sterilization and more can have positive effect on Redox. Simply put, knowing that Redox naturally will often balance itself, you must realize that these electrons necessary for balancing Redox are often used up and the assumptions often made about GH, UV Sterilization simply do not fit the evidence!

Quote:
Simply put four areas of aquarium or pond keeping have a noticeable effect on a healthy reducing Redox (as well a fifth albeit temporary aspect):
(A) Regular and effective water changes
(B) Proper ONGOING mineralization, especially of calcium and magnesium.
(C) UV Sterilization
(D) Good de-nitrification, plant filtration.
(E) Keeping the production of nitric acid to a minimum and balancing this out with adequate KH levels. This also (as well as water changes) lowers DOC which lead to poor Redox levels
(F) Use of water conditioners (for use in chlorine/chloramine removal) such as Prime which are mostly all Reducers. However these products only temporarily reduce Redox and are not a long term solution. It also should be noted that aquarium water conditioners will often cause temporary cloudiness of aquariums do to their strong reducing abilities, however this cloudiness is short lived in healthy aquariums.


Well I'm struggling to understand the link between UV sterilasrs and "redox"... or more particularly... why a balanced aquaponics system doesn't provide the same result...:dontknow:

He also makes constant reference to "nitric acid" ... not IMO a normally quoted reaction...

Carbonic acid and even hydrochloric acid interactions are often cited and widely researched... to my knowledge the breakdown of "nitrates" is usually reported to produce nitric oxide... readily off gassed....

From a cursory read... it appears that a well oxygenated system maintained with a slightly acidic pH and filtered by plants... would seem to be an optimum situation he would recommend... possibly with the supplementation of some mineral compounds such as calcium and magnesium... (which we get from the fish feed)

Sounds pretty much like a naturally balanced aquaponics system to me...

With those parameters in place.... I'm still unconvinced as to the "benefits" of a UV steraliser, other than as an adjunct to an isolation tank....

And pathogens are ever present and essentially impossible to exclude from a system... (keeping people from dipping their "infected" fingernails into the tank... obviously.. :wink:)...

Pathogens are opportunistic.... and disease in fish stock is always attributable to stress factors of (primarily) environmental and handling factors... i.e primarily water quality and climatic factors such as water temperature....

I remain open to be convinced.... :dontknow:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 11:16 
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3712
Location: WA
Gender: Male
Rupe

I am not in the habit of trying to convince anyone about AP matters. If someone asks for assistance I try to provide it. If I raise a topic that I am unsure about I qualify it.
There are two subjects here perhaps interlinked. The first is UV sterilization (not filtration as the thread title suggests). UV sterilizers work by emmiting light with a wavelength of 254 nanometers. If contact time is sufficient it will prevent growth and stop the organism multiplying.
Ozone production is a possibility, certainly if you had some various and curious smells wandering round your house :) UV (in air) will produce some ozone which does remove them. I would not suggest to anyone that they mess about with ozone generators without knowing what they are doing.

The second matter is redox, it is measurable and does exist.
Both Fishwrangler and I have had possible effects from UV sterilizers in this regard. It does make some sense.
To me that makes it worth exploring :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 11:58 
Sleepe wrote:
The second matter is redox, it is measurable and does exist.
Both Fishwrangler and I have had possible effects from UV sterilizers in this regard. It does make some sense.
To me that makes it worth exploring :)


Most certainly worth exploring Sleepe... no problems there what so every....

Just not sure how any effects are measurable and attrributable to the UV... and whether they can't be obtained with AP growbed filtration.... aquaria are different... and I can see possible application in that field due to differing filtration methods and nitrate buildup etc...

I'm still confused as to the question of UV affect on bacteria.... even in aquaculture, I've been told that other than periodic use to address algael problems... extended use of such devices results in collapse of bacterial organisms in bio-filters...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 12:06 
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Jul 1st, '08, 11:03
Posts: 3690
Gender: None specified
Location: Australia NSW
If the UV killed off bacteria in the water it would not be able to get the bacteria on the media in the GB's. Or bacteria that is on any surface in the system. Not something I'd want to run all the time but if there is a benefit due to sick fish or algae. Harder to isolate or even catch my fish. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 12:08 
P.S. ... I'm looking further into the claim about fish treatment... ie "Ich".... which is a parasite, not a bacteria... and other issues regarding fungi and other parasites...

Although maintaining good quality water in general, and as free from pathogens as possible, is a desirable thing to do .. and the UV may aid this.... and thus act as a "preventitive"...

Not convinced that UV sterialisation is an effective treatment for such things as mentioned...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 12:09 
Dufflight wrote:
if there is a benefit due to sick fish or algae. Harder to isolate or even catch my fish. :lol:


They can certainly be effective in clearing up algae Duff.... basically simple celled organisms...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 12:33 
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Jul 1st, '08, 11:03
Posts: 3690
Gender: None specified
Location: Australia NSW
UV light. Anyway to rig up a solar oven and have the water go through this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 12:34 
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3712
Location: WA
Gender: Male
If I had an ORP meter I'd run a test. Think Steve has one :)

I would not run a UV Sterilizer (UVS) full time as I think it would be a waste of power.
BTW its dammned hot over here 42c in the shade.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jan 16th, '09, 12:50 
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Jul 1st, '08, 11:03
Posts: 3690
Gender: None specified
Location: Australia NSW
Thats why the solar oven idea. No power, just use a little diverted flow from the GB's. Water temp would be a factor on smaller systems. But in winter it could be used as a warmer for the FT. Easy to turn off just stop the flow or throw something over it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Feb 4th, '09, 04:57 
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Sep 4th, '07, 04:16
Posts: 2475
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES
Location: Texas 75703
I think I would prefer a straight ozone injection, instead of a uv lamp, into the sump at the end of a cycle and only when it might be needed. Straight ozone would act faster, but I do not know how long ozone last in water, but the water would have a lot more free oxygen too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye
[ Time : 0.055s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]