Looking for efficient way to run canister plus inline UV sterilizer

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Oscarum monstruoso

Oscarum monstruoso

Fire Eel
MFK Member
May 3, 2010
1,004
8
68
33706
Its for my 54 gallon corner bowfront. It seems best to run the sterilizer separately because the flow rates from the canisters I want to use (xp2, xp3, that range) have too much flow for the 8 watt sterilizer that I want to use for more than algae because Im looking at a couple EBJDs.

The solution I thought of was to just go with a bigger sterilizer than needed for my tank but Im trying to be electric effifient as well.

Would it be better to just run the sterilizer separately with a powerhead? I like the idea of running it inline better but Im not sure about the tradeoff.
 
You could T off your return line and divert some flow to the UV then have two returns back to the tank.

Seperate pump is probably the easist way but cost more.
 
If you want a slower flow rate, I would go powerhead.

Petsmart also sells a UV sterilizer that has a built in powerhead. (I think it's called "Green Killing Machine" or something along those lines). It has a flow rate of about 150 gallons per hours (kills bacteria and algae). You can put it directly into your tank. A 18 W cost me $60. I have it on my 200 gallon and it works great! Had it running now for a little more than a year.
 
before getting that i would look into how the UV is set up if it's a 5 watt lamp it need slower flow then the canister which is the issue you are having now. The UV may not be very effective depending on how hte canister is set up.

I know nothign baout these filters but those are the qustions i would be looking into before buying one.
 
I feel your best solution will be putting a T on one of your existing canisters...

Going with a larger UV is another viable option. The replacement bulbs are the cost factor with them. The couple of extra Watts the larger one will use will not really add up on your electrical bill. The powerhead you are considering adding will use more energy than the larger bulb will...

Offering thorough mechanical filtration to the water prior to pushing it through the UV also offers benefits. The quartz sleeve in UV lights are "scratch resistant" not "scratch proof". Over time small particles can cause tiny scratches in the quartz which will cause a haze that reduces the UV transparency. Also every particle that pases through will cast a shadow reducing the UV effect.

The canister with UV linked above, like every canister I've ever seen with built in UV, pushes too much water past to small of a UV to do what you want it to do. They are typically designed to remove green water (free floating algae) but are useless against parasites.

I've used quite an array of UV lights and I am convinced that the small ones (7W and less) are incapable of killing parasites. I've had great success with 9W and above using a formula of 10 gph per 1W of UV strength. For example, pushing 90 gph past a 9W UV.
 
nc_nutcase;4288945; said:
I feel your best solution will be putting a T on one of your existing canisters...

Going with a larger UV is another viable option. The replacement bulbs are the cost factor with them. The couple of extra Watts the larger one will use will not really add up on your electrical bill. The powerhead you are considering adding will use more energy than the larger bulb will...


The canister with UV linked above, like every canister I've ever seen with built in UV, pushes too much water past to small of a UV to do what you want it to do. They are typically designed to remove green water (free floating algae) but are useless against parasites.

I've used quite an array of UV lights and I am convinced that the small ones (7W and less) are incapable of killing parasites. I've had great success with 9W and above using a formula of 10 gph per 1W of UV strength. For example, pushing 90 gph past a 9W UV.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thorough reply, and that formula is awesome, thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom