Need help with uv ideas

[squint]

So you are basing your whole anti low flow high intensity campaign on this?
Thr first thing you wrote states pretty much that the reciprocity law is infact just chance and happenstance. That is a theory not a law and it looks to be pretty conclusive it will remain a theory.
And you are also basing it off 1 single test not what manufacturers, hobbiests, water purification techs, have been actually seeing for years.

As I already stated, perfect adherence to the time-dose reciprocity law isn't required. There are quite a few studies and they don't try to prove or disprove the law. They simply note whether a particular organism or effect and dosing regimen follows the law and to what degree.

In air or water, plastics, corneas. skin, paint, bacteria, protozoa, viruses, algae, and even spiders.

What's important is that UV damage doesn't magically go away when an organism "survives" a single exposure. UV damage is cumulative otherwise plastic wouldn't degrade because the sun goes down every day and people would never get skin cancer. I expect the swimming form of ich to be particularly vulnerable because it's relying on a finite store of energy since it doesn't feed. Energy for repairs means less energy to swim, overcome host defenses, and possibly to reproduce.

I'll also remind you that duanes already posted dosage data on Giardia that was far lower than what AAP claimed was required for protozoa.

Where is the manufacturer data? Did they actually conduct the study themselves? Are they relying on single-pass data?

Hobbyist and technician opinions count for very little compared to a controlled scientific experiment published in a peer reviewed journal. But if you want to play that game I can tell you that I have never had ich in 20+ years. I have supposed ich-magnet clown loaches that are 17 years old and never really QTed. A friend had a bad ich outbreak. I advised UV and it was resolved. Someone on a forum had ich. I advised that he turn on his UV and it worked.

Why do distributors, public aquaria, and zebrafish labs use UV? Maybe they don't think aquarium forums and Facebook groups are a reliable source of information?

The test leaves out alot of info (maybe I missed it), but how long was this test run, how many tanks were originally infected with the parasite? Its also possible that the filtration system somehow inhibited the parasite from making it to all of the tanks..

Um, the tanks were all in series with the filter at the end so there's no way the filters could prevent ich from spreading between them. Not to mention the control experiments where the filtration remained the same except the bulbs were off... The study had 3 replicates of 40-day duration. Four of the 36 tanks were infected with ich.

All I'm saying is qt your livestock so you can treat with meds appropriate to the issue. That way you most likely wont have to worry if a 9w uv sterilizer will kill all the bad stuff you just threw into your 500g tank.

UV is safe for plants, inverts, and fish and can be run indefinitely. Many people have complained about meds or heat killing their fish, even ones that weren't infected with ich. All these stress methods are simply a race to kill ich before you kill your fish. Not so with UV.

Performance by most treatments methods is pretty dismal with many being worse than the disease:

Treatments for Ich Infestations in Channel Catfish Evaluated under Static and Flow-Through Water Conditions

Download Citation | Treatments for Ich Infestations in Channel Catfish Evaluated under Static and Flow-Through Water Conditions | In response to producer reports of poor efficacy using published treatments against Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (ich) infestations of channel... | Find, read and...

www.researchgate.net

 

[twentyleagues]

So the tanks emptied from one to the other? Before going to the filter? Or they were one tank seperated by a permeable barrier of some sort? Most tank setups would empty into one drain then go to filtration and then return to the tanks.
Anyway.
As for plastic, skin, paint, So forth and so on, that plastic or whatever would last much longer at a lower dosage then the one sitting out all day, which is what I'm saying. While the effects are cumulative the amount and time of exposure is going to greatly effect the time the pathogen is in your tank. If there is a killer in your house slaughtering your family I think you probably arent going to opt to block the waterheater exhaust to hope he dies of co poisoning while there is a shotgun available.
Flow rate and wattage are correlated. If you have a smaller wattage based on tank size then to maximize exposure flow needs to also be maximized (in this case slowed). The higher the wattage based on volume the faster the flow could be. It will take you forever to get a suntan if you only go outside to tan for 30sec everyday. Also your risk of cancer will be much lower.

I still say flow and wattage are directly related. And putting a small or undersized uv unit at 500-1000gph on a tank is next to worthless. The question is how long are you going to allow the killer to roam around?

I never said uv is useless. I said underpowered "over flow rate" is almost useless.

 

[squint]

So the tanks emptied from one to the other? Before going to the filter? Or they were one tank seperated by a permeable barrier of some sort? Most tank setups would empty into one drain then go to filtration and then return to the tanks.

The first line of the abstract says it's 36 20-gal tanks in series...

Anyway. As for plastic, skin, paint, So forth and so on, that plastic or whatever would last much longer at a lower dosage then the one sitting out all day, which is what I'm saying. While the effects are cumulative the amount and time of exposure is going to greatly effect the time the pathogen is in your tank.

Nope. If you reduce flow rate you also reduce the rate ich tomites are entering the UV.

I still say flow and wattage are directly related. And putting a small or undersized uv unit at 500-1000gph on a tank is next to worthless.

In a single-pass system, they're probably all that matter. In a recirculating system, you can get more frequent but shorter exposures or longer, less frequent exposures depending on flow rate. The total dose is exactly the same.

There are probably additional advantages to higher flow rates as well. High flow rates probably mess with the chemotaxis of tomites, increase the energy cost of swimming, and make it harder for them to attach to fish while also being more likely to be picked up and sent through the UV.

Another consequence of low flow rate is over-treatment of the water. If you reduce the flow rate, turnover rate also decreases which makes it more likely that a tomite will find a fish instead of taking another trip through the UV.

I think 40-80W for ~800 gal is very low watts/gal and yet it worked quite well. The 450 gph flow rate also could never work according to the Internet.

Changing search terms opened a new group of studies. In these the lower flow rates are actually inferior at disinfection. I was only looking for them to be roughly equal...

Ultraviolet-C light inactivation of Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium in coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) milk

Coconut milk was inoculated with Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium to evaluate their inactivation using a double tube type UV-C light system…

www.sciencedirect.com

Redirecting

doi.org

 

[Galantspeedz]

Makes me feel better than I am not wasting money by turning on my uv 24/7 and changing the uv bulbs every 6 months .... haha

Got to say, had the uv for over 2 years and no ich from then on. Before that, there were 1 or 2 individual fishes that had it