H2O & algae, UV treatment, bacteria, etc...

[HiProfile]

I've been thinking lately about the growth that can appear in closed loops. Currently the best way AFAIK to kill & remove/prevent this growth is a *sol enema or a $90+ UV lamp that uses toxic mercury vapor tubes that effectively die in a year AND heats up quite a bit. ...And are probably harmful to some materials we have in our PCs...

Since UV LED's are very cheap on ebay, and UV sterilization is normally spec'd for treating the substance once, wouldn't UV LED's work for a closed loop? We're not looking for 99.9% elimination, just preventing blooms [relative to the size of our systems ]. I know the main issue is that the common LEDs atm are 380-395nm wavelength (UV-A), while most UV lamps are in the 200's (UV-C). My argument in favor for UV-A based sterilization is thus: while UV-C is way over 1000 times more 'toxic' as UV-A, it also can't penetrate nearly as well. Using a barrage of 5mm LEDs surrounding (or inside) a slim res would definately be able to cause the microbes damage, no? They'd also be treated for a while in the res as well as over and over. Also, they usually rate the UV lamp to kill *everything*, and I don't think that algae are as resistant to UV-A as the bacteria the lamps will kill. I can't confirm this, since I can't find any info on UV treatment that actually lists the longest effective UV wavelength for kill each general type of organism. One last thing, if the handheld UV sterilizers work to any extent, it may spell hope for UV-A, since I doubt those units can produce much UV-B (both legally & theoretically), let alone UV-C. I'm betting they twist the guidelines for tanning beds to cover those units.

The other discovery I made was, albeit nothing new, a source for benificial bateria. I was just doing a quick search and found this for $25 (scroll down to Microbe-Lift). On top of killing the growth, it also removes ammonia. While I also found a nice site showing the size of some common alga species, which are around 5 microns on average. It wouldn't be too hard to rig up a replacement element from a basic drinking water filtration system or just get a filter from mcmaster, which could filter the dead guys out when flushing the system with your *sol enema.

I believe that a combo of the two (LED's and bacteria, used in succession) would be cheaper and more effective than a normal UV lamp. I also think it'd address the negatives of the UV lamp such as heat and price. It wouldn't be nearly as "set and forget" as some people *cough*B.A.*cough* would like, but thats never a problem for us 'enthusiasts', right? Even if you used just one of the two, it'd probably work well.


I may have had more too add, but I'm in one of those :shrug:-type of modes. Also, if you want to point out any inconsistencies or whatnot, I'd prefer constructive criticism rather than getting a skewering stick up the rear

[slavik]

the UV lamp makes sense to me ... I don't enough to comment on the bacteria but it sounds good

[cloaked]

very interesting idea. I dont know enough about that stuff to tell you if it would actually work, but nonetheless,
The only problem I can see is that any filter capable of getting 5 micron particles out is going to have a serious effect on flow rates...
Can you imagine pumping through a Brita-type filter?

[DrMemory]

Only short wave UV kills bacteria. I'm not sure if it kills algae. Short wave UV also damages eyes and some plastics. Long wave UV (used in "black lights") won't kill bacteria and won't damage eyes. If the UV source (such as UV LEDs) can be used without any special safety requirements it probably will not kill the "bugs" either.

[Althornin]

Originally Posted by HiProfile

I've been thinking lately about the growth that can appear in closed loops. Currently the best way AFAIK to kill & remove/prevent this growth is a *sol enema or a $90+ UV lamp that uses toxic mercury vapor tubes that effectively die in a year AND heats up quite a bit. ...And are probably harmful to some materials we have in our PCs...

Since UV LED's are very cheap on ebay, and UV sterilization is normally spec'd for treating the substance once, wouldn't UV LED's work for a closed loop? We're not looking for 99.9% elimination, just preventing blooms [relative to the size of our systems ]. I know the main issue is that the common LEDs atm are 380-395nm wavelength (UV-A), while most UV lamps are in the 200's (UV-C). My argument in favor for UV-A based sterilization is thus: while UV-C is way over 1000 times more 'toxic' as UV-A, it also can't penetrate nearly as well. Using a barrage of 5mm LEDs surrounding (or inside) a slim res would definately be able to cause the microbes damage, no? They'd also be treated for a while in the res as well as over and over. Also, they usually rate the UV lamp to kill *everything*, and I don't think that algae are as resistant to UV-A as the bacteria the lamps will kill. I can't confirm this, since I can't find any info on UV treatment that actually lists the longest effective UV wavelength for kill each general type of organism. One last thing, if the handheld UV sterilizers work to any extent, it may spell hope for UV-A, since I doubt those units can produce much UV-B (both legally & theoretically), let alone UV-C. I'm betting they twist the guidelines for tanning beds to cover those units.

The other discovery I made was, albeit nothing new, a source for benificial bateria. I was just doing a quick search and found this for $25 (scroll down to Microbe-Lift). On top of killing the growth, it also removes ammonia. While I also found a nice site showing the size of some common alga species, which are around 5 microns on average. It wouldn't be too hard to rig up a replacement element from a basic drinking water filtration system or just get a filter from mcmaster, which could filter the dead guys out when flushing the system with your *sol enema.

I believe that a combo of the two (LED's and bacteria, used in succession) would be cheaper and more effective than a normal UV lamp. I also think it'd address the negatives of the UV lamp such as heat and price. It wouldn't be nearly as "set and forget" as some people *cough*B.A.*cough* would like, but thats never a problem for us 'enthusiasts', right? Even if you used just one of the two, it'd probably work well.


I may have had more too add, but I'm in one of those :shrug:-type of modes. Also, if you want to point out any inconsistencies or whatnot, I'd prefer constructive criticism rather than getting a skewering stick up the rear

i suggest you search and find the thread here in which we talked about most of this.

[Kobuchi]

People get algae because they build systems better suited to hydroponic culturing than cooling. Clear tubes of warmed water, bathed in dazzling light - what is that?

We've been canning for over a century now and should know better. The main thing is to get it right from go: Sterilise the vessels, tops, etc. with boiling water. Sterilise ingredients by bringing to a boil. Seal. Keep away from excessive heat and light. One can store up chunks of salmon at room temperature this way and safely eat them next year. No need to bring in high tech solutions for a problem already well understood and solved by farm-wives a hundred years ago.

[HiProfile]

The problem with applying ideas for canning to watercooling is that in canning, you don't have to actually touch the ingredients, and the ingredients can be sealed while they are over 240F. I can live for 120 years if I live a perfectly controlled life, but as such with watercooling, its not very feasable. Plus, all it takes is one surviving microbe to start a colony.

As for UV being harmul to humans, thats a pretty obvious fact, but I was thinking about the lights being cast in a resin 'sheet' and put in a nontransparent container resistant to UV rays. It would basicly be a high flow version of those UV sterilization frog fountains.

If you reread the filter part, I was saying to use it only when you flush the system, since very few 5 micron filter elements for <$30 can flow much water at all, plus they're bulky. Its basicly a supplament for scrubbing every inch of the system, so that you make sure no loosened particles can flow back into the system. Sterilizing each part individually would be great, but afterwards we have to carry them through our 'dirty' enviroment, as well as touch them with our filty hands (granted you could wear gloves).

And yes, I've searched for previous threads and read the other big ones, but they focus on the normal sterilization 'standards', which is focused more on bacteria rather than algae. Algae isn't a big issue on salmon fillets, nor is it particularlly dangerous unless in giant blooms. If you want me to, I can try resurecting the old threads, but I doubt I'd be able to steer them into how UV-A will kill just algae, rather than their current (past) course of all-around sterilization. The whole premise for UV sterilization is to clean things that are prone to bacterial growth, not algae - thats not what we need to be killing in our loops... I guess by starting 'another thread', I was bound to not get my message though despite wanting to focus the discussion differently.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Althornin

i suggest you search and find the thread here in which we talked about most of this.

And I'd suggest you not quote a long post in its entirety - particularly if you have a one line comment. At least it wasn't "me too". C'mon - some of the guys here are on dialup.

[DrMemory]

There's no reason to cast the UV lights in resin. Just put it in a box that has a safety switch to turn them off when it is opened. Makes changing the lamps a whole lot easier too.

No, it is not obvious to a lot of people that UV is harmfull. Most of the UV that people are exposed to (outside of tanning booths) is from black lights, which is not harmfull.

[Althornin]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

And I'd suggest you not quote a long post in its entirety - particularly if you have a one line comment. At least it wasn't "me too". C'mon - some of the guys here are on dialup.

My gosh, sorry -
Its TEXT. - less than 3k. puh-lease.

And my comment was worthwhile (more than yours, imo), because alot of this has been talked about already, extensively, and that information would be useful. Sorry i didn't do the search for them though - here is the thread in question:

UV Light to Kill W/C Bacteria

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Althornin

...And my comment was worthwhile (more than yours, imo)...

You're absolutely right - however I do find a posting where someone doesn't bother to edit a long quote and suggests looking for a previous thread, but also doesn't bother to supply a reference, hmmm... less than useful, particularly on a slow connection. And, yep, mine was probably even less useful than that (pretty low on the totem pole, hunh?)

[HiProfile]

Originally Posted by Althornin

My gosh, sorry -
Its TEXT. - less than 3k. puh-lease.

And my comment was worthwhile (more than yours, imo), because alot of this has been talked about already, extensively, and that information would be useful. Sorry i didn't do the search for them though - here is the thread in question:

UV Light to Kill W/C Bacteria

That was the one that got me thinking about this stuff. All they talk about in there is the ratings for the expensive, hot, & evironment unfriendly UV tubes and how well they'd work using formulas based on on-pass sterilizing meat (except for the % killed, but thats using the % of all organic microbes, not algae). Killing bacteria is all good & well, but its not the bacteria that forms massive visible colonies. Its also the bacteria that is much more resistant to UV-A rays. I'll admit error on my part not including "LED" in the title. At least I tried.

[Althornin]

Originally Posted by HiProfile

That was the one that got me thinking about this stuff. All they talk about in there is the ratings for the expensive, hot, & evironment unfriendly UV tubes and how well they'd work using formulas based on on-pass sterilizing meat (except for the % killed, but thats using the % of all organic microbes, not algae). Killing bacteria is all good & well, but its not the bacteria that forms massive visible colonies. Its also the bacteria that is much more resistant to UV-A rays. I'll admit error on my part not including "LED" in the title. At least I tried.

nah, it's all good.
some of the pages i reference in that thread have charts on %killed for various micro-organisms, including algae.
Might want to take another look.
EDIT: And damn, one of the most valuable links in that thread had moved - I found a new source for it - HERE



And bobkoure - yes, i should have linked to the thread in the first place - my bad

[CoolROD]

In the UV thread we talked about UV LEDs. I think the energy required to be beneficial dictated MANY LEDs. But if you want to be unique --> I don't know of anybody that has tried it...

I think the biggest drawbacks of the sterilizers are the size, initial cost, and the eventual replacement cost of the bulbs. Mine is huge! (Not phalic)

[ferdb]

I just run my water loop at 100c all the time and I don't have any algae buildup. The only problem I had was the first time I ran 3DMark05 and a steam explosion scalded the cat. Simple solutions from simple minds ;-)

[gruntledweasel]

Bear in mind, with the UV you are trying to overcome a reaction barrier (break organic bonds in the creepy-crawlies). If a given photon does not have enough energy (low enough wavelength) to overcome said barrier when it crashes into that bond, adding more photons will not get you anywhere. You will just have a whole lot more photons failing to break the bond. So essentially, with LEDs, it's not so much trying to add so many LEDs that the intensity compensates for the greater wavelength as adding so many LEDs that the miniscule fraction of low wavelength light that the things manage to produce actually becomes significant. Although this solution might have the potential to add a lot of bling to the setup, I don't think it will be that useful in killing microbes.

If you're looking for cheap, look for guides online to building an EPROM eraser. I posted a few links in one of the old UV threads. They usually suggest getting a germicidal fluorescent lamp that screws in to a plain old 4w fluorescent bulb socket, probably for less than $15 total. Biggest problem for a DIY solution is probably mounting the light in such a way that the UV isn't blocked by something we usually think of as "clear" (like a reservoir wall). Oh, and making really sure you can't end up getting an eyefull of the light, of course.

[Turbokeu]

Originally Posted by gruntledweasel

Bear in mind, with the UV you are trying to overcome a reaction barrier (break organic bonds in the creepy-crawlies). If a given photon does not have enough energy (low enough wavelength) to overcome said barrier when it crashes into that bond, adding more photons will not get you anywhere. You will just have a whole lot more photons failing to break the bond. So essentially, with LEDs, it's not so much trying to add so many LEDs that the intensity compensates for the greater wavelength as adding so many LEDs that the miniscule fraction of low wavelength light that the things manage to produce actually becomes significant. Although this solution might have the potential to add a lot of bling to the setup, I don't think it will be that useful in killing microbes.

If you're looking for cheap, look for guides online to building an EPROM eraser. I posted a few links in one of the old UV threads. They usually suggest getting a germicidal fluorescent lamp that screws in to a plain old 4w fluorescent bulb socket, probably for less than $15 total. Biggest problem for a DIY solution is probably mounting the light in such a way that the UV isn't blocked by something we usually think of as "clear" (like a reservoir wall). Oh, and making really sure you can't end up getting an eyefull of the light, of course.

Yeah, forget about UV-LEDs for killing microbes or algae...
You NEED UV-C wavelengths.
EPROM eraser lamps are OK (germinal UV-C).

I used several types of UV-C sterilizers in my marine fishtank.
The problem with UV-C light and bacterias (don't know for algae) is that they need to be exposed a minimum time to be effective. Also UV-C is rapidly blocked by a quite small layer of water, as do transparent materials as PVC or glass (UV-C tubes are made of quartz, that's why they're expensive).

So, for a UV-C sterilizer to be effective you need:
- Low flow around the lamp
- Small layer of liquid around the lamp

And don't worry about the remaining visible light on the outside of a transparent sterilizer, there's no more UV-C present...

CD

[ferdb]

You can also buy Flexelene Silver antimicrobial tubing from Cole Parmer which is a silver impregnated flexible tubing that keeps stuff from growing on the tubing. How this stuff would respond to galvanic corrosion I have no idea however.

[Althornin]

Originally Posted by Turbokeu

Yeah, forget about UV-LEDs for killing microbes or algae...
You NEED UV-C wavelengths.
EPROM eraser lamps are OK (germinal UV-C).

I used several types of UV-C sterilizers in my marine fishtank.
The problem with UV-C light and bacterias (don't know for algae) is that they need to be exposed a minimum time to be effective. Also UV-C is rapidly blocked by a quite small layer of water, as do transparent materials as PVC or glass (UV-C tubes are made of quartz, that's why they're expensive).

So, for a UV-C sterilizer to be effective you need:
- Low flow around the lamp
- Small layer of liquid around the lamp

And don't worry about the remaining visible light on the outside of a transparent sterilizer, there's no more UV-C present...

CD

no, it has nothing to do with time, and everything to do with the "irradiation dose", IE, total amount recieved at one time.
You can have high flow, as long as you have high enough intensity.
(note that almost all manufacturers of UV-C lights for aquarium use give max recommended flowrates and tank sizes, which gives us some good boundaries to look at).

here is a graph that can give you (eventually) flow rate/vs kill off, if you do some math (see previous linked thread for some of the math) - note that graph A is for 270nm light)





Here is a graph that shows, among other things, the lethality per quantum of light at various frequencies:


Note that the OP was incorrect, it appears that UV-A is not merely 1000's of times less lethal, but more like 100,000 to 1,000,000 times less lethal per quantum.

This means intensity of 100,000+ times greater is needed - effectively meaning that to sterilize as effectively as a 4 watt UV-C device (about the smallest that would work in a standard WC system, according to my calcs, again see other thread) you would need 400,000 to 4,000,0000 watts of UV-A LEDs.
This is impractical, to say the least (unless you can line your tubing with a million UV-A LEDs, LOL)



Graph Source