it woudl be kinda funky to have a hippy viv with all those colors!

 

Hi Dave...

Unless you can use a bulb that does not emit any UVB, you will need to severely limit the exposure of the frogs to the lighting system.
See for example...

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~blaustea/pdfs/HanBiotropica2007.pdf

Assessment of the Risk of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation to Amphibians. I. Dose-Dependent Induction of Hindlimb Malformations in the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)

You may be better off designing a system for a diurnal basking lizard (like Desert Iguanas) as they are much more tolerant of the UV exposure.


Ed

 

Thanks for that Ed, I was always under the impression that UVC or even UVA in high doses were the biggest concerns. I'll have to try and find it again but I remember reading something online that suggested that a typical novelty black light, like the standard GE brand bulbs you get at Wal-mart puts out a similar uv profile to a standard UV reptile bulb like a Zoo med 5.0. Do you have any info on that, whether it is correct...or can you point me in the direction of where I'm likely to find it? I'll do my own search also of course.

Another thing I'm wondering about concerning the UV risk is whether glass tops eliminate most of the risk because of how they typically block a high percentage of some UV wavelengths. If I remember correctly its mostly uva? but I know unless its special acrlyic (like op-4)or glass they both block a high percentage of UVB. I think at least with other materials (not sure about minerals) even with the glass blocking the way you still get the fluorescent effect. I believe this was the case in my desert viv with the glowing calci sand effect...even with glass under the black light I still got the glow. Was I still getting the uv? Would this occur with the mineral materials, like it did the calci sand and whatever chemical they coat that stuff in?

So if we can in fact get the effect while glass or acrylic tops block most of the harmful UV (leaving only safe incidental amounts), this would address most of those safety concerns would it not?

 

Ok I got this from wiki that makes me feel a little better about it all...though looks like I was mostly wrong on the UVA issue.


"While "black lights" do produce light in the UV range, their spectrum is confined to the longwave UVA region. UVA is considered[by whom?] the safest of the three spectra of UV light, though high exposure is linked to development of skin cancer. UVA light is much lower in energy and does not cause sunburn. UVA is capable of causing damage to collagen fibers, so it does have the potential to accelerate skin aging and cause wrinkles. UVA can also destroy vitamin A in the skin.[citation needed]
UVA light can cause DNA damage, but not directly like UVB and UVC. Due to its longer wavelength, it is absorbed less and reaches deeper skin layers (the leather skin), where it produces reactive chemical intermediates, such as hydroxyl and oxygen radicals, which in turn can damage DNA and result in a high risk of melanoma. The weak output of black lights, though, should not cause DNA damage or cellular mutations the way sunlight can, although there are reports stating that the type of UV radiation used for suntan (UVA) can cause DNA damage, photoaging (damage to the skin from chronic exposure to sunlight) and skin cancer [1] as well as toughening of the skin, suppression of the immune system, and cataract formation after overexposure.[2]"

 

I found this also...

"Glass and UV protection
Most people believe that ordinary window glass blocks UV radiation, making any other UV protection unnecessary indoors. This is half-truth at best. Window glass blocks UVB but lets much of UVA through. The percentage of UVA that passes depends on the type of glass and the type of coating on the glass. Window glass falls into three major categories: ordinary (clear) glass, reflective glass (allows to see in one direction much better than in the opposite one), and tinted glass. While all these types of glass block UVB, their capacity to block UVA varies considerably. As architectural fashion keeps moving towards larger windows, the impact of these differences is continuing to grow.

Clear glass allows up to 75% of UVA to pass. Tinted and reflective glass absorbs more of the UVA but still allows about 25-50% to pass; they also have the shortcoming of blocking more of the visible light than clear glass. There is also the so-called Low-E (low-emissivity) glass, developed to minimize heating and cooling costs. As far as UV is concerned, regular Low-E (the ones w/o special anti-UV coating, etc.) behaves similarly to clear glass: most UVB is blocked, most UVA gets through.

The best protection comes from the types of glass specially geared towards blocking UV rays, such as laminated glass and UV-blocking coated glass. Both filter out from 95 to 99% of all UV light. Neither is common in residential or commercial structures. Laminated glass, made of two layers of glass with a plastic layer in between, is used in some public buildings, such as airports and museums; it is also used for automobile windshields. UV-blocking coated glass is also used largely in special circumstances. All in all, whenever indoors, don't assume protection from the windows against UVA unless you know that special glass in installed."

Source: Ultraviolet radiation indoors: What you don't know can hurt you.

 

So If all this is to be believed, it looks to me like with typical glass under a black light given its relatively low output as is we eliminate most of the potential harm from UVB. Would you agree Ed? Now how dangerous are the amounts of UVA that a typical black light puts out after we consider that roughly 25% will be blocked by glass? I suppose if affordable sources of glass that block most all uv spectrums can be found that would be the way to go assuming the black light effect would still work...but maybe it won't without the uva...which is what I'm guessing is responsible for most of the effect if I'm getting it with the calci sand through glass on my desert viv.

 

Ok I just ran a quick experiment. I got a florescent orange fishing bobber and put it in a box and then laid a piece of a glass top off a vivarium over the box and waved a 6in black light over it...still glows brightly. So either minimal uvb is needed for the effect or its mostly produced from UVA or near UV spectrums. If this will work with mineral specimens that are supposed to fluoresce under long wave uv remains to be seen since I don't have any to try but my guess is that it will still work. I would point out though that some minerals only fluoresce under short wave UV or they change colors depending on whether it is short UV or Long UV. Anyone looking to experiment with this in a vivarium need to be sure they get minerals that are supposed to fluoresce the desired color under long wave UV.

We are still left with the question of blacklight/UVA safety over glass for our animals though. (If I've given sufficient reason not to fear UVB)

 

UVA is readily passed through standard glass which is why you are seeing the flourescence of the bobber.

In other animals, even long term low dose exposure to UVA can cause significant amount damage as the damage is cumulative over time... Some of the possible items are degredation of A and D3 in the tissues..
For example check out this abstract Elsevier

There are some ways to get around this sort of problem such as setting up a false background which would have an clear polycarbonate panel to allow for the flourescence to be readily seen but prevents the transmission of the UVA to the frogs. As an alternative have you considered using spot LEDs which would allow it to be tightly focused which would also allow the frogs to avoid exposure to the UV?

Ed

 

Interesting idea. This reminds me of your leopard gecko vivarium.

Would blue (actinic) lights from the reef hobby work for your idea? Compare what you are trying to do with the middle video in the link: GloFish® Fluorescent Fish Video

Read the last part of this link: Actinic light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This link may be of some use as well, although I honestly didnt read it, i just skipped around reading parts and looking at pictures:
http://www.manhattanreefs.com/forum....com/forum/reefs-magazine/72345-photographing-fluorescence-aquarium-corals.html

 

Don't even go with a black light get a reef based actinic light or some Blue LEDs for reef lighting.....I had UVI Super actinic T-5s on my old reef tank and the Fluorescence was amazing.....Even better was my Reef Brite blue LED bar which was 10x better then the Florescent lights I had and made my tank look like a black light poster.....I think the actinic bulbs will be safer in the end and get pretty close to the same results I think anything that measures 420 nm to 450 nm will give the fluorescents you are looking for.....

 

I just did an image search for Labradorite, and if the slab you ordered is anything like this picture I found on wikipedia, your viv will look amazing even under normal light.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/LabradoriteAMD.jpg/664px-LabradoriteAMD.jpg

 

Its similar, thats a bit nicer piece then I got...I couldn't copy over the ebay pic it appears protected. It was $7 though. One of the cheaper prices I saw for a piece around that size so I figured I'd get it to look at, hold, get a feel for what I may be able to do with it. I'll collect more nice/cheap pieces as opportunities arise and probably do a 10 gal with several pieces and a scape designed around the labradorite.

 

I'm not sure but I think the main difference between an actinic and a black light is usually only that the black light has an extra coating or special glass composed of "woods glass" to block the visible light. This is what separates "bug lights" from your typical novelty black light...other then one blocking more visible light they are essentially the same. You'll notice that the actinic lights for reefs look very much the same color and have very much the same effect as a "bug light". There for it is quite possible that the difference between an actinic and a novelty black light is only the amount of visible light allowed to pass through. It seems likely were are getting similar levels of UV with either light. Many people have been using actinic lights on vivariums with no ill effect noticed so far. My guess is though an actinic would work for fluorescing minerals if you don't mind the extra visible light...in fact alone or in combination with other lights this may provide a cool daytime effect instead of restricting ourselves to only a brief night time viewing window.

BTW...I scanned the pdf and read the abstract on the website Ed mentioned. The pdf seemed to be entirely concerned with UVB which I think we've got a work around there with the glass top, if Ed agrees. I did notice however that it posited that some darts may have uv sensitive receptors in their eyes...what I scanned only mentioned this in relation to uvb but it seems possible they may also be able to detect levels of UVA and this may have some effect on their behavior and have implications with using actinic or black lights with frogs.

In the website abstract I saw this...
" no significant treatment-related mortality occurred under any of the other exposure regimes, including 100% sunlight with glass or acrylamide filtration." This would seem to include the UVA exposure regime and it correlates with the wiki material suggesting that UVA doesn't cause DNA damage, so we can probably at least dismiss that fear regarding UVA.

 

here is an excerpt form a site talking about bulb spectrums...

"Philips Actinic 03 or Super Actinic 03 (color code 03) - This lamp makes mostly violet and violet-blue light. The color is a slightly dim and not extremely deep violetish blue. I get an irritation/"pressure" sensation when I look at this lamp directly at close range. I have seen this lamp sold for illuminating aquariums with live coral, which require deep-blue and/or violet-blue light. Although this lamp has a "blacklight" effect, this is due to visible violet and not ultraviolet. I suspect this lamp is also used for some photographic/photochemical industrial processes.
The phosphor band's spectrum seems basically confined to the 400 to 480 nM range, with most of the output between 410 and 435 nm. The peak seems to be in the 415 to 420 nm range (bluish violet). There is a very weak spectral line around 610 nm in the red-orange."

 

Some resources for those interested, including info on, calculating energy from sunlight, blacklights, uv radiation, reptile lighting, what materials block UV and GE blacklight bulb specs and wavelengths...

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/sun12.htm
http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resources/literature_library/product_brochures/downloads/UVA_Lamps.pdf

Reptile Lighting

Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...................

In addition I'm thinking of ordering an 8x10 piece of ACRYLITE AR OP-3 which is supposed to block 98% of uv to test whether or not various objects will still glow when this material is placed between them and a blacklight. I'm wondering how much the near Uv frequencies account for the glow of various material. If we can block most UV but still get a useful glow off minerals that should ease any safety concerns based on lighting.

Also anyone with a science background, can you look at the GE pdf, especially the UVA lamp range and Irradiance, W/cm nm graph and glean from that an idea how these bulbs would compare to the suns uva output at the distances we use them? Thats over my pay grade unfortunately.

I found this measurement in the first link "the nominal value of the solar constant is 137 mW/cm2"...at first glance this might suggest that the GE bulbs are 5 times stronger then the sun, but their measurement is tagged with "@20cm" and thats the total for all solar wavelengths not just UVA...which I'm guessing completely negates that 5x assumption since at 20cm from the sun UVA would be the least of our concerns

 

In addition I'm thinking of ordering an 8x10 piece of ACRYLITE AR OP-3 which is supposed to block 98% of uv to test whether or not various objects will still glow when this material is placed between them and a blacklight. I'm wondering how much the near Uv frequencies account for the glow of various material. If we can block most UV but still get a useful glow off minerals that should ease any safety concerns based on lighting.

Dave is there any reason you are not googling up the frequency at which the specific mineral glows? I have a hard time thinking that this hasn't already been worked out. The frequency at which the acrylic prevents transmission should also be somewhere so you can easily compare the two.

Ed

 

Oh btw I think I'd be remiss if I didn't point out another potential danger... I think there is a real chance of making some tacky gaudy God awful vivs with these materials...consider yourself warned, and only attempt this at extreme risk of embarrassment

 

Dave,

I think you need to look at all of the artificial colors of plastic plants and ornaments available for fish tanks and ponder the effect when a UV source is added to cause them to flouresce... (like these Glo-Lite Aquarium Plant) particularly if you add some dyed glow in the dark fish...

I doubt you will be able to top those tanks unless you really go overboard and include a laminated black velvet poster of a technicolor clown in the tank... Google Image Result for http://www.velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/2004EBAY/images/Clown-SmHat-BrnFrm30.jpg

Ed

 

If you wanted to use just a single piece of mineral or rock you could always use a Blue LED spot light that will have the same efffect thusly not hitting the whole tank with the light but just a narrow band of light. One of the issues with LEDs is the narrow light spread they put out.....I know most that are used with reefing have the same effect as the actinic but less spread.....Ofcourse it's through water though too...

LOL at your last post....So true.

 

Cool thread, I actually found some tiger's eye from my elementary school collection and put a couple of pieces in my 125G a few months ago. most are just around 1" or so, but they do catch your eye now and then.

 

Its been over 20 years since I had Mineralogy in college, but I'd be very careful adding any colorful rocks to a terrarium. Quart would be fine, but the green and blue minerals usually get their color from copper - which I know is toxic to orchids - no idea how toxic it would be to frogs, but why take the chance. A lot of yellow and orange minerals from the western half of the US are commonly sources for arsenic or mercury, both of which are highly toxic.

Best,

Chuck

 

Ya metals are a big concern of mine. I have some Labradorite coming in which has blue so I'll double check the content of that. Malachite was mentioned in the sister thread for this topic on dartfrogz. Someone said it was toxic. I saw it was a copper carbonate and I found that when ground the dust released contains the copper and can be toxic, I was unsure though if they were talking about malachite green which wiki says is unrelated to the mineral but is toxic...I'm also unsure as to whether much if any copper is likely to be released from a mineral sitting in damp substrate and/or with water running over it from a waterfall or normal misting. Would be good if someone had some knowledge about this and could comment on how much of a risk we are talking if any. I don't know if the errosion processes in the viv would be sufficient to release anything in toxic quantities or not, especially for specimens with decent spot on the hardness scale.

 

Copper might not do too well with the microfauna either. It is used in the fish world to basicly kill everything invertebrate wise . . .

 

Ya thats also my understanding...I just wish I could find some info on how likely it is for the copper to leech out into the viv in any harmful amount. I'll do some more digging, I just haven't had time the last few days...was in Arkansas to see family.

 

even a small amount will do a pretty good amount of damage.

 

i say instead of the funky glowing colors you just bling out the tank and put REAL diamonds, emeralds and rubies into the background and scattered along the floor of the vivarium

 

Dave, do you know if flourite (Fluorite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) would leach anything in the vivarium? I was going to get a quartz skull and hide it somewhere in a future vivarium but instead ended up buying a green flourite skull.

 

Well I'm no chemistry or geology expert for sure, but from what I can gather reading the wikis on it and the elements it is composed of it doesn't sound to me like it is probably much risk in that form. Especially given that calcium and fluorite are regularly ingested by people, and some grades of fluorite are used in cooking utensils...Its by no means a guarantee but to me that and some of the other info suggest to me it is likely safe especially if you aren't planning on grinding it up and dusting everything in the viv with the powder

Possible concerns I saw were it maybe somehow making the substrate/water more acidic or basic, and possibly leading to the glass in the viv being etched easier by mineral build up. I wasn't clear on which may be more likely. I didn't see much that suggested toxicity to me, but like I said I'm no geologist or chemist...I'm a lil more skewed towards biology, physics/cosmology in my general knowledge. We really need to get a geology/chem guy in here, I think Aaron from frog farm was into geology wasn't he?

 

Thanks for the replies. I probably wont use it in a viv anyways. I set it in one to get a feel for how it would look and it pretty much looked out of place. At least it got the conversation moving into new areas by thinking about soluble vs insoluble minerals.

 

I wish I had jumped in sooner. I'm a geologist and collect mineral and rock specimens. I enjoy it almost as much as dart frogs (almost). Malachite and Azurite are both copper carbonate hydroxide minerals and they will leach copper into water at a high enough rate to be dangerous to animals. Copper and zinc are both highly toxic at low concentrations to aquatic invertebrates.

Copper is used in the freshwater fish hobby to kill parasites and bacteria on fish, but one has to be careful of the concentration in the treatment water because it can also kill the fish if it's high enough.

Also, I didn't read every post, but I didn't see anyone mention that many of the minerals that fluoresce best are radioactive and contain uranium or thorium molecules in the crystal structure. After a few weeks of exposure, your frogs might glow without the lights.

Silicate minerals would be the most stable, with quartz (SiO2) being one of the most stable minerals in the crust. Fluorite might be okay, but it is very brittle (having good cleavage in all three planes) and it has a low hardness, so it can be scratched by most rocks, so you have to be careful with it.

Most rocks are composed of silicate minerals, with darker minerals containing more iron and manganese as cations, while lighter minerals contain more sodium, potassium and calcium as cations. Rocks like granite contain primarily mica, quartz, and feldspar. All of these would be safe. A large mica specimen would look nice, and feldspars come in a wide variety of colors.

I'll stop for now...

 

Don't stop there is a lot of clarification in that post. Keep it going this way we all know and have something to go on....

 

Hey Dave,
Did you ever do a viv with any of these ideas? I am quite interested in maybe adding a few quartz accent to my next viv build.

 

Not yet. I have expensive tastes but I have several Ideas. Quartz is probably a good choice as long as it is't embedded in another mineral that might be toxic

While I am a huge lover of such mineral specimens, I think I'd be more concerned about chemical toxicity issues than any related to UV.

Don't forget that many are relatively pure chemical crystals, so have metal ions in concentrations that your amphibian friends would never see in nature.

I agree... I would seal up any that might be questionable with clear plasti-dip or a clear urethane spray. Make it water/air tight and I don't see how it is going to have a chance to do harm.

 

While I am a huge lover of such mineral specimens, I think I'd be more concerned about chemical toxicity issues than any related to UV.

Don't forget that many are relatively pure chemical crystals, so have metal ions in concentrations that your amphibian friends would never see in nature.