Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[LgTas]

We need a journal of Marine Aquaria for this!

 

[GARRIGA]

I think the peer review by quite a few knowledgeable scientists here is pretty strong. At least as strong as "peer review" I've received on some papers and grant applications.

If one really wants to poke at it, having some other person reproduce the work is always desirable. Lots of peer reviewed stuff ends up being wrong or at least not easy to reproduce. A simple NMR doesn't usually fit that description, but purely playing the devils advocate, taricha might be fabricating the whole story, maybe he got bottles returned to the store by someone who intentionally contaminated them, etc. In the realm of what "might" be true, it could be all sorts of things.

That said, IMO, the issue is settled unless someone (or some company) provides an alternative explanation or set of experimental results since the results are quite straightforward and complete.

Have to excuse me. I don’t know who are the scientist. Still getting to know the place.

My point on peer review goes back to a situation with the Lacey Act and reptiles of concern threatening the borders of Washington DC because a group of scientist said they would. None were peer reviewed. Had they been. That silliness would have been stopped and today we may not find the fish trade under the same attack.

I’m not claiming anyone one made anything up. Just pointing out that a formal peer review might hold better ground. Forums don’t in my mind fit that formality.

I also noted the manufacturer claiming it would provide clarity.

I have no bone in this fight. Nor an I trying to insult anyone. Just pointing out what I think should occur based on my actual experience. Something I will always rely on.

 

[drawman]

Personally I always felt that it was highly unlikely that a small aquarium maintenance company "developed" a unique product to keep their clients tanks clean between visits.

There are far more experienced professionals out there with the education and skills in the relevant fields of expertise that would have capitalized on this product if it was well known enough for a small service company to do so. Or maybe they did...

I can change the Toll House Chocolate Chip Cookie recipe by 1% and call it unique and proprietary.

A timeless discovery

More than 80 years later, Nestlé Toll House's Original Chocolate Chip Cookies are a true classic and a go-to recipe for all occasions.

www.nestle.com

Couldn't agree more. Can't imagine they have a big R&D budget over there in the tank cleaning space.

 

[Lasse]

I wonder if there is a mechanism for breakdown of it in our tanks. Or if possibly my use of ROX carbon removed it from water column.

As i see it - there is three major pathways for compounds like these to disappear from the water column.

1) WC
2) biological breakdown of the compound
3) precipitation or chemical bound into the substrate

According to the OP - this compound is not biodegradable
WC is not discussed

Left is the third pathway. This means that if you do not know the full pathway and neither know if the precipitation or chemical bounds could reverse itself. - you always have the risk that it will be released again into the water column. More than 1 dosage can be very harmful in this context.

Thank´s @taricha for your write up but probably I´m the only one that is glad that it shows up to be a normal pesticide - not a algae eating bacteria - or the nightmare - a bacteria consuming chlorophyll ot simulare agents for photosynthesis in a hobby product.

Is this the last time this or similar will happen? No way - as long as aquarist is keen to put in something into their living system that not have a declaration of content - this will happen again and again and again.

The Gordian knot you have to solve is which is most important to you - the health of your animals or someone's (someone who takes your money) manufacturing secrets. Table of contents should be a requirement to all hobbyist products - if not - do not use the product !!

Reviews is normally a very good way to find out if a product is what its producer says or not - but in the case with aquariums and chemical products it could be a catastrophe - especially if you do not know which chemical it is. All ecosystem present in an aquarium is different from aquarium to aquarium. A product can be harmless in one aquarium but deadly in another. You never know.

I had a fight with Tetra back in the 70:ties about General Tonic - a remedy they had at that time. It works well in most aquarium and was one of the most used antibacterial remedies in use at that time. However - the formula used at that time was deadly for some Malawian species - a thing that I discover the same day as my first born daughter come home from the maternity ward. It was a chaos in the living room, tubes, buckets. crying child (and parents) - friends that did not know if they should support the stressed father (for his fish) or the stressed mother (for her daughter and irritated husband). That childhood could have had a better start with other words. By the way - 45 years later - I´m still married (to the same wife) but the Malawi has gone a longtime ago. However - as I remember - Tetra changed their description (at least in the Swedish edition) in a way that they warned for use to African Cichlids.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

Nothing hurts worse than loosing that 6 year old derasa you paid $80 for from Live Aquaria when it was 2cm long,
…had I suspected a product caused such a death I’m looking for payback, period
…hate to sound all drama queen, but anything meant for a biological system should have ingredients listed NO Different than a consumable food product, proprietary so called trade secrets be dammed…
…I say responsible retailers should pull this junk from the shelves until they do

 

[ineption]

Considering uwc have downright lied about what there product is and a lot of people have lost a lot of live stock due to this deception.
I am surprised that quiet a few people expressed that they didn't care or that they had good results and would consider using vibrant again.
I personally think its despicable of what uwc have done and I hope they get Karma and everything they deserve! I would also say @BRS including Ryan had invited UWC owner to promote there magical creation & I distinctly remember owner saying that he had hired couple of scientist to find a bacteria strain that would consume the alage within a reef tank and apparently they succeeded and Vibrant was born. Wow looking at it back now I am just in shock on how can a person flat out lie like that.
Truth be told any UWC products should be discountinued immediately by any reef business that cares for the hobby and is not in it to make a quick buck. I for one have done my bit and @BRS should open a conversation & maybe even do investigates on Vibrant or just go ahead and stop selling it.

 

[Doctorgori]

^^^ BRS vids are a combination “research & infomercial” … they should add a “As Seen On TV” sticker to half that stuff..
I still watch and enjoy them tbh

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As i see it - there is three major pathways for compounds like these to disappear from the water column.

1) WC
2) biological breakdown of the compound
3) precipitation or chemical bound into the substrate

Such cationic polymers will bind to all negatively charges surfaces, which includes detritus and whole organisms(e.g.,. So export of either of those (by skimming, for example) will export the polymers too.

 

[Lasse]

So export of either of those (by skimming, for example) will export the polymers too.

Do you know how stable these bondings are - can the molecule detach and becoming active again, hence create higher concentration after multiply dosings? Bacteria that mineralize the attached organics - will that release ( temporary) the active substances again?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[jda]

This might not apply here, but this same substance appears to lose it's efficacy in freshwater pond type of situations in 30-45 days. In any case, it does appear to break down... eventually. I cannot find anything specific to saltwater.

 

[Lasse]

it does appear to break down

Or just get bound

Sincerely Lasse

 

[craigbingman]

One POTENTIAL issue is the use of 'dried' material. Its clear (to my reading) - that there is an ingredient in Algeafix that is the same (or very similar to that in vibrant). What is not clear is whether this process quantitates the amount. I guess it wasn't clear from the original write-up. Perhaps it does - I dont know. I also don't know how bacterial spores would react under this process. I think I do - and I think the results show it - but I dont know.

One thing that seems very clear - there is a chemical in Algaefix that is similar/identical to Vibrant. Since we know whats in algaefix - it seems logical that the chemical is the in vibrant. To me the question is 'concentration'

The sample was dried to get rid of as many water protons as possible. It was then redissolved in deuterium oxide, sometime called heavy water. The nuclear magnetic resonance properties of protons and deuterons are very different. This process decreases the strength of signal from water protons (typically over 100 molar concentration in aqueous samples) so the signal from the interesting protons bound to the compound of interest is more prominent. The concentration of the sample might be in the 1 to 100 millimolar range, so the water signal in an untreated sample might be 1,000 to 100,000 higher.So I’m not in the least concerned about them exchanging the sample into D2O. The quaternary ammonium polymer should redissolve easily, and if it didn’t, the lab would report that.

 

[a.t.t.r]

As i see it - there is three major pathways for compounds like these to disappear from the water column.

1) WC
2) biological breakdown of the compound
3) precipitation or chemical bound into the substrate

According to the OP - this compound is not biodegradable
WC is not discussed

Left is the third pathway. This means that if you do not know the full pathway and neither know if the precipitation or chemical bounds could reverse itself. - you always have the risk that it will be released again into the water column. More than 1 dosage can be very harmful in this context.

Thank´s @taricha for your write up but probably I´m the only one that is glad that it shows up to be a normal pesticide - not a algae eating bacteria - or the nightmare - a bacteria consuming chlorophyll ot simulare agents for photosynthesis in a hobby product.

Is this the last time this or similar will happen? No way - as long as aquarist is keen to put in something into their living system that not have a declaration of content - this will happen again and again and again.

The Gordian knot you have to solve is which is most important to you - the health of your animals or someone's (someone who takes your money) manufacturing secrets. Table of contents should be a requirement to all hobbyist products - if not - do not use the product !!

Reviews is normally a very good way to find out if a product is what its producer says or not - but in the case with aquariums and chemical products it could be a catastrophe - especially if you do not know which chemical it is. All ecosystem present in an aquarium is different from aquarium to aquarium. A product can be harmless in one aquarium but deadly in another. You never know.

I had a fight with Tetra back in the 70:ties about General Tonic - a remedy they had at that time. It works well in most aquarium and was one of the most used antibacterial remedies in use at that time. However - the formula used at that time was deadly for some Malawian species - a thing that I discover the same day as my first born daughter come home from the maternity ward. It was a chaos in the living room, tubes, buckets. crying child (and parents) - friends that did not know if they should support the stressed father (for his fish) or the stressed mother (for her daughter and irritated husband). That childhood could have had a better start with other words. By the way - 45 years later - I´m still married (to the same wife) but the Malawi has gone a longtime ago. However - as I remember - Tetra changed their description (at least in the Swedish edition) in a way that they warned for use to African Cichlids.

Sincerely Lasse

They are aware of the break down issue and the potential build up. Take a look at the instructions and how they push water changes with some random reasoning. It is suspicious.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Considering uwc have downright lied about what there product is and a lot of people have lost a lot of live stock due to this deception.
I am surprised that quiet a few people expressed that they didn't care or that they had good results and would consider using vibrant again.
I personally think its despicable of what uwc have done and I hope they get Karma and everything they deserve! I would also say @BRS including Ryan had invited UWC owner to promote there magical creation & I distinctly remember owner saying that he had hired couple of scientist to find a bacteria strain that would consume the alage within a reef tank and apparently they succeeded and Vibrant was born. Wow looking at it back now I am just in shock on how can a person flat out lie like that.
Truth be told any UWC products should be discountinued immediately by any reef business that cares for the hobby and is not in it to make a quick buck. I for one have done my bit and @BRS should open a conversation & maybe even do investigates on Vibrant or just go ahead and stop selling it.

You are leaving out the best part. They claim to have hired scientist to do with with no intent to sell the product!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Do you know how stable these bondings are - can the molecule detach and becoming active again, hence create higher concentration after multiply dosings? Bacteria that mineralize the attached organics - will that release ( temporary) the active substances again?

Sincerely Lasse

It is reversible, but reversal is quite slow (since many ionic bonds need to detach at the same time) and the unattached polymer is not the preferred form.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The sample was dried to get rid of as many water protons as possible. It was then redissolved in deuterium oxide, sometime called heavy water. The nuclear magnetic resonance properties of protons and deuterons are very different. This process decreases the strength of signal from water protons (typically over 100 molar concentration in aqueous samples) so the signal from the interesting protons bound to the compound of interest is more prominent. The concentration of the sample might be in the 1 to 100 millimolar range, so the water signal in an untreated sample might be 1,000 to 100,000 higher.So I’m not in the least concerned about them exchanging the sample into D2O. The quaternary ammonium polymer should redissolve easily, and if it didn’t, the lab would report that.

Thanks for chiming in, Craig.

For those who do not know him, Craig is an expert chemist who has been doing reefing chemistry articles and such for many years dating back to the old print magazines such as Aquarium Frontiers.

 

[Seneca]

Have to excuse me. I don’t know who are the scientist. Still getting to know the place.

My point on peer review goes back to a situation with the Lacey Act and reptiles of concern threatening the borders of Washington DC because a group of scientist said they would. None were peer reviewed. Had they been. That silliness would have been stopped and today we may not find the fish trade under the same attack.

I’m not claiming anyone one made anything up. Just pointing out that a formal peer review might hold better ground. Forums don’t in my mind fit that formality.

I also noted the manufacturer claiming it would provide clarity.

I have no bone in this fight. Nor an I trying to insult anyone. Just pointing out what I think should occur based on my actual experience. Something I will always rely on.

This probably isnt the best time to bring up the replication crises...

Raise standards for preclinical cancer research - Nature

C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis propose how methods, publications and incentives must change if patients are to benefit.

www.nature.com

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

but i certainly concur with Randy, NMR findings are very replicable. The only possibility at this point is that everything presented is just made up, and given that UWC isn't denying this up and down that is very telling.

 

[ReefGeezer]

If taricha is correct, I was fooled... I drank the kool-aid... again! I used Vibrant and recommended it to others. Seeing the data and reading the the responses of reviewers in this thread, and absent any response from the manufacturer, I have to accept that taricha is right. It is simply not enough that the product seemed to work. As it turns out, other products work the same way. In many cases I had stopped using them long ago due to unfavorable long term outcomes.

My thanks to taricha and those who reviewed and commented on the data. Great write-up. Great thread.

Shame on those who perpetrated and facilitated the Vibrant falsehood. Shame on me for falling for it.

 

[craigbingman]

As i see it - there is three major pathways for compounds like these to disappear from the water column.

1) WC
2) biological breakdown of the compound
3) precipitation or chemical bound into the substrate

According to the OP - this compound is not biodegradable
WC is not discussed

Left is the third pathway. This means that if you do not know the full pathway and neither know if the precipitation or chemical bounds could reverse itself. - you always have the risk that it will be released again into the water column. More than 1 dosage can be very harmful in this context.

Or it is removed at some rate by foam fractionation. This may have already been mentioned, but I haven't made it through the whole thread yet.

QACs are surfactants, and polymeric ones should be removed via FF even more efficiently.

 

[Seneca]

Although, ultimately, I guess it's for the best that UWC didn't create a bioweapon that could wipe out all the algae in the ocean if a few drops of vibrant made it to the sea.