Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Brian_68]

I can't imagine any scenario where UWC could provide an answer that disputes what has been found here. For years they couldn't provide any scientific literature or answers on anything. They are somehow the only humans on Earth to develop a brand new bacteria that only eats algae and magically, that bacteria can never be found in multiple bottles when tested.

UWC has a few choices in my opinion.

1) Be standup. Confess to everything and take the cards they're dealt after. Likely losing their business in the end.

2) Don't confirm or deny the findings but change the label to better represent their product. (This confirms the findings here but they don't publicly issue a statement.)

3) Continue down their path of false advertisement and misrepresentation. This likely ends up poorly for them as well.

Or just stop selling and remain quiet. It has been out of stock on their site for a bit.

 

[GARRIGA]

Or just stop selling and remain quiet. It has been out of stock on their site for a bit.

That’s the approach I’d take.

 

[rtparty]

Or just stop selling and remain quiet. It has been out of stock on their site for a bit.

And lose their business in the end. Also, confirming the findings here.

But they may avoid legal issues this way

 

[ScottB]

QA polymers bind phosphate in a form more easily exported by skimmers.

That actually explains an interesting part of the puzzle, thank you.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That actually explains an interesting part of the puzzle, thank you.

Just to reiterate, I disagree that this explains any observations of the product in seawater.

 

[LRT]

I can't imagine any scenario where UWC could provide an answer that disputes what has been found here. For years they couldn't provide any scientific literature or answers on anything. They are somehow the only humans on Earth to develop a brand new bacteria that only eats algae and magically, that bacteria can never be found in multiple bottles when tested.

UWC has a few choices in my opinion.

1) Be standup. Confess to everything and take the cards they're dealt after. Likely losing their business in the end.

2) Don't confirm or deny the findings but change the label to better represent their product. (This confirms the findings here but they don't publicly issue a statement.)

3) Continue down their path of false advertisement and misrepresentation. This likely ends up poorly for them as well.

For sure. Guess we will just have to see.
I know just enough about chemistry to get me in trouble in the chemistry forum so ill leave those comments to the scientists and chemists.
To be real in my heart of hearts I dont want to see malice on anyone's part and hoping there is a reasonable explanation given. That being said, if it is determined that an algecide that acts as a mulloscicide is found. For me it is negligible, especially if Vibrant knows and wasn't transparent about it.

 

[ScottB]

Just to reiterate, I disagree that this explains any observations of the product in seawater.

Thanks for catching that then. Please elaborate?

I was thinking that this potential binding feature might explain why several (including me) witnessed a general LOWERING of nutrients -- and PO4 in particular. (Granted, there was no control testing, just a pile of anecdotes).

 

[MichaelReefer]

Like others have said, if its too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[Malcontent]

I do wonder if UWC's conduct crosses the line into criminal fraud. Some of the most egregious deceptive advertising cases have done so. That would be a great incentive to circle wagons and clam up.

 

[Jeeperz]

There's certainly nothing wrong with taricha copying his three experimental segments and putting them in the first three posts of a new thread there.

Don't know about locking it, but we could do that if it was desired by taricha.

How about making it a sticky so it stays at the top?

 

[GARRIGA]

I’d be cautious with how others are informed to protect oneself legally. Likely no risk in stating one’s own experience but outright calling a manufacturer a liar or claiming one knows this because of a thread on the internet might be riskier than most care to wager. I for one won’t.

What one possibly can do is file a claim with the EPA citing this thread and it’s findings then letting them determine the validity and consequences that must fall on the manufacturer as to labeling and very likely recalling all products still in circulation.

Taking on a personal crusade regardless how noble might cause issues not expected depending on how it’s taken. Manufacturers can sue for defamation of character. Not saying UWC would or could. Just something each should consider before going on a tell all the truth crusade.

Not a lawyer but have seen where a company has gone after others for trying to hurt their business. Just bringing a possible perspective and not directive.

 

[RyonFly]

They've had plenty of opportunities to clarify or refute the evidence shown here, even said they would.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks for catching that then. Please elaborate?

I was thinking that this potential binding feature might explain why several (including me) witnessed a general LOWERING of nutrients -- and PO4 in particular. (Granted, there was no control testing, just a pile of anecdotes).

I understand the desire to believe that, but I do not.

For 20 years, my professional job was to lead a team to come up with the best phosphate binding polymers we could, to treat hyperphosphatemia in people. We made and tested hundreds of novel polymers in search for the best. We did develop one (sevelamer; crosslinked polyallylamine) that became a very effective human therapy, selling billions of dollars worth of that drug.

That sort of research is described here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10601329908951201

The way it works is to have two positively charged amino groups spaced just about right (3 carbon atoms between them) to bind two of the negatively charged oxygen groups in phosphate (in the HPO4-- form). That gives it a preference to bind phosphate over chloride, which is the main competing ion in the human GI tract, since chloride can only bind one cationic amine at a time. while the phosphate can bind two (making binding stronger).

The polixetonium being discussed here would act in some ways similarly. It has two cations separated by 2 carbon atoms (not perfect, IMO, but pretty good), but it also has them in a form that works more poorly (the two methyl groups prevent close association of the phosphahte with the ammonium).

That said, here's the main driver of my opinion. Sevelamer works well to bind phosphate in the conditions of the GI tract where phosphate is much higher than in reef tanks (>100 ppm phosphate), and the competing ions of sulfate (almost none) and chloride (a few thousand ppm) are far, far lower. That makes it easier for sevelamer to bind phosphate.

I tried sevelamer in phosphate-containing seawater, and it was unable to bind significant phosphate. That did not surprise me, knowing the amount of phosphate bound to sevelamer as a function of the phosphate concentration (I think I show it in the paper above), but I wanted to be sure. None detectable.

I personally expect the polixetonium to bind similar or less phosphate in the sorts of tests I did simulating the GI tract, and it might well make skimmable complexes under those conditions (the sort of thing Craig was alluding to)

But in seawater, where very high sulfate concentrations (>2,000 ppm) will compete with phosphate (sulfate also has two negative charges with similar spacing) , I expect it is not going to appreciably export phosphate.

The polixetonium will bind to organic detritus, and might make that detritus more skimmable and hence may have a small phosphate and nitrate lowering effect over time, just like using GAC or Purigen. It may also act as a flocculant, make the water more clear.

 

[Jeeperz]

But in my defense. At the time I stated the peer review comment and what has brought so much attention. I didn't know who was who. To some extent. Still don't. Most importantly, I have no dog in this fight or bone to pick or as I like to summarize, no bone in this fight. Was merely commenting on what I thought was the prerequisite to actually do something about it. Just a discussion on a forum isn't going to accomplish what many think will happen which is to inform the public. Filing a claim with the EPA likely the best path now that I've been schooled on what a peer review encompasses. Would that not be the ultimate value?

Yeah, sounds like peer review really means nothing if those doing the review don't have to show their credentials. They could just be some schmuck with a degree or whatever but has zero experience or knowledge

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yeah, sounds like peer review really means nothing if those doing the review don't have to show their credentials. They could just be some schmuck with a degree or whatever but has zero experience or knowledge

At least with the NIH and high end journals, the reviewers are supposed to be experts in the field.

 

[ScottB]

I understand the desire to believe that, but I do not.

For 20 years, my professional job was to lead a team to come up with the best phosphate binding polymers we could, to treat hyperphosphatemia in people. We made and tested hundreds of novel polymers in search for the best. We did develop one (sevelamer; crosslinked polyallylamine) that became a very effective human therapy, selling billions of dollars worth of that drug.

That sort of research is described here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10601329908951201

The way it works is to have two positively charged amino groups spaced just about right (3 carbon atoms between them) to bind two of the negatively charged oxygen groups in phosphate (in the HPO4-- form). That gives it a preference to bind phosphate over chloride, which is the main competing ion in the human GI tract, since chloride can only bind one cationic amine at a time. while the phosphate can bind two (making binding stronger).

The polixetonium being discussed here would act in some ways similarly. It has two cations separated by 2 carbon atoms (not perfect, IMO, but pretty good), but it also has them in a form that works more poorly (the two methyl groups prevent close association of the phosphahte with the ammonium).

That said, here's the main driver of my opinion. Sevelamer works well to bind phosphate in the conditions of the GI tract where phosphate is much higher than in reef tanks (>100 ppm phosphate), and the competing ions of sulfate (almost none) and chloride (a few thousand ppm) are far, far lower. That makes it easier for sevelamer to bind phosphate.

I tried sevelamer in phosphate-containing seawater, and it was unable to bind significant phosphate. That did not surprise me, knowing the amount of phosphate bound to sevelamer as a function of the phosphate concentration (I think I show it in the paper above), but I wanted to be sure. None detectable.

I personally expect the polixetonium to bind similar or less phosphate in the sorts of tests I did simulating the GI tract, and it might well make skimmable complexes under those conditions (the sort of thing Craig was alluding to)

But in seawater, where very high sulfate concentrations (>2,000 ppm) will compete with phosphate (sulfate also has two negative charges with similar spacing) , I expect it is not going to appreciably export phosphate.

The polixetonium will bind to organic detritus, and might make that detritus more skimmable and hence may have a small phosphate and nitrate lowering effect over time, just like using GAC or Purigen. It may also act as a flocculant, make the water more clear.

Your explanation makes sense to me. Which is saying something. Somewhere along in your career, you must have had to explain this science to layman boneheads like me.

 

[homer1475]

Your explanation makes sense to me. Which is saying something. Somewhere along in your career, you must have had to explain this science to layman boneheads like me.

Thats beacuse he's been doing it for 20+ years in the chem forums here, and back on RC. lol

 

[Eagle_Steve]

Thats beacuse he's been doing it for 20+ years in the chem forums here, and back on RC. lol

Yup. Having to explain things to a redneck like me, that likes to say "hold my beer" will do that lol.

But in all seriousness, the work by @taricha, the comments of others and especially @Randy Holmes-Farley is very informative and allows for others on here to see things we could have never seen or done ourselves.

It is much appreciated.

 

[Malcontent]

California Plagued With 'Frooty' Lawsuits

Plaintiffs drag companies into court with allegations of missing crunchberries, low fruit content.

www.forbes.com

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Your explanation makes sense to me. Which is saying something. Somewhere along in your career, you must have had to explain this science to layman boneheads like me.

lol

Thanks.