Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Dennis Cartier]

2. As a Flocculant, people report clearer water pretty regularly. The yellowing compounds in saltwater water are forms of DOM that are slow to break down, and these kinds have higher Carbon ratios. If the product is aggregating this stuff, then by making it more concentrated, it will probably be more digestible by bacteria than in the dilute dissolved form. (Read a paper on this mechanism by GAC just this week.) This would result in a high Carbon food source for bacteria - that could in turn help lower other nutrients.

#2 could also make the nutrients more skim-able no? Just improving the skimmer efficiency for a period of time could give the impression that it is making nutrients crash, when in fact it is just because your skimmer is better able to skim.

It also may explain why not everyone see the effect as there will be a variety of skimmers and not all will be as capable (or maintained) as others.

 

[taricha]

#2 could also make the nutrients more skim-able no? Just improving the skimmer efficiency for a period of time could give the impression that it is making nutrients crash, when in fact it is just because your skimmer is better able to skim.

It also may explain why not everyone see the effect as there will be a variety of skimmers and not all will be as capable (or maintained) as others.

In a roundabout way, yes. The dissolved organics and any particulate organics don't show up on our test kits, and the inorganic nutrients in our test kits aren't candidates for flocculation or skimming. But the organics do slowly remineralize to forms that we can test. So if a compound aggregates dissolved and/or particulate organics and makes them more skimmable, then a slow release source of NO3, PO4, etc is removed.

In addition to the skimmer variation, everyone's water is a different amount of yellow, so there's considerable room for variation of effect. (if any of that actually happens.)

 

[ceaver]

In a roundabout way, yes. The dissolved organics and any particulate organics don't show up on our test kits, and the inorganic nutrients in our test kits aren't candidates for flocculation or skimming. But the organics do slowly remineralize to forms that we can test. So if a compound aggregates dissolved and/or particulate organics and makes them more skimmable, then a slow release source of NO3, PO4, etc is removed.

In addition to the skimmer variation, everyone's water is a different amount of yellow, so there's considerable room for variation of effect. (if any of that actually happens.)

I don't have a skimmer and I didn't see any impact on NO3 and PO4, as an anecdote that aligns with this. I had a lot of bubble algae and vibrant wiped it all out, but no real impact to inorganic nutrients.

 

[artman]

Thank you so much for this research. I have a PhD in chemistry from the Stanford chemistry department and am currently a full professor at Brown university. The data is extremely strong and convincing, especially the NMR data. Has this NMR result been reproduced by another scientist from independently generated samples? If so, then case closed in my view. I noticed my Chaeto seems to be permanently damaged in tanks treated with Vibrant. It stops growing even when the algaecide is discontinued even in the presence of 10ppm Nitrate and 0.1 ppm phosphate. Is this a known effect of this algaecide? And the dinos are off the hook. UV is necessary to beat them down. They seem to be the free floating UV sensitive dino variety.

 

[a.t.t.r]

One thing that is annoying is I tried to post a review on BRS about a month ago about my experience with this stuff and some of the details in the previous thread and they never allowed it to be posted.

 

[ceaver]

Carbon will likely bind some, yes, Other media such as GFO and aluminum oxide may also bind it.

Would something like KZ Coral Snow work to bind up the chemical and make it easier to export?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you so much for this research. I have a PhD in chemistry from the stanford chemistry department and am currently a full professor at Brown university. The data is extremely strong and convincing, especially the NMR data. Has this NMR result been independently reproduced by another scientist? If so, then case closed in my view. I noticed my Chaeto seems to be permanently damaged in tanks treated with Vibrant. It stops growing even when the algaecide is discontinued even in the presence of 10ppm Nitrate and 0.1 ppm phosphate. Is this a known effect of this algaecide? And the dinos are off the hook. UV is necessary to beat them down. Them seem to be the free floating UV sensitive dino variety.

The answer to the NMR being reproduced is no, as far as I know.

When were you at Stanford? I was a chemistry undergrad there in 1978-80 before transferring to Cornell. I loved professor Zare's class.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Would something like KZ Coral Snow work to bind up the chemical and make it easier to export?

Assuming it is fine particulate CaCO3, then it might, yes.

 

[artman]

The answer to the NMR being reproduced is no, as far as I know.

When were you at Stanford? I was a chemistry undergrad there in 1978-80 before transferring to Cornell. I loved professor Zare's class.

Randy, I had a very close graduate student friend in Zare's lab. Small world. I am a spring chicken, I was there 1995-2000. Worked for John Griffin and then Chaitan Khosla and Len Herzenberg (invented the FACS cell sorter). Fond memories of rollerblading around the campus in between late night experiments. Hope that either UWC comes clean or the independent NMR data comes in. Certainly would expect many more peaks in the NMR if there were microorganisms present especially if the sample prep would be expected to lyse the cells.

 

[GARRIGA]

Thank you so much for this research. I have a PhD in chemistry from the Stanford chemistry department and am currently a full professor at Brown university. The data is extremely strong and convincing, especially the NMR data. Has this NMR result been reproduced by another scientist from independently generated samples? If so, then case closed in my view. I noticed my Chaeto seems to be permanently damaged in tanks treated with Vibrant. It stops growing even when the algaecide is discontinued even in the presence of 10ppm Nitrate and 0.1 ppm phosphate. Is this a known effect of this algaecide? And the dinos are off the hook. UV is necessary to beat them down. They seem to be the free floating UV sensitive dino variety.

Glad to see I’m not the only one thinking this test being replicated would bring more confirmation. Although I’m not a scientist and just thinking in how I’ve done financial system implementations and the approach taken there.

 

[artman]

Hi, how were the samples dried for NMR? Speedvac? Lyophilizer? Heat? Was anything else added to the samples before or after drying them? We have a 850 MHz NMR in our building...

 

[taricha]

Hi, how were the samples dried for NMR? Speedvac? Lyophilizer? Heat? Was anything else added to the samples before or after drying them? We have a 850 MHz NMR in our building...

1 ml of both samples were evaporated to dryness in high vacuum and the residue was taken up in D2O. 1H-NMR and 13C-NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker 400 MHz spectrometer.

Does this tell you what you need?
If not, I'll get more clarification.

 

[LRT]

Glad to see I’m not the only one thinking this test being replicated would bring more confirmation. Although I’m not a scientist and just thinking in how I’ve done financial system implementations and the approach taken there.

Not sure if you caught this part of @taricha previous post.

I'd thought about that....
the two labs I sent it to is the replication of the earlier work done by JDA and the lab he used.

And judging by credited peers reviewing results with responses im not sure much more could be done here but perhaps have another lab run same tests?

 

[CrunchyBananas]

One thing that is annoying is I tried to post a review on BRS about a month ago about my experience with this stuff and some of the details in the previous thread and they never allowed it to be posted.

I did post this thread a couple days ago, I will say normally posts get approved in a couple hours, this one did get approved but after more than 24+ so hours. I think there may have been some deliberation about what approach is best for them.

 

[GARRIGA]

Not sure if you caught this part of @taricha previous post.


And judging by credited peers reviewing results with responses im not sure much more could be done here but perhaps have another lab run same tests?

I read that as he was contemplating the replication of the prior work and not that there was replication of the prior work. It’s the internet. Sometimes things get misinterpreted and apparently I’m not the only one since I’m quoting another claiming he’d like to see it replicated. Plus there’s a ton of material here to digest. Which can be quickly resolved by UWC clarifying the discussion or ultimately communicating the results to the EPA which I suspect will conduct their own independent test vs just rely on this thread. I believe the latter being a very fair assumption.

 

[LRT]

I read that as he was contemplating the replication of the prior work and not that there was replication of the prior work. It’s the internet. Sometimes things get misinterpreted and apparently I’m not the only one since I’m quoting another claiming he’d like to see it replicated. Plus there’s a ton of material here to digest. Which can be quickly resolved by UWC clarifying the discussion or ultimately communicating the results to the EPA which I suspect will conduct their own independent test vs just rely on this thread. I believe the latter being a very fair assumption.

For me thats the beauty of entire thread. First I dont believe @taricha would have posted frivolous results. Feel its actually quite the contrary in that hes likely hoping someone will prove his work in there attempt to disprove it.
But hey we have full Brown professors with Stanford degrees and 850 MHz NMR in the building... Wouldn't it be incredible to get that kind of replication?
I have a sneaky suspicion we will be seeing alot of that soon

 

[GARRIGA]

For me thats the beauty of entire thread. First I dont believe @taricha would have posted frivolous results. Feel its actually quite the contrary in that hes likely hoping someone will prove his work in there attempt to disprove it.
But hey we have full Brown professors with Stanford degrees and 850 MHz NMR in the building... Wouldn't it be incredible to get that kind of replication?
I have a sneaky suspicion we will be seeing alot of that soon

I don’t think any of us are doubting his work. I just come from a background where everything is independently verified. Including my own. I often repeat my process with different variables to confirm to myself it works before having others check what I’ve accomplished.

Trust but verify.

 

[jda]

I'd thought about that.
And I'd give more weight to it if it weren't for the fact that @jda has been saying at least since late 2020 that he had Vibrant looked at by a lab and they concluded it contained algaecide, but he was not in a position to give details. JDA would say that hobbyists ought to compare it to Algaefix. Anyway UWC always was vocal in rejecting that claim (very next post after the one I linked), and that JDA didn't know what he was talking about etc.
It seems unlikely that UWC didn't think to ask questions of this supplier company or group or whoever before now. IMO, they've been aware that it tests like algaecide for plenty long enough to know what's up.

So in a sense, the data I've posted here from myself and the two labs I sent it to is the replication of the earlier work done by JDA and the lab he used.

If anybody is going to read this post, please read to the end... it documents why I believe that @taricha is right about UWC not needing any benefit of the doubt anymore...

I don't want to make this about me, but I will tell what I know again, in brief... I did not have it tested. A local was really mad at UWC and owns a lab and he tested it - everybody called it a forensic lab. A mutual friend put us together since he knew that I had doubts of a bacterial product since it was clear, not refrigerated, no expiration date, had to be dosed continuously, only ate algae? and had directions for use very similar to some diquat that was once used in FW ponds. He told me that it had poly oxyethylene ethylene ethylene dichloride (or something like that) in it - I had no idea and had to look it up. He is not a chemist, but his chemist told him that it was a well known algaecide. He told me that he did not want to be in the middle of any issues and to keep his name out of it. I honored my word. This was probably 2016/2017. I did not know him, but he was trustworthy on this in my judgement and the people that knew him also had no reservations as a stand-up guy and that his lab was well respected.

He also told me that they found no bacteria in any of the bottles that they tested.

I studied what this stuff was and started to warn people that it was very likely that it was an algaecide and not bacteria. Few listened. One who did send me a PM that he spun it and got no pellets - I again had to look up what this meant, but it was consistent.

I continued to offer warnings for a while, like maybe a year? Eventually, UWC showed up to ridicule me when I did. They would say ridiculous things like "you have to culture the bacteria to see it" along side of "the bacteria will not reproduce in saltwater." My advice to them was constantly to just shut up and stop lying - any basic lab could figure this out and would eventually. They were relentless, if any of you remember. In any case... this was roundabout 2018 ish? and has continued until the precursor thread a few months ago - the posts by UWC about just me are really sad if you want to look.

I will never post the details that the lab owner gave me, his name or company... and I have no idea what tests they did since I would not know a NMR from shineola. There are years of documented posts that anybody can find if they want too... so in a way, these posts can stand for the hypothesis and initial findings, @taricha super fine work is the first peer review and then all of the smart folks on here a third level of validation? Would that make anybody feel more at ease?

In any case, I am a smart and reasonable guy who runs his own small business. I could have filed an EPA complaint long ago. Many might have done exactly that with the abuse that UWC posted about me. I did not want to see them lose their company or be harmed and just wished that they would change. After half a decade of stupidity, there might be some serious repercussions, but they did this to themselves. I guess that the whole point of this is to just illustrate that any benefit of the doubt that you might want to award to UWC is probably misplaced...

Also any doubt about the veracity of these tests based on new info are probably misplaced. This process was many years in the making with posts documented on here if you want to find them.

 

[Eagle_Steve]

If anybody is going to read this post, please read to the end... it documents why I believe that @taricha is right about UWC not needing any benefit of the doubt anymore...

I don't want to make this about me, but I will tell what I know again, in brief... I did not have it tested. A local was really mad at UWC and owns a lab and he tested it - everybody called it a forensic lab. A mutual friend put us together since he knew that I had doubts of a bacterial product since it was clear, not refrigerated, no expiration date, had to be dosed continuously, only ate algae? and had directions for use very similar to some diquat that was once used in FW ponds. He told me that it had poly oxyethylene ethylene ethylene dichloride (or something like that) in it - I had no idea and had to look it up. He is not a chemist, but his chemist told him that it was a well known algaecide. He told me that he did not want to be in the middle of any issues and to keep his name out of it. I honored my word. This was probably 2016/2017. I did not know him, but he was trustworthy on this in my judgement and the people that knew him also had no reservations as a stand-up guy and that his lab was well respected.

He also told me that they found no bacteria in any of the bottles that they tested.

I studied what this stuff was and started to warn people that it was very likely that it was an algaecide and not bacteria. Few listened. One who did send me a PM that he spun it and got no pellets - I again had to look up what this meant, but it was consistent.

I continued to offer warnings for a while, like maybe a year? Eventually, UWC showed up to ridicule me when I did. They would say ridiculous things like "you have to culture the bacteria to see it" along side of "the bacteria will not reproduce in saltwater." My advice to them was constantly to just shut up and stop lying - any basic lab could figure this out and would eventually. They were relentless, if any of you remember. In any case... this was roundabout 2018 ish? and has continued until the precursor thread a few months ago - the posts by UWC about just me are really sad if you want to look.

I will never post the details that the lab owner gave me, his name or company... and I have no idea what tests they did since I would not know a NMR from shineola. There are years of documented posts that anybody can find if they want too... so in a way, these posts can stand for the hypothesis and initial findings, @taricha super fine work is the first peer review and then all of the smart folks on here a third level of validation? Would that make anybody feel more at ease?

In any case, I am a smart and reasonable guy who runs his own small business. I could have filed an EPA complaint long ago. Many might have done exactly that with the abuse that UWC posted about me. I did not want to see them lose their company or be harmed and just wished that they would change. After half a decade of stupidity, there might be some serious repercussions, but they did this to themselves. I guess that the whole point of this is to just illustrate that any benefit of the doubt that you might want to award to UWC is probably misplaced...

Also any doubt about the veracity of these tests based on new info are probably misplaced. This process was many years in the making with posts documented on here if you want to find them.

Well said.

 

[Dan_P]

I actually see the opposite on R2R, many report it quickly bottoms out nutrients and they end up with dinos. I saw phosphates go to zero in short order a couple years ago when I used it.

Been thinking about this one. Here is a thought. Depending on the biofilm, an algecide might have two extreme effects, along with a bunch of intermediate effects which add further confusion to the anecdotal data.

Stressing and killing algae cause an increase in organic carbon which fuels bacteria growth and reduction of nitrate. This might also increase cyanobacteria growth. An increase in nitrate might just be from the algae no longer removing ammonia from solution, the excess being converted to nitrate.

My narrative is incomplete and I have not discussed all the combinations of conditions. The point is that what happens upon killing a portion of the biofilm cannot be predicted. We should instead predict with confidence that nitrate and phosphate will increase if not decrease