Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[MnFish1]

Hopefully this doesn't go down the same digression path you took the last vibrant thread.

I look forward to the UWC response.

me too

 

[MnFish1]

Hence why i feel a research formatted type thread be posted and locked in experiment subforum.
This thread for perfect example. Taricha did the work and has shared the results. Skepticism is great but until work is done to refute his findings, its truly only all talk and heresay and takes away from the only work we have on the subject.

All he has to do is request - the method to be included in the experiment thread is posted near the top of the page

 

[Terence]

To moderate away peoples opinions that do not violate the terms of service is exactly what shouldn't be done in a forum that is a neutral space.

I did not suggest that course of action. Moderation takes many forms. I have read the thread and have not seen you comment on those off-the-science-track posts to keep things science related.

All I am was meaning by "neutral" is that a space discussing such things is not a "science" forum. And, with the discussion of such things, it is not unrealistic to think that it would not be perceived as neutral by the company - regardless of how you or anyone else see it or even if it absolutely is.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Could it be - like sevelamer - and other PO4 binders - that the "product" binds phosphate - and makes it unable to be taken up into corals - and as well - make it less detectable by our tests when bound? Analagous to Sevelamer preventing Phosphate from being taken up into the GI tract?

 

[MnFish1]

Thanks Randy this is what I hinged my hope for some kind of reasonable response from UWC on.
Having said that. I dont fully understand the chemistry behind this statement from that post-

"Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the (edit) extract is used. All created by BACTERIA."

Trying to give the benefit of doubt here i wanted to ask is it even remotely possible to derive "from dead bacteria" an "extract" that resembles what's been shown in @taricha findings?

The point he is making (I guess) - is something that we discussed at length on the other thread - which is that bacterial products can kill algae. My reading of his paragraph is that the ingredients in Vibrant are bacterial products as compared to an added chemical. Perhaps he will further explain.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I did not suggest that course of action. Moderation takes many forms. I have read the thread and have not seen you comment on those off-the-science-track posts to keep things science related.

All I am was meaning by "neutral" is that a space discussing such things is not a "science" forum. And, with the discussion of such things, it is not unrealistic to think that it would not be perceived as neutral by the company - regardless of how you or anyone else see it or even if it absolutely is.

What I mean and the way I run this forum is as follows:

1. It is a science forum and management (myself) strives to ensure that all threads here are chemistry related, and that all science in them is presented as accurately as possible. Example, a thread on thebest food for damsels will be moved out, and a thread claiming sodium has a negative charge in seawater will be "corrected' by a follow up post by me or someone else pointing out the issue. But that "incorrect" post is not moderated away or changed.

2. It is a neutral space in that the management (myself) does not change anyone's post unless it violates the terms of service. Jim Welsh had such a change in this thread for using bad language. Not because anything related to his opinion, but the simple word choice. We do not control what people can think or post. Neutral.

Everything is this thread is related to a chemistry issue, so it isn't appropriate to move it.
Everything in this thread currently meets the terms of service, so no moderation actions are needed.

Of course not everyone will like what is posted here, by me or others. Seachem doesn't like some things I post, but that doesn't mean it's not a neutral space. They and anyone else ae always welcome to present opposing information as they see fit.

That's the very definition of a neutral space, in my opinion. It doesn't have to be a comfortable space. it has to treat people and products and ideas evenly, and here that means with the same eye toward scientific accuracy.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The point he is making (I guess) - is something that we discussed at length on the other thread - which is that bacterial products can kill algae. My reading of his paragraph is that the ingredients in Vibrant are bacterial products as compared to an added chemical. Perhaps he will further explain.

That is a possible interpretation, and there certainly are bacterial algaecides, but if the NMR is accurate, it is not a bacterial product. That material is not a natural product produced by any bacteria. Perhaps they were told that by a supplier, but that's random speculation.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Could it be - like sevelamer - and other PO4 binders - that the "product" binds phosphate - and makes it unable to be taken up into corals - and as well - make it less detectable by our tests when bound? Analagous to Sevelamer preventing Phosphate from being taken up into the GI tract?

I do not believe either works in seawater to accomplish that for the reasons I gave above: phosphate is too low and competing ions are too high to bind much.

 

[MnFish1]

I do not believe either works in seawater to accomplish that for the reasons I gave above: phosphate is too low and competing ions are too high to bind much.

Thanks. Makes sense - obviously the phosphate in a 'dinner' is difference than the concentration in a tank. . depending on dietary compliance

 

[MnFish1]

That is a possible interpretation, and there certainly are bacterial algaecides, but if the NMR is accurate, it is not a bacterial product. That material is not a natural product produced by any bacteria. Perhaps they were told that by a supplier, but that's random speculation.

I wish you accepted PM's .... I think I might have some information for you

 

[Terence]

What I mean and the way I run this forum is as follows:

1. It is a science forum and management (myself) strives to ensure that all threads here are chemistry related, and that all science in them is presented as accurately as possible. Example, a thread on thebest food for damsels will be moved out, and a thread claiming sodium has a negative charge in seawater will be "corrected' by a follow up post by me or someone else pointing out the issue. But that "incorrect" post is not moderated away or changed.

2. It is a neutral space in that the management (myself) does not change anyone's post unless it violates the terms of service. Jim Welsh had such a change in this thread for using bad language. Not because anything related to his opinion, but the simple word choice. We do not control what people can think or post. Neutral.

Everything is this thread is related to a chemistry issue, so it isn't appropriate to move it.
Everything in this thread currently meets the terms of service, so no moderation actions are needed.

Of course not everyone will like what is posted here, by me or others. Seachem doesn't like some things I post, but that doesn't mean it's not a neutral space. They and anyone else ae always welcome to present opposing information as they see fit.

That's the very definition of a neutral space, in my opinion. It doesn't have to be a comfortable space. it has to treat people and products and ideas evenly, and here that means with the same eye toward scientific accuracy.

Again, not calling into question the intent or execution here of neutrality. Neutral in practice and neutral in perception are two different things.

And, not everything in this thread is chemistry related - lots of talk about legal action etc. If by extension that content would be defined as chemistry related, that could be a pretty slippery slope.

Moderation does not always mean censorship. If you wanted to keep this laser focused on the chemistry and science, as a moderator you could counsel those posting to keep the conversation on that track. No censorship necessary. I have not seen that.

If a manufacturer or business does not believe your forum to be a neutral space (not saying UWC feels that way), that perception is their reality. My offer to appear in a more neutral space was with that potentially being an issue due to all that "legal action" content - not my feeling about this thread, forum, or R2R in general.

Also, having a moderator that does not take PMs seems a bit weird. I get the likely reason why you have done so, but it does make private conversations not possible and my responses to you landing here instead - which are also off-topic.

I am glad he has contacted you. Hopefully the community will get more information on this issue one way or another and it can be put to bed once and for all. Either way, you are always welcome to discuss this or any other matter on our livestream.

 

[MnFish1]

I do not believe either works in seawater to accomplish that for the reasons I gave above: phosphate is too low and competing ions are too high to bind much.

btw - yes - I agree with you - but on a chemical basis - it may have some influence - or are you suggesting that the overwhelming anions will take care of it as compared to the phosphate?

 

[dank reefer]

The fact that I asked them 2 days ago to post here goes unresponded to.

They go to a friendly local where there will be no challenging of their assertions no matter what they are.

Especially when they want to go on a Live Stream and no questions can be asked about their comments that they would supply this group what is in the bottle.

Don't be suspicious? Well, we are!

Edited

 

[Terence]

Especially go on a Live Stream that no questions cab ne asked about their comments that they would supply this group what is in the bottle.

Don't be suspicious? Well, we are!

So you would not like to see a livestream where RHF and/or CB and someone from the company are together on the program and having a good discussion? Seems like that would be one of the best ways to cut through all of this.

 

[dank reefer]

So you would not like to see a livestream where RHF and/or CB and someone from the company are together on the program and having a good discussion? Seems like that would be one of the best ways to cut through all of this.

I would like to see said company to say what's truly in the bottle without having to get on your livestream. They said they would produce what's in the bottle to a message they sent a member from R2R, but have yet to produce it.

Data, and not talk is what the majority want to see. We have seen data from the OP, lets see data from said company.

 

[Eagle_Steve]

So you would not like to see a livestream where RHF and/or CB and someone from the company are together on the program and having a good discussion? Seems like that would be one of the best ways to cut through all of this.

I would love to see it, but with a true open forum. Yes rules for bashing and other crap no one wants to hear would be needed. I am simply saying

Ignore names as they have no relevance to any one. Plus not in any order.

Bob asks question
Ted can answer
Ted ask question
Bob can answer
They can then debate the topic at hand.

More of like no pre submitted question, follow ups allowed, etc.

 

[GARRIGA]

So you would not like to see a livestream where RHF and/or CB and someone from the company are together on the program and having a good discussion? Seems like that would be one of the best ways to cut through all of this.

I'd prefer it if that discussion was done on this sub forum to be retained and searchable. Can be restricted to just the parties involved. No peanut gallery. Unless the podcast is being transcript and posted where it can be located and perhaps then later separately discussed amongst the general public.

There's no getting around the fact something like this will get discussed outside the parameters that would make the manufacturer comfortable.

 

[Wunderpus]

All,

Forgive me for admittedly being a bit lazy and not reading the 22 pages of discourse here... However, if in fact Vibrant contains an algaecide (seemingly it does), what other options do we have for species such as Valonia? My emeralds don't touch it, nor do my fish... My phosphates are nearly undetectable (ULNS) and the species of BA I have aggressively grows, even in the absence of Po4 (I'm theorizing it may grow off of silicates)..... Either way, Vibrant has been the only "effective" method for me in the past...

 

[JCOLE]

All,

Forgive me for admittedly being a bit lazy and not reading the 22 pages of discourse here... However, if in fact Vibrant contains an algaecide (seemingly it does), what other options do we have for species such as Valonia? My emeralds don't touch it, nor do my fish... My phosphates are nearly undetectable (ULNS) and the species of BA I have aggressively grows, even in the absence of Po4 (I'm theorizing it may grow off of silicates)..... Either way, Vibrant has been the only "effective" method for me in the past...

Manual remove as much as you can, get a foxface, some emerald crabs known to eat bubble algae, and a pincushion urchin. Bubble algae came back after using Vibrant twice. I went the all natural approach and have been free of bubble algae ever since.

The key is to remove as much as you can. I always found that emerald crabs won't go for the larger ones. They are great at eating them when they first appear and are small. It will take work but it isn't bad once you implement this strategy.

 

[MnFish1]

Especially go on a Live Stream that no questions cab ne asked about their comments that they would supply this group what is in the bottle.

Don't be suspicious? Well, we are!

No offense your comments to me make zero sense.