Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[MnFish1]

I am testing Vibrant, right?

My question/comment is a more general one. We know the dose of the algaecide in algaefix, for example - and we know the exact concentration. We know their recommended dose is to keep repeating it. So - if the hypothesis is that toxic polyquat is 'building up' in tanks - and causing problems, I don't see how some people have used 'these products' for years with no issue and some do. I specifically wanted to use the general term algaecide rather than vibrant - just to keep that 'hot button issue' out of the question . EDIT: I was also suggesting that using a known polyquat (with a known concentration) may give more useful information.

 

[MnFish1]

Rather than calling someone out, why not ask a question? Other folks might appreciate the answer you obtain

I did ask a question. I asked why do you guys use x times the recommended amount of product? That was a question. And btw - 'calling you out' is synonymous (to me) to 'I'm asking you a question'. But I can see that you must have taken it in a more negative way than I intended

 

[jda]

FWIW, if anybody wants to do testing of anything in the future, it appears my bill for carbon and proton NMR and also the IR is a bit over $800 with all supplies, drying, labor and the whole shebang. In all honesty, since nobody asked, it hurt more to buy the bottle than to support the hobby and also a solid public Uni's chem department.

 

[KimG]

I did ask a question. I asked why do you guys use x times the recommended amount of product? That was a question. And btw - 'calling you out' is synonymous (to me) to 'I'm asking you a question'. But I can see that you must have taken it in a more negative way than I intended

Hi MnFish1
While I can't answer for other members, I would probably conduct the experiment using x times de recommend dose as a start as well. The reason is simple. As described before, the substance can bind to a lot of different things, so each tank could have a different response. If you overdose, lets say 5x and still can't see an effect then its likely to be safe. If you see a negative effect then you can start searching for the root causes and the "right" dose. If you use the recommended dose you may or may not see the difference.

 

[KimG]

Yes - you're right. My comment reflected my opinion that unless there were 'experiments' done (most experiments are controlled in one way or another) - I didn't get the point of the discussion. To me - reading all of the possible explanations - many of which contradict eachother has left me totally confused.

1. Do toxic levels of 'polyquat' accumulate or not? To me the answer is 'no'. Even in pools repeat dosage is recommended. Pools are of course different than tanks.
2. Every algaecide is recommended to be dosed repeatedly. Though there are some anecdotes (many)? that algaecides can affect corals negatively (including in my own tank) - I have seen many reports that there corals are not affected at all after multiple uses yet others have problems 'immediately' after using vibrant (within a day or so).

These 2 comments suggest STRONGLY - that toxic algaecide levels do not 'build up' over time. So there is my hypothesis. If I'm reading the graphs and explanations correctly - they contradict eachother in some ways as to this question. Perhaps I'm reading them wrong?

I think there is a misunderstanding on this.
A manufacturer recommending multiple repeated doses does not mean it will not accumulate. It probably means that they expect the algae you are treating to come back and therefore you need more to continually treat the reoccurring problem.

This is common with different treatments. So long as there is something to react to, there is no accumulation.
IF you run out of the target of the treatment then it can lead to accumulation.

We see this for exemple with ozone. So long as there is enough organic matter it reacts almost immediately. Once organic matter is gone you can start getting accumulation.

 

[KimG]

Yes, with a caveat on the mechanism. Skimmers do not sort molecules by size, but by binding them to the air water interface, and the binding of hydrophobic anionic organics to a cationic polymer in seawater are likely to make it more surface active and hence more skimmable. Thus the answer may depend on what specific organics are in the water.

That said, if the polymer disrupts cell membranes of bacteria and algae (as cationic antimicrobials do), some skimmable organics may be released and those too may be what you are observing.

I would expect the bottom statement to be a good part of the answer. In trials we conducted in the past we saw that microalgae is very difficult to skim out if left untreated. However, if you first break it down (with ozone or uvs) then it easily skimmable.

This could definitely be part if what is happening to A You Refer

 

[Dan_P]

My question/comment is a more general one. We know the dose of the algaecide in algaefix, for example - and we know the exact concentration. We know their recommended dose is to keep repeating it. So - if the hypothesis is that toxic polyquat is 'building up' in tanks - and causing problems, I don't see how some people have used 'these products' for years with no issue and some do. I specifically wanted to use the general term algaecide rather than vibrant - just to keep that 'hot button issue' out of the question . EDIT: I was also suggesting that using a known polyquat (with a known concentration) may give more useful information.

Got it

 

[Dan_P]

there's all sorts of weird stuff that can stimulate cyano growth that we dont talk about much - like tanks that have been coppered repeatedly in fish stores tend to get these weird deep/darkly colored cyano mats, dark purple, dark green (with an almost copper tinge to it), etc. like i've always suspected it's not just simply "bacterial imbalance", but it's also like a way of the tank trying deal with & respond to elements that it doesn't like...like the cyano is almost compensating for an imbalance, rather than simply being caused by it.

I also tend to believe things don't usually just come out of thin air, while "air stream" stuff is possible i suppose, i tend to think that we introduce most problems, usually unintentionally, at the microscopic level. That said, are we certain the original algae samples didn't already have some cyano growing on them in the first place, and the death of the algae simply lead to their succession? I would be curious to separate the cyano growth from the algae entirely, which i imagine isn't an easy thing to do - i mean having cyano growing right over/up your hair algae is almost too common, there's also various algae/cyano symbiotic relationships in nature as well, but I have no idea if any of those would be going on here with the specific species in question.

I see you been around the block with cyano.

Cyanobacteria are interesting organisms. They can form luxurious mats in an aquarium but try to grow them outside the aquarium and you would think they are fussier than SPS to grow.

 

[MnFish1]

Hi MnFish1
While I can't answer for other members, I would probably conduct the experiment using x times de recommend dose as a start as well. The reason is simple. As described before, the substance can bind to a lot of different things, so each tank could have a different response. If you overdose, lets say 5x and still can't see an effect then its likely to be safe. If you see a negative effect then you can start searching for the root causes and the "right" dose. If you use the recommended dose you may or may not see the difference.

I disagree with your hypothesis. At r 2 or 10 or 15x the recommended dose - nearly everything is going to show some negative effects - that may not apply to the 1x dose. But appreciate your thoughts. The question (in my head) is not whether using an algaecide at 5x the normal dose causes accumulation. My question relates to using an algaecide at the recommended dose - does this cause cumulative toxicity. So - my question related to exactly what was attempted etc to being shown - and what does it mean? Becasue to my reading. which may be incorrect - the data is contradictory

 

[Xero]

My question/comment is a more general one. We know the dose of the algaecide in algaefix, for example - and we know the exact concentration. We know their recommended dose is to keep repeating it. So - if the hypothesis is that toxic polyquat is 'building up' in tanks - and causing problems, I don't see how some people have used 'these products' for years with no issue and some do. I specifically wanted to use the general term algaecide rather than vibrant - just to keep that 'hot button issue' out of the question . EDIT: I was also suggesting that using a known polyquat (with a known concentration) may give more useful information.

I think this depends entirely on the type of tank and the stability of the tank, as well as the general practices of the person using it. Do you run carbon/gfo regularly? Etc, etc. I covered this a bit in my post. Likewise, if you expect to run this on some sensitive sps-dom tank without issues, I'd say that's ill advised.

 

[TheHarold]

I dont suppose anyone wants to test this? The back of the bottle has no additional labeling- no ingredient list.

It destroyed about 5k of corals and a good portion of my love for the hobby a few years back.

 

[Xero]

I dont suppose anyone wants to test this? The back of the bottle has no additional labeling- no ingredient list.

It destroyed about 5k of corals and a good portion of my love for the hobby a few years back.

I believe the other big brand "flatworm treatments" are all tetramisole/levamisole based, which isn't really truly reef safe, but, hey, when has that ever stopped anyone...

 

[J1a]

I would like to propose a hypothesis for the supposed drop of nutrients after dosing of vibrant.

@taricha has demonstrated that vibrant can suppress bacterial growth (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore it is possible for vibrant to reduce the action of heterotrophic bacteria; this in turn, reduce mineralisation of various forms of organic matters.

Since in our hobby, only inorganic nutrients are measurable when using hobbyist kits, the above mechanism can lead to an apparent decrease of nitrate and phosphates.

I suppose if we compare orthophosphate measurement with a ICP total phorsphorus, or an acid digested total phorsphorus test, we will be able to dipstick test for this hypothesis.

 

[jda]

I dont suppose anyone wants to test this? The back of the bottle has no additional labeling- no ingredient list.

It destroyed about 5k of corals and a good portion of my love for the hobby a few years back.

It has a massive amount of organics in it. While UWC denies it, it looks like Wormwood is at least one ingredient and there appears to be several more. Just straight up wormwood at reasonable doses appears to do no damage. Wormwood is more of a long term treatment than a quick one.

You could run NMR on it like I outlined, but with many different compounds, it might be hard to read - I would have an expert lined up to try and read it with no other known substance to compare to.

It might have levamisole in it too... levamisole at reef-safe levels is going to be like Flatworm Exit from Salifert. It is reasonably reef safe, but some inverts can suffer. At these mostly-safe levels, AEFW will not die. I was able to kill AEFW with higher levels of Levamisole and super strong flow to arguably get their slime coat gone, but the results on the tank make it kind of a last-ditch type of measure with some losses.

Best bet might be to just wait until the Minnesota Department of Ag and EPA is done with them and see if they put any restricted chemicals in Purge too. You might never hear anything, but given UWCs history of just rebranding other things, they might have just poured a bunch of stuff in these bottles too.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I disagree with your hypothesis. At r 2 or 10 or 15x the recommended dose - nearly everything is going to show some negative effects - that may not apply to the 1x dose. But appreciate your thoughts. The question (in my head) is not whether using an algaecide at 5x the normal dose causes accumulation. My question relates to using an algaecide at the recommended dose - does this cause cumulative toxicity. So - my question related to exactly what was attempted etc to being shown - and what does it mean? Becasue to my reading. which may be incorrect - the data is contradictory

Folks are not doing tox tests here. They are doing experiments to see where it goes.

 

[taricha]

@taricha has demonstrated that vibrant can suppress bacterial growth (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore it is possible for vibrant to reduce the action of heterotrophic bacteria; this in turn, reduce mineralisation of various forms of organic matters.

It's a tempting hypothesis that it suppresses bacteria, but that's not what I saw when I tried to measure exactly that.
At huge amounts: 1/100th, 1/30th, and 1/10th of the entire sample - Vibrant and algaefix only barely slowed down the bacterial O2 consumption while breaking down fish food + glucose in saltwater. (In freshwater the suppression of bacterial activity is stronger, as expected from the cationic nature)
Below is from post 165, Part 3, J.

J. Saltwater/Freshwater bacterial activity suppression
I took aquarium water and added 250mg/L ground fish flake, 100mg/L glucose, and 2 drops/L methylene blue to show when O2 gets depleted by bacterial growth. Methylene blue loses its color when bacteria consume all the O2 in the water.

In saltwater the effect is very minor, Algaefix and Vibrant in amounts of 1/10 of the entire sample slowed down the decoloration barely - by under 1hr out of ~18 hours.

Because of the cationic nature of these chemicals they are expected to be more potent in freshwater than in hard water.
Doing the same thing as above with water from a lake near my house (added fish flake, glucose and methylene blue) showed a far stronger effect.

Even 1/100 of algaefix and Vibrant delayed the decolorization by bacteria for over a day. But the effect is not absolute, the high concentration - Algaefix and Vibrant at 1/10th of the whole sample still decolorized a few hours later. (for comparison, a 1/10th sample of Waste Away has a strong preservative, and never decolorized, even a couple of months later.)
Whether saltwater or fresh, the timeline of the decolorization by bacteria was exactly mirrored in Algaefix and Vibrant.

 

[MnFish1]

Folks are not doing tox tests here. They are doing experiments to see where it goes.

Sorry I dont understand. I never said (or didn't try to say) - anyone was doing a toxicology test - that was very clear. I was trying to combine 2-3 different questions - and perhaps it wasn't clear. SO let me repeat.

1. The dosage on EVERY algaecide (kick vibrant to the curb) states to dose repeatedly. To ME - unless the EPA, and every algaecide maker in the country doesn't care about compounded toxicity to people fish and the environment - we already know (right?) that the active compound does not accumulate.
2. To me (my reading) of the findings was trying to decide whether the active form accumulated - per #1 - it (unless there is a huge conspiracy) it does not. Thus - To the people (several have) asked about corals, etc - after repeated dosing - I would say - do not worry.
3. My scientific questions related to the validity of the methods used to determine where the compound 'is' and what form its 'in'. If the tests are measuring a compound bound to floating algae that is inactive - does that matter? If so - I would guess that the EPA would have sorted this out in the past. SO thus sorry this is long - the question relates to the validity of the testing being done - and do we really know what is or is not being measured. Its not a criticism - it was a question.

 

[J1a]

It's a tempting hypothesis that it suppresses bacteria, but that's not what I saw when I tried to measure exactly that.
At huge amounts: 1/100th, 1/30th, and 1/10th of the entire sample - Vibrant and algaefix only barely slowed down the bacterial O2 consumption while breaking down fish food + glucose in saltwater. (In freshwater the suppression of bacterial activity is stronger, as expected from the cationic nature)
Below is from post 165, Part 3, J.

Ah. It seems that I forgot about the fresh/salt parts of the experiment.

I wonder though, when conducting these experiments in saltwater, does mineralisation proceed all the way and result in formation of nitrate? It's tempting to think that the suppression happens to some groups of bacteria and not others. Or perhaps some aquarium conditions (such as the level of organics) can affect this mechanism. Especially since the apparent nutrient decrease is not universal.

 

[MnFish1]

Ah. It seems that I forgot about the fresh/salt parts of the experiment.

I wonder though, when conducting these experiments in saltwater, does mineralisation proceed all the way and result in formation of nitrate? It's tempting to think that the suppression happens to some groups of bacteria and not others. Or perhaps some aquarium conditions (such as the level of organics) can affect this mechanism. Especially since the apparent nutrient decrease is not universal.

The problem is - IMHO - whether with vibrant or anything else - nothing is universal (as you said). Probably because no tank is 'universal' some have 50 percent algae covered rocks, some 20% some 99percent. Without multiple tanks (not test-tubes IMHO) - with completely varied conditions - it becomes very difficult to decide. This is why I said - OK - lets forget vibrant - and go with the KNOWN - algaecides - they all recommend repeat dosing. Why?

 

[J1a]

The problem is - IMHO - whether with vibrant or anything else - nothing is universal (as you said). Probably because no tank is 'universal' some have 50 percent algae covered rocks, some 20% some 99percent. Without multiple tanks (not test-tubes IMHO) - with completely varied conditions - it becomes very difficult to decide. This is why I said - OK - lets forget vibrant - and go with the KNOWN - algaecides - they all recommend repeat dosing. Why?

I would hazard a guess that it is more difficult to eradicate some algae before the concentration in the aquarium become toxic enough to other inhabitants. So maintaining a lower dosage for a longer period of time is probably less harmful.

That and absorption and breaking down of the active ingredients.

But this is just a wild guess.