Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Xero]

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.

1. Even if you were to make that assumption, I'd say in the fish hobby - algaefix is primarily used on ponds, not saltwater reefs, and I suspect the amount needed in ponds to become that toxic is a lot higher, although it is known to be very toxic if poured undiluted near freshwater fish, this isn't reported to be as much of a problem in saltwater.

2. I mean, I think best practice after running any chemicals like this is going to be run carbon/GFO, skim until your skimmer stops going crazy (do water change through skimmer, if need be), multiple water changes 40%+, etc. I'd say this is actually the wrong assumption to make after adding a chemical product to your tank - I think the default assumption to make would be that you should try to remove it afterwards. Die-off from algae should generally necessitate a water-change or some sort of nutrient export as well. That said, I don't like the premise here, it seems contrary to what I'd consider common sense.

3. what makes you think the EPA cares about sorting that out? I mean, under it's busan77 branding, it's intended use case is for killing algae in water holding tanks for paper mills. I'm not sure why the EPA would care whether paper-mill water can keep ornamental saltwater fish and corals alive...I think again, your premise here is off, the only reason the EPA even cares about this situation is because they're selling it unlabeled, not because its a product that might be dangerous to the environment and/or fish - in fact - that's EXACTLY why the label needs to be there - this product CAN and WOULD damage a natural ecosystem, and it's only legitimate use is pretty much in artificial ones....that's what the EPA truly cares about here.

 

[MnFish1]

1. Even if you were to make that assumption, I'd say in the fish hobby - algaefix is primarily used on ponds, not saltwater reefs, and I suspect the amount needed in ponds to become that toxic is a lot higher, although it is known to be very toxic if poured undiluted near freshwater fish, this isn't reported to be as much of a problem in saltwater.

2. I mean, I think best practice after running any chemicals like this is going to be run carbon/GFO, skim until your skimmer stops going crazy (do water change through skimmer, if need be), multiple water changes 40%+, etc. I'd say this is actually the wrong assumption to make after adding a chemical product to your tank - I think the default assumption to make would be that you should try to remove it afterwards. Die-off from algae should generally necessitate a water-change or some sort of nutrient export as well. That said, I don't like the premise here, it seems contrary to what I'd consider common sense.

3. what makes you think the EPA cares about sorting that out? I mean, under it's busan77 branding, it's intended use case is for killing algae in water holding tanks for paper mills. I'm not sure why the EPA would care whether paper-mill water can keep ornamental saltwater fish and corals alive...I think again, your premise here is off, the only reason the EPA even cares about this situation is because they're selling it unlabeled, not because its a product that might be dangerous to the environment and/or fish - in fact - that's EXACTLY why the label needs to be there - this product CAN and WOULD damage a natural ecosystem, and it's only legitimate use is pretty much in artificial ones....that's what the EPA truly cares about here.

I don't know - ask the EPA? You're misunderstanding the entire discussion - and I have no desire to re-review it with you. There is an algaefix product for saltwater tanks. I'm talking about THAT product - I dont care about ponds, etc The saltwater aquarium product as far as I know - is also under the same EPA approval. Seriously - I have no clue what the EPA thinks, does or cares about. I'm asking a specific question - why does everyone (or ANYONE) care about this EPA approved product accumulating in reef tanks - pools, estuaries, etc - when - its recommended for repeated dosing, thats it. So far you haven't answered. Nor has anyone else.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

- why does everyone (or ANYONE) care about this EPA approved product accumulating in reef tanks - pools, estuaries, etc - when - its recommended for repeated dosing, thats it. So far you haven't answered. Nor has anyone else.

Because inquiring minds want to know if it might contribute to problems. Simple as that. there's no data anywhere that says whether repeated doses might lead to issues under any circumstances, and if it does, what might those circumstances be?

Do you seriously think EPA approval means there's proof it is always safe as long as it is used according to manufacturer directions? That is obviously false.

 

[taricha]

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.

Wastewater treatment testing found no affect on the organisms in the biofilter
"While activated sludge sorption isotherm data have not been submitted, activated sludge respiration inhibition data (MRID 50510601) indicate that polixetonium chloride is not toxic to WWTP microorganisms with an IC50 value of 76 mg/L (i.e., >20 mg/L)." -EPA draft Risk assessment linked in 1st post.

Given every other instance of toxicity is equal or less in saltwater, this seems a pretty unlikely mechanism (inhibition of bacteria) for possible testable nutrient lowering.

One way to read @Dan_P data is that it may not happen at all, and is placebo. It at least suggests that there is not clear, across-the board, nutrient lowering. Is there probably some set of system conditions - organics, initial nutrient amounts, filtration type, combination of coral/algae/etc organisms - where the overall result of some doses of the chemical could be to lower testable nutrients within a certain time frame? possibly.
Sounds like a pain to try to hunt for such conditions with no guarantee they exist in the first place.

 

[J1a]

Wastewater treatment testing found no affect on the organisms in the biofilter
"While activated sludge sorption isotherm data have not been submitted, activated sludge respiration inhibition data (MRID 50510601) indicate that polixetonium chloride is not toxic to WWTP microorganisms with an IC50 value of 76 mg/L (i.e., >20 mg/L)." -EPA draft Risk assessment linked in 1st post.

Given every other instance of toxicity is equal or less in saltwater, this seems a pretty unlikely mechanism (inhibition of bacteria) for possible testable nutrient lowering.

One way to read @Dan_P data is that it may not happen at all, and is placebo. It at least suggests that there is not clear, across-the board, nutrient lowering. Is there probably some set of system conditions - organics, initial nutrient amounts, filtration type, combination of coral/algae/etc organisms - where the overall result of some doses of the chemical could be to lower testable nutrients within a certain time frame? possibly.
Sounds like a pain to try to hunt for such conditions with no guarantee they exist in the first place.

Fair enough. Guess this path is not leading anywhere.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Fair enough. Guess this path is not leading anywhere.

That's a specific set of organisms though, in a specific environment.

Busan 77 is clearly a bactericide for some types of organisms in some settings.

 

[taricha]

Fair enough. Guess this path is not leading anywhere.

just lowering expectations that a clever test will yield a satisfying answer on nutrient reduction with this chemical.
I was kind of hoping that @Dan_P would simply find test kit interference, but no such luck!

 

[Dan_P]

One way to read @Dan_P data is that it may not happen at all, and is placebo. It at least suggests that there is not clear, across-the board, nutrient lowering. Is there probably some set of system conditions - organics, initial nutrient amounts, filtration type, combination of coral/algae/etc organisms - where the overall result of some doses of the chemical could be to lower testable nutrients within a certain time frame? point of sale
Sounds like a pain to try to hunt for such conditions with no guarantee they exist in the first place.

I will report on whether Vibrant adsorbs to a bacteria biofilm grown in the dark on glass microscope slides. I was hoping to see a correlation between Vibrant adsorption and age of biofilm, i.e., young biofilms a little adsorption, an older biofilm, more adsorption. I will also look at aragonite rock slices that have been stored in a dark sump for two months.

I am starting to wonder whether Vibrant is a marginally effective chemical in saltwater that causes users to ramp up accumulation to toxic levels. The nutrient effect might be a red herring.

 

[Dan_P]

just lowering expectations that a clever test will yield a satisfying answer on nutrient reduction with this chemical.
I was kind of hoping that @Dan_P would simply find test kit interference, but no such luck!

I am on board the low expectations express! I am still looking for a) a detrimental effect on algae and b) any clear effect on nutrient consumption.

 

[MnFish1]

Because inquiring minds want to know if it might contribute to problems. Simple as that. there's no data anywhere that says whether repeated doses might lead to issues under any circumstances, and if it does, what might those circumstances be?

Do you seriously think EPA approval means there's proof it is always safe as long as it is used according to manufacturer directions? That is obviously false.

You are putting words in my mouth.

1. Do the tests being used - show consistent reproducible results in a situation in our tanks? I do not see it. Do the tests show what 'enquiring minds want to know? - if algaecide might contribute to problems - IMHO. No.
2. No - I do not think that the EPA is always 'right' - BUT - like your meteor example - my guess is that the likelihood for the EPA being wrong about repeat dosing of algaecide in swimming pools where mothers are dipping their babies - is about a likely as an EPA researcher that was wanting to say 'disapproved;' to an algaecide on a paper - but a random neutrino hit his brain and he checked 'approved' instead. In other words - I do not see any evidence from an EPA perspective (wasn't that the focus a couple weeks ago) - that repeat dosing results in increasing toxicity (Either scientifically - or anecdotally here on the site - where numerous people reported that using product xxx resulted in immediate coral closures - and others say I used it 20 times - (paraphrased) - and saw no problems..

But - Respectfully, Randy - look at your first sentence above. you accused me of asking for a toxicology study - which I was not doing - but you say: "Because inquiring minds want to know if it might contribute to problems. Simple as that. there's no data anywhere that says whether repeated doses might lead to issues under any circumstances, and if it does, what might those circumstances be?" This suggests that the tests being done indeed are supposed to somehow show whether there are toxic affects right - or am I again misinterpreting?.

I respectfully disagree with your apparent (and I agree I might be misunderstanding) - comment that the studies shown are somehow validated to answer the questions 'inquiring minds want to know' - IMHO - I do not think they are. And - IF they are I'm not sure that there is any information to be gathered as to whether the results suggest or do not suggest the reason some people have damage to their coral (apparently - as I did) - as compared to others who have dosed the products (and again - take away vibrant - this is an algaecide discussion - they are all listed in the topic right???) - and have had no problems with anything. This is the discussion I'm trying to have. I'm not sure why you're debating it.

 

[Dan_P]

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

The term ”calling out” at least in North America is negative. Unless you are unfamiliar with this vernacular, I’d say you were caught again being unnecessarily harsh.

If the rationale for doing something in an experiment is not obvious, just ask for an explanation. Here is an example. “Why did you use 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant in your studies of aquarium water and solids taken from an aquarium?”

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You are putting words in my mouth.

1. Do the tests being used - show consistent reproducible results in a situation in our tanks? I do not see it. Do the tests show what 'enquiring minds want to know? - if algaecide might contribute to problems - IMHO. No.
2. No - I do not think that the EPA is always 'right' - BUT - like your meteor example - my guess is that the likelihood for the EPA being wrong about repeat dosing of algaecide in swimming pools where mothers are dipping their babies - is about a likely as an EPA researcher that was wanting to say 'disapproved;' to an algaecide on a paper - but a random neutrino hit his brain and he checked 'approved' instead. In other words - I do not see any evidence from an EPA perspective (wasn't that the focus a couple weeks ago) - that repeat dosing results in increasing toxicity (Either scientifically - or anecdotally here on the site - where numerous people reported that using product xxx resulted in immediate coral closures - and others say I used it 20 times - (paraphrased) - and saw no problems..

But - Respectfully, Randy - look at your first sentence above. you accused me of asking for a toxicology study - which I was not doing - but you say: "Because inquiring minds want to know if it might contribute to problems. Simple as that. there's no data anywhere that says whether repeated doses might lead to issues under any circumstances, and if it does, what might those circumstances be?" This suggests that the tests being done indeed are supposed to somehow show whether there are toxic affects right - or am I again misinterpreting?.

I respectfully disagree with your apparent (and I agree I might be misunderstanding) - comment that the studies shown are somehow validated to answer the questions 'inquiring minds want to know' - IMHO - I do not think they are. And - IF they are I'm not sure that there is any information to be gathered as to whether the results suggest or do not suggest the reason some people have damage to their coral (apparently - as I did) - as compared to others who have dosed the products (and again - take away vibrant - this is an algaecide discussion - they are all listed in the topic right???) - and have had no problems with anything. This is the discussion I'm trying to have. I'm not sure why you're debating it.

I’m not going to debate semantics. If you find the experiments uninteresting or unconvincing, ignore them and move on.

My inquiring mind wants to know what happens to the polymer when added to a reef tank. I think that might help folks understand what happens when they dose it. I think these experiments can shed light on what happens to it, and I’m glad folks are doing them.

if you don’t think the experiments justify a conclusion someone makes, that’s fine, but right now it seems to be an information gathering exercise, not an endeavor to prove something.

 

[MnFish1]

The term ”calling out” at least in North America is negative. Unless you are unfamiliar with this vernacular, I’d say you were caught again being unnecessarily harsh.

If the rationale for doing something in an experiment is not obvious, just ask for an explanation. Here is an example. “Why did you use 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant in your studies of aquarium water and solids taken from an aquarium?”

OK - here goes. Why does it seem like when you test various products, etc - you tend to use x times the recommended dose of the product, and where is such a test validated or suggested as the way to test what you're trying to test. It seems to have happened on numerous occasions with no clear explanation. '

PS - Come one - are you really going to start commenting on how people ask a question? In my Opinion - calling out is not a huge negative - I already apologized that if you felt it was - that I apologized. I meant what I said then - I repeated it now. I think you're being overly sensitive for no reason - but thats just my opinion

 

[MnFish1]

I’m not going to debate semantics. If you find the experiments uninteresting or unconvincing, ignore them and move on.

My inquiring mind wants to know what happens to the polymer when added to a reef tank. I think that might help folks understand what happens when they dose it. I think these experiments can shed light on what happens to it, and I’m glad folks are doing them.

if you don’t think the experiments justify a conclusion someone makes, that’s fine, but right now it seems to be an information gathering exercise, not an endeavor to prove something.

But - there you go that was the question - and thanks - its finally answered. The goal is to discuss how to test whether 'the polymer' is accumulating or not. It was my impression that 'conclusions' were presented - and being discussed and that they contradicted eachother.

Since - I was the person that suggested that R2R start a research/experiment section - I find it odd that you could suggest that I find the experiments uninteresting or unconvincing. But - in any case - you clarified - there is nothing to be convinced of (yet) or not - the methods are still being debated/discussed. As you explained in your last sentence - so much appreciated.

 

[JimWelsh]

 

[Xero]

I don't know - ask the EPA? You're misunderstanding the entire discussion - and I have no desire to re-review it with you. There is an algaefix product for saltwater tanks. I'm talking about THAT product - I dont care about ponds, etc The saltwater aquarium product as far as I know - is also under the same EPA approval. Seriously - I have no clue what the EPA thinks, does or cares about. I'm asking a specific question - why does everyone (or ANYONE) care about this EPA approved product accumulating in reef tanks - pools, estuaries, etc - when - its recommended for repeated dosing, thats it. So far you haven't answered. Nor has anyone else.

I would argue, I'm very acutely aware of the discussion and the chemical at hand - and you're misunderstanding what the EPA actually does. Perhaps this is a bit of perspective bias, since you are coming at this from the fishy-angle, but the EPA doesn't protect our fish tanks.

It's recommended for repeated dosing by the people selling it, not by the EPA. I think the EPA cares more how you don't use it - they don't want you dumping it into a lake, ocean, river, etc. Truthfully, I think the EPA could care less if you crash your fish tank with it. That's not really the "environment" which they are trying to protect.

They just want to make sure that products which could negatively impact the environment, are appropriately labeled so they aren't misused, and aren't too extremely toxic, say, pesticides like DDT, etc. I feel like that's the only involvement the EPA has here. They don't want to ruin the environment, they don't want people selling some horrible cancer causing stuff, etc, etc.

As far as i know, testing accumulation in fish tanks, or closed bodies of water, or any of that stuff, is industry-specific, and has nothing to do with the EPA. They just don't want this stuff in runoff water, they don't want people dumping it into a lake or river, or getting into ground water. They want appropriate labels.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could flip that around and say - you just haven't proven your point.

 

[Dan_P]

Vibrant And Biofilms

I updated the the results for Vibrant and aquarium solids with the change in Vibrant concentration in aquarium water containing an aragonite rock slice that had been stored in an unlit sump for two months. Unlike aquarium sand, the aragonite rock slice did NOT decrease the Vibrant concentration (last entry in plot below).

The other study looks at how a developing biofilm on a glass microscope slide in an unlit sump effects the Vibrant concentration in a 24 hour exposure test to aquarium water with 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant. Six slides were stored vertically in the sump. Two slides were used in each test, one as a control and one exposed to Vibrant. After the test with Vibrant, the slides were returned to the sump. The last test was performed with the control slides of the first two tests. Once again, Vibrant does not irreversibly bind to a bacterial biofilm.

I think we have accumulated enough evidence to make a credible case that dosing Vibrant, and probably any polyquat, to a marine aquarium may result in varying concentrations of the polyquat in the water, ranging from none to the expected amount dosed. If correct, this means that the targeted algae species may not be receiving an effective dose of the algaecide until all other adsorbing sites are saturated.

 

[MnFish1]

I would argue, I'm very acutely aware of the discussion and the chemical at hand - and you're misunderstanding what the EPA actually does. Perhaps this is a bit of perspective bias, since you are coming at this from the fishy-angle, but the EPA doesn't protect our fish tanks.

It's recommended for repeated dosing by the people selling it, not by the EPA. I think the EPA cares more how you don't use it - they don't want you dumping it into a lake, ocean, river, etc. Truthfully, I think the EPA could care less if you crash your fish tank with it. That's not really the "environment" which they are trying to protect.

They just want to make sure that products which could negatively impact the environment, are appropriately labeled so they aren't misused, and aren't too extremely toxic, say, pesticides like DDT, etc. I feel like that's the only involvement the EPA has here. They don't want to ruin the environment, they don't want people selling some horrible cancer causing stuff, etc, etc.

As far as i know, testing accumulation in fish tanks, or closed bodies of water, or any of that stuff, is industry-specific, and has nothing to do with the EPA. They just don't want this stuff in runoff water, they don't want people dumping it into a lake or river, or getting into ground water. They want appropriate labels.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could flip that around and say - you just haven't proven your point.

Thanks for the answer - I PM'd you to not derail the thread

 

[Dan_P]

PS - Come one - are you really going to start commenting on how people ask a question? In my Opinion - calling out is not a huge negative - I already apologized that if you felt it was - that I apologized. I meant what I said then - I repeated it now. I think you're being overly sensitive for no reason - but thats just my opinion

You bet! I will comment when a question is asked in a manner that can be perceived as a put down or unnecessarily harsh. Just try tuning down the tough talk. Such language adds absolutely nothing to a discussion.

 

[rtparty]

Really wish R2R would add a dislike button. Glad we have the ignore feature at least