Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[DaneGer21]

So are majority of people still using it, or no?

 

[Dan_P]

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. '

Great question!

Selecting the concentration range in an experiment depends on what you want to learn. Let’s use my Vibrant experiments as the case study.

My interest in Vibrant was its ability to bind irreversibly (presumably) to chemicals and surfaces. I wondered, prompted by Randy’s thoughts on @taricha aquarium time profile of the Vibrant concentration, whether it stuck to surfaces in the aquarium other than the target algae. Unfortunately, I had no direct way to measure bound Vibrant and resorted to an indirect method of measuring the disappearance of Vibrant from solution by using the formation of a precipitate of Vibrant with SDS. What this method does not tell us much about are those cases where Vibrant binds irreversibly or it precipitates along with the thing it is bound to. So, we keep these things in mind when interpreting the data.

The other shortcoming of this method is that for my system, including freshly prepared Instant Ocean, the Vibrant-SDS precipitate is below the detection limit of the Hanna LR silicon dioxide photometer at the recommended dose of Vibrant. I had to use more than the recommended amount in experiments to detect a response. This was not a problem because I was investigating Vibrant sticking to things and not its effect on algae, though I did take a peek at its effect eventually. So, I selected the highest amount of Vibrant that was on the linear portion of the calibration curve, i.e., 5X the recommended amount, for this work.

Is 5X the recommended amount of Vibrant a valid way to detect Vibrant sticking to things? I had to test that by using varying concentrations down to about 2X the recommended dose of Vibrant and showing that the loss of Vibrant to identical aquarium sand samples was the same, which meant that answering the question “does Vibrant stick to a substance“ appears to be independent of Vibrant concentration.

Data for this explanation has been posted earlier.

 

[Dan_P]

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

I would be happy if “like” was replaced with “read”. I never found the minimum acknowledgement level
”like” to make any sense.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So are majority of people still using it, or no?

Majority of users may not even know it is mislabeled, but I know I wouldn't buy it even if it worked flawlessly.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Why do you guys use levels of chemicals/products at 5-15x the recommended doses and then use them to try to prove that the chemical itself is not working as expected?

Thats not a putdown, but of course I cannot affect your 'perception'. And. again - I would suggest its a discussion board - You're not the moderator. If you don't want to answer the question - great - but don't 'put me down' by criticizing the way YOU THINK I should be asking a question. Take it to the site report my question - or ignore it. IMHO - its a valid question - and Its been asked 3-4 (or more) times. I'm going to say the same to you - your 'put down' of me - adds nothing to the discussion - when you could have just answered the question. So Consider this AGAIN - the question:

"Why does it seem that you and @taricha use products at 5-15x the recommended doses and then extrapolate those doses to what is happening in an aquarium.? "

 

[MnFish1]

I guess I thought this thread was about the science of 'algaecides'. After all - the title . My questions have nothing to do with vibrant - but with the title of the thread. If you are only studying vibrant - why? When you have a known algaecide with a known concentration? Its already a given that it SEEMS like vibrant has the exact same chemical as Algaefix - yet algaefix has a known quantity of a known chemical. So - part of my confusion perhaps relates to the perceived focus on a highly suspected but unknown product - as compared to a known chemical - which is recommended for reef tanks, etc - but is not being tested. It seems like there is an agenda. What that is - IDK - I dont really care - I was asking a scientific question. Taking an 'unknown product' - whether its 95% or 99% likely to be similar - is IMHO - not the same scientifically as taking a KNOWN algaecide and measuring those effects. I dont care about vibrant - until and if at all - they respond. The title of the thread mentions multiple chemicals - as if its known that they are exactly the same.

 

[MnFish1]

Great question!

Selecting the concentration range in an experiment depends on what you want to learn. Let’s use my Vibrant experiments as the case study.

My interest in Vibrant was its ability to bind irreversibly (presumably) to chemicals and surfaces. I wondered, prompted by Randy’s thoughts on @taricha aquarium time profile of the Vibrant concentration, whether it stuck to surfaces in the aquarium other than the target algae. Unfortunately, I had no direct way to measure bound Vibrant and resorted to an indirect method of measuring the disappearance of Vibrant from solution by using the formation of a precipitate of Vibrant with SDS. What this method does not tell us much about are those cases where Vibrant binds irreversibly or it precipitates along with the thing it is bound to. So, we keep these things in mind when interpreting the data.

The other shortcoming of this method is that for my system, including freshly prepared Instant Ocean, the Vibrant-SDS precipitate is below the detection limit of the Hanna LR silicon dioxide photometer at the recommended dose of Vibrant. I had to use more than the recommended amount in experiments to detect a response. This was not a problem because I was investigating Vibrant sticking to things and not its effect on algae, though I did take a peek at its effect eventually. So, I selected the highest amount of Vibrant that was on the linear portion of the calibration curve, i.e., 5X the recommended amount, for this work.

Is 5X the recommended amount of Vibrant a valid way to detect Vibrant sticking to things? I had to test that by using varying concentrations down to about 2X the recommended dose of Vibrant and showing that the loss of Vibrant to identical aquarium sand samples was the same, which meant that answering the question “does Vibrant stick to a substance“ appears to be independent of Vibrant concentration.

Data for this explanation has been posted earlier.

Sorry - the posts are out of order - Here is my 'scientific response'. You can't say one way or the other. Because - of course - whether vibrant sticks to something cannot be 'independent of algaecide concentration'. Lets say there are xx receptor sites on everything in the tank for an algaecide. Then you add 100x those receptor sites, then decrease to 50 then decrease to 25 then decrease to 10x - you cannot say - wow - since there was no difference - there is no independence between concentration and 'stickiness'. Instead, you would need IMHO - to decrease the concentration instead - and move upward - until you reached the level (in that specific environment) - when the algaecide stops sticking. IMHO - you're doing it partly correct - but whether your system has shortcomings (as you mentioned) at the lower levels or not - IMHO you cannot say what youre saying - exactly becasue of those shortcomings. This is not a personal insult - its my opinion.

Again you're using 'your experimental system' - and extrapolating that to the aquarium. I am not sure thats correct. You might disagreee. All good. I can have my opinion.

 

[MnFish1]

PS rather than editing my post - My question was not related just to this algaecide question - You have done this repeatedly - with Prime as well. We used xX the recommended amount of prime or xX the amount of ammonia and tested abcd. I was asking a general experimental question - why does it seem you feel that using products at multiples of the recommended dosages means much or anything in the aquarium (PS - I understand your comments as to vibrant). And I apologize that my question was not clear that it was more 'general' as compared to specific

 

[JCOLE]

@MnFish1 Why is it that over the last 6 months I have watched you try and pick apart everyone's "experiment's" with what they are doing wrong, etc, and yet I haven't seen a single thing from you? You seem to be hell bent on picking apart anything and everyone when they mention Vibrant does this or that, but yet nothing to date from you to disprove anything. What is it you are trying to prove?

 

[LRT]

@MnFish1 Why is it that over the last 6 months I have watched you try and pick apart everyone's "experiment's" with what they are doing wrong, etc, and yet I haven't seen a single thing from you? You seem to be hell bent on picking apart anything and everyone when they mention Vibrant does this or that, but yet nothing to date from you to disprove anything. What is it you are trying to prove?

It's blatantly obvious. All anyone has to do is look at (her?) post history to see same old pattern of argumentative, derailment throughout most of @Dan_P and @taricha @brandon429 and a few others work threads without 1 single experiment to back anything up.
I know what we call something like this in my profession but I wonder what the actual term for these kind of folks is in the scientific community?
Why in the world would anyone want to sabotage works that are for the greater good and overall health of the community? Unless they have either a personal issue with certain folks or a general nefarious agenda for the community overall.

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1 Why is it that over the last 6 months I have watched you try and pick apart everyone's "experiment's" with what they are doing wrong, etc, and yet I haven't seen a single thing from you? You seem to be hell bent on picking apart anything and everyone when they mention Vibrant does this or that, but yet nothing to date from you to disprove anything. What is it you are trying to prove?

Check the experiments forum and get back to me

 

[LRT]

Check the experiments forum and get back to me

What are you pointing us to specifically?
I think what @JCOLE is pointing out, at least in this thread is- All you have done is continuously and repeatedly argue and derail this thread like all the others.
Do you have a single specific experiment you can point us to regarding any of the work being discussed in this thread? Or any other work thread for that matter? Please tag me in them.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

"Why does it seem that you and @taricha use products at 5-15x the recommended doses and then extrapolate those doses to what is happening in an aquarium.? "

The "why" is clear. The method does not have a good lower limit of quantitation to track the polymer at lower concentrations.

It's also a pretty standard thing to do for other reasons. It is expected in drug toxicity testing that one runs the test to far higher concentrations than are expected in use. The FDA suggests a dose 50x higher than the expected dose.

https://www.fda.gov/media/71542/download

"Doses providing a 50-fold margin of exposure (usually based on group mean area under the curve (AUC) values (see Note 1) of the parent drug or the pharmacologically active molecule of a pro-drug) to the clinical systemic exposure generally are also considered acceptable as the maximum dose for acute and repeated-dose toxicity studies in any species. "

 

[MnFish1]

The "why" is clear. The method does not have a good lower limit of quantitation to track the polymer at lower concentrations.

It's also a pretty standard thing to do for other reasons. It is expected in drug toxicity testing that one runs the test to far higher concentrations than are expected in use. The FDA suggests a dose 50x higher than the expected dose:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fmedia%2F71542%2Fdownload&clen=333027&chunk=true&pdffilename=M3(R2)-Nonclinical-Safety-Studies-for-the-Conduct-of-Human-Clinical-Trials-and-Marketing-Authorization-for-Pharmaceuticals.pdf

"Doses providing a 50-fold margin of exposure (usually based on group mean area under the curve (AUC) values (see Note 1) of the parent drug or the pharmacologically active molecule of a pro-drug) to the clinical systemic exposure generally are also considered acceptable as the maximum dose for acute and repeated-dose toxicity studies in any species. "

Thanks Randy.

 

[JCOLE]

Check the experiments forum and get back to me

Ah yes, another deflect. I should have known better.

 

[MnFish1]

What are you pointing us to specifically?
I think what @JCOLE is pointing out, at least in this thread is- All you have done is continuously and repeatedly argue and derail this thread like all the others.
Do you have a single specific experiment you can point us to regarding any of the work being discussed in this thread? Or any other work thread for that matter? Please tag me in them.

I PM'd you.

 

[MnFish1]

Ah yes, another deflect. I should have known better.

I PMd you as well

 

[LRT]

I PM'd you.

Since it doesn't seem like you have honored the gentlemen requests in this thread and others to PM and speak on certain matters civilly and rationally.
I see no reason to give you that consideration personally.
What I'd like for you to do is tag me in specific work threads that pertain to the science being discussed in this thread. Specifically.
Otherwise it really is still all the same thing over and over from you.
All words with no works.
Just my opinion here but you may want to start backing up your words with works as it appears you are losing all credibility at this point.

 

[MnFish1]

Since it doesn't seem like you have honored the gentlemen requests in this thread and others to PM and speak on certain matters civilly and rationally.
I see no reason to give you that consideration personally.
What I'd like for you to do is tag me in specific work threads that pertain to the science being discussed in this thread. Specifically.
Otherwise it really is still all the same thing over and over from you.
All words with no works.
Just my opinion here but you may want to start backing up your words with works as it appears you are losing all credibility at this point.

You can choose to do what you want to do. I responded to your request. This is not a thread about you, me JCOLE or any other person. So - I'm not going to derail it by responding to you here. Anyone can go to my posting history - and see what my focus on this site is - and I guarantee you its not badgering anyone on this thread. Best wishes.

 

[LRT]

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.

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.

Great question!

Selecting the concentration range in an experiment depends on what you want to learn. Let’s use my Vibrant experiments as the case study.

My interest in Vibrant was its ability to bind irreversibly (presumably) to chemicals and surfaces. I wondered, prompted by Randy’s thoughts on @taricha aquarium time profile of the Vibrant concentration, whether it stuck to surfaces in the aquarium other than the target algae. Unfortunately, I had no direct way to measure bound Vibrant and resorted to an indirect method of measuring the disappearance of Vibrant from solution by using the formation of a precipitate of Vibrant with SDS. What this method does not tell us much about are those cases where Vibrant binds irreversibly or it precipitates along with the thing it is bound to. So, we keep these things in mind when interpreting the data.

The other shortcoming of this method is that for my system, including freshly prepared Instant Ocean, the Vibrant-SDS precipitate is below the detection limit of the Hanna LR silicon dioxide photometer at the recommended dose of Vibrant. I had to use more than the recommended amount in experiments to detect a response. This was not a problem because I was investigating Vibrant sticking to things and not its effect on algae, though I did take a peek at its effect eventually. So, I selected the highest amount of Vibrant that was on the linear portion of the calibration curve, i.e., 5X the recommended amount, for this work.

Is 5X the recommended amount of Vibrant a valid way to detect Vibrant sticking to things? I had to test that by using varying concentrations down to about 2X the recommended dose of Vibrant and showing that the loss of Vibrant to identical aquarium sand samples was the same, which meant that answering the question “does Vibrant stick to a substance“ appears to be independent of Vibrant concentration.

Data for this explanation has been posted earlier.

The "why" is clear. The method does not have a good lower limit of quantitation to track the polymer at lower concentrations.

It's also a pretty standard thing to do for other reasons. It is expected in drug toxicity testing that one runs the test to far higher concentrations than are expected in use. The FDA suggests a dose 50x higher than the expected dose.

https://www.fda.gov/media/71542/download

"Doses providing a 50-fold margin of exposure (usually based on group mean area under the curve (AUC) values (see Note 1) of the parent drug or the pharmacologically active molecule of a pro-drug) to the clinical systemic exposure generally are also considered acceptable as the maximum dose for acute and repeated-dose toxicity studies in any species. "

I didn't find this particularly hard to follow and wrap my head around. Great work Dan and thanks for scientific explanation Randy.