Beautiful, fantastic and pendulous. HaHa, a wealth of algae!If you need more in a couple weeks let me know as well. I just cut mine back but it will be back to it's glory in no time. I have plenty of it.
Not sure I can give you any useful information, but I spent 2 years googling and experimenting in my my tank. I can say that adding CO2 increases algal mass, by a lot (but not a coressponding reduction of N & P.) Allelopathy is also rife. Anyone wonder why adding phyto reduces the proliferation of of other single cells? Natural vibrant.
Thanks for link. About 1/3 through. Loved the sand discussion and the dog photo. Injection of air was a good idea. CO2 is my list of variables to test. You mentioned allelopathy. Can that still happen if you run a GAC reactor?
The purpose of this post is to look closely at Vibrant to compare its properties to a known algaecide, Algaefix by API. This is intended to shed light on the active ingredients in Vibrant, explain its mechanism of action, and give people insight into its use and what to expect. It is not a recommendation to use or not use either product. (apologies, I'm not a chemist and I hope inaccuracies in my descriptions aren't too distracting.)
Background on Algaefix / polixetonium chloride
Algaefix by API contains 4.5% “dimethyliminoethylene dichloride, ethoxylate” CAS 31512-74-0 per MSDS and EPA documentation. This amount is the same in the various Algaefix Marine, Pond, etc labels. This chemical is a polymeric quaternary ammonium compound. Other quaternary ammonium compounds or “quats” (not polymers), such as benzalkonium chloride are in widespread use as sanitizers, antibacterial soaps etc. The Algaefix chemical is also known by the trade name Busan 77 or the more recently EPA-favored name polixetonium chloride, I will refer to it by these or simply “the polyquat.”
Polixetonium chloride is a well-known algaecide, registered in the U.S. since 1971. The EPA documentation on it is thorough and has a number of useful bits of info. This 65 page EPA draft risk assessment from 2020 covers most relevant info, including the material below. This chart shows the concentrations at which it was found to have an inhibitory effect on various “algae”.
The approximate concentrations for each group are: diatoms and cyano at ~0.1ppm, green algae at ~0.01ppm, and vascular plants at ~1ppm. The label dose of Algaefix results in an addition of ~1ppm per every 3 days. Perhaps unexpectedly, it does not seem to leave the system (though it would be expected to dissipate from the water).
“Polixetonium chloride is miscible in water [study #’s…] and is not expected to degrade by either abiotic processes [...] or biotic processes [...] Sorption to soil, sediment, and sludge is expected to be the primary route of dissipation, based on the fact that polixetonium chloride is a quaternary ammonium compound that has a positive electrical charge.
A ready biodegradability study […] demonstrated stability to microbial degradation in a WWTP [wastewater treatment plant], which is consistent with the results of other non-WWTP microbial degradation. Therefore, for polixetonium chloride, there is no apparent route of chemical or microbial degradation.”
One final note on known properties and uses of polixetonium chloride is that this same chemical(nih.gov) under the name Bubond 60 is also used as a coagulant / flocculant. This helps shed light on reports of increased water clarity with aquarium usage of the product.
A paper shared by @jeffww illustrated the use of a distinctive Bromphenol Blue color response (non-pH) to detect quats dried on surfaces. I noted a quat-like color change with both Algaefix and Vibrant, but in none of almost a dozen bottled bacteria hobby products or saltwater. After that, a more thorough investigation of Vibrant and Algaefix properties was undertaken. Below is the first part of those results.
Part 1: Professional Lab Tests indicate indistinguishable principle ingredients in Vibrant and Algaefix - polixetonium chloride
Samples of Algaefix and Vibrant were poured from the product bottles into labeled 50mL centrifuge tubes and shipped to a lab for NMR testing. 1mL of each was vacuum-dried and the residue taken up in heavy water for analysis by 13C and 1H NMR. A separate partially-used bottle of Vibrant was sent to @jeffww for FTIR comparison to Algaefix in another lab. Those samples were also dried under vacuum for FTIR analysis.
A) 13C NMR
This is a test that generates a magnetic resonance response from Carbon atoms in the sample. The resonance refers to the frequency at which certain carbon atoms will oscillate when pushed around by magnetic fields. Their preferred frequency depends on their local environment - that is, what they are bonded to. Thus a 13C NMR is a probe of the chemical structure of the compounds, with each Carbon atom in the compound being shifted to a different place in the graph by what it is bonded to. More thorough intro for 13C NMR in this text, and a follow-up.
In the above graph you can see that the samples of Algaefix and Vibrant possess only Carbon in the same bond environments as each other, and the Carbon atoms are in those environments in the same ratios.
A wider view shows the blank around 170 ppm chemical shift where aspartic acid (and any other amino acid) would have a peak, if there were any in the samples.
B) 1H NMR
This is the same process described above but for Hydrogen instead of Carbon. In the below data you can see that the hydrogen atoms in each sample also exist in the same bond environments and are in those particular environments in the same ratios.
Since both the Carbon and Hydrogen atoms are bonded in the same way in these vacuum-dried samples of AlgaeFix and Vibrant, this covers all possible organics in the residue.
C) FTIR
This process generates an absorption spectrum in the infrared region where chemical compounds are distinctive in what wavelengths they absorb.
Again, the precise alignment of the absorption peaks and the consistency of their peak height ratios between the vacuum-dried samples of Algaefix and Vibrant tells us that the residues are the same compounds with no additions. (The addition of aspartic or other amino acids would be very obvious in this data as well).
In addition to being able to say that Algaefix and Vibrant contain only the same compounds in their dried residues, we can further compare that to a given FTIR spectrum for polixetonium chloride “Busan 77” (posted online).
This level of agreement confirms further that what was measured by the above tests in samples of Vibrant and Algaefix is indeed the polyquat that is the well-documented label ingredient in Algaefix, polixetonium chloride.
next...
Part 2: quantification / comparison of the amount of polyquat in Vibrant and Algaefix
edit: 2/28/22
Part 2: post 16 here
Part 3: post 165 here
UWC response 2/28
edit: 3/10/22 & 3/15/22
Sample NMR test replication was done by @jda (so different hobbyist, different bottle from a different source, sent to a different lab with different technicians.) Results (1H NMR) he received are in post 731 here and (13C NMR) in post 778 here.
Overlays of the data I received and what jda received are below.
1H NMR
(same peaks shifted by the calibration difference between instruments)
and 13C
Just finished reading. There are definitely parallels between my mixed algae growth experiments and your algae scrubber study. One big difference is the algae scrubber water flow probably enables thicker growth and probably a different range of algae species than a system with only a bubbler. I am sure that I am missing some other important differences. Need to do some thinking.
Do you really think they will?
Well - they still have the products listed on their website - all are 'out of stock' - so my (total guess) - is that there are still analyses/discussions going on. So - yes - I think they will respond - sometime. have you ever been involved with an EPA Audit? Do you think they do this in a couple days?
I've never been involved in a EPA Audit as I have not created a product and had it mislabeled as something that has been proven that it aint.
1. An audit is an audit - it does not presume 'guilt'.I've never been involved in a EPA Audit as I have not created a product and had it mislabeled as something that has been proven that it aint.
But I guess the EPA Audit can take the same amount of time like a tax audit that was done 5 years ago or longer, and the information can not be released cause they are still under audit.
If you need some GHA or BA, hit me via PM. I grow both (purposely) to feed critters that love the stuff. I do not have much BA right now, but should have enough for a controlled experiment if mass of algae is kept low.Vibrant And Ulva. Possible Light Intensity Effect.
Vibrant efficacy against nuisance algae seems to be inconsistent. Because until recently we had no means to measure its concentration, there was no way to determine whether Vibrant failed because of the concentration being too low or an inherent ineffectiveness in saltwater. To help clarify the efficacy question, a ten day controlled study was conducted with Ulva.
A large piece of Ulva was cut into four smaller pieces, two controls, two trearments. After measuring the initial mass of each piece, the Ulva was cultured in 0.25 L of aquarium water that was illuminated on a 12/12 cycle, aerated with humidified air and gently rocked on an orbital shaker to keep the Ulva slowing tumbling in the water. The water was changed daily and the nitrate, phosphate and Vibrant concentrations measured in the fresh aquarium water and after 24 hours. Mass was measured every twenty four hours. The treatment group was exposed to 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant to ensure that an effect was observed.
The initial 5000 Lux light intensity was enough for the Ulva pieces to grow slowly (See graph. The 2 standard deviation error bars reflect differences between replicates). Vibrant adsorption continued for 4-5 days and then appeared to stop. Growth and visual appearance of the Vibrant treated Ulva was the same as the control. Nitrate and phosphate consumption rates were also similar.
On day 6, the light intensity was increased to 20,000 Lux, half the light intensity used to culture Ulva. At this point the growth rate of the treated and control Ulva pieces diverged. The visual appearance of the treated pieces changed and the Ulva developed clear patches, brown spots and began to fall apart. Removing the Vibrant for the last 48 hours of the experiment did not stop the demise of the treated Ulva pieces at 20,000 Lux.
From these observations, I conclude that high light intensity (or rapid growth) may be important for Vibrant to be effective. I will repeat the study with Chaetomorpha (not able to obtain hair algae or bubble algae at this time - funny, right?).
Thanks for the “all hands on deck” call. I broke down and had Amazon ship me a cup full overnight. It is now in the algae scrubber bucketand looking healthy. I plan on testing its growth rate in a couple days before exposing a portion to Vibrant.
