Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Dan_P]

Ah don't play victim now. Your first response was not meant to be helpful and you did not give me your experience until later on. It was condensending and made to try to make me feel stupid for posting it. You can try and back track now but just like the other 1000's of posts you have made, everyone can see right through it.

By the way, the PM function will not work. I tried. All you will do is waste your time off stage.

 

[youcallmenny1]

The observation that might explain this is both sand exposed to light and Ulva have a limit to the amount of Vibrant they adsorb. The leap in logic from this laboratory experiment to the saltwater aquarium is that an aquarium might have a limit as well. When the limit is reached, Vibrant begins to accumulate and reach high concentrations that cause problems or harms fresh balls of Chaetomorpha. If you did not know about the possible build and persistence of Vibrant after dosing was stopped, the new Chaetomorpha not growing would seem weird. I am in the process of trying to stall Chaetomorpha growth but not kill it to see if it recovers and whether it can contaminate other Chaetomrpha.

I definitely had some learning to do regarding the product. I really appreciate you and the others taking the time to investigate possible solutions to a shared problem. It'll be very interesting to see where it leads.

 

[sixty_reefer]

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

What bottle of vibrant have you used to perform this test?

 

[a.t.t.r]

What bottle of vibrant have you used to perform this test?

Read the whole thread. It was multiple bottles.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Read the whole thread. It was multiple bottles.

I’ve read the tread, although there is two formulas one for saltwater and one for reef aquaria am curious to know which one was used, I am under the impression that the reef one may have been used, just looking for clarification as it’s not mentioned in the op findings only the word “vibrant”.
There’s actually 3 different types of vibrant one is used for freshwater that I doubt it has been used.
Just wondering which one was tested or if both were tested.

 

[Sean Clark]

I’ve read the tread, although there is two formulas one for saltwater and one for reef aquaria am curious to know which one was used, I am under the impression that the reef one may have been used, just looking for clarification as it’s not mentioned in the op findings only the word “vibrant”.

It is my understanding that the two variants are identical.

 

[a.t.t.r]

I’ve read the tread, although there is two formulas one for saltwater and one for reef aquaria am curious to know which one was used, I am under the impression that the reef one may have been used, just looking for clarification as it’s not mentioned in the op findings only the word “vibrant”.
There’s actually 3 different types of vibrant one is used for freshwater that I doubt it has been used.
Just wondering which one was tested or if both were tested.

They are the same thing “just different concentrations” In reality they all appear to be the same exact thing in different bottles.

 

[sixty_reefer]

It is my understanding that the two variants are identical.

Still leads to ponder why make two different products for saltwater use.

 

[sixty_reefer]

They are the same thing “just different concentrations” In reality they all appear to be the same exact thing in different bottles.

Have you tried both?

 

[Sean Clark]

Still leads to ponder why make two different products for saltwater use.

Because it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside to see the words that you want to see.
API did the same thing with their AlgaeFix product.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Still leads to ponder why make two different products for saltwater use.

Same reason why they label bleach 20 different ways. Sell it for specific uses builds confidence in using it.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Have you tried both?

I tried one before I knew it was a scam.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I tried one before I knew it was a scam.

What makes you think it’s a scam? As I see it more testing is required before that sort of statement is made.
I’d like some more clarification on the testing

I am curious on why at 17.9 hours all samples were loosing colour (o2)

I’m also curious on why there was no ammonia testing (unless I’ve not seen it properly) if I was going to add a bacteria to aid algae outcompeting would be a nitrifying heterotroph or autotroph and not a bacteria that utilise carbon.

 

[a.t.t.r]

was

What makes you think it’s a scam? As I see it more testing is required before that sort of statement is made.
I’d like some more clarification on the testing

I am curious on why at 17.9 hours all samples were loosing colour (o2)

I’m also curious on why there was no ammonia testing (unless I’ve not seen it properly) if I was going to add a bacteria to aid algae outcompeting would be a nitrifying heterotroph or autotroph and not a bacteria that utilise carbon.

What makes you think it’s a scam? As I see it more testing is required before that sort of statement is made.
I’d like some more clarification on the testing

I am curious on why at 17.9 hours all samples were loosing colour (o2)

I’m also curious on why there was no ammonia testing (unless I’ve not seen it properly) if I was going to add a bacteria to aid algae outcompeting would be a nitrifying heterotroph or autotroph and not a bacteria that utilise carbon.

The scam is that it is rebottled algaefix at 3x the price. They lied about what is in it.
the chemical in it also destroys the microflora leaving you susceptible to Dino’s if you ever stop it’s use. It is an chemical algicide therefore scam.


There is no bacteria in the product. You are a bit late to the game and have missed many discussions on this topic including NMR testing showing it’s exact profile.

 

[sixty_reefer]

lol

the chemical in it also destroys the microflora leaving you susceptible to Dino’s if you ever stop it’s use. It is an chemical algicide therefore scam.

I seen no evidence to confirm that

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What makes you think it’s a scam? As I see it more testing is required before that sort of statement is made.
I’d like some more clarification on the testing

I am curious on why at 17.9 hours all samples were loosing colour (o2)

I’m also curious on why there was no ammonia testing (unless I’ve not seen it properly) if I was going to add a bacteria to aid algae outcompeting would be a nitrifying heterotroph or autotroph and not a bacteria that utilise carbon.

The data is extremely convincing that vibrant is not what it claims and is actually an algaecide polymer. It has convinced a number of expert chemists in this thread who are knowledgeable about the state of the art analytical techniques employed by two different people at different analytical labs using different bottles of product.

IMO, there's no possibility whatsoever that the bottles of vibrant tested contained what the bottle says.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The data is extremely convincing that vibrant is not what it claims and is actually an algaecide polymer. It has convinced a number of expert chemists in this thread who are knowledgeable about the state of the art analytical techniques employed by two different people at different analytical labs using different bottles of product.

IMO, there's no possibility whatsoever that the bottles of vibrant tested contained what the bottle says.

That was my question did all three formulas got tested, I understand that there is one ingredient that is not mentioned on the main website although they mention that they have 3 different formulas.
some of the test do show some evidence of some bacteria to be in the vessel although most test seem to use a carbon source and not a nitrogen source.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That was my question did all three formulas got tested, I understand that there is one ingredient that is not mentioned on the main website although they mention that they have 3 different formulas.
some of the test do show some evidence of some bacteria to be in the vessel although most test seem to use a carbon source and not a nitrogen source.

I'll leave that to the testers to remind folks what they tested. It's in the thread, I believe.

These are not new thoughts. Every possible benefit of the doubt was given to UWC, and the product failed and they failed to provide any explanation of why the product does not contain what it claims.

You make it sound like there's a little discrepancy. That's ridiculous. It does not contain bacteria and does not function in the way they claim.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I'll leave that to the testers to remind folks what they tested. It's in the thread, I believe.

These are not new thoughts. Every possible benefit of the doubt was given to UWC, and the product failed and they failed to provide any explanation of why the product does not contain what it claims.

You make it sound like there's a little discrepancy. That's ridiculous. It does not contain bacteria and does not function in the way they claim.

I’ve read the information given by the op only, test 3 makes me think that there is some Sort of bacteria as o2 is being lost at the same rate as the control. I’m in the believe that the test should of been more expanded and a nitrogen source also added.

from my point of view and from the information given I only see a discrepancy, maybe because am not biased and just want to understand the facts better before making ludicrous statements as I’ve seen over the thread.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’ve read the information given by the op only, test 3 makes me think that there is some Sort of bacteria as o2 is being lost at the same rate as the control. I’m in the believe that the test should of been more expanded and a nitrogen source also added.

from my point of view and from the information given I only see a discrepancy, maybe because am not biased and just want to

Then you did not read the whole thread or the data from others who repeated it at different analytical labs.

Before you go and make "unbiased" claims about others "ludicrous claims, it would behoove you to read the whole thread to know what you are talking about.

here's JDA's post where he shows his duplication of the NMR and the IR data. It also shows he used the Reef version.

Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

Hello fellow MTRC member. They have been tageed numerous times and are supposedly waiting for results of their own testing. Right now it is "hurry up and wait".

www.reef2reef.com