Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[taricha]

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

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”.

At varioius times, I tested probably 5 bottles of "Reef" or "Saltwater" vibrant that I purchased, two more "Reef" versions that other hobbyists sent me that were older, one went back to 2018. I also tested a "freshwater" vibrant which you can see in part 3 (quantifying comparisons).
For 1H and 13C NMR, the sample I sent was from "saltwater" - and it compares precisely with the algaefix "marine" sample I sent as well as the results of JDA's 1H and 13C NMR that he sent a bottle of "reef" (you can see in the first post). For FTIR, I sent a bottle of "reef" vibrant, and it also compares precisely with JDA's FTIR results. And all compare precisely to algaefix which has clear documentation that it is the same for aquarium, pond, marine etc.
I additionally tested a couple of bottles of algaefix marine, as well as the Tetra and Fritz products algae control and algae clean out that contain 5.4% of the polixetonium chloride (vs 4.5% for algaefix).
I did not do every single test on every bottle, but I did at lest one quantification test on each bottle to allow me to compare the concentrations. All three forms of quantification test I did (see part 3) could distinguish the labeled 4.5% product algaefix from the ones with labeled 1.2x higher concentration of 5.4%. And all three quantification tests found that each bottle of vibrant and each bottle of algaefix had indistinguishable concentrations. (except the bottle from 2018 was ~20% high, possibly due to evaporation over a few years.)

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

One sample was tank water that gets fed fish flake a few times a week and the other was lake water from near my house. The food was glucose and crushed fish flake. Many many strains of microbes were in each sample and those foods contain plenty of goodies for all sorts of fast growing heterotrophs that would be found in each sample.
the times to decolorize methylene blue tell you how long the native bacteria in each sample took to consume all the O2 by activity on the foods. The purpose was to test the degree to which the chemical in algaefix and vibrant suppressed bacterial activity in the tank and lake water samples. They suppressed it by an identically small amount in saltwater, and an identically much larger amount in lake water. This is expected based on the fact that the polixetonium's ionic nature would be more effective against organisms in freshwater vs saltwater.

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.

Having done and seen other testing on nitrifying bacteria prodiucts (biospira, one and only, fritz turbo-start) I know that they are quite effective (to varying degrees) at consuming ammonia straight out of the bottle.

But of course, nobody ever complains that adding biospira caused the chaeto in their sump to die. So that wasn't a logical avenue of investigation to explain the algaecide behavior of vibrant.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I saw comments from UWC that 1) indicated the use of bacterial metabolites (i.e., cell free) from cyanobacteria and select Bacillus spp. that involve the production of polyaspartic acid; 2) suggested that the quat-like response is normal; and 3) that the lab who developed it is slated to present this research at an upcoming conference for the American Society of Microbiologists. I'm assuming it's a biotech firm and the 'bacteria blend' has remained a proprietary secret because they're working on a patent and/or publication. That's pretty normal. I've checked and the book of abstracts for that conference is not out yet but it seems plausible to me due to how easily it can be verified.

Since the "upcoming" American Society for Microbiologists meeting is presumably meaning the conference that is now (months later) next week, and all the papers to be presented are listed on line, this would be a good time to bolster that claim by pointing out which paper you think they mean:

ASM Microbe | Scientific Program

ASM Microbe 2025 showcases the best microbial sciences in the world and provides a one-of-a-kind forum to explore everything from basic microbiology to translation and application.

asm.org

However, you may not see this post as you joined March 6 and haven't been back since March 24. Lends credence (but not proof) that you only signed up to defend Vibrant (with obfuscation, IMO).

 

[sixty_reefer]

At varioius times, I tested probably 5 bottles of "Reef" or "Saltwater" vibrant that I purchased, two more "Reef" versions that other hobbyists sent me that were older, one went back to 2018. I also tested a "freshwater" vibrant which you can see in part 3 (quantifying comparisons).
For 1H and 13C NMR, the sample I sent was from "saltwater" - and it compares precisely with the algaefix "marine" sample I sent as well as the results of JDA's 1H and 13C NMR that he sent a bottle of "reef" (you can see in the first post). For FTIR, I sent a bottle of "reef" vibrant, and it also compares precisely with JDA's FTIR results. And all compare precisely to algaefix which has clear documentation that it is the same for aquarium, pond, marine etc.
I additionally tested a couple of bottles of algaefix marine, as well as the Tetra and Fritz products algae control and algae clean out that contain 5.4% of the polixetonium chloride (vs 4.5% for algaefix).
I did not do every single test on every bottle, but I did at lest one quantification test on each bottle to allow me to compare the concentrations. All three forms of quantification test I did (see part 3) could distinguish the labeled 4.5% product algaefix from the ones with labeled 1.2x higher concentration of 5.4%. And all three quantification tests found that each bottle of vibrant and each bottle of algaefix had indistinguishable concentrations. (except the bottle from 2018 was ~20% high, possibly due to evaporation over a few years.)



One sample was tank water that gets fed fish flake a few times a week and the other was lake water from near my house. The food was glucose and crushed fish flake. Many many strains of microbes were in each sample and those foods contain plenty of goodies for all sorts of fast growing heterotrophs that would be found in each sample.
the times to decolorize methylene blue tell you how long the native bacteria in each sample took to consume all the O2 by activity on the foods. The purpose was to test the degree to which the chemical in algaefix and vibrant suppressed bacterial activity in the tank and lake water samples. They suppressed it by an identically small amount in saltwater, and an identically much larger amount in lake water. This is expected based on the fact that the polixetonium's ionic nature would be more effective against organisms in freshwater vs saltwater.


Having done and seen other testing on nitrifying bacteria prodiucts (biospira, one and only, fritz turbo-start) I know that they are quite effective (to varying degrees) at consuming ammonia straight out of the bottle.

But of course, nobody ever complains that adding biospira caused the chaeto in their sump to die. So that wasn't a logical avenue of investigation to explain the algaecide behavior of vibrant.

I would of explored further the bacteria options, technically if there is a strain that would utilise nitrogen sources as other utilise carbon that could lead to macro algaes lost or stall some of this algaes will prefer nitrogen sources to nitrates.
some of the invasive microbes and algaes in our tanks only thrive wile carbon is available and will eventually die off once carbon is exhausted same could be happening to the strain regarding nitrogen. You have shown that the vials are not sterile maybe is worth to explore why.
I’ve seen many people loosing chaeto before without using any of this products.

 

[sixty_reefer]

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

So are you advocating that all the products available today on the market that contain this ingredient are killing important organisms in our systems? Jda is a repetition of taricha on the polymer finding I’d like to see more work on the microbes as taricha has shown the vials not to be sterile.

 

[a.t.t.r]

I would of explored further the bacteria options, technically if there is a strain that would utilise nitrogen sources as other utilise carbon that could lead to macro algaes lost or stall some of this algaes will prefer nitrogen sources to nitrates.
some of the invasive microbes and algaes in our tanks only thrive wile carbon is available and will eventually die off once carbon is exhausted same could be happening to the strain regarding nitrogen. You have shown that the vials are not sterile maybe is worth to explore why.
I’ve seen many people loosing chaeto before without using any of this products.

The nmr test show there is no bacteria as well as the centrifuge test.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Anyone else get the feeling uwc is back at it btw?

 

[sixty_reefer]

The nmr test show there is no bacteria as well as the centrifuge test.

This test raises questions that not been answered yet? What is inside the vial that made the water cloudy
I suppose that if had failed both test it would be end of debate

As I see it they had similar results to a bacteria based product that contains dormant bacteria.
feel free to explain the similarities.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Anyone else get the feeling uwc is back at it btw?

Is that for me? I’m only asking the question that I haven’t see anyone else asking before

 

[rtparty]

 

[a.t.t.r]

Anyone else feel like these threads are like talking to flat earthers?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would of explored further the bacteria options, technically if there is a strain that would utilise nitrogen sources as other utilise carbon that could lead to macro algaes lost or stall some of this algaes will prefer nitrogen sources to nitrates.
some of the invasive microbes and algaes in our tanks only thrive wile carbon is available and will eventually die off once carbon is exhausted same could be happening to the strain regarding nitrogen. You have shown that the vials are not sterile maybe is worth to explore why.
I’ve seen many people loosing chaeto before without using any of this products.

Jf you are inventing a new product, that’s a fine plan. But it is not in vibrant. No amount of guessing how it might work as UWC contends can possibly suddenly make a product demonstrated to only contain an algaecide polymer to be bacteria.

NMR doesn’t lie.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This test raises questions that not been answered yet? What is inside the vial that made the water cloudy
I suppose that if had failed both test it would be end of debate

As I see it they had similar results to a bacteria based product that contains dormant bacteria.
feel free to explain the similarities.

A car and a bicycle have similarities in function, but that does not mean that you cannot tell which it us from a list of the parts in it.

That’s what NMR and IR provide. A list of parts.

The parts in vibrant include an algaecide polymer and do not contain two listed ingredients; bacteria and aspartic acid.

 

[sixty_reefer]

A car and a bicycle have similarities in function, but that does not mean that you cannot tell which it us from a list of the parts in it.

That’s what NMR and IR provide. A list of parts.

The parts in vibrant include an algaecide polymer and do not contain two listed ingredients; bacteria and aspartic acid.

Sorry I may be missing something, who did the bacteria culturing before sending samples to nmr? You do know that a optimal culture size is important for the test to stand correct. Am sure you all didn’t just sent some fluid from the bottle for testing. Was the culturing made by the op and collaborators or by the lab?

 

[Garf]

Sorry I may be missing something, who did the bacteria culturing before sending samples to nmr? You do know that a optimal culture size is important for the test to stand correct. Am sure you all didn’t just sent some fluid from the bottle for testing. Was the culturing made by the op and collaborators or by the lab?

Pretty sure that was UWCs job, lol

 

[a.t.t.r]

Sorry I may be missing something, who did the bacteria culturing before sending samples to nmr? You do know that a optimal culture size is important for the test to stand correct. Am sure you all didn’t just sent some fluid from the bottle for testing. Was the culturing made by the op and collaborators or by the lab?

Btw. The manufacturer has even said there isn’t any bacteria in the bottles. Most likely the only true thing they have ever said.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sorry I may be missing something, who did the bacteria culturing before sending samples to nmr? You do know that a optimal culture size is important for the test to stand correct. Am sure you all didn’t just sent some fluid from the bottle for testing. Was the culturing made by the op and collaborators or by the lab?

NMR shows no bacteria. It shows the algaecide. No culturing needed. NMRlooks at carbon and hydrogen atoms.

 

[sixty_reefer]

NMR shows no bacteria. It shows the algaecide. No culturing needed. NMRlooks at carbon and hydrogen atoms.

From what I read bacteria culturing is needed to maximise optimisation NMR sensitivity, maybe this was a job for aquabiomics to conclude if there was any bac

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

UWC had their own nmr and other tests completed months ago. Not a peep from them despite promising they would show the results here.

The EPA investigation at UWC was a viable explanation for a short period, but it never prevents folks from stating the truth here or anywhere else, and in my opinion, time is up.

They have already been dropped as a sponsor, and before long I will push for a ban at REEF2REEF for violating the TOS (it specifically calls out misleading statements). However, the main UWC account has not been on since March, so a ban may be more symbolic than impactful.

 

[a.t.t.r]

From what I read bacteria culturing is needed to maximise optimisation NMR sensitivity, maybe this was a job for aquabiomics to conclude if there was any bac

Let’s apply logic here. After filtering and spinning down the bottle there was so signs of bacteria or spores. Safe to assume either there is none or it is so low it is undetectable (it’s the first) but let’s pretend it is the second.

So the bacteria is claimed to not reproduce in tank and that is why it must be continually added. This means what ever is in the bottle must also be the bacteria that is doing the work but wait… it is such a small amount it is undetectable beyond levels found as simple contamination.

additionally correct me if I am wrong randy. Isn’t the polyquat also a bacteria killer?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

From what I read bacteria culturing is needed to maximise optimisation NMR sensitivity, maybe this was a job for aquabiomics to conclude if there was any bac

Not needed. The nmr shows the only ingredient to be the polymer, not the ingredients listed on the label (which also does not include the polymer).

It matches exactly to Algaefix.