Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Lasse]

I explained that when JDA first posted it. The same IR data can be shown as absorbance of light by the sample, or transmittance of light by the same. That inverts the peaks.

Thanks - I missed that

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dennis Cartier]

You guys that are arguing against the validity of the results, honestly think that if there was a valid reason for this results to be inaccurate (especially since UWC claim to have run their own tests months ago) wouldn’t have come out with a statement or some kind of explanation by now? AND let’s not forget, that BRS, one of vibrant biggest promoters, scrubbed their entire sight of all content of vibrant ever existed. Experiments aside, these inactions and actions alone lead most people to know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I suspect the arguing is not related in anyway to the results, but due to a desire to argue.

Good on BRS for taking action against UWC. I watched the live stream where Ryan spoke to Jeff from UWC, recorded before the news broke, and watched after I had followed this thread. Previous to this thread, I may have discounted Jeff's shifty, uneasy behaviour as not being comfortable on camera. I could totally relate to that, lol. In hindsight, he is sitting with someone he knows well (Ryan) and lying outright to his face. So I am glad that BRS has disassociated from them.

 

[Malcontent]

I guess UWC realized new accounts spreading FUD weren't that effective and set out to compromise established accounts.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Not true. You make that incorrect assumption because to you, these methods are a black box. That is not the case to all of the expert chemists who have reviewed the results in this thread.

In reality, both NMR and IR have results based on the structure which tells what the structure is. To a knowledgeable chemist, the NMR tells what the structure is and what it is not. The IR also gives important structural information.

Here's the chain of thought that disproves the Vibrant claims:

1. Algaefix claims to contain a known algaecide in the legal documentation of its safety data sheet.

2. NMR and IR of Algaefix and Vibrant show them to be identical materials.

3. Carbon and proton NMR together show that both Algaefix and Vibrant materials are consistent with the known algaecide structure named in the Algaefix safety data sheet, and are inconsistent with nearly every other possible chemical. Only a few theoretically possible chemicals might have the same for both the carbon and proton NMR, 99.9999999% of known chemicals are excluded from being present (random made up number to give some nonchemist meaning to the first sentence).

4. The IR of both Algaefix and Vibrant is consistent with the structure and fits a posted spectrum of Busan 77.

5. Several additional experiments with established tests for quantifying quaternary ammonium compounds show identical results for Vibrant and Algaefix.

6. The NMR and IR are inconsistent with Vibrant's claims for contents. For example, the amount of aspartic acid claimed is easily proven to not be present by both methods. None was found and it would show up readily in both tests.

ONLY items 1-3 are needed to demonstrate to me that Vibrant and Algaefix are the same and contain the algaecide polymer. Items 4 and 5 are supporting tests, IMO, that build the case even more, and do not demonstrate any inconsistency with the conclusion. Item 6 proves the label contents of Vibrant are incorrect.

All additional tests that anyone has done that I have seen do not dispute the identity of Vibrant as being the algaecide polymer.

I think you know what I meant

 

[sixty_reefer]

If you want to claim a match to anything else, I'm happy to look at it with you. Your untrained eye would be useless without some coaching on interpretation. hexagrammid already went down that route earlier in this thread, trying to find any explanations.

I know you may have a good laugh about it, this is one of the charts I was looking yesterday I can’t find the others. It’s the one in Fig.3 that I’d like to understand better if possible.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327633034_ALGINATECHITOSAN_FILM_LOADING_GOLDEN_FLOWER_TEA_CAMELLIA_CHRYSANTHA_EXTRACT_PREPARATION_AND_CHARACTERIZATION

 

[A Young Reefer]

I suspect the arguing is not related in anyway to the results, but due to a desire to argue.

Good on BRS for taking action against UWC. I watched the live stream where Ryan spoke to Jeff from UWC, recorded before the news broke, and watched after I had followed this thread. Previous to this thread, I may have discounted Jeff's shifty, uneasy behaviour as not being comfortable on camera. I could totally relate to that, lol. In hindsight, he is sitting with someone he knows well (Ryan) and lying outright to his face. So I am glad that BRS has disassociated from them.

The video if anyone wants to watch it, it’s unlisted though.

 

[polyppal]

^ everyone on R2R when it comes to Vibrant-gate

 

[MnFish1]

I agree - it is disconcerting that there is no response from UWC - Vibrant is still for sale on a least a couple websites (i.e. it says its 'in stock'. Its also a little disconcerting that there is nothing on the EPA site. Ah well - patience is a virtue

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I know you may have a good laugh about it, this is one of the charts I was looking yesterday I can’t find the others. It’s the one in Fig.3 that I’d like to understand better if possible.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327633034_ALGINATECHITOSAN_FILM_LOADING_GOLDEN_FLOWER_TEA_CAMELLIA_CHRYSANTHA_EXTRACT_PREPARATION_AND_CHARACTERIZATION

I assume you want to know how this IR is different than the Vibrant/Algaefix FTIR.

These FTIR are really not close at all.

Here are some peaks present in Vibrant that are not present in Figure 3 of the link you posted. Most of the main peaks in the fingerprint region do not match.

1638 cm-1 (the peak at 1605 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1476 cm-1 (the peak at 1412 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1361 cm-1 (the peak at 1304 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1119 cm-1 (the single most intense peak in the Vibrant spectrum is absent in the Fig 3 spectrum)
965 cm-1 (the second most intense peak in Vibrant is missing in Figure 3)

Here are some peaks present in your Figure 3 that are not present in Vibrant:

1605 cm-1 (the peak at 1638 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1412 cm-1 (the peak at 1476 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1090 and 1036 cm-1 (among the most intense peaks in Fig 3, absent in Vibrant)
624 cm-1 (missing in Vibrant)

 

[MnFish1]

I assume you want to know how this IR is different than the Vibrant/Algaefix FTIR.

These FTIR are really not close at all.

Here are some peaks present in Vibrant that are not present in Figure 3 of the link you posted. Most of the main peaks in the fingerprint region do not match.

1638 cm-1 (the peak at 1605 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1476 cm-1 (the peak at 1412 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1361 cm-1 (the peak at 1304 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1119 cm-1 (the single most intense peak in the Vibrant spectrum is absent in the Fig 3 spectrum)
965 cm-1 (the second most intense peak in Vibrant is missing in Figure 3)

Here are some peaks present in your Figure 3 that are not present in Vibrant:

1605 cm-1 (the peak at 1638 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1412 cm-1 (the peak at 1476 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1090 and 1036 cm-1 (among the most intense peaks in Fig 3, absent in Vibrant)
624 cm-1 (missing in Vibrant)

I'm curious - So when one looks at the picture comparing vibrant to algaefix - I'm assuming that the height/dips of the peaks don't matter - its more the overall pattern? I'm not doubting the results - I'm asking for my own education

 

[MnFish1]

I know you may have a good laugh about it, this is one of the charts I was looking yesterday I can’t find the others. It’s the one in Fig.3 that I’d like to understand better if possible.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327633034_ALGINATECHITOSAN_FILM_LOADING_GOLDEN_FLOWER_TEA_CAMELLIA_CHRYSANTHA_EXTRACT_PREPARATION_AND_CHARACTERIZATION

IMHO - even if they were 'similar enough' - there is still the issue of the ingredients in vibrant not being listed correctly - at least thats the assumption

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm curious - So when one looks at the picture comparing vibrant to algaefix - I'm assuming that the height/dips of the peaks don't matter - its more the overall pattern? I'm not doubting the results - I'm asking for my own education

Yes.

When you take an IR spectrum, one puts some amount of the material into the beam of light. In any normal IR spectrum, you want enough material to get good peaks but not so much that the peaks do not flatline the machine and you get plateaus.

One common way is to mix some material with potassium bromide salt, and then compress the mixture into a semi-transparent window that you can pass the IR light through. It is not easy to control how much material is exactly in the beam path, so the absolute absorbance is rarely quantified except internally to other peaks.

Thus, the peak location and relative size is the important attribute. SOemone trying to interpret exact structures from an IR qwould have a table of which exact chemical bonds vibrate at the frequency of a given peak. For example, a carboxylic acid CH3CO2H as in vinegar will absorb at about 1715 cm-1.

This is the sort of table:

https://www.cpp.edu/~psbeauchamp/pdf/424_spectra_tables.pdf

 

[MnFish1]

Yes.

When you take an IR spectrum, one puts some amount of the material into the beam of light. In any normal IR spectrum, you want enough material to get good peaks but not so much that the peaks do not flatline the machine and you get plateaus.

One common way is to mix some material with potassium bromide salt, and then compress the mixture into a semi-transparent window that you can pass the IR light through. It is not easy to control how much material is exactly in the beam path, so the absolute absorbance is rarely quantified except internally to other peaks.

Thus, the peak location and relative size is the important attribute. SOemone trying to interpret exact structures from an IR qwould have a table of which exact chemical bonds vibrate at the frequency of a given peak. For example, a carboxylic acid CH3CO2H as in vinegar will absorb at about 1715 cm-1.

This is the sort of table:

https://www.cpp.edu/~psbeauchamp/pdf/424_spectra_tables.pdf

Thanks

 

[jeffww]

In the case of the ftir, we used a diamond window atr. Loading the ATR was a pain as the products were sticky like crystallized honey almost.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In the case of the ftir, we used a diamond window atr. Loading the ATR was a pain as the products were sticky like crystallized honey almost.

Thanks. That's what you expect for a polymer like this which doesn't crystallize.

 

[sixty_reefer]

IMHO - even if they were 'similar enough' - there is still the issue of the ingredients in vibrant not being listed correctly - at least thats the assumption

That chart was due a conversation I had with Randy yesterday regarding roseobacticide.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I assume you want to know how this IR is different than the Vibrant/Algaefix FTIR.

These FTIR are really not close at all.

Here are some peaks present in Vibrant that are not present in Figure 3 of the link you posted. Most of the main peaks in the fingerprint region do not match.

1638 cm-1 (the peak at 1605 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1476 cm-1 (the peak at 1412 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1361 cm-1 (the peak at 1304 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1119 cm-1 (the single most intense peak in the Vibrant spectrum is absent in the Fig 3 spectrum)
965 cm-1 (the second most intense peak in Vibrant is missing in Figure 3)

Here are some peaks present in your Figure 3 that are not present in Vibrant:

1605 cm-1 (the peak at 1638 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1412 cm-1 (the peak at 1476 cm-1 is not close enough to be the same)
1090 and 1036 cm-1 (among the most intense peaks in Fig 3, absent in Vibrant)
624 cm-1 (missing in Vibrant)

Tank you it’s much clear to me now, although it would of been helpful if a chart for busan 77 and it’s peaks would of been produced.

 

[Mike konesky]

Tank you it’s much clear to me now, although it would of been helpful if a chart for busan 77 and it’s peaks would of been produced.

There was a chart for Busan 77. It's the algae fix chart. "The Algaefix chemical is also known by the trade name Busan 77 or the more recently EPA-favored name polixetonium chloride"

Really annoying that you hop in a 75 page conversation without reading any of the information.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Tank you it’s much clear to me now, although it would of been helpful if a chart for busan 77 and it’s peaks would of been produced.

If such a thing were available, I'm sure taricha and/or jda would have shown it.

 

[MnFish1]

That chart was due a conversation I had with Randy yesterday regarding roseobacticide.

I know