It sounds like you are ruling out vinegar or alcohol carbon sources because of the COD? That doesn't make sense to me, as any alcohol or any organic acid would increase COD.
My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...
- Thread starter ScottB
- Start date
- Tagged users None
J1a
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong.
If we assume thar vibrant indeed contain vinegar and aspartic acid, then the data could suggest that whatever other ingredients in the vibrant is dissimilar to algaefix in terms of COD, provided algaefix does not also contain aspartic acid and vinegar.
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,547
- Reaction score
- 10,108
@nereefpat and @J1a lemme try to unpack that result a little bit.
I'm ruling out that there is a HUGE organic carbon dose in Vibrant that would drop O2 etc, on the basis of the COD test alone, just not enough there.
I'm also ruling out that Vibrant contains BOTH the same level of quat as AlgaeFix AND also has the label amount of vinegar+ asp acid. If it did, then the Red line for Vibrant would = the Blue line for AlgaeFix + the yellow line for the vinegar+asp acid. That clearly is not the case.
You could hypothesize that it's a coincidence and Vibrant has less quat if it also has vinegar and asp acid so that the total COD adds up precisely to = AlgaeFix, but this is inconsistent with the Quat response data, that showed the size of the "quat" effect from AlgaeFix and Vibrant to be identical.
[This is easy to check. You could separate quat and vinegar+asp acid in a follow-up as I said. Quats are going to be barely broken down at all by bacteria, but vinegar+asp acid would. So if they show identical tiny O2 consumption by bacteria then all the COD measured in Vibrant is quat, and not what the label says.
If Vibrant has a big O2 consumption from bacteria and AlgaeFix doesn't then some amount of the COD must be from easy to digest organics and not quat, so I'd have to revise some conclusions.]
I'm ruling out that there is a HUGE organic carbon dose in Vibrant that would drop O2 etc, on the basis of the COD test alone, just not enough there.
I'm also ruling out that Vibrant contains BOTH the same level of quat as AlgaeFix AND also has the label amount of vinegar+ asp acid. If it did, then the Red line for Vibrant would = the Blue line for AlgaeFix + the yellow line for the vinegar+asp acid. That clearly is not the case.
You could hypothesize that it's a coincidence and Vibrant has less quat if it also has vinegar and asp acid so that the total COD adds up precisely to = AlgaeFix, but this is inconsistent with the Quat response data, that showed the size of the "quat" effect from AlgaeFix and Vibrant to be identical.
[This is easy to check. You could separate quat and vinegar+asp acid in a follow-up as I said. Quats are going to be barely broken down at all by bacteria, but vinegar+asp acid would. So if they show identical tiny O2 consumption by bacteria then all the COD measured in Vibrant is quat, and not what the label says.
If Vibrant has a big O2 consumption from bacteria and AlgaeFix doesn't then some amount of the COD must be from easy to digest organics and not quat, so I'd have to revise some conclusions.]
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
No offense. This is why I said your method is 'faulty'. I guess I should have bolded the part that said 'I LAUD YOUR EFFORTS' - so you wouldn't snark back at me - or at least that was my perception. You have brought a number of correlations forward - and as I already said:
1. I agree Vibrant contains QAC.
2. The testing is outstanding for a hobbyist.
3. UWC might be lying - but that could be (to my reading) - a violation of EPA rules - IDK - I haven't researched them - I'm not a lawyer.
4. IN my tanks. The effect of vibrant (freshwater) has lasted far longer than physically possible for a chemical.
So - stop just saying stuff - that is kind of insulting - just because you didnt think of it first. - Remembering the post of the person - who posted the chart - We're now at the you reported the conclusions - now comes the questioning and re-experimentation. IMHO - your re-experimentation efforts are far less rigorous as your initial ones with bromphenol blue. Either way - stop insulting me - please - We are all trying to get to the truth - if in the end - Vibrant is identical to Algaefix - I will be the first one to congratulate you.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
Hopefully you have a lawyer lol. I mean - come on. no - its not safe to assume that - it might be correct. But - whatever
@MnFish1 you are wildly idealistic about the realities of government regulations and the extent to which companies conform to them.
Every month dozens over the counter products are found to contain controlled substances. Male enhancement products with Sildanfil and Tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis). Weight loss products with Sibutramine and desisobutylbenzylsibutramine (recalled medications). And on and on all with no labeling and against federal law. These are drugs being sold over the counter by dozens or hundreds of companies with false labeling.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/buying-using-medicine-safely/medication-health-fraud
The FDA doesn't have the resources to test all the supplements, I guarantee the EPA doesn't. Also, there is no legitimate legal liability from saying a company makes a bad product or misleads consumers, watch this: UWC is a skeevy company that lies about what their product contains, misleads consumers, and are generally frauds. See, no one cares.
Every month dozens over the counter products are found to contain controlled substances. Male enhancement products with Sildanfil and Tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis). Weight loss products with Sibutramine and desisobutylbenzylsibutramine (recalled medications). And on and on all with no labeling and against federal law. These are drugs being sold over the counter by dozens or hundreds of companies with false labeling.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/buying-using-medicine-safely/medication-health-fraud
The FDA doesn't have the resources to test all the supplements, I guarantee the EPA doesn't. Also, there is no legitimate legal liability from saying a company makes a bad product or misleads consumers, watch this: UWC is a skeevy company that lies about what their product contains, misleads consumers, and are generally frauds. See, no one cares.
Gotcha.
Just that the general impression from your comments was that you gave significant credence to the idea that the content labeling is accurate. I realize you acknowledged it could be incorrect, it was not my intention to be hostile.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
Its completely obvious - that companies say all sorts of things - look at those balance bracelets. Though they have been widely disproven - they still sell a ton. My issue here is with the method - not the conclusion. Hope you can see the difference
mojo8427
Active Member
Per the FDA:
"There are limitations to FDA oversight of claims in dietary supplement labeling. For example, FDA reviews substantiation for claims as resources permit."
"Federal law does not require dietary supplements to be proven safe to FDA's satisfaction before they are marketed."
"Some supplements have had to be recalled because of proven or potential harmful effects. Reasons for these recalls include
- microbiological, pesticide, and heavy metal contamination
- absence of a dietary ingredient claimed to be in the product
- the presence of more or less than the amount of the dietary ingredient claimed on the label
FDA 101: Dietary Supplements
Dietary supplements can help improve health but can also have risks. Get the facts on supplements and how the FDA regulates them to help keep you safe.
J1a
Well-Known Member
Again, correct me if I'm wrong. There are different QACs with different alkyl or aryl groups. Hypothetically, if the type of QAC is different, they may have different COD while having similar quat reactions.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
Thee fda comment had nothing to do with this - except that specific comment it is the EPA that regulates these things .Per the FDA:
"There are limitations to FDA oversight of claims in dietary supplement labeling. For example, FDA reviews substantiation for claims as resources permit."
"Federal law does not require dietary supplements to be proven safe to FDA's satisfaction before they are marketed."
"Some supplements have had to be recalled because of proven or potential harmful effects. Reasons for these recalls include
In addition, unscrupulous manufacturers have tried to sell bogus products that should not be on the market at all."
- microbiological, pesticide, and heavy metal contamination
- absence of a dietary ingredient claimed to be in the product
- the presence of more or less than the amount of the dietary ingredient claimed on the label
FDA 101: Dietary Supplements
Dietary supplements can help improve health but can also have risks. Get the facts on supplements and how the FDA regulates them to help keep you safe.www.fda.gov
mojo8427
Active Member
Gotcha, you only mentioned working at the FDA and disagreeing with the comment. So I connected those dots.
mojo8427
Active Member
So I read the AlgaeFix EPA registration and it does contains the bacteria, Bacillus licheniformis S83086. "Contains a minimum of 2.25 x 108 Colony Forming Units."I had wanted to revisit my bacterial growth results posted around page 3 of this thread to see if I did it wrong or if in fact bacteria can survive in the quat-like chemical detected in Vibrant and the known quat in AlgaeFix. The short version is that random contamination in the bottles can explain everything I've seen so far just fine.
This is instant ocean at 1.026 enriched with LB broth + glucose (same media that I cultured up products on in page 3.) Picture after 7 days.
I added 1 drop (0.05mL) of each of the following
1 & 2 duplicates - Distilled water (stayed clear for 7+ days)
3 & 4 duplicates - Vibrant run through an 0.22um syringe filter (stayed clear for 7+ days)
5 & 6 duplicates - Vibrant the same, except syringe filter removed (cloudy by 57hr)
7 AlgaeFix (cloudy by 45hr)
8 MicroBacter7 (cloudy by 48 hours)
9 Aquarium water (cloudy by 18 hrs)
Takeaways:
1) I'm not crazy nor was the culture-up necessarily flawed. Vibrant did contain viable bacteria, which could be excluded by a syringe filter.
2) AlgaeFix also cultured up bacteria just the same, so bacteria can survive in the polyquat in question.
3) This kind of culture up does not distinguish between bona fide spore containing products (MB7) and irrelevant contamination in non bacterial products (AlgaeFix). AlgaeFix clouded up faster in fact.
4) therefore nothing can be concluded from my previous culture-up of vibrant (and the other products) except that they are not sterile. Contamination can exist in vibrant just as easily as in algaefix.
5) point 4 about random contaminants is further evidenced by the aquabiomics report in post 58 that showed some of the most prevalent bacteria from my combined cultures to be strains that no one would want and have no business in bottled products. Aquabiomics told me that by email, many of the strains found are not ones that would be added intentionally (most prevalent was a genus associated with fish disease).
Not sure if that info helps you at all. You're on a different level then I lol. Awesome work regardless, its been fun following this thread.
mojo8427
Active Member
AlgaeFix's quat is AKA Busan 77 as far as I can tell. That is a mandatory EPA registrable chemical. Your article only further suggests that if Vibrant does have the same active ingredient as AlgaeFix, they ought to have registered it and made it known to consumers prior to purchase. Obviously, they aren't even defending themselves anymore so it makes one wonder.
Similar threads
