My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

[JohnMzreef]

vinegar is a wonderful thing...

 

[jeffww]

vinegar is a wonderful thing...

vinegar also does not cause the observed reaction nor is it algaecidal. @MnFish1 also raises a very valid concern. If a toxic substance like polyqac is in vibrant and unlabeled it poses a danger to people who handle it. It’s incredibly irresponsible. If someone accidentally exposes themselves or others with this unknown product there is no documentation for what the treatment is. All in all this product seems incredibly dodgy regarding what is actually legal labeling.

 

[taricha]

.

Fortunately, no radiation was detected in Vibrant.

But a probable chemical with algacidal properties was detected, so we'll talk about that, I think. lol.

 

[jeffww]

Weird how people are coming out of the woodwork to defend a faceless company.

 

[ScottB]

You could always just ask them what bacteria species are in it and what not. I think my main thing with this thread is that, unless fluconazole was the only possible way that gha and bryopsis can die, there is no reason to suspect that fluconazole is in the product. Therefore I am just wondering why not just ask the manufacturer what bacterial species are in it. There is not reason to suspect that they are lying that 95% Cultured Bacteria Blend, 1% Amino Acids (Aspartic Acid), 0.5% Vinegar, 3.5% RO/DI Water are not the ingredients. Everyone here is seemingly turning this into a conspiracy of secret ingredients based off of nothing other than algae can die from a result of the product. I don't find this product controversial.

Conspiracies are not my thing. They bore me. Provoking a conversation between knowledgeable reefers with a science process bent: priceless.

On the bottle, the ingredients include "Other Ingredients".

When I say the consensus is that Fluc is NOT likely to be an ingredient, I am admitting my speculation was likely incorrect. I witnessed a reaction in my own DT that was very similar to known reactions to Fluc, created a post with an admittedly inflammatory title and made sure some sciences types saw it.

If you read or re-read the thread you will see that our fellow hobbyist @taricha tested for the presence of a well known algaecide and found such evidence. The documented test process was linked in this thread. Process. Physical evidence.

Why can that not explain the "3.5% Other"? I don't see the conspiracy. I have repeatedly said I have used the product successfully (but carefully).

 

[jda]

What I don't understand about this product - and multiple others in our 'hobby' - is how they get away with not supplying their ingredients.

You wanna know, at least with this product... just watch. Even in the presence of actual evidence, people will make jokes, make excuses, just refuse to believe and suggest the possibility of extreme edge cases with .00001% probability while ignoring the completely obvious. The real science here will be ignored. In short, nobody will make them or hold them accountable.

Watch this thread turn into pages of excuses and edge cases. Watch people link, or otherwise disseminate, the conclusions in this thread in other threads on the topic, only to have them ridiculed and mocked at worse and ignored at best.

There have been some on this thread that have flat out said that the ingredient list is false, but most will just say that "they don't want to go so far as to say it is a lie." Too few will put skin in the game and make a definitive statement which is necessary to make a difference.

Will their advertising money still be accepted here? Will they be allowed to still spread false things on this platform... ala Facebook?

Some people have integrity. Some have to be held to it. Without full and complete condemnation and many willing to fight their BS battles for them, then those without integrity will always have a place to operate.

This is only somewhat off topic, but still kinda is, but many question the need for the EPA and other regulators, but if this can happen with a silly hobby like ours, imagine the damage that can be done with a mislabeled product on a massive scale out in the world. ...somebody really could get hurt.

 

[ScottB]

Ned,
It is just the same (or similar) ingredient that is in AlgaeFix. Algaefix puts it on the label.

Sorry if you were offended by the title of my thread. It seems I was incorrect after all.

 

[WVNed]

Ned,
It is just the same (or similar) ingredient that is in AlgaeFix. Algaefix puts it on the label.

Sorry if you were offended by the title of my thread. It seems I was incorrect after all.

I will never use vibrant or flucanazole again. But it's because I end up with a tank of grey dead algae for a month or 2. Then a month or 2 of ugly brown algae. So 4-6 months after I used it the tank came back in line and I didn't have to worry about some of my animals starving anymore. Then 6 months after that the algae is back anyway.
So I did it the other way and cut the MH back to 6 hours, got some Hanna testers to get the wishful thinking out of my testing and adopted some new stuff like LaCl on a doser.

 

[taricha]

I wanted to cast the net a little wider and see if there is any other bacterial products I could grab that might give the same result - maybe help understand a false positive or show that Vibrant is not unique among "bacterial" labeled products in containing something that looks like QAC.

(each product was diluted 1/10 with tank water to eliminate extreme pHs that might exist in the bottles)


The apparent QAC were detected in AlgaeFix (1) and Vibrant (12) and no others. Here's the list of products:
1 AlgaeFix Marine
2 Waste Away
3 MicroBacter 7
4 MicroBacter Clean
5 Seachem Pristine
6 Fritz Zyme 460
7 Bacto Therapy, Fauna Marin
8 BioSpira (nitrifier)
9 One and Only (nitrifier)
10 EcoBalance, Dr Tim
11 Refresh, Dr Tim
12 Vibrant

Why is the method for detecting quaternary ammonium compounds seemingly detecting it in Vibrant (very effective at kiling algae) just like it detects it in AlgaeFix, but finds it no other claimed bacterial product?

Anyone got another suggestion for a bacterial product that might either contain QAC, or have a similar false-positive causing potential?

 

[JohnMzreef]

vinegar also does not cause the observed reaction nor is it algaecidal.

Maybe not directly algaecidal but definitely "prebiotic". Ever tried dosing vinegar or vodka to a tank overrun with green algaes? You might find that the "special bacteria" are already present.. just hungry.

 

[WVNed]

Ned,
It is just the same (or similar) ingredient that is in AlgaeFix. Algaefix puts it on the label.

Sorry if you were offended by the title of my thread. It seems I was incorrect after all.

I got edited. The part where I said I am not offended got removed and I will leave the rest on the cutting room floor.
Speculating about ingredients is one thing. Calling it a faceless ( implied EVIL) company for spewing unlabeled toxic substances all in speculation is another.

 

[MnFish1]

the actual bottle says...


And google confirms that label elsewhere.




A fine hypothetical, and one that the makers may claim is true.
But it's totally unnecessary to invoke a hypothetical bacterial activity to explain the algae-killing effect of Vibrant, when the algacidal chemical can be directly measured as comparable in amount to a known effective algicide (AlgaeFix).

And here is the link from the Vibrant site itself saying 'what the 3.5% ingredient' is. Check out the bottom right corner of the page. (3.5% RODI WATER). https://www.uwcmn.com/vibrant-liquid-aquarium-cleaner

I Think: 1. The experiments show that something in vibrant and algae fix react similarly in a pH test and a bromphenol test when dried on a slide. 2. This might suggest the presence of QAC in both products - but the test you're doing is not quantitative only qualitative. 3. I do not believe that the bromphenol purple to blue change occurs ONLY with QAC. 4. I believe QAC are rapidly removed with carbon - and exposure to carbon would rapidly remove it. Probably why Algaefix is dosed every 3 days. Vibrant is dosed every 7 days - suggesting a difference. My strong GUESS (Kind of like the guess that Vibrant has 3.5% QAC) - is that if that chemical were present, by law, It would have to be listed - but I could not find the chemicals that require listing.

I guess if I had access to a microbiology lab I would shake up a bottle, centrifuge it - and look under a strong microscope. Unfortunately I do not. Second - send a sample to aquabiomics (from the bottle - as compared to diluted). A third experiment - boil some RODI - and sterilize 3 glass jars. Jar 1. sterile RODI, Vibrant and a measured amount of sterile fish food. Jar 2. Sterile RODI the same amount of food. Jar 3 Sterile RODI alone. I would THINK (and I would 'overdo' the amount of fish food' somewhat - that if vibrant contained bacteria (and if that bacteria was able to survive on the food added) that the Vibrant containing jar (1) would have a bacterial bloom faster than the one with just food and water (2) AND that jar 3 - should have no bloom at all. I guess you could also do a jar 4 - with RODI and Vibrant. But I'm not sure that would help. I guess I would create the jars - and keep them at reef tank temperature. Again - I'm not suggesting anyone do this - only an example on ways to more directly try to show whether vibrant contains bacteria.

 

[hart24601]

After this whole thread I suspect algaefix or something similar no matter how it’s produced.

i don’t think anything short of more detailed chemistry tests is going to provide more useful information.

as for the bacteria unless one is willing to do full genome sequencing which would be expensive and require someone with good bioinformatics skills along with some RNA evaluations I don’t think any useful information will be gained from any less intensive methods.

 

[MnFish1]

Why can that not explain the "3.5% Other"? I don't see the conspiracy. I have repeatedly said I have used the product successfully (but carefully).

Because on the website - it says its 3.5% RODI water - as compared to 3.5 % other ingredients? So - If indeed there were QAC - IMHO - by law that would have to be specifically listed (at least as another 'other ingredient'.) but - in fact they specify its RODI Water.

I wanted to cast the net a little wider and see if there is any other bacterial products I could grab that might give the same result - maybe help understand a false positive or show that Vibrant is not unique among "bacterial" labeled products in containing something that looks like QAC.

(each product was diluted 1/10 with tank water to eliminate extreme pHs that might exist in the bottles)


The apparent QAC were detected in AlgaeFix (1) and Vibrant (12) and no others. Here's the list of products:
1 AlgaeFix Marine
2 Waste Away
3 MicroBacter 7
4 MicroBacter Clean
5 Seachem Pristine
6 Fritz Zyme 460
7 Bacto Therapy, Fauna Marin
8 BioSpira (nitrifier)
9 One and Only (nitrifier)
10 EcoBalance, Dr Tim
11 Refresh, Dr Tim
12 Vibrant

Why is the method for detecting quaternary ammonium compounds seemingly detecting it in Vibrant (very effective at kiling algae) just like it detects it in AlgaeFix, but finds it no other claimed bacterial product?

Anyone got another suggestion for a bacterial product that might either contain QAC, or have a similar false-positive causing potential?

I think an equally important (and to me the MOST important) - is 'does Bromphenol turn from Purple to blue ONLY in the presence of QAC?" It is my impression that it does not. Additionally, I do not think many bacteria would do well with QAC in them - so its not surprising (your results above) - thanks for testing others.

 

[MnFish1]

Just for a more interesting tidbit - From the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-regis...er-1-overview-requirements-pesticide#identify

It describes what needs to be registered - and put on a label. Algefix is approved by the EPA - as is their Label. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/008709-00008-20180613.pdf

So - either the concentration (if any) in vibrant is lower than required reporting - OR - there is no QAC in Vibrant - OR - I can't find any EPA data on vibrant because its an extremely cumbersome site - OR - their label does not contain all the ingredients - OR some other reason.

 

[Dan_P]

And here is the link from the Vibrant site itself saying 'what the 3.5% ingredient' is. Check out the bottom right corner of the page. (3.5% RODI WATER). https://www.uwcmn.com/vibrant-liquid-aquarium-cleaner

More interesting is the 95% (by volume?) bacteria blend. I think Vibrant would be a smelly sludge if it was 95% bacteria. More likely, a bottle of Vibrant is a very dilute bacteria culture, making up 95% of the product volume. With what is the bacteria culture diluted I wonder. This ingredient list could be incomplete

95% Cultured Bacteria Blend
1% Amino Acids (Aspartic Acid)
0.5% Vinegar
3.5% RO/DI Water

 

[FEED ME ZOAS]

This is a very interesting thread. I don't really have anything to add as to further claims that there is a qac present or not, but I do think that some in this thread may be reaching conclusions in the absence of sufficient evidence.

I agree that it does appear that something MAY be suspect with vibrant, but I also think that certain tests being produced here are being interpreted as a nail in the coffin and being taken by some as if it is 100% indicative of the manufacturer hiding an algaecide. It has in no way been definitively proven that it contains a qac. So many variables are left uncontrolled, as we don't have any data on what possibly present non-qac's could react similarly to a qac in this test(not that I necessarily have a better suggestion of how to go about this. I'm certainly not a qualified chemist).

What HAS been proven is that vibrant appears to contain something that reacts in a similar way to a qac, thus there is a possibility of a qac being present. The possible presence of other chemicals that would produce the same result has not been controlled for. I don't think that in the absence of much more rigorously controlled testing we can definitively say that the manufacturer has lied/hidden a potentially toxic ingredient.

I don't have skin in the game either way, nor do I care particularly about which way the hammer falls (though I'm certainly interested in seeing what more developments are made). I guess my entire point is just that no one here is infallible and we all carry biases. If progress is to be made on this in a scientific way, and an answer beyond speculation is to be reached, we need way more evidence before hard conclusions can be made. Once as much evidence as possible is gathered, a conclusion needs to be made with the collective consideration of all the data. As well, biases must be considered and mitigated as much as possible so that an accurate evaluation of that evidence can be made. I simply do not believe that sufficient evidence has been gathered to make a judgment either way on the presence of a qac. We do have evidence that suggests the possibility of a qac bing present. Very interested to see how this develops.

 

[Dan_P]

Because on the website - it says its 3.5% RODI water - as compared to 3.5 % other ingredients? So - If indeed there were QAC - IMHO - by law that would have to be specifically listed (at least as another 'other ingredient'.) but - in fact they specify its RODI Water.

I think an equally important (and to me the MOST important) - is 'does Bromphenol turn from Purple to blue ONLY in the presence of QAC?" It is my impression that it does not. Additionally, I do not think many bacteria would do well with QAC in them - so its not surprising (your results above) - thanks for testing others.

What is the basis of your impression about bromophenol selectivity?

Also, are all QAC‘s equally powerful bactericides? Are there structure-activity relationships that tend to make some structures better algicides than bactericides?

 

[FEED ME ZOAS]

I don’t follow you close enough to know exactly who produced what results, but you sure blasted that you know someone who or some clubs that did, without ever actually showing whatever you supposedly saw, which seems pretty weird for how hard you like to claim we’re false advertising. Let’s just see it then.

@jda The manufacturer themself has in this very thread called for you to post the test results you say you have. That would likely be very helpful in moving towards a conclusion here. If there's a time and place to bring the results to light, it would certainly seem to be here and now.

 

[taricha]

And here is the link from the Vibrant site itself saying 'what the 3.5% ingredient' is. Check out the bottom right corner of the page. (3.5% RODI WATER). https://www.uwcmn.com/vibrant-liquid-aquarium-cleaner

It's odd to describe the ingredients precisely in another venue and not describe exactly one of those ingredients on the actual product label. But speculating why that might've been done is probably not a productive road.
Regardless, there's no description of ingredients in Vibrant in any forum or venue that could account for the apparent detection of quat. It is surprising.

2. This might suggest the presence of QAC in both products - but the test you're doing is not quantitative only qualitative.

Much more accurate to describe this data from dilutions as showing that the polyquat in AlgaeFix is above 300x (but below 1000x) the limit of detection for this bromophenol blue test.
And similarly, the detected chemical in Vibrant is also above 300x (but below 1000x) the limit of detection for this test.

I do not believe that the bromphenol purple to blue change occurs ONLY with QAC.

Like what? What have you seen to base that on? What else might be in a bacterial product that generates that purple to blue change?

4. I believe QAC are rapidly removed with carbon - and exposure to carbon would rapidly remove it. Probably why Algaefix is dosed every 3 days. Vibrant is dosed every 7 days - suggesting a difference.

Except the huge vibrant thread is full of people dosing every 3 days ("2x per week") including this being recommended by UWC in many cases.
check these search results for about ~150+ examples.

I think an equally important (and to me the MOST important) - is 'does Bromphenol turn from Purple to blue ONLY in the presence of QAC?" It is my impression that it does not.

The universe is big and has many chemicals.
The far more relevant question is the much narrower one:
What is in vibrant that gets detected as an algacide, in amounts roughly similar to the algacide in Algaefix, and is not found in any of the dozen other bacterial products that have been checked.